EXECUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
AN ANALYSIS OF EXISTING NATIONAL PROGRAMS
AND CURRENT INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION
by
SUSAN ANN TOMLINSON-DYKENS
Submitted to the Department of
Civil Engineering
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in Civil Engineering
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
February 1992
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992
1
rights reserved
Signature of Author
-
7
Department of Civil Engineering
January 24, 1992
Certified by
Fred Moavenzadeh
Center for Construction Research and Education
Research Advisor
Accepted by
Eduardo Kausel
Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Students
EXECUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
AN ANALYSIS OF EXISTING NATIONAL PROGRAMS
AND CURRENT INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION
by
SUSAN ANN TOMLINSON-DYKENS
Submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering
on January 30, 1992 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement
for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Civil Engineering
February 1992
ABSTRACT
Executive Education in the construction industry is a vital tool for
developing and refining all levels of managers. Construction executives
need, along with their technical skills, good human relation abilities
to manage their staffs, proficiency in management to run a business and
propitious business skills for building a company's competitive
advantage in today's business world.
Executive education programs can be university-based, in-company, or
developed and delivered by private organizations or societies. Research
into existing programs and the administration of a survey resulted in a
better understanding of what the executives in the construction industry
want from executive education programs. In-company programs are
sometimes preferred for the convenience and flexibility they offer and
for the ability to be tailored to the specific interests of the company.
University-based programs offer a more structured and formal educational
experience with the ability to interact and network with outside
businesses and industries. University-based programs are generally
targeted to all industries and offer general management and functional
management programs. Private organizations and societies offer
industry-specific courses that can be utilized both on an in-company
basis or externally at designated locations throughout the year. The
familiarity of the administering agencies and their knowledge of
construction issues are key to their popularity.
Executives in the construction industry have firm beliefs of how
educational programs should be structured and taught. The value of
education was acknowledged in all facets of this research. The
participation in executive education programs was both a companyspecific issue and an economic one.
Thesis Supervisor: Prof. Fred Moavenzadeh
Title: Director, Center for Construction Research and
Education, Department of Civil Engineering
EXECUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
AN ANALYSIS OF EXISTING NATIONAL PROGRAMS
AND CURRENT INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION
by
SUSAN ANN TOMLINSON-DYKENS
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
PAGE
Cover Page .. .................................................. 1
Abstract ......................................................... 2
Title Page ............................. ..................... 3
Table of Contents Page..............
.
.................... 4
Table of Charts and Graphs...................................
5
I. Introduction............................................... 12
1.1 Construction Industry ................................ 14
II. Executive Education Programs................................ 19
2.1 In-Company Executive Education Programs................... 19
2.2 University-Based Executive Education Programs............... 20
2.2.1 Program Lengths .....................................
....25
2.2.2 Program Participation Accommodation ....................... 27
2.2.3 Demographics of Companies and Participants ............... 28
2.2.3a Participation According to Industry...................... 28
2.2.3b Participation According to Company Size ................ 29
2.2.3c Participation According to Management Level.............. 32
2.2.3d Participation According to Company Function.............. 34
2.2.3e Participation According to Age........................... 37
2.2.4 Tuition and Other Expenses................................ 38
2.3 Alternative Sources of Executive Education Programs.......... 39
2.3.1 Construction Industry Institute........................... 40
2.3.2 Fails Management Institute................................ 43
2.3.3 Hughes Institute for Continuing Education ................. 46
2.3.4 American Institute of Chemical Engineer................... 47
2.3.5 Associated General Contractors of America................ 48
2.3.6 Center for Continuing Education, Building and
Construction Technology Program........................... 49
2.3.7 Hartford Graduate Center................................. 49
III. Survey ................. ............................. 124
3.1 Introduction................................................ 124
3.2 Respondents............................................ 126
3.3 The Companies............................................... 127
3.4 Executive Education Programs................................ 131
3.4.1 In-Company Executive Education Programs................... 135
3.4.2 University-Based Executive Education Programs ........... 137
3.4.3 Perceived Benefits of Executive Education Programs........ 138
3.4.4 Additional Comments....................................... 140
IV. Conclusion... ................................................ 187
Appendix .................
.................................. 193
Bibliography .. ............ ............ ....................... 316
TABLE
EXHIBITS
Chapter I
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
OF
CHARTS
AND GRAPHS
PAGE
Membership Enrollment in Professional
Organizations in the Construction Industry...........
Value of New Construction Put in Place...............
Chapter II
Exhibit 3 Typical Number of Programs Offered in the
Sixty-Six Universities Sampled ....................... 51
Exhibit 4 University-Based Executive Education Programs
Available in 1990 - Programs less than one
week long...................................... 52
Exhibit 5 University-Based Executive Education Programs
Available in 1991 - Programs longer than one
week................................................. 56
Exhibit 6 Universities and Program Lengths..................... 63
Exhibit 7 Length of Existing Executive Education
Programs................
........................64
Exhibit 8 University-Based Executive Education Programs
and the Number of Participants the Programs
are Designed for ................................... 65
Exhibit 9a University-Based Executive Education Programs
Less than One Week Long and the Number of
Participants the Programs are Designed for........... 66
Exhibit 9b University-Based Executive Education Programs
One Week or Greater in Length and the Number
of Participants the Programs are Designed for........ 67
Exhibit 10 Total Number of Programs that had Participants
from the Different Company Sizes. The Length
of the Programs is from 2 Days to 52 Weeks........... 68
Exhibit 11 University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Company Participation in Programs of All
Lengths .............................................. 69
Exhibit 12a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Companies with Less Than 1,000 Employees
in Programs Less Than One Week ...................... 70
Exhibit 12b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Companies with Less Than 1,000 Employees
in Programs Greater Than or Equal to One Week........ 71
Exhibit 13a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Companies with 1,000 to 10,000 Employees
in Programs Less Than One Week ...................... 72
Exhibit 13b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Companies with 1,000 to 10,000 Employees
in Programs Greater Than or Equal to One Week........ 73
Exhibit 14a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Companies with Greater Than 10,000
Employees in Programs Less Than One Week............. 74
Exhibit 14b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Companies with Greater Than 10,000
Employees in Programs Greater Than or Equal to
One Week.............. ..........................
Exhibit 15 Total Number of Programs that had Participants
from the Different Management Levels ................
Exhibit 16 University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Management Participation in Programs of
All Lengths.........................................
Exhibit 17a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Entry Level Management Participation in
Programs Less Than One Week .........................
Exhibit 17b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Entry Level Management Participation in
Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week ..........
Exhibit 18a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Middle Level Management Participation in
Programs Less Than One Week .......................
Exhibit 18b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Middle Level Management Participation in
Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week ..........
Exhibit 19a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Upper-Middle Level Management
Participation in Programs Less Than One Week.........
Exhibit 19b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Upper-Middle Level Management
Participation in Programs Greater than or
Equal to One Week....................................
Exhibit 20a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Senior Level Management Participation in
Programs Less Than One Week..........................
Exhibit 20b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Senior Level Management Participation in
Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week ..........
Exhibit 21 Total Number of Programs that had Participants
from the Different Functional Areas of a
Company .........................................
Exhibit 22 University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Functional Manager Participation in
Programs of All Lengths.............................
Exhibit 23a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and General Managers Participating in Programs
Less than One Week ..................................
Exhibit 23b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and General Managers Participating in Programs
Greater than or Equal to One Week ....................
Exhibit 24a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Operations and Production Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week .........
Exhibit 24b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Operations and Production Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Equal to One Week....................................
Exhibit 25a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Marketing and Sales Managers Participating
in Programs Less than One Week ......................
Exhibit 25b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Marketing and Sales Managers Participating
in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week........
Exhibit 26a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Financing and Accounting Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week.........
Exhibit 26b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Financing and Accounting Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or
Equal to One Week....................................
Exhibit 27a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Administrative Managers Participating in
Programs Less than One Week .........................
Exhibit 27b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Administrative Managers Participating in
Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week ..........
Exhibit 28a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Technical Managers Participating in
Programs Less than One Week.........................
Exhibit 28b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Technical Managers Participating in
Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week ..........
Exhibit 29a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Human Resources Managers Participating
in Programs Less than One Week.......................
Exhibit 29b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Human Resources Managers Participating in
Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week...........
Exhibit 30a University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Logistics Managers Participating in
Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week...........
Exhibit 30b University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Purchasing Managers Participating in
Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week...........
Exhibit 30c University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Other Managers Participating in Programs
Less than One Week.................................
Exhibit 30d University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Other Managers Participating in Programs
Greater than or Equal to One Week ...................
Exhibit 31 Participation According to Age.......................
Exhibit 32 Age of Participants in Existing Executive
Education Programs.................................
Exhibit 33a University-Based Executive Education Programs
Less than One Week Long and the Median Age of
the Participants....................................
Exhibit 33b University-Based Executive Education Programs
One Week or Greater in Length and the Median
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
Age of the Participants..........................
Exhibit 34a University-Based Executive Education Programs
The Median Age and Managerial Levels of the
Participants ......................................
Exhibit 34b University-Based Executive Education Programs
Less Than One Week Long. The Median Age and
Managerial Levels of the Participants................
Exhibit 34c University-Based Executive Education Programs
Greater than or Equal to One Week. The Median
Age and Managerial Levels of the Participants ........
Exhibit 35 Tuition of Programs Less Than One Week Long...........
Exhibit 36 Tuition of Programs Greater Than or Equal to
One Week.............................................
Chapter
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
III
37 Title of Respondents - All Companies.................
38 Functional Area of Respondents - All Companies.......
39 Age of Respondents for all Companies ................
40 Construction Industry- Respondent Subgrouping........
41 Construction Industry - Total Respondents by
Main Trade Practice..................................
42a Design Firms by Main Trade Practices.................
42b Construction Companies by Main Trade Practices.......
42c Construction Management Firms by Main Trade
Practices .................. .....................
43 Number of Salaried Employees - All Companies.........
44 Number of Salaried Employees by Subgroupings.........
45a Number of Salaried Employees in Design Firms.........
45b Number of Salaried Employees in Construction
Companies...........................................
45c Number of Salaried Employees in Construction
Management Firms......................................
46a Total Billings for 1990 for all Companies............
46b Total Billings for 1990 for all Companies............
47a Company Billings According to Classification
of Work. All Construction Industry Respondents......
47b Company Billings According to Percentage of
Classifications of Work. All Construction
Industry Respondents.................................
48a Design Firm's Billings According to
Classification of Work................................
48b Design Firm's Billings According to Percentage
of Classifications of Work..........................
49a Construction Company's Billings According to
Classification of Work ............................
49b Construction Company's Billings According to
Percentage of Classifications of Work................
50a Construction Management Firm's Billings
According to Classification of Work..................
50b Construction Management Firm's Billings
According to Percentage of Classification
of Work ......................... ...................
109
110
111
112
113
117
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
Exhibit 51a Other Companies' Billings According to
Classification of Work...............................
Exhibit 51b Other Companies' Billings According to
Percentage of Classifications of Work................
Exhibit 52 Formal Requirements for Participation in
Executive Education Programs........................
Exhibit 53 Number of Salaried Employees Eligible to
Participate in Executive Education Programs All Companies ....................................
Exhibit 54 Executive Education Program Offered in the
Construction Industry ...............................
Exhibit 55a Design Firms Offering Executive Education
Programs ..........................................
Exhibit 55b Construction Companies Offering Executive
Education Programs ..................................
Exhibit 55c Construction Management Firms Offering
Executive Education Programs ........................
Exhibit 56 Companies Offering In-Company Executive
Education Programs...................................
Exhibit 57 Personnel Involved in Selecting the Programs
and Possible Participants of In-Company
Executive Education Programs........................
Exhibit 58 Management Levels to which In-Company Executive
Education Programs are Offered......................
Exhibit 59 Number of Eligible Personnel in Respondent's
Company that have Participated in In-Company
Executive Education Programs........................
Exhibit 60 Company Expectations of Increasing Participation
in In-Company Executive Education Programs...........
Exhibit 61 The Companies' Desired Length of Time for InCompany Executive Education Programs .................
Exhibit 62 The Individuals used to Develop In-Company
Executive Education Programs .........................
Exhibit 63 The Individuals used to Deliver In-Company
Executive Education Programs.........................
Exhibit 64 Companies Offering University-Based Executive
Education Programs..................................
Exhibit 65 Personnel Involved in Selecting the Programs
and Possible Participants of University-Based
Executive Education Programs ........................
Exhibit 66 Management Levels to which University-Based
Executive Education Programs are Offered.............
Exhibit 67 Number of Eligible Personnel in Respondent's
Company that have Participated in UniversityBased Executive Education Programs ..................
Exhibit 68 Company Expectations of Increasing
Participation in University-Based Executive
Education Programs................................
Exhibit 69 The Companies' Desired Length of Time for
University-Based Executive Education Programs........
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
APPENDIX
Appendix Ala
Appendix Alb
Appendix Alc
Appendix A2
Appendix A3
Appendix A4
Appendix A5
Appendix A6
Appendix A7
Appendix A8
Appendix A9a
Appendix A9b
Appendix A9c
Appendix AlOa
Appendix AlOb
Appendix AlOc
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Alla
Allb
Allc
A12a
A12b
A12c
American Society of Civil Engineers Membership
Enrollment Activity Count By Sections and States...
American Society of Civil Engineers Business and
Position Breakdown.............................
American Society of Civil Engineers Subdivision
of North America into Zones........................
National Society of Professional Engineers
Membership List ....................................
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1990. Programs Less Than One Week.
University and Program Title.......................
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1991. Programs Longer Than One Week.
University and Program Title......................
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1990. Programs Less Than One Week.
Duration Through Management Levels..............
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1991. Programs Longer Than One Week.
Duration Through Management Levels...............
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1990. Programs Less Than One Week.
Company Functions Through Size of Organization.....
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1991. Programs Longer than One Week.
Company Functions Through Size of Organization.....
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1990. Programs Less Than One Week.
Principal Industries Represented...................
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1990. Programs Less Than One Week.
Principal Industries Represented...................
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1990. Programs Less Than One Week.
Principal Industries Represented ..................
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1991. Programs Longer Than One Week.
Principal Industries Represented ..................
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1991. Programs Longer Than One Week.
Principal Industries Represented ..................
University-Based Executive Programs Available in
1991. Programs Longer Than One Week.
Principal Industries Represented...................
Survey Letter of Introduction .....................
Survey Cover Letter................................
Survey.......................................
Survey Responses. Questions 1 through 7B ..........
Survey Responses
Questions 8 through 10...........
Survey Responses. Questions 11 through 16B........
194
197
198
199
200
204
211
215
223
227
234
238
242
246
253
260
267
268
269
277
281
285
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Al2d
Al2e
A12f
A13
Appendix A14
Appendix A15
Appendix A16
Appendix A17
Survey Responses. Questions 17A through 19.........
Survey Responses. Questions 20 and 21..............
Notes for Survey Responses .......................
Perceived Benefits of In-Company Executive
Education Programs ................................
Perceived Benefits of University-Based
Executive Education Programs.......................
Additional Comments From Survey Respondents.........
Annual Value of New Construction Put in Place......
Monthly Value of New Construction Put in Place.....
289
293
297
299
305
311
313
314
CHAPTER
I
INTRODUCT ION
Education is the process of training and developing the knowledge,
skill, mind, and character of an individual. Executive education is the
refinement of these elements in individuals responsible for the
management, administration and functioning of a business organization
and its branches and departments.
The development and refinement of executives is a strategically
vital element in today's highly competitive, dynamic, and volatile
business world. To be successful in such times, and effective in
building a company's competitive advantage, organizations and their
executives need the skills and perspective that can only be developed
through ongoing, state-of-the-art education.
Executive education broadens the views of the men and women who run
businesses by expanding their understanding of their roles as managers.
Education can enhance their strategic decision making ability by
improving the individuals effectiveness in analyzing business problems
and formulating policy. By acknowledging the need for constant selfassessment and professional change and growth, executives become more
able and informed leaders thus promoting better management performance
at all levels. The introduction of new ideas and approaches to business
situations increases the executive's understanding of economic, social,
technological, and political forces and changes and how they impact and
influence the company. Executive education helps men and women to
better anticipate and evaluate the future impacts of current changes in
both the external environment and internal actions taken by their
companies. This capacity for "seeing the whole picture" is probably the
most important contribution executives make to their organizations.
Executive education that achieves these objectives greatly benefit both
the individual executive and the company as a whole.
This paper is a result of detailed research of existing Executive
Education Programs. It includes University-Based Executive Education
Programs that exist in the nations leading universities.
The sixty-six
universities offering programs in 1990 and 1991 are listed and the 369
programs that these universities offer are described in detail. The
program name, length and number of participants it can accommodate per
session is indicated. The participants are described by their age,
management level, and function within the company. The companies
sending individuals to these programs are described by their size and
from which industry they operate.
A brief review of other educational alternatives is included which
encompasses In-Company Executive Education Programs and programs held at
specific locations designated by the administering organization.
Private institutes such as Fails Management Institute, Construction
Industry Institute, Hughes Institute for Continuing Education, the
Hartford Graduate Center of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the
Building and Construction Technology division of Northeastern
University's Continuing Education Center offer programs that are in
designated locations throughout the United States but can also be
utilized on an in-company basis.
Associations also offer Executive
Education Programs such as the Associated General Contractors and the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
These seminars and courses
are offered both as external educational experiences and in-company
educational resources.
This paper then analyses and illustrates the results of a survey
administered in 1991.
The survey was distributed to various companies
in the construction industry.
The executives chosen to respond were
asked to answer questions about their company's feelings for and
participation in Executive Education Programs.
First the respondents were asked to identify their age, title, and
function within the company. They were then asked to identify their
company as to whether it is a Design Firm, Construction Company or
Construction Management Firm, what major trade capabilities it performs
and what its billings were for various construction areas. The
respondents were also asked to indicate the number of salaried employees
and how many were eligible for participation in Executive Education
Programs. Next the respondent was to complete a section describing how
their company chose employees to participate in these programs, how they
chose the programs, what the desired length of the programs is and which
topics are of interest to the company.
Questions and responses were broken down into university-based
programs and in-company programs and are analyzed accordingly. Finally
there is a list of perceived benefits of both types of programs along
with additional comments from the respondent.
The paper concludes with an analysis of the cumulation of research
and a conclusion is arrived at as to the demand for and fulfillment of
Executive Education Programs in the Construction Industry.
1 .1
CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
The construction industry covers vast specialties that are
considered both unique to the industry and complexly interwoven with
other businesses and industries. Architecture, Civil Engineering, and
Construction Management can be thought of as pure construction
specialties. These general professions can be broken down into areas of
concentration such as planning, structural engineering, environmental,
geotechnical, highway, transportation, surveying, water resources, and
waste disposal. There are probably a dozen other specialties that could
be included that would directly impact and relate to construction
activities.
Other forms of engineering such as Aerospace, Agricultural,
Chemical, Computer, Electrical, Electronics, Energy, Industrial,
Materials, Mechanical, Manufacturing, Petroleum, and Waterways and
Coastal are closely tied to the Construction Industry but play major
roles in other industries too.
Many of the professionals that consider themselves members of the
Construction Industry as a whole are also members of one or more
professional groups or organizations within the industry. Membership to
an organization is voluntary, subsequently, it can be presumed that not
all construction professionals are accounted for by the organization's
membership statistics. Conversely, individuals might be members of more
than one organization, therefor indicating that recorded membership
might overestimate the total number of professionals in the industry.
The organization's membership totals not only consider the regular,
active, working, members but also associate members, student members,
and emeritus members.
These other members can account for 15% to 20% of
the organization's total membership.
As of June 1991, the American Society of Civil Engineers recorded
its individual membership at 109,487.
The American Institute of
Architects indicated a membership total of 55,379 as of August 1990.
The National Society of Professional Engineers had a membership total of
52,743 as of October 1990.
As of July 1991, the Association of General
Contractors had a national corporate membership of 33,000.
The American
Consulting Engineers Council, a national organization of engineering
firms has a membership of nearly 5,000 as of September 1990. See
Exhibit 1 below for a comparison of these figures. See Appendix A-1 and
A-2 for a breakdown of each group.
The construction industry is one of the largest segments of the
United States economy. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, the total new construction put in place in 1990
reached almost $435 billion dollars.
Annual Value of New Construction Put in Place
(Millions of dollars)
(current dollars)
TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION
Private Construction
Residential buildings
Nonresidential
buildings
Farm nonresidential
Public utilities
All other private
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
398,206
410,208
422,075
432,066
433,999
313,613
319,639
327,102
333,515
324,435
187,148
194,656
198,101
196,551
186,851
91,171
2,072
30,948
2,275
91,994
2,503
27,858
2,628
97,102
2,270
27,503
2,126
103,358
2,356
28,549
2,702
102,427
(N/A)
31,831
3,326
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
84,593
90,569
94,973
98,551
109,564
31,115
32,962
36,163
39,202
45,255
street
25,318
26,958
30,141
29,502
31,988
Military facilities
3,867
4,324
3,579
3,520
3,733
4,937
5,519
4,728
4,968
4,734
7,654
8,998
8,634
9,229
10,302
3,183
8,517
3,674
3,917
3,923
4,911
8,134
7,810
8,207
8,641
Public Construction
Buildings
Highways and
Conservation and
development
Sewer systems
Water supply
facilities
Miscellaneous public
Notes:
* Taken from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
* See Appendix A-16 for a further breakdown of this chart
The growth and health of the construction industry is directly
related to the economic health of the country. Additionally, the
construction industry has historically been very cyclical. These cycles
directly affect the expenditures of the market segments. These
expenditures, most likely, include the industry's investment in the
development of its "quarter of a million plus" managers and executives.
As is indicated on the graphs of Exhibit 2, the monthly values of new
construction put in place in 1990 are anything but encouraging for the
future.
In 1990, the Total New Construction dropped from a seasonally
adjusted annual rate of almost $460 billion to less than $400 billion.
Private Residential Construction took a similar $60 billion drop. Both
Private Nonresidential Construction and Public Construction fluctuated
between $90 billion and $100 billion for 1990.
Notes:
*See Appendix A-17 for the Monthly Breakdown of New Construction
Put in Place for 1990 and for the breakdown of the type of
construction.
Membership Enrollment in Professional Organizations
in the Construction Industry
120,000
109,487
100,000
80.000
60,000
55,379
52,743
40,000
33,000
20,000
5,000
0
-----
American Society of Civil
Engineers (June 1991)
American Institute of
Architects (August 1990)
National Society of
Professional Engineers
(October 1990)
I
+-----
Association of General
Contractors (July 1991)
American Consulting
Engineers Council
(September 1990)
i
?·J~i/3c33qj
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION REPORTS
WTUTIRTI ')
2
IBIHXE
T
Value of
New Construction
Put in Place
091L?710
oS
d
jp 16
February 1991
MIT'rrBRARTES
U.S. Department of Commerce
JUN 27 1g91
Economics and Statistics Administration
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
rbfl A]w
C30-9102
Issued April 1991
I
VIOrwl A22
Monthly Value of New Construction Put in Place
-
(Seasonally adjusted annual rate inbillions of dollars)
460
Total New Construction
230
450
220
440
210
430
200
420
190
410
180
400
170
390
160
380
150
370
140
360
130
350
Current dollars
1987 dollars
-
Private Residential Construction
120
1988
1989
1990
1991
1988
Private Nonresidential Construction
1989
1990
Public Construction
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
1988
1989
1990
1988
1991
1989
Questions regarding these data may be directed to Allan B. Meyer, F*$ress Branch, Telephone 301-763-5717.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Prnting Office. Washington, D.C. 20402.
18
1990
1991
O9ASL kSL
\
JUN 111991
CHAPTER
EXECUTIVE
II
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
In 1988, United States businesses spent over $30 billion to provide
or participate in 17.6 million formal training and development courses
for their employees. 1 Two forms of these courses were In-Company
Executive Education Programs and the fastest growing segment of business
management education in universities known as University-Based Executive
Education Programs.
The increased demand for Executive Education Programs is the result
of three major worldwide changes in the nature of management today: the
changing competitive environment, the impact of changing technologies,
and the shift in emphasis from manufacturing to service industries. 2
With these economic, social, technological and political changes,
executives are compelled to have a wider base of knowledge and more
intricate business skills.
2.1
IN--COMPANY
EXECUTIVE
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
In-Company Executive Education programs can help promote teamwork
within an organization. These programs are developed and/or presented
by in-house personnel, hired consultants, university faculty or a
combination of these groups. In-company programs, typically held at a
facility designated by the company, are designed specifically for the
company, meeting their needs and requirements. The programs, therefor,
represent the attitude and business values of the company and project a
1 Harvard Business Review, Six Lessons for the Corporate Calssroom,
Harry B. Bernard, Cynthia A. Ingols, September-October 1988, p. 40.
2 Bricker's International Directory, University-Based Executive
Programs, Volume 1: Long-Term, 22nd Edition, Peterson's Guides, New
Jersey, 1991, p. vii.
sense of direction, and a more solid understanding of the workings of
the organization.
These programs are used not only to introduce new information,
technology, business practices and curriculums but to also emphasize
communication and interaction across the organization. In-Company
programs are available to a large number of employees and often include
participation from all management levels.
Large decentralized companies
find these programs beneficial by integrating executives from different
geographical regions and executives levels or departments from within
the company. This integration of managers is a socializing process that
teaches organizational culture and norms, unwritten rules, and desired
company specific behavior.
Participants develop friendships and a
common language which lends consistency to the organization.
In-Company programs are sometimes preferred over University-Based
programs because companies feel that they are "getting more for their
money". More managers can participate in these programs with less cost
and interruption in daily routines. The program's formats are more
flexible. Times, topics and locations can vary to best suit the company
and participants.
Classes can also be postponed or extended if needed.
In-Company programs are sometimes used as morale boosters to generate
unity and good feelings among managers and to project the company's
attitude toward continual education and the encouragement of new ideas.
2 .2
UNIVERSITY--BASED
EXECUTIVE
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
University-Based Executive Education Programs provide state-of-theart training to broaden the business knowledge of managers or update
executives whose formal educations were completed years ago.
University-Based programs are both sharply-focused educational programs
stressing business fundamentals and idea-expanding forums teaching new
developments in management concepts, techniques, and business and
technology interactions. These programs give executives a chance to
gain unbiased knowledge of an extensive range of management principles.
Business environment concerns are analyzed by the universities and are
taught unfettered by company policies and pressures. Executives are
exposed to the viewpoints and perspectives of the university, program
instructors, and other participating executives.
University-Based programs are customarily held at the sponsoring
university. They are taught by faculty members, hired consultants,
business professionals or a combination of these. Interested companies
send executives to these universities to not only benefit from the
educational factors but to partake in interaction with executives from
similar and varying industries.
The experimental Sloan Fellows Program was the first known
University-Based Executive Education Program. This program began in
1931 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge,
Massachusetts and was originally designed as an intensive twelve month
program for mid-career executives. This educational notion was soon
followed by the University of Iowa in 1940, Harvard University in 1943
and the University of Pittsburgh in 1949. By the end of the 1950's over
two dozen other programs were founded. Simultaneously, In-Company
programs were created to tailor educational demands to specific needs of
the company and to reach a larger number of the company's executives.
It soon became competitively important to be aware of and participate in
any form of executive level education.
UNIVERSITY
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology
University of Iowa
Harvard University
University of Pittsburgh
Aspen Institute
Northwestern University
Columbia University
Indiana University
Stanford University
Cornell University
Texas A&M University
University of Georgia
YEAR EARLIEST
PROGRAM WAS
INAUGURATED
1931
1940
1943
1949
1950
1951
1952
1952
1952
1953
1953
1953
NUMBER OF
PROGRAMS IN
1990 AND 1991
9
1
14
2
5
22
13
10
14
3
3
1
University of Houston
University of North Carolina
Carnegie Mellon University
Emory University
University of Hawaii
University of Michigan
Ohio State University
University of California, L. A.
Wabash College
Menninger Management Institute
Penn State University
Williams College
University of Chicago
University of Illinois
University of Virginia
Georgia State University
University of CA, Berkeley
Northeastern University
Louisiana State University
Princeton University
University of Arizona
Rutgers University
University of Minnesota
University of Tennessee
Dartmouth College
University of Washington
Colorado State University
Boston University
Simmons College
University of New Hampshire
Brookings Institute
University of Pennsylvania
Babson College
Vanderbilt University
Rice University
Smith College
University of Richmond
University of Rochester
Duke University
Texas Christian University
Cntr. for Creative Leadership
Southern Methodist University
University of Notre Dame
Washington Campus
California Institute of Technology
Northern Illinois University
Yale University
Case Western University
University of Maryland
1953
1953
1954
1954
1954
1954
1955
1955
1955
1956
1956
1956
1957
1957
1958
1959
1959
1960
1961
1961
1965
1968
1971
1971
1972
1972
1973
1977
1977
1977
1978
1978
1979
1979
1980
1980
1981
1981
1982
1982
1984
1984
1984
1984
1985
1985
1986
1987
1987
5
18
5
2
1
40
1
5
1
4
13
1
12
7
17
2
8
1
1
2
1
1
3
8
6
7
1
4
3
1
7
18
6
6
4
1
1
4
6
1
9
2
4
1
8
1
1
1
1
University of Texas at Austin
Washington and Lee University
George Washington University
University of Miami
Tulane University
1987
1987
1989
1989
1990
5
1
1
1
1
Most executive level managers in the initial decades of Executive
Education Programs did not have a formal education in business or
management.
These early programs were, therefor, mini-MBA programs.
Executive Education Programs were initially designed to introduce a
variety of business ideas in one short time frame.
Topics like finance
and accounting, labor and human relations, production and marketing,
social, economic and political responsibilities, and so forth were
incorporated in one program.
The objective was to educate the executive
in all aspects of running a business while reinforcing the knowledge
that was acquired from actual work experience.
Executive Education Programs no longer need to simulate mini-MBA
programs.
Executives are looking for programs to help fine tune and
develop their existing skills and specialties.
Programs that are
offered can be as narrowly defined as "International Management:
Doing
Business in Japan" (University of Washington, Seattle, Washington) and
"Strategy Analysis for Finance and Marketing" (University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) to broadly based courses such
as "Program for Management Development" (Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts) and "Executive Development Program" (University of
Illinois, Urbana, Illinois).
Today there are more than sixty universities in the United States
that offer Executive Education Programs and more that ninety
universities world wide. Totally, there are almost four hundred
different courses offered and over seventy-four industries participating
in these courses. At the present there are many programs offered in the
fields of Business, Administration, Economics, and Management. Of these
programs, very few relate specifically to issues dealt with in
Construction, Technology, Engineering, and Consulting.
In Peterson's 1990 and 1991 guides to University-Based Executive
Education Programs known as Bricker's International Directory, Long and
Short Term 3 sixty-six universities in the United States offered a total
of 369 Executive Education Programs.
offered one, two or three programs.
The majority of these universities
These programs are characterized
and described according to topics discussed, length and size of program,
and participation demographics.
See Exhibit 3, 4, and 5 below (also
Appendix A-3 to A-10) for the complete listing of universities,
programs, and program details.
The topics most generally dealt with in universities today are
geared toward General Business Managers and Functional Business
Managers.
These areas of interest are further broken down into
specialized areas of concern as follows:
1. General Management Programs
A.
General Management
B.
C.
Strategy/Policy
Business Environment
D.
Humanities
E.
Leadership and Organization
F.
Technology
G.
H.
Government, Education and Health
Economics and Trade
2. Functional Management Programs
A.
Finance and Accounting
B.
Human Resources/Industrial Relations
C.
Computers/Information Systems/Data
Processing
3 a. Bricker's International Directory, University-Based Executive
Programs, Volume 1: Long-Term, 22nd Edition, Peterson's Guides, New
Jersey, 1991.
b. Bricker's Short-Term Executive Programs, 2nd Edition, Peterson's
Guides, New Jersey, 1990.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
2 . 2 .1
Marketing/Sales
Operations/Manufacturing/Production
Transportation and Logistics
Research and Development, Engineering
Logistics/Purchasing
P rogram
LengCths
The length of existing programs is from two days to fifty-two (52)
weeks. Thirty-eight of the sixty-six universities offered only programs
at least one week long.
Twenty-one universities offered both long and
short programs. Seven universities offered only short programs of two,
three and/or four days. See Exhibit 6 below.
The seven (7) universities that only had programs less than one week
were Case Western University, Northern Illinois University, University
of Notre Dame, University of Rochester, University of Texas at Austin,
Vanderbilt University, and Washington and Lee University. These
Universities offered from one to six programs each.
universities offered from 1 to 40 programs.
NUMBER
OF SHORT
PROGRAMS
OFFERED
(<1 WEEK)
UNIVERSITY
University of Michigan
Northwestern University
University of North Carolina
University of Pennsylvania
University of Virginia
Harvard University
Stanford University
Columbia University
Penn State University
University of Chicago
Indiana University
Cntr. for Creative Leadership
1990
19
10
15
2
2
0
3
0
0
10
7
3
The remaining
NUMBER
OF LONG
PROGRAMS
OFFERED
(>/= 1 WEEK)
1991
21
12
3
16
15
14
11
13
13
2
3
6
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
PROGRAMS
OFFERED
40
22
18
18
17
14
14
13
13
12
10
9
Mass. Inst. of Technology
Cal. Institute of Technology
University of CA, Berkeley
University of Tennessee
Brookings Institute
University of Illinois
University of Washington
Babson College
Dartmouth College
Duke University
Vanderbilt University
Aspen Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
University of Cal., L. A.
University of Houston
University of Texas at Austin
Boston University
Menninger Management Institute
Rice University
University of Notre Dame
University of Rochester
Cornell University
Simmons College
Texas A&M University
University of Minnesota
Emory University
Georgia State University
Princeton University
Southern Methodist University
University of Pittsburgh
Case Western University
Colorado State University
George Washington University
Louisiana State University
Northeastern University
Northern Illinois University
Ohio State University
Rutgers University
Smith College
Texas Christian University
Tulane University
University of Arizona
University of Georgia
University of Hawaii
University of Iowa
University of Maryland
University of Miami
University of New Hampshire
University of Richmond
1
7
0
0
6
4
6
0
1
0
6
3
0
1
3
5
0
2
3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
8
8
1
3
1
6
5
6
0
2
5
4
2
0
4
2
1
0
0
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wabash College
Washington and Lee University
Washington Campus
Williams College
Yale University
TOTAL
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
131
238
369
Nationally, there were a total of 369 programs being offered in
1990-91. The programs can be organized in units or sessions so that
they are spread out over a longer period of time.
For example a program
might be three weeks long but held in one-week units over three years.
The most common length of time for existing Executive Education
Programs is one week.
One-hundred-twenty-six (126) of the 369 programs
(over 34% of the total) were one week long.
The next most common
lengths of time for executive education programs were two days (59
programs total, 16%), three days (53 programs total, 14.4%), two weeks
(50 programs total, 13.5%), four days and three weeks (17 programs total
each, 4.6%), and four weeks (15 programs total, 4%).
below.
2. 2. 2
Proqram
See Exhibit 7
Participant
Ac c ommnodat ion
Each session is designed for a specific number or range of
participants. Fifty percent of the sessions will accommodate 30 to 40
participants.
See Exhibits 8 and 9 below.
Not surprisingly, over 70%
of the programs can accommodate up to 45 participants.
This is usually
the maximum number of students that a typical classroom is best suited
for.
Universities that want to make use of their lecture halls will
offer their executive seminar courses to a larger audience and indicate
that their program(s) can accommodate from 70 to 200 participants. Many
Universities offer the same programs more than once throughout the year.
This allows a larger total participation and greater flexibility for the
interested companies.
2. 2. 3
arnd
Democrraphics
of
Companies
Participants
The demographics of the companies are described according to the
industry from which they come and the size of the company. The
demographics of the participants are described according to their
management level, function within the company, age and income. See
Appendix A-3 through A-O10 for a full listing of universities and
programs, and the associated demographics of the companies and
participants.
2 . 2. 3a
Participation
According
to
IndusaMtry
The participants of Executive Education Programs are employed with
companies that are from a variety of industries. See Appendix A-9 and
A-10 for Industry-Program relationships. In the sample of UniversityBased Executive Education Programs used for this study, the industries
represented range from Aerospace to Wood Products. Of the existing
programs, the industries that have been indicated to participate the
most frequently are; Manufacturing, Tele/Communication, and Financial
Services.
The industries represented in these programs in order of
greatest participation and the length of programs they participated in
are listed below.
NUMBER OF
SHORT PROGRAMS
INDICATING
PARTICIPATION
FROM
NUMBER OF
LONG PROGRAMS
INDICATING
PARTICIPATION
FROM
Research
Restaurant & Hotel
Metal Fabrication
Non-Profit
Printing
Railroads
Trucking
Wood Products
Aviation
Distribution
Forest Products
Import-Export
Minerals
Private Industry
Rubber
Trading
Advertising
Contracting
Data Processing
Foreign Service
Home Products
Journalism
Marketing
Media
Natural Resources
Packaging
Photographic
Products
Travel
2. 2. 3b
to
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
1
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
Participation
Company
Accordingc
Size
A major factor in company participation in Executive Education
Programs is the size of the company. Because of the expense involved in
participation, many small companies can not only not afford the cost of
tuition, but can not afford to have the employee absent from the day to
day workings of the business.
The participants' companies have been grouped into three categories:
less than 1,000 employees, from 1,000 to 10,000 employees, and greater
than 10,000 employees. Of the companies and programs that responded to
this classification, the latter two groups participated in 296 programs
INDUSTRY
Manufacturing
Tele-Communication
Financial Services
Chemicals
Electronics
Computers
Business Services
Government
Utilities
Banking
Insurance
Health Care
Consumer Goods
Pharmaceutical
Retail and Wholesale
Food & Beverage
Automotive
Aerospace
Petroleum
Transportation
Energy
Education
Information Systems
Textiles
High Technology
Diverse
Construction
Military/Defense
Industrial
Publishing
Petro-Chemical
Oil & Gas
Agri-Business
Engineering
Machines and Tools
Real Estate Develop.
Consulting
Mining
Paper
Steel
Tobacco
Law
Bio-Technology
Entertainment
Plastics
Public Sector
THIS INDUSTRY
(< 1 Week)
1990
53
37
33
14
22
17
36
18
8
THIS INDUSTRY
(>/= 1 Week)
1991
137
130
98
74
66
68
45
60
TOTAL
190
167
131
88
88
85
81
58
57
25
78
74
71
68
56
25
37
47
29
55
54
54
12
40
11
10
31
31
2
35
52
42
41
37
8
8
9
0
22
13
11
31
18
7
6
8
8
6
3
4
5
0
3
0
4
4
4
2
0
66
20
18
21
14
27
21
20
11
10
10
19
12
9
8
12
6
15
8
4
4
4
5
7
3
2
4
5
1
6
1
5
3
2
2
5
0
1
2
2
30
28
18
16
13
13
12
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
5
4
4
4
each, the former participated in 245 programs. See Exhibit 10 below.
As is illustrated in Exhibit 11 the majority of the programs are
comprised of small percentages of each of the three company sizes. Most
programs appear to be some combination of companies under 50% and, as is
expected, the larger companies represent the largest percentages of
class participants.
Few programs indicate that their participants are
from one company size classification. This in shown by the infrequency
of programs indicating percent participation greater than 80%.
Companies with Less than 1,000 Employees
(See Exhibits 12a and 12b)
Of the 245 programs indicating participants from companies of this
size, only 6 programs had 100% participation by these companies. That
usually indicates that the program would be directly geared toward
smaller businesses such as the University of Illinois' "Simplified
Strategy Planning for Small to Mid Sized Companies" or the University of
Pittsburgh's "Executive Program for Expanding Companies". Almost 70% of
the sample programs indicated participation of 10% or less from
companies with less than 1,000 employees. Ninety percent of the
programs with participants from the smaller companies had no more than
40% of the total class participants from these companies.
Companies with 1,000 to 10,000 Employees
(See Exhibits 13a and 13b)
Of the 296 programs indicating participants from companies of this
size, only 2 programs had 100% participation by these companies. The
largest number of programs, 31%, indicated having between 31% and 40%
participation of companies having 1,000 to 10,000 employees. Eightyfive percent of the programs with participants from this category had
between 11% and 50% of the total class participants from these
companies.
Companies with Greater than 10,000 Employees
(See Exhibits 14a and 14b)
Of the 296 programs indicating participants from companies of this
size, only 2 programs had 100% participation by these companies. The
largest number of programs, 19%, indicated having between 51% and 60%
participation of companies with more than 10,000 employees. Seventyfive percent of the programs with participants from this category had
between 31% and 80% of the total class participants from these
companies. This would prove, as stated earlier, that the larger
companies can more readily afford to remove the executive from the
normal work environment and invest in the development and improvement of
both the individual's and organization's competitive advantage.
2. 2. 3c
to
Participation
Management
Accordingc
Level
Companies should enroll their executives in programs best suited to
the interests and management level of the participant. University
programs located in Bricker's Directories describe the participating
management levels as Entry Management Level, Middle Management Level,
Upper-Middle Management Level and Senior Management Level. Of the
universities that categorized their program participants this way, only
46 programs had participants holding Entry Management Level positions,
230 programs indicated having participants in Middle Management
Positions, 324 programs indicated having participants in Upper-Middle
Management Positions, and 293 programs indicated having participants in
Senior Management positions. See Exhibit 15 below. As is illustrated
in Exhibit 16 the majority of the programs are comprised of small
percentages of each of the four managerial levels. Most programs appear
to be some combination of managerial levels each under 50%. Few
programs indicate that their participants are from one managerial level.
This is shown by the infrequency of programs indicating percent
participation greater than 80%.
This is an indication that many of the
programs try to offer a more diverse curriculum to attract managers with
all background and experience levels.
Entry Management Level
(See Exhibits 17a and 17b)
Of the 46 programs indicating participation of Entry Management
Level executives only one program had as high as 76% of the total
program participation as this management level.
Over 50% of these
programs indicated participation of 10% or less of Entry Level
executives.
Middle Management Level
(See Exhibits 18a and 18b)
Of the 228 programs indicating participation of Middle Management
Level executives only two programs indicated having 100% participation
by Middle Managers.
The largest number of programs, 19%, indicated
having between 21% and 30% participation of this management level.
Upper-Middle Management Level
(See Exhibit 19a and 19b)
Of the 323 programs indicating participation of Upper-Middle
Management Level executives only two programs indicated having 100%
participation by Upper-Middle Managers. The participation ranges "31%
to 40%" and "41% to 50%" were indicated to be the most frequent for this
management level. Fifty-nine and fifty-eight programs, respectively,
indicated that Upper-Middle Level executives comprise these percentages
of the programs.
Senior Management Level
(See Exhibit 20a and 20b)
Of the 293 programs indicating participation of Senior Management
Level executives eighteen programs indicated having 100% participation
by Senior Managers. The participation range "11% to 20%" was indicated
to be the most frequent for this management level. Seventy-one programs
indicated that Senior Level executives comprise these percentages of the
programs.
2.2.3d
to
Participation
Company
According
Function
Companies are represented in each program by personnel from the
various functional areas within the companies. These functional areas
have been identified as: Administration, Finance/Accounting, General
Management, Human Resources, Logistics, Marketing/Sales,
Operations/Production, Purchasing, Technical, and Other. See Appendix
A-7 and A-8 for the relationship of program topic to company function.
Of the companies and programs that responded to this participation
identification the following breakdown indicates the percentage
participation of personnel in the various programs. See also Exhibit 21
at the end of Chapter II.
FUNCTIONAL AREA
General Management
Operations/Production
Marketing/Sales
Finance/Accounting
Administration
NUMBER OF
SHORT PROGRAMS
WITH THESE
PARTICIPANTS
(< 1 Week)
1990
93
74
67
60
70
NUMBER OF
LONG PROGRAMS
WITH THESE
PARTICIPANTS
(>/= 1 Week)
1991
196
165
164
151
128
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
PROGRAMS
289
239
231
211
198
Technical
Human Resources
Other
Logistics
Purchasing
49
33
25
0
0
132
112
48
7
2
181
145
73
7
2
As is illustrated in Exhibit 22 the majority of the programs are
comprised of small percentages of the each of the functional areas.
Most programs appear to be some combination of participants under 20%
each. Few programs indicate that their participants are from one
functional area. This is shown by the infrequency of programs
indicating percent participation greater than 80%. As stated previously
in this study, this is an indication that many of the universities try
not to create programs that are too narrowly focused. The programs are
designed to attract executives from every facet of the business
environment, with different areas of expertise and experience level.
General Managers
(See Exhibits 23a and 23b)
Of the 289 programs indicating participation of General Managers
only five programs (2%) indicated having 100% participation by these
executives. The largest number of programs, 27%, indicated having
between 11% and 20% participation of this functional area. Eighty
percent of the 289 programs had less than 40% of the participants as
General Managers.
Operations and Production Managers
(See Exhibits 24a and 24b)
Of the 239 programs indicating participation of Operations and
Production Managers only three (1%) indicated having 100% participation
by these executives. Ninety-one programs, 38% of the 239 programs, had
less than 10% of its class from operations and/or production.
Over 70%
of these programs had less than 20% of its participants from this area
of business.
Marketing and Sales Managers
(See Exhibits 25a and 25b)
Two-Hundred-thirty-one programs had Marketing and Sales Managers
partaking in the course.
None of these were made up entirely of this
type of executive.
Over 60% of these classes were made up of no more
than 20% of Marketing and Sales Managers.
Finance and Accounting Managers
(See Exhibits 26a and 26b)
Of the 211 programs that indicated have Financial and Accounting
Managers, only two short programs (1%) had 100% of its class from this
company function. Over 50% of the 211 programs had less than 10% of its
total class from this area.
Administrative Managers
(See Exhibits 27a and 27b)
Only five (3%) of the 198 programs having Administrative Managers
had 100% participation from this company department. As with the other
functional areas, this function represented less than 10% of the class
in almost 50% of the classes that these executive participated in.
Almost 75% of these programs had less than 20% of its class from
Administration.
Technical Managers
(See Exhibits 28a and 28b)
Technical Managers participated in 181 programs and comprised no
more than 87% of a program. Almost 80% of the 181 programs had less
than 20% of its total class population from the technical areas within a
company.
Human Resources Managers
(See Exhibits 29a and 29b)
Of the 145 programs that indicated having executives from the Human
Resources department, only four programs (3%) were comprised 100% of
these managers.
Almost 90% of the 145 programs had less than 20% of its
total class population from Human Resources.
Logistics, Purchasing and Other Manager
(See Exhibits 30a through 30d)
Logistic Managers, Purchasing Managers and Other Managers
participated in 7 programs, 2 programs, and 73 programs respectively.
One program had 100% Purchasing Managers, but the other managers
typically comprised less than 10% of the programs that they participated
in. As has been repeatedly shown in all of the graphs, the majority of
the programs are made up of less than 10% of the participants from each
of the functional areas.
2 . 2 . 3e
to Age
Participation
Accor.dinrr
The ages of the participants that have attended Executive Education
Programs range from 23 to 70 years old. Of the companies and programs
that responded to participation identification over 23% of the programs
(67 programs) indicated an age range of their participants to be from 30
to 55 years old.
This is 18% of the total 369 existing programs.
Over
16% indicated a median age of 40 years old for their participants.
is almost 12% of the total 369 programs.
This
Almost 91% of the responding
companies and programs indicated median ages between 35 and 45 years
old.
2
See Exhibits 31 through 34.
2.
4
Tu ition
and
Other
Expensres
University-Based Executive Education Programs are designed, as the
name implies, to be taught at a university. This involves not only
tuition expenses but transportation to and from the university, hotel or
room expenses, meals, and books and materials.
Few of the shorter
programs include all of these necessities in the tuition listed in
brochures.
Thirty-four percent of the short programs do include lunches
only, and nine percent include all meals.
Only eighteen percent of the
programs that are less than one week long include both rooms and meals
in the cost of tuition.
Usually the room is on campus and meals are in
the cafeteria. The longer programs are different and over ninety-one
percent of the programs include both room and meals in the tuition.
The
remaining programs usually offer meals only.
The inclusion of these necessities is reflected in the tuition. The
two-day programs that do not include necessities other than lunches can
cost from $350 to $1,250 and average about $760.
Two-day programs that
do include room and meals cost between $600 and $1,400 and the average
cost is $1,100.
Three-day programs that do not include rooms can cost
between $500 and $2,200.
$1,073.
The cost of these programs average about
Three-day programs that do include room and meals cost from
$1,770 to $2,400 and average $1,866.
The last of the short programs,
the four-day programs, cost, without rooms, from $600 to $1,770 and
average about $1,300. The tuition for four-day programs that do include
room and meals cost from $1,770 to $3,200 and average $2,300.
The programs that are one week or longer can vary in tuition costs
substantially from university to university. Most universities offer
packages that include class tuition, and room and meals.
Programs that
are one week long range in cost from $1,800 to $7,500 and average
$3,465. These all-inclusive programs that are two weeks long cost from
$1,695 to $8,950 and the average cost is $5,955.
Three-week programs
cost from $4,200 to $30,000 and average $8,343.
Programs that are four
week long cost from $9,950 to $14,800 and the average program cost is
The programs that are five weeks or longer range in cost from
$12,417.
$8,800 to $29,850.
The average cost of programs at these lengths is
$15,820.
Exhibits 35 and 36 list the universities and their programs along
with the program length and tuition expenses.
The list also includes
what is covered in the cost of tuition. As stated earlier, some
universities furnish some meal, all meals, room and meals, or none of
these.
An "x" in the box would indicate that the literature definitely
implies that this or these item(s) are included in the cost listed.
"o" would indicate that this or these item(s) are definitely not
An
included in the cost listed. As stated earlier, tuition varies
substantially from university to university but it usually remains
consistent from program to program within one university.
2.3
ALTERNATIVE
EXECUTIVE
SOURCES
EDUCATION
OF
PROGRAMS
Universities are not the only sources of Executive Education
Programs.
As mentioned earlier programs can be organized and held in-
house by company training personnel, outside consultants, private
training institutes or professional associations. At the present time,
these alternative sources offer the widest selection of construction
related educational programs.
These outside sources offer various
alternatives for participants and their companies.
One alternative is
for the participant to go to nationally designated sights to partake in
seminars or courses with others in the construction industry. Another
alternative is to have the seminars or courses administered to employees
in a company designated location and to be focused on company specific
interests.
These sort of programs have been indicated to be preferred
by the construction industry for their flexibility and ability to adapt
to individual companies.
Along with these institutions, there are many local colleges and
universities that offer continuing education programs that touch on many
issues relevant to the construction industry. These courses cover both
management and technical concerns, are usually held at night, and are
open to anyone.
The following is a few of the more popular institutes
and associations that offer continuing education programs. These
programs differ from those described previously as University-Based
Executive Education Programs because they are not always geared to upper
management or senior executives. Many of these continuing education
programs are open to any who want to attend, or all company personnel
when given in-house. Often "Continuing Education Units" (CEU) are given
for attending these seminars and courses. The programs are usually from
one to five days long and under $1,000.
2.3.1
Construcction
Institute
Industry
The Construction Industry Institute (CII), formed in 1983 by a group
of major owners and contractors, pursues the objective of improving the
cost effectiveness of the construction industry through directed
research and implementation. Though comprising only a small percentage
of the industry, the CII does represent some of the largest owners and
contractors and task forces utilize these members along with academics
to analyze and solve problems of concern.
The CII offers one week courses which have been developed by their
University Short Course Action Team. These courses are taught by
university faculty and industry professionals and targeted for
experienced project managers. The program objectives are to analyze
team dynamics, organizing and setting objectives, and managing
uncertainty within the construction industry.
Pilot programs for the one week module took place in 1991.
program were:
* Optimizing Project Schedules
These
* Project Organization
Design Effectiveness
Contractibility
* Safety
Materials Management
Quality Management
Cost and Schedule Controls
New programs are planned for 1992 which include:
* Project Organization
Team Dynamics
Managing Uncertainty
Project Objective Setting
* Design Effectiveness
Objectives Matrix
Inputs to Design Impact on Project Outcome
Scope Definition
* Contractibility
Improving Project Contractibility
Modularization and Pre-Assembly
One CII task force has also been developing training modules. The
objective is to create and market a self-contained training module for
addressing each topic researched by the task force or in demand in the
industry. The training module has been designed such that a company can
purchase the training materials and conduct the course in-house. One
eight-hour course being implemented by the CII involves Capital Project
Planning. It covers the concerns of the professionals from the
following disciplines: Project Managers/Engineer, Discipline Engineers,
Procurement/Material Coordinators, Construction Managers/Engineers/
Superintendents, Contract Administrators, Project Controls
Scheduler/Engineer, QA Manager/Coordinator, Field Construction
Engineers, Facility Operators, Business Managers.
The task force has developed training modules that can be conducted
effectively in-house with company personnel. There is a minimum
preparation time for the courses and includes instructor's guides
designed for the 'non-professional' trainer.
The instructor's guide
includes guidelines for selecting instructors, training tips on adult
education, checklists for preparing and giving courses, slides and
overheads with notes, case studies with videos, and module evaluation
forms.
Participants also receive various handouts and publications.
The modules are entirely based upon CII research findings and
recommendations and include real-life case studies that simulate
multiple industries.
The training module can be used in several different ways depending
on the particular needs of the company presenting the training. Three
possible applications have been identified in the brochure distributed
during the CII Annual Conference held in August 1991 at Monterey
California. 4
1. Initial Training for Entry Level Personnel
The course could be used for new employees with one to five
years experience to train them in the basic techniques available for
optimizing the particular topic of interest such as Planning and
Schedules.
For this application, the instructor should be able to
relate the material to the students on a basic level and should
function more in the role of a teacher. The objective of the course
would be to expose the participants to the optimum techniques of the
particular topic and to give them practical experience in applying
the techniques.
2. Refresher Training for Experienced Personnel
The course could be used for personnel with five years or more
experience as a refresher course to re-acquaint them with the
optimization techniques of the particular subject chosen. This
4 Education for Implementation - Project Management Education Module
Action Team
course could spend less time on the basics and concentrate more on
the applications. The instructor would need to establish himself as
a subject matter expert and be prepared to address real technical
and specific issues relating to the training. Two instructors might
be used, one who is a subject matter expert for presenting the
technical material, and one who has more experience as a facilitator
for leading the case study presentations. The objectives of this
course would stress less the teaching of the material and would
focus more on the sharing of experiences and applications of the
techniques.
3. Project Planning Tool
Such courses like Schedule Optimization would be ideal as a
starting point for the planning of a new project. By working
through the training module, the project team could complete
planning needed to properly initiate the project. The team could
then meet periodically to review the project and update the
planning. The application would require a facilitator rather than a
teacher. The project team would already have a prerequisite
knowledge. The objective would be to channel that knowledge using
the format of the training module to develop a project plan.
2. 3 . 2
Fais
Manaqemert
Iinstitute
Since 1953, the Fails Management Institute (FMI) has been a
management consulting and training firm working with and for general
building contractors, civil constructors, trade specific prime
contractors, subcontractors, construction management firms and others in
the construction industry. FMI provides consulting and educational
services to those who have a common interest in construction: owners,
developers, government agencies, law firms, accounting groups, trade
associations, software vendors, and surety and insurance companies. FMI
has developed programs that they feel will help these groups work better
with each other in the construction industry.
Their corporate brochure
best identifies their clients and objectives:
Industry Segments
Contractors are the focal point of the construction industry.
FMI
serves the contracting segment both within the firm and in strengthening
relations with the rest of the industry.
FMI helps the contractor to
better deal with the changing environment.
Manufacturers and distributors who provide construction materials
and technological advances are an influential industry segment.
FMI
performs market research to help sources of supply identify profitable
markets and channels of distributions.
Developers, engineers, and design groups are liaisons between owners
and contractors.
FMI understands their position and their character as
professional firms.
FMI provides these groups with the means to develop
marketing plans, productivity improvement programs, and compensation
systems
Owners, investors, and utilities want efficiency in their purchasing
approach and timely execution of contracts - the most value for their
construction spending.
FMI provides procedures for building preferred
bidders lists, and they help clients establish mutually acceptable guide
lines for in-process reporting. For construction companies under
contract to utilities, FMI provides employee training to boost
productivity on power plant sites.
Support groups are attorneys, CPAs, bankers, sureties and insurance
companies who are interested in the needs of contracting clients. FMI
provides new employee training and continuing education for support
group personnel.
Government is a large purchaser of construction services and also
acts in a regulatory role. FMI aids local and federal governments in
doing evaluations and reports on construction productivity issues as
well as in training agency personnel.
The Fails Management Institute though located in Raleigh, North
Carolina, offers 120 public seminars and programs dealing with a large
range of construction issues in many national locations.
Topics are
offered in from one to twenty-three cities a years. Usually averaging
about three or four cities per course.
FMI boasts of offering leading
programs in popular resort locations such as Beaver Creek, Colorado and
Palm Beach, Aruba.
All programs can be offered on an in-company basis too.
given up to 400 client sponsored seminars in one year.
FMI has
FMI will work
with company personnel to coordinate programs to meet the needs and
requirements of the company.
Programs will be custom designed in area
such as topics, layout and presentation.
FMI states that they are the largest organization offering the most
educational programs for the construction industry. The programs range
in length from one day to five days.
Typical enrollment fees are about
$195 for a one day seminar to $595 for a two or three day seminar.
There are discounts for multiple enrollment from one company. Materials
and textbooks are usually included in the fees but travel, hotels and
meals are not.
Courses are designed for various levels of managers and executives.
Each program is fully described on FMI brochures.
COURSE NAME
Business Continuation and Management
Succession
Business Planning for Contractors
Construction Selling Skills
Financial Management
FMI Seminar Digest
Introduction to Management in Construction
Job Leadership
Leadership Excellence
Mergers and Acquisitions
Job Profits
Negotiating Skills
Offensive Marketing
On-The-Job Negotiating
Presentation Skills Workshop
Pricing and Bidding Strategy
Profit Strategies
Strategic Planning
Tight Job Control
Young Managers Institute
ENROLLMENT
FEE
DURATION
OF COURSE
$595
5 days
2 days
2 days
2 days
3 days
5 days
1 day
2 days
2 days
$195
1 day
$595
$495
$295
2 days
2 days
1 day
2 days
2 days
2 days
2 days
1 day
2 days
$495
$595
How to Make Money in a Depressed Economy
2. 3. 3
f or
Cont
Hughes
inuinr
$595
2 days
Institute
Education
The Hughes Institute for Continuing Education is located in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin and is a private organization serving the
professional development needs of business and engineering personnel
dealing with the electrical power systems for facilities.
The Institute
provides seminars and in-house workshops throughout the United States.
The seminars are designed to upgrade your expertise in Power Systems
Engineering. The programs inform I u of design requirements and common
practices, standards and codes for equipment installation and
utilization. They cover selection, application, installation, testing,
maintenance, and troubleshooting of electrical apparatus and systems.
Case studies and examples are used along with step-by-step methods to
arrive at designs that deal effectively with normal and unexpected
situations that arise.
The Hughes Institute feels that participants will benefit from
taking these courses.
Participants will improve their ability to
evaluate, specify, and apply electrical equipment and systems.
Better
field performance, lower installation and maintenance costs, and
increased user satisfaction and safety will result.
The participant
will be better able to contribute toward improving the design and
operation of new and retrofit systems.
The programs are targeted toward electrical system designers,
engineers, consulting engineers, and installation specialists who need
to acquire an understanding of power distribution systems engineering
and design.
Programs are also designed for plant safety inspectors,
municipal electrical inspectors and others responsible for electrical
system inspection and approval.
Courses are available usually once a year, and in the past have been
located in Orlando, Florida, San Francisco, California, San Diego,
California and Atlanta, Georgia. All courses, in whole or in part, are
available for presentation at any company location.
Courses are three,
four and five days long and enrollment fees are from $595 to $845.
There are discounts for multiple enrollment from one company.
Enrollment fees include course materials and instruction only.
COURSE NAME
Designing Electrical Systems for Facilities
Lighting, Electrical Distribution and
Motor Selection
Grounding and Lightning Protection
Substations, Switchgear, and Grounding
Electrical Distribution Systems Design
High and Medium Voltage Systems
Protection and Coordination
Power and Grounding for Computer Installation
Power Systems Expansion and Design
Low Voltage Power Systems
Protection and Coordination
2 .3 . 4
American
Chemical
ENROLLMENT
FEE
Institutte
DURATION
OF COURSE
$795
$595
$795
$595
5
3
5
3
days
days
days
days
$845
$595
$695
5 days
3 days
4 days
$845
5 days
of
Engineers
The American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) has a main
office in New York, New York.
The AIChE offers numerous seminars and
courses dealing with a wide range of aspects of chemical engineering.
One-hundred-forty-four short programs are offered various times
throughout the year and in several cities in the United States.
Seminars and courses are one, two, three, and five days long but the
majority of them are two days in length.
The enrollment fees range from
$325 to $2,595 and do not include travel, hotel, and meal expenses.
AIChE courses are technically orientated and appear to be very
specifically focused on areas of chemical engineering. All courses have
in-company capabilities and can be tailored to specific company needs.
An example of a few courses are:
Chemical Plant Accidents
Adsorption
Atmospheric Diffusion Modeling
Compressors for Chemical Processes
Conveying of Bulk Solids
Emergency Response Planning for Fixed Chemical
Facilities
Principles of Design Extraction
Fundamentals of Fire and Explosion Hazards Evaluation
Selecting Materials of Construction
Transport and Fate of Chemicals in the Environment
Water Quality Engineering for Industry
2 .3 .5
Assoc iated
Contractors
of
General
America
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is a
professional organization with their main office in Washington, D.C and
branch offices throughout the United States.
The AGC's Management
Conference Programs began in 1972 and are "presented by contractors for
contractors".
The conferences are each held once a year in cities such
as Chicago, Illinois, New Orleans, Louisiana, Dallas, Texas,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and St. Louis, Missouri.
The programs are specifically targeted to contractors, and generally
targeted toward owners, design professional, construction lawyers, and
various managers and tradespeople.
conference.
Management levels differ for each
COURSE NAME
Construction Contracts: How to Manage the
Risks and Improve Owner-Contractor Working
Relations
Ownership Transfer of the Construction Company
Advanced Management Program
Marketing Construction Services
Safety: The Bottom Line...Safety Pays
ENROLLMENT
FEE
$400
$400
$3,395
$400
$425
DURATION
OF COURSE
3
3
10
3
3
days
days
days
days
days
2 .3.
6
Center
Education
Technoloy
for
Continuing
Building
and
Construction
Program
The Building and Construction Technology Program has been a part of
Northeastern University's Center for Continuing Education since 1982.
The Center offers comprehensive training through its on-site, training
services, day and evening programs, satellite based services, video
conferencing services, and corporate and executive meeting services.
The Building and Construction Technology Program offers a range of
courses from introductory to advanced levels in the following fields:
Architecture/Construction Technology
Electrical, Fire Protection, and Plumbing Systems Design
HVAC Systems Design
Construction Superintendent
Construction Law and Management
Real Estate Development
Land Surveying
Facilities Management
Landscape Management
Hazardous Waste Management
Eighty-six different courses are offered at various times throughout
the year in six locations within a 60 mile radius of Boston. Courses
are held one night a week for eleven weeks. Each course is $485 and
includes enrollment fees only.
Textbooks and materials are not included
in the fees.
The courses are taught by instructors both from academia and the
construction industry.
Faculty members have included:
experienced
engineers, architects, real-estate developers, lawyers, consultants,
facilities managers and system designers.
All courses have the
capabilities to be taught on an in-company basis.
2 . 3.
7
Hartford
Graduate
Cente~r
The Hartford Graduate Center is affiliated with Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute and offers continuing education programs dealing
with many construction issues. The program is designed to appeal to all
levels of construction personnel.
Each class is targeted to a different
trade, profession and/or management level.
Classes are one, two, and
three days long and are held at the Center's main location in Hartford,
Connecticut. Enrollment fees are from $295 to $790 and the fees only
cover the cost of taking the class.
an extra cost.
Transportation, hotel and meals are
COURSE NAME
Construction Cost Control and Financial
Management
Construction Cost Estimating and Bidding
Concepts
Construction Project Management
Advanced Topics in construction Estimating
and Bidding
Claims Avoidance and Preparation
Value Engineering in Construction
Construction Project Planning and Scheduling
Construction Management
Construction Law
Computerized Scheduling
Computer Aided Design and Drafting
Construction Markets, Marketing and Business
Growth Strategies
ENROLLMENT
FEE
DURATION
OF COURSE
$575
2 days
$575
$575
2 days
2 days
$295
$575
$295
$575
$295
$575
$295
$790
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
$575
2 days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
Typical Number of Programs Offered in the Sixty-Six Universities Sampled.
26
24
22
20
18
16
Number of 14
Universities 12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 10 11 12
13
Number of Programs Offered
14
15
16
19
21
mUniversity-Based Executive Education Programs OIUniversity-Based Executive Education Programs
Less than One Week Long (1990)
Greater than or Equal to One Week Long (1991)
UNIVERSITY--BASED EXECUTIVE PROGRAMS
AVAILABLE IN
1990 *
( Programs less than one week)
UNIVERSITY/INSTITUTE NAME
1 Aspen Institute
2 Brookings Institute
3 California Institute of Technology
4 University of California, L. A.
5 Case Western Reserve University
6 Center for Creative Leadership
University
of Chicago
PROGRAM TITLE
A
B
C
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A
A
A
B
C
A
B
C
D
E
F
The Future of the Corporation
Neekends at Wye
The Corporation and the Changing International System
Issues in Telecommunications Policy
Federal budget: Fiscal Year 1991
The U.S. in the World Economy: Policy Issues and Choices
Financing National Health Care: Tradeoffs Between Access and Cost Control
Tne National Security Agenda for the 1990's
Science, Technology, and Industrial Productivity
Artificial Intelligence: Understanding and Development Strategic Applications
Manufacturing Cost Strategies: Meeting the Competitive Challenge
Restructuring Your Manufacturing Operations: A Framework for Organizational Change
Bld., Executing. & Intgrtd. Strategic Plan: Linking Markting, R&D,& Production Stratgies
Managing Techn. as a Strategic Resource: Positioning for Competitive Advantage
Just-in-time Manufacturing
Manufacturing Strategies: Building for the Future
Role of the Board of Directors
Advanced Management Program for M.B.A.'s
Managing for Commitment
Designing Systems for Executive Development
Values in Action
Creating New Products and Services
Developing Marketing Plans
Industrial Marketing
Marketing Analysis and Tactical Decision Making
Marketing Communications
Marketing Strategy and Planning
G Measurements for Competitive Marketing Strategy
Pricing Strategy and Tactics
8T Dartmouth College
9 Georgia State University
10 University of Houston
11 University of Illinois
12 Indiana University
13 Massachusetts Institute of Tech.
14 Henninger Management Institute
15 University of Michigan
Sales Force Productivity Strategies
Customer Satisfaction: Management Strategies and Tactics
A Stategic Cost Accounting and Control
A Finance and Accounting for NOn-FinancialManagers
A Advanced Purchasing Workshop
B Essentials of Purchasing
C Purchasing Negotiation Skills
A Fundamentals of Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Executives
B Bond Analysis and Portfolio Management
C Pension Fund Management in Volatile Markets
D Simplified Strategic Planning for Small to Mid Sized Companies
A Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Managers
B Improving Management Skills
C Fundamentals fo Marketing Management
D Leadership for the 1990's
E Organizing and Managing for Customer Satisfaction
F Production Management: Inventory Control in the Computer Age
G Production Management: Manufacturing Management in the 1990's
A Current Issues in Information Systems
A Nanaging Organizational Change and Resolving Conflict
B Work and Family: Understanding Change, Health and Growth
Advanced Financial Analysis for Commercial Lending
B Financial Analysis, Planning and Control
C Basic Management for the Newly Appointed Manager
D Managing International Joint Ventures
E Project Management
F Classroom Training Techniques
G Employee Discipline and Grievance Handling
H How to Prepare and Win More Arbitration Cases
I Interviewing: A Strategic Approach
Cost Effective Purchasing Management
Business to Business Marketing Strategies
L Effective Sales Management
M Marketing for Non-Marketing Managers
Strategies in Sales Management for Sales Executives
O
P
Q
R
16
Finance for the Non-Financial Manager
University of North Carolina
B
C
D
E
F
G
17 Northern Illinois University
Delegation and the Team Effort: People and Performance
Effective Managerial Coaching and Counseling
Gaining Competitive Advantage
Meeting the Japanese Challenge: Building Competitive Organizations
Strategic Management of Technology
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A
18 Northwestern University
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
19 University of Notre Dame
B
C
Total Quality Management
Building the Winning Organization
Customer Satisfaction: The New Competitive Edge
Increasing Sales Force Productivity
Making Your Marketing Strategy Work
Marketing Professional Services: Advanced Strategies for Implementation
Marketing Strategy and Planning
Pricing Strategies for Maximized Profits
Product Profiling
Strategic Planning for the $10-to $50-Million Company
Customer-Driven Manufacturing: The Manufacuring-Marketing Connection
Increasing Productivity of Professional Services
Just-inTime: Managing Lead Times and Delivery h)liability
Manufacturing Strategy for competitive Advantage
Vendor Certification
Communicating with the Japanese Business World
Advanced Futures and Options Strategies for Professional Financial Managers
Credit Analysis and Financial Reporting
Developing a Corporate Pension Strategy
Managing Financial Risk with Futures and Options
Strategic Financial Planning
Decision-Making Strategies for Managers
Negotiation Strategies for Managers
Managing Communications in the Changing Marketplace
The Art of Venturing: Entrepreneurship for the Businessperson
Credit Analysis
Finance for Non-Financial Managers
Psychology of Persuasion
20 University of Pennsylvania
21 Rice University
22 University of Rochester
D
A
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
D
23 Stanford University
24 University of Texas at Austin
A
B
C
A
B
C
D
E
25 Vanderbilt University
A
B
C
D
E
26 University of Virginia
A
B
27 University of Washington
A
B
F
Business Forecasting Using a PC
Chief Executives and Senior Officers of Family-Held Businesses
The Next Generation of Family Hembers in Family-Held Businesses
Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Managers
How to Manage the Sales Force
Successful Negotiation Skills
Management cost Accounting
Advances in Manufacturing Systems Design
Manufacturing costs and Performance Measurement
Uptime Management: Reliability, Maintenance and Support
Financila seminar for Non-Financial Managers
Program on Managing Innovation
Program on Market Strategy for Technology-Based Companies
Accounting for Non-Accounting Managers
Financial Decision Making: Integrated Strategies for the Non-Financial Managers
Managing Salespeople for Performance
Marketing Strategy for Competitive Advantage
Customer Service: The New Competitive Advantage
What Executives Should Know About Finance and Accounting
Effective Management Techniques
Managing the Manager
Training the Trainer
Essentials of Purchasing for the Newly Appointed Buyer
Effective Marketing Techniques
Leadership for Extraordinary Performance
Managing Organizational and Individual Change
Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Executives
Marketing Research
C Marketing Strategy, Analysis and Decisions
D Sales Management and Strategies
28 Washington and Lee University
E Managing Change
F Successful Negotiating Skills
A Institute for Family Business
According to 'Tricler's ,hort-'erm Ixeclltive Programs,
Peterson's Guides,
New Jersey,
1990
UNIVERSITY-BASED
AVAILABLE
IN
1991*
longer
(Programs
EXECUTIVE
than
3
Babson College
4
Boston University
week)
PROGRAM TITLE
UNIVERSITY/INSTITUTE NAME
1 University of Arizona
2 Aspen Institute
one
PROGRA MS
A Executive Development Course
A Corporation in Contemporary Society
B Traditional Executive Seminar
A Developing Managerial Effectiveness
B Achieving Global Integration
C Technology Managers Program
D Managing and Developing Human Resources: a Strategic Perspective
E Market Segmentation Positioning and Competitive Advantage
F Changing Role of Procurement Management
A
Managment Development Program
B Leadership Institute
C Strategic Human Resources Management in a Global Economy
D Implementing Manufacturing Strategy
5 Brookings Institute
6 University of California, Berkeley
Understanding Federal Government Operations
A
A Executive Program
B
C
D
E
Management Development, A Comprehensive Approach
Corporate Financial Management and Strategy Program
Executive Compensation
Advanced Strategic Marketing
F Competitive Marketing Strategies for High-Tech Products
G Competitve Marketing Strategies for Industrial Products
H Competitive Marketing Strategies for Services
7 California Institute of Technology
8
A
Management of Technology and Innovation
University of California,
Los Angeles
A Advanced Executive Program
B Advanced Program in Human Resource Management
C anaging the Information Resource
D Engineering and Management Program
Carnegie Mellon University
A
Program for Executives
10 Center for Creative Leadership
11 University
of Chicago
12 Colorado State University
13 Columbia University
Program for Technical Managers
C College Management Program
D Senior Executive Seminar
Strategic Management of Technology Through the 1990's
A Dynamics of Strategy: Goals into Action
B Implementing Innovation
C Leadership at the Peak
D Leadership Development Program
E Managing the People Process: From Idea to Market Entry
F Workshop in Organizational Action
A Management Development Seminar
B Product Management: Analysis, Planning, Decision Making
A Executive Development Institute
A Executive Program in Business Admisinstration: Managing the Enterprise
B Executive Program in International Management: Managing for Global Success
C Business Strategy
D International Strategy
E Leading and Managing People
F Managing Strategic Innovation and Change
G Accounting and Financial Management for the Non-Financial Executive
Financial Management
I Human Resource Management
14 Cornell University
J Market Analysis for Competitive Advantage
K Marketing Management
Sales Management
-T
L Operations and Production Management
M
A The Effective Executive
B Executive Development Program
C Managing the Next Generation of Manufacturing
15 Dartmouth College
A
B
C
D
Minority Business Executive Program
Tuck Executive Program
Dartmouth Institute
Marketing Strategy Program
E Effective Management of Production Operations
16 Duke University
Advanced Managment Program
Program for Manager Development
C Dynamics of Competitive Advantage
D Managerial Finance
EI Strategic Human Resources Management Program
Marketing Management Program
17 Emory University
18s George Washington University
19 University of Georgia
20 Georgia State University
21 Harvard University
Ln
CO
22 University of Hawaii
23 University of Houston
24 University of Illinois
25 Indiana University
26 University of Iowa
27 Louisiana State University
A Advanced Management Program
B Management Development Program
A Managing in the Global Marketplace
A Executive Program
A Management Development Program
A Advanced Management Program
B International Senior Management Program
C Owner/President Management Program
D Program for Management Development
E Executive Program in Competitive Strategy
F Institute for the Management of Lifelong Education
G Program for Senior Executive Fellows
H Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government
I Program for Senior Managers in Government
J Contemporary Developments and Control
K Corporate Financial Management
L Managing the Information Services Resource
M Strategic Marketing Management Program
N Manufacturing in Corporate Strategy
A Advanced Managment Program
A Executive Development Program
B Managing Operations
A Executive Development Program
B Program for International Managers
C Specialized Program for International Managers
A Kanaging Business Strategies Program
B Values, Choice, and Executive Action-An Executive Development Program
C Professional Manager Program
A Executive Development Program
A
-
I
Executive Program
Institute
28 University of Maryland
Massachusetts
Technology
29 Massachusetts
Institute
of
of Technology
Institute
of Michigan
of
Management
Henninger
30 Henninger Management Institute
.niv.rity
31 University of Miami
University
32 University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
Executive Development Program
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
Program for Senior Executives
Sloan Fellows Program
Executive Program in Corporate Strategy
Executive Program in Management Issues for Corporate Counsel
Executive Program in Mangement of Complex Organizations
Executive Program in Japanese Technology Management
Executive Program in Financial Management
Management of Research, Development, and Technology-Based Innovation
Executive Seminar
Personal and Interpersonal Dimensions of Leadership
Minority Executive Program
Executive Program
Strategies for Global Competition
Strategy: Formulation and Implementation
Excellence in Service Management
Successful Product Innovation
Executive Communication
Management of Managers
Management II: A Mid-Management Development Program
Corporate Financial Management
Finance for the Non-Financial Manager
Advanced Human Resource Executive Program
Human Resource Executive Program
Negotiating and Administering the Labor Contract
Organizational Career Development
Strategic Collective Bargaining
Strategic Human Resource Planning
Applied Methods in Marketing Research
Applied Product/Market Management
Business to Business Marketing Strategies
Strategic Marketing Planning
U Manufacturing Executive Program
Executive Program
Management Institute
34 University of New Hampshire
35 University of North Carolina
36 Northeastern University
37 Northwestern University
38 Ohio State University
39 Penn State University
C Management Academy
A Executive Development Program
A Executive Program
B Young Executives Institute
C Program for Technology Managers
A Executive Development Program
A Advanced Executive Program
B Advanced Transportation Management
C Executive Development Program
D Corporate Financial Strategy
E Merger Week
F Managing Human Resources in Restructuring Organizations
G Business to Business Marketing Strategy
H Consumer Marketing Strategy
I Increasing Sales Force Productivity
J Transportation Marketing Strategy
K Development Manufacturing's Strategic Potential
L
Logistics/Distribution Management
A
A
B
C
Executive Development Program
Executive Management Program
Management Program for Women
Managing the Global Enterprise Program
Program for Executive Development
Program for Strategic Leadership
Financial Analysis for Strategic Management Program
Human Resources Management Program
Industrial Marketing Management Program
Industrial Sales Management Program
Manufacturing Strategy and Technology Program
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
40 University of Pennsylvania
K Program for Logistics Executives
L Strategic Purchasing Management Program
M Engineer/Scientist as Manager Program
Measuring and Managing Service Quality
B Wharton Advanced Management Program
C Implementing Strategy
E
F
G
H
I
Strategic Management
Strategy Analysis for Finance and Marketing
International Forum
Managing Organizational Change
Managing Technology and Innovation
Finance and Accounting for the Non-Financial Manager
J Financial Management
K Mergers and Acquisitions
41 University of Pittsburgh
42 Princeton University
43 Rice University
44 University of Richmond
45 Rutgers University
46 Simmons College
47 Smith College
48 Southern Methodist University
49 Stanford University
L Pension Funds and Money Management
H Advanced Competitive Marketing Strategy
N Business/Industrial Marketing Strategy
0 New Product Management: Development and Introduction
Sales Force Management
A Executive Program for Expanding Companies
B Management Program for Executives
A Executive Education Program in Public Affairs
B "Ten Days at Princeton" Foreign Executive Development Program
A Advanced Management Institute
A Management Development Program
A Advanced Management Program
A Managing with Influence
B Program for Developing Executives
C Program for Developing Managers
A Management Program
A Management of Managers: A Leadership Renewal Program
B Financial Management for Non-Financial Managers
Advanced Management College
B
C
D
E
Executive Program
Executive Program for Smaller Companies
Sloan Program
Executive Program in the Humanities
F Executive Program in Organizational Change
G Engineering Executive Program
H Financial Management Program
I Marketing Management Program
---
50 University of Tennessee
51 Texas A & H University
52 Texas Christian University
53 Tulane University
54 University of Virginia
55 Wabash College
56 University of Washington
57 Washington Campus
58 Williams College
59 Yale University
*
J
K
A
B
C
D
Effective Management of Production Operations
Manufacturing Strategy for Competitive Advantage
Executive Development Program
Cost Management Institute
Administrative and Service Institute for Productivity Through Quality
Institute for Productivity Through Quality
E
B Senior Executive Institute for Productivity Through Quality
F Executive Development Program for Distribution Managers
G International Logistics Program
H Engineer/Scientist as Manager
A Advanced Management Program
B Management Development Program
C Management Seminar
A Managing Managers Program
A Program for Managers
A Executive Program
B Managing Critical Resources
C McIntire Enterpreneurial Executive Institute
D Strategic Management for Line Managers
Creating the High-Performance Workplace
F Young Managers' Program
G Evaluation of Capital Projects: Appraisal in Uncertain Environments
H Financial Management for Non-Financial Managers
I Mergers and Acquisitions: Strategy and Implementation
J The Art of Managing Human Resources
K The Power of Information:
A Strategic Approach to Managing Information Resources
L Marketing and Sales Executives
MH Marketing Strategy: Business to Business
N Sales Management and Marketing Strategy
O Manufacturing Management Program
A Executive Program-A Personal Development Program
A International Management: Doing Business in Japan
A Business and the Public Process: How Washington Works
A Executive Program
A Executive Management Program
--
According to Bricker's International Directory, Long Term,
--
Petersoris Guides,
New Jersey, 199t.
Universities and Program Lengths
(Total Sample of 66 Universities, 1990-91)
40 35 30
+
Number of
a Universities
(A
15
-
10 -
15
0
Universities that only
offer programs less than
one week long
Universities that offer
programs both less than
and greater than one week
long
Universities that only
offer programs at least
one week long
Length of Existing Executive Education Programs
140
126
120
100
80
Number
of
Programs
17
1
f-f
1
2
3 3.5 4 4.5
1 1.6
days days days days days week wks
2
LENGTH OF
NO.
PROGRAM IN
OF
WEEKS
PROGRAMS
59
2 days
53
3 days
3.5 days
1
17
4 days
4.5 days
1
1 week
126
1.6 wks
1
1.8 wks
2
2 wks
50
2.4 wks
1
3 wks
17
4 wks
15
5 wks
8
6 wks
4
7 wks
1
8 wks
3
9 wks
3
11 wks
1
12 wks
1
16 wks
1
30 wks
1
36 wks
1
52 wks
2
TOTAL
369
% OF
TOTAL
15.99%
14.36%
0.27%
4.61%
0.27%
34.15%
0.27%
0.54%
13.55%
0.27%
4.61%
4.07%
2.17%
1.08%
0.27%
0.81%
0.81%
0.27%
0.27%
0.27%
0.27%
0.27%
0.54%
100.00%
15
I
~~ ~ ~
1.8 2 2.4
3 4
5 6 7
wks wks wks wks wks wks wks wks
Length
31
1
1
1
3MIil*I"'
I-----l*I*I"
8 9 11 12 16
wks wks wks wks wks
30
wks
1
2
36
52
wks wks
University-Based Executive Education Programs and the Number of Participants
the Programs are Designed for.
80
r
70
=-
60
TT
50
I
Number of Programs 40
[
K
I I
30
20
10
I
0
-+
< or =
I-
m,
-
H
|
-------
*-
I
-
4
25
·
t
30
35
40
-t
4
45
50
I
+
55
60
65
70
75
ar
>75
nd <
200
Number of Participants per Session that the Program can Accommodate.
O Program Length from 2 Days to 4 Days (1990)
m Program Length from 1 Week to 52 Weeks (1991)
University-Bases Executive Education Programs Less than One Week Long and the
Number of Participants the Programs are Designed for.
Number of
Programs
( or =
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
60
65
70
75
>75 and
< 200
Number of Participants per Session that the Program can Accommodate
m Program Length of 2 Days
- Program Length of 3 days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs One Week or Greater in Length and
the Number of Participants the Programs are Designed for.
Number of Programs
-i~I~t~~
1n
i
5
0
-I
< or
20
=
25
30
35
40
45
.1LI 2Mjuh.i
I Inbin.10I
1
50
55
60
65
70
75
Y
-
-
>75
and <
200
Number of Participants per Session that the Program can Accommodate
m Program Length of 1
Week
[] Program Length of 2
Weeks
[
[
0
E Program
Program Length of 4
Weeks
Program Length of 5
Weeks
Program Length of 3
Weeks
6 Weeks
Length > or
--
Total Number of Programs that had Participants from the Different Company Sizes.
The Length of the Programs is from 2 Days to 52 Weeks. (1990-1991)
(Taken from a list of 369 Programs. Participation is from 1% to 100% of the
class total.)
300
275
250
225
200
175
Number of Programs 150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Organizations with less
than 1,000 employees
OPrograms Greater Than or Equal to One Week
Organizations with from
1,000 to 10,000
employees
Organizations with
greater than 10,000
employees
m Programs Less than One Week
I
University-Based Executive Education Programs and
Company Participation in Programs of All Lengths.
(1990-1991)
160
140
120
100
Number of Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51% >50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Percent Participation of Companies in Programs of all Lengths
[Organizations with greater
than 10,000 employees
O Organizations with from 1,000
to 10,000 employees
Organizations with less than
1,000 employees
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Companies with Less Than 1,000
Employees
in Programs Less Than One Week. (1990)
Number of Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21% >20%<31% >30%<41% >40%<51%
>50%<61% >60%<71% >70%<81% >80%<91%
Companies with Less than 1,000 Employees.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
U Program Length of 2 Days O Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Companies with Less Than 1,000
Employees
in Programs Greater Than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
55
50
45
40
35
Number of Programs
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1-3
H
t
( or =
>10<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51% >50%<61% >60%<71% >70%<81%
>80%<91%
10%
Companies with Less than 1,000 Employees.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
SProgram Length of
1 week
I Program Length of B Program Length of
2 Weeks
EProgram Length of E Program Length of
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
3 Weeks
Program Length >
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Companies with 1,000 to 10,000
Employees
in Programs Less Than One Week. (1990)
Number of Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31% >30%(41% >40%<51% >50%<61% >60%<71% >70%<81% >80%<91%
Companies with from 1,000 to 10,000 Employees.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of 2 Days D Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Companies with 1,000 to 10,000
Employees.
in Programs Greater Than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
AA
35
30
25
Number of Programs 20
15
L'd
N
10
5
0
'-4
w
'-
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31% >30%<41% >40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Companies with from 1,000 to 10,000 Employees.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
>70%<81% >80%<91%
Employees.
>60%<71%
>50%<61%
to 10,000
>40%<51%
1,000
>20%<31%
10%
or :
< >10%<21%
with from
Companies>30%<41%
SProgram Length
of LIProgram
LengthParticipation.
of [ Program Length of
Percentage
of Total Class
1 week
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
[]Program Length of E Program Length of e Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
>90%
•y
University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Companies with Greater Than 10,000 Employees
in Programs Less Than One Week. (1990)
Number of Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21% >20%<31% >30%<41% >40%<51% >50%<61% >60%<71% >70t<81% >80%<91%
Companies with Greater Than 10,000 Employees.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
M Program Length of 2 Days OIProgram Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs
and Companies with Greater Than 10,000 Employees
in Programs Greater Than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of Programs
_
I
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
·
i~L
·
>20%<31% >30%<41%
·
-
I
I
I
I
>40%<51% >50%<61% >60%<71% >70%<81% >80%<91%
Companies with Greater Than 10,000 Employees.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of
1 week
E Program Length of 2 Program Length of
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
[Program Length of [ Program Length of I Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
I
>90%
Total Number of Programs that had Participants from the Different Management
Levels.
The Length of the Programs is from 2 Days to 52 Weeks. (1990-1991)
(Taken from a list of 369 Programs. Participation is from 1% to 100% of the
class total.)
350
325
300
275
O
250
225
200
Number of 175
Programs
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
i
Entry Level Managers
Middle Level
Managers
Upper-Middle Level
Managers
Senior Level Mangers
O Programs Greater Than or Equal to One Week E Programs Less than One Week
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Management Participation in
Programs of All Lengths.
160
140
120
100
Number of
Programs
80
60
40
20
0
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Percent Participation of Managers in Programs of All Lengths.
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Entry Level Management
Participation in Programs Less Than One Week. (1990)
r-
--
Number of
Programs
__
2
1u
1
•
< or = 10%
I
--
H
-
>10%<21%
I.
-
>20%<31%
•
I-
>30%<41%
II
"
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
r
I
-A
>60%<71%
·
I
I
>70%<81%
-·
>80%<91%
·
·
>90%
Entry Level Mangers.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
1 Program Length of 2 Days O Program Length of 3 Days § Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Entry Level Management
(1991)
Participation in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week.
Number of Programs
I
< or =
10%
I
>10%<21% >20%<31% >30%<41% >40%<51% >50%<61% >60%<71%
I
>70%<81% >80%<91%
Entry Level Managers.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of N Program Length of 0 Program Length of
1 week
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
[ Program Length of E Program Length of
52 Weeks
6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Middle Management
Particiaption in Programs Less Than One Week. (1990)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
Middle Level Manager.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of 2 Days O Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Middle Level Management
Participation in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Middle Level Mangers.
Percentage of Total Class Participation
SProgram Length of
1 week
I Program Length of 0 Program Length of
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
e Program Length of E Program Length of 9 Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Upper-Middle Management
Participation in Programs Less Than One Week. (1990)
Number of
Programs
< or
10%
=
>10%<21%
>20%< 31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
bIiI
>60%<71%
>7 0t<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
Upper-Middle Level Managers.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
M Program Length of 2 Days O Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Upper-Middle Management
Participation in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Upper-Middle Level Managers.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of
1 week
l Program Length of 0 Program Length of
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
SProgram Length of ED Program Length of 19Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Senior Management
Participation in Programs Less Than One Week Long. (1990)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%t<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
Senior Level Managers.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
SProgram Length of 2 Days
l Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Senior Management
Participation in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Senior Level Managers.
Percentage of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of O-Program Length of 0 Program Length of
1 week
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
[ Program Length of ElProgram Length of 1 Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
Total Number of Programs that had Participants from
the Different Functional Areas of a Company.
The Length of the Programs is from 2 Days to 52 Weeks. (1990-1991)
(Participation is from 1% to 100% of the class total.)
300
275
250
225
200
175
Number of
Programs 150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Administra Financial
tive
and
Managers Accounting
Managers
General
Managers
Human
Resource
Managers
Logistics
Managers
Marketing
and Sales
Managers
Operations Purchasing Technical
and
Managers
Managers
Production
Managers
- Programs Greater Than or Equal to One Week Long N Programs Less Than One Week Long
Other
Managers
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Functional Manager
Participation in Programs of All Lengths.
675
gig
Number of
Programs
i
I-------~ ------.
'NE
c--·
..
0%
:It-.
< or=
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
Percent Participation of Managers in Programs of All Lengths.
Other Managers
E Logistics
Managers
[ Technical
Managers
Human Resource
Managers
E Purchasing
Managers
Operations and
Production
Managers
9 General Managers OIFinancial and
Accounting
Managers
~Marketing and
Sales Managers
n Administrative
Managers
University-Based Executive Education Programs and General Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week. (1990)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
General Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
U Program Length of 2 Days O Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and General Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
General Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of
1 week
I Program Length of E Program Length of
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
* Program Length of E Program Length of 0 Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Operations and Production
Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week. (1990)
Number of
Programs
< or =
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
10%
Operations and Production Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of 2 Days
L Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Operations and Production
Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
EA
< or
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
EMII
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Operations and Production Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
*Program
1 week
Length of D Program Length of 0 Program Length of
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
* Program Length of El Program Length of 0 Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Marketing and Sales Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week. (1990)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
Marketing and Sales Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of 2 Days
O Program
Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Marketing and Sales Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Marketing and Sales Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of
1 week
E[
Program Length of []Program Length of
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
* Program Length of E Program Length of []Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Financial and Accounting
Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week. (1990)
Number of
Programs
P-----------------------
IL\
II
I
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
I
II
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
I
>70%<81%
I L,
>80%<91%
~
rr~u
>90%
Financial and Accounting Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of 2 Days
-IProgram Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Financial and Accounting
Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Financial and Accounting Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
*Program
1 week
Length of
i Program Length of
4 Weeks
D Program Length of 0 Program Length of
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
I Program Length of 9 Program Length >
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Administrative Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week.
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50t<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
Administrative Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of 2 Days O Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Administrative Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Administrative Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
SProgram Length of
1 week
L-Program
2 Weeks
Length of 0 Program Length of
3 Weeks
* Program Length of E Program Length of [ Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Technical Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week. (1990)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
Technical Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
1 Program Length of 2 Days [ Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Technical Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Technical Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of O Program Length of 0 Program Length of
1 week
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
* Program Length of S Program Length of 1 Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Human Resource Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week. (1990)
SI
Number of
Programs
[
I7
I
1
I
am
< or =
>10%<21%
n
>20%<31%
m
.
>30%<41%
-L~
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
, Iu. -II M
>70%<81%
10%
>80%<91%
>90%
Human Resource Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of 2 Days O Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Human Resource Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
--
-------
Ii
10
5
0
II
11U
< or
10%
=
>10%<21%
11
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Human Resource Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
* Program Length of O Program Length of E Program Length of
1 week
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
* Program Length of E Program Length of 9 Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Logistics Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
5-·
Number of
Programs
Iir
< or = 10%
I-I
w
0)
I
>10%<21%
>20t<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Logistics Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of Li Program Length of [ Program Length of
1 week
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
* Program Length of El Program Length of E Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Purchasing Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or = 10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
Purchasing Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
* Program Length of L Program Length of [ Program Length of
1 week
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
[ Program Length of E Program Length of E Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Other Managers
Participating in Programs Less than One Week. (1990)
Number of
Programs
< or
=
10% >10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50t<61%
>60%<71t
>70%<81%
>80%<91%
>90%
Other Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of 2 Days O Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs and Other Managers
Participating in Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week. (1991)
Number of
Programs
< or =
10%
>10%<21%
>20%<31%
>30%<41%
>40%<51%
>50%<61%
>60%<71%
>70%<81%
>80%(91%
Other Managers
Percent of Total Class Participation.
m Program Length of
1 week
O
Program Length of 0 Program Length of
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
* Program Length of E Program Length of 1 Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
>90%
EXHIBIT 31
PARTICIPATION ACCORDING TO AGE
NUMBER OF
PROGRAMS
AGE
ITH SIM % OF
RANGE
RANGE
TOTAL
23-60
16
4.34%
26-45
26-55
19
30
26-65
30-45
30-55
NUMBER OF
PROGRAMS
MEDIAN ITH SAM % OF
AGE
MEDIAN TOTAL
31
1
0.27%
5.15%
8.13%
32
33
4
2
1.08%
0.54%
42
11.38%
34
6
1.63%
9
67
2.44%
18.16%
35
36
16
12
4.34%
3.25%
30-65
36
9.76%
37
8
2.17%
35-50
35-55
35-65
9
41
16
2.44%
11.11%
4.34%
38
39
40
19
13
43
5.15%
3.52%
11.65%
40-70
N/A
5
79
1.36%
21.41%
41
42
43
44
45
46
13
37
31
24
24
5
3.52%
10.03%
8.40%
6.50%
6.50%
1.36%
47
1
0.27%
49
1
0.27%
50
3
0.81%
48
51
N/A
TOTAL
369
100.00%
106
1
1
0.27%
0.27%
104
28.18%
369
100.00%
EXHIBIT 32
Age of Participants in Existing Executive Education Programs
,Vn
I
60
I-
50
Number of
Programs with
Similar Range
40
30
20
- 16
10
5
-1-
0i
4-
t-
I-
4
23-60
26-45
26-55
26-65
30-45
t
+
4
30-55
-F
30-65
35-50
t
35-55
35-65
40-70
N/A
Age Range
120
I
100
80
Number of
Programs with
Same Median
31
32 33
34
35
36
24 24
19
16 --,
37
38 39
40
41 42
43
Median Age
107
44 45
46
47
48
49
50
51
N/
A
University-Based Executive Education Programs Less than One Week Long
and the Median Age of the Participants.
Number of
Programs
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
50
55
Median Age of Participants in 1990
U
Program Length of 2 Days
E Program Length of 3 Days 0 Program Length of 4 Days
University-Based Executive Education Programs One Week or Greater in Length and
the Median Age of the Participants.
Number
of
Programs
i
32
33
34
35
36
37
42 43 44 45
Median Age of Participants in 1991
38
39
40
41
46
47
* Program Length of O Program Length of [ Program Length of
1 Week
2 Weeks
3 Weeks
[ Program Length of E Program Length of [ Program Length >
4 Weeks
5 Weeks
or = 6 Weeks
48
nL
m~
49
50
University-Based Executive Education Programs (2 Days to 52 Weeks)
The Median Age and Managerial Levels of the Participants. (1990-1991)
Number of Programs
having Participants from
the various Managerial
Levels.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Median Age of Participants
SEntry Level Managers
E Middle Level Managers [ Upper-Middle Level
Managers
*
Senior Level Managers
University-Based Executive Education Programs Less Than One Week Long.
The Median Age and Managerial Levels of the Participants. (1990)
__
1
--·1r;
~
rr
a
a
Number of Prtograms having
Participants from the
various Managerial Levels.
M
w
-M
tog
a
fi
,i
D
',1,ll
I
32
I
I
33
34
I
35
I
36
'Mo-r 64004
I
37
38
Iw iv
I
39
r;
40
lh~
,
al
,
41
42
43
616 I
44
ISI
I
45
46
I
47
1
48
Median Age of Participants
K
Entry Level Managers
E]Middle Level Managers ERUpper-Middle Level
Managers
U
Senior Level Managers
-
49
50
University-Based Executive Education Programs Greater than or Equal to One Week.
The Median Age and Managerial Levels of the Participants. (1991)
Number of Programs having
Participants from the
various Managerial Levels
32
I
33
Entry Level Managers
34
35
36
37
38
39 40 41 42 43 44
Median Age of Participants
O]Middle Level Managers REUpper-Middle Level
Managers
-~--~
45
46
47
48
* Senior Level Managers
49
50
UNIVERSITY-BASED EXECUTIVE PROGRAMS
(Programs less than one week)
INCLUD. INCLUD.
INCLUD. INCLUD.
ROOM,
HEALS
SOME
MO. OF
UNIVERSITY/INSTITUTE NAME PROGRAM TITLE
Menninger Management Institute Managing Organizational Change and Resolving Conflict
University of Washington
University of Washington
University of Washington
Rice University
Rice University
niversity of Washington
Indiana University
Indiana University
University of Notre Dame
University of Notre Dame
University of Notre Dame
University of Houston
University of Houston
University of Houston
spen Institute
niversity of Rochester
niversity of Rochester
iversity of Rochester
University of Rochester
University of Illinois
Vanderbilt University
orthern Illinois University
,_.__...
__
university
University
University
University
University
_,
•,
...
_
_
or Chicago
of Chicago
of Chicago
of Chicago
of Chicago
DAYS TUITION
HEALS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
$350
$425
$425
$425
$495
$495
$495
$500
$500
$525
$525
$575
$595
$595
$595
0
O
0
0
Weekends at Wye
2
8600
X
Management cost Accounting
Advances in Manufacturing Systems Design
Manufacturing costs and Performance Measurement
Uptime Management: Reliability, Maintenance and Support
Fundamentals of Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Exec.
Managing the Manager
Vendor Certification
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
$690
$690
$690
$690
$695
$695
$795
$795
$795
$795
$795
$795
Marketing Research
Managing Change
Successful Negotiating Skills
How to Manage the Sales Force
Successful Negotiation Skills
Sales Management and Strategies
Production Management: Inventory Control in the Computer Age
Production Management: Manufacturing Management in the 1990's
Credit Analysis
Psychology of Persuasion
Business Forecasting Using a PC
Advanced Purchasing Workshop
Essentials of Purchasing
Purchasing Negotiation Skills
.
. ..
Developing MHarketing Plans
Marketing Communications
Measurements for Competitive Marketing Strategy
Sales Force Productivity Strategies
Customer Satisfaction: Management Strategies and Tactics
ONLY
HEALS
X
X
O
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
0
O
O
O
O
...
University
University
University
iversity
University
University
University
University
University
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
Illinois
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
Simplified Strategic Planning for Small to Mid Sized Comp.
Total Quality Management
Building the Winning Organization
Customer Satisfaction: The New Competitive Edge
Increasing Sales Force Productivity
Making Your Marketing Strategy Work
Market. Prof. Services: Advanced Strategies for Implementation
Marketing Strategy and Planning
Product Profiling
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
$795
$795
$795
$795
$795
$795
$795
$795
$795
University of North Carolina
versity of North Carolina
niversity of North Carolina
niversity of North Carolina
niversity of North Carolina
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
CA Institute of Technology
CA Institute of Technology
CA Institute of Technology
CA Institute of Technology
2
2
2
$795
$795
$795
X
X
X
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
$795
$795
$900
$900
$985
$985
$985
$985
X
X
0
O
O
0
0
0
CA Institute of Technology
CA Institute of Technology
University of CA, L. A.
Aspen Institute
Strategic Planning for the $10-to $50-Million Company
Customer-Driven Manuf.: The Manufacuring-Marketing Connection
Increasing Productivity of Professional Services
Just-inTime: Managing Lead Times and Delivery Reliability
Manufacturing Strategy for competitive Advantage
Employee Discipline and Grievance Handling
How to Prepare and Win More Arbitration Cases
Artificial Intel.: Understanding and Dev. Strategic Appl.
Manuf. Cost Strategies: Meeting the Competitive Challenge
Bld., Exctng. & Intgrtd. Strategic Plan: Linking Mrktng., R&D,
Mngng. Techn. as a Strat. Resource: Positioning for Comp. Adv.
Just-in-time Manufacturing
Manufacturing Strategies: Building for the Future
Role of the Board of Directors
The Future of the Corporation
2
2
2
2
$985
$985
$995
$1,000
O
O
0
X
Aspen Institute
Northwestern University
CA Institute of Technology
The Corporation and the Changing International System
The Art of Venturing: Entrepreneurship for the Businessperson
Restructuring Your Manuf. Oper.: A Framework for Organ. Change
2
2
2
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
X
Center for Creative Leadership
University of Illinois
Northwestern University
Northwestern University
Designing Systems for Executive Development
Pension Fund Management in Volatile Markets
Communicating with the Japanese Business World
Strategic Financial Planning
2
2
2
2
$1,200
$1,250
$1,450
$1,450
University of
Georgia State
University of
University of
Marketing Strategy, Analysis and Decisions
Finance and Accounting for NOn-FinancialManagers
Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Executives
Finance for Non-Financial Managers
3
3
3
3
$500
$655
$700
$725
Washington
University
Washington
Notre Dame
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
.
O
O
O
c
X
0
0
X
0O
X
X
0
0
0
0
I
Indiana University
Indiana University
Indiana University
Indiana University
Indiana University
Vanderbilt University
niversitv of North Carnlina
.....
. . .. -a....
University of North Carolina
m
· II~LI··~C~iC··
C·C
~-·~--
wu Lwans
-L
.
.
..
Ill-L
Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Managers
Improving Management Skills
Fundamentals fo Marketing Management
Leadership for the 1990's
Organizing and Managing for Customer Satisfaction
Effective Management Techniques
RW4iv~,,•
4-^%r
he w
N..
sw
..iaa.I .
..
. .
..
.. ,,,
'-,-=L
on,-• l•.
an age.Jr
Pricing Strategies for Maximized Profits
.
.
.
.
.
.
Il-------L·
.
..
.
accounting ror non-Accounting Managers
niversity of Texas at Austin Financ. Dcsn. Making: Integ. Strtegies for the Non-Financ. Mng
University of Texas at Austin Managing Salespeople for Performance
university of Texas at Austin Marketing Strategy for Competitive Advantage
University of Texas at Austin
Customer Service: The New Competitive Advantage
niversity of Illinois
Bond Analysis and Portfolio Management
niversity of Chicago
Creating New Products and Services
niversity of Chicago
Industrial Marketing
University of Chicago
Marketing Analysis and Tactical Decision Making
niversity of Chicago
Marketing Strategy and Planning
University of Chicago
Pricing Strategy and Tactics
Brookings Institute
Issues in Telecommunications Policy
Brookings Institute
Federal budget: Fiscal Year 1991
Brookings Institute
The U.S. in the World Economy: Policy Issues and Choices
rookings Institute
Financ. Nation. Health Care: Tradeoffs - Access and Cost Contr
rookings Institute
Tne National Security Agenda for the 1990's
rookings Institute
Science, Technology, and Industrial Productivity
University of Michigan
Classroom Training Techniques
versity of Michigan
Interviewing: A Strategic Approach
ter for Creative Leadership Values in Action
niversity of Michigan
Advanced Financial Analysis for Commercial Lending
niversity of Michigan
Basic Management for the Newly Appointed Manager
nversity of Michigan
Effective Managerial Coaching and Counseling
niversity of Michigan
Managing International Joint Ventures
niversity of Michigan
Marketing for Non-Marketing Managers
University of Michigan
Meeting the Japanese Challenge: Building Competitive Organizat
Center for Creative Leadership Managing for Commitment
IJvwawix
at. nusitn
3
3
3
3
3
3
$750
$750
$750
$750
$750
$825
3
$895X
3
X
x
X
X
$895
·
O
·
·
~
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
$925
$925
$925
$925
$925
$950
$975
O
0
O
O
O
0•
O
3
3
3
3
$975
$975
$975
$975
O
0
0
O
3
3
$990
$990
X
x
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
$990
$990
$990
$990
$1,050
$1,050
$1,250
xI
X
3
3
3
3
$1,350
$1,350
$1,350
$1,380
O
0
0
0
3
3
3
$1,380
$1,380
$1,500 f
0
Ix
x
0
0
D
2
D
0
I
(7
Stanford University
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
Northwestern University
Northwestern University
Northwestern University
Northwestern University
Northwestern University
Northwestern University
Stanford University
Stanford University
University of Pennsylvania
Mass. Institute of Techn.
Henninger Management Inst.
Vanderbilt University
Rice University
Vanderbilt University
Washington and Lee University
Case Western Reserve Univ.
University of Michigan
Vanderbilt University
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
University of Virginia
University of Virginia
Northwestern University
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
University of Pennsylvania
Dartmouth College
Vanderbilt University
Financial seminar for Non-Financial Managers
Effective Sales Management
Strategies in Sales Management for Sales Executives
Delegation and the Team Effort: People and Performance
Strategic Management of Technology
Advanced Futures and Options Strategies for Prof. Financial Man
Credit Analysis and Financial Reporting
Managing Financial Risk with Futures and Options
Decision-Making Strategies for Managers
Negotiation Strategies for Managers
Managing Communications in the Changing Marketplace
Program on Managing Innovation
Program on Market Strategy for Technology-Based Companies
Chief Executives and Senior Officers of Family-Held Businesses
Current Issues in Information Systems
Work and Family: Understanding Change, Health and Growth
Training the Trainer
Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Managers
Essentials of Purchasing for the Newly Appointed Buyer
Institute for Family Business
Advanced Management Program for M.B.A.'s
Cost Effective Purchasing Management
Effective Marketing Techniques
Financial Analysis, Planning and Control
Business to Business Marketing Strategies
Leadership for Extraordinary Performance
Managing Organizational and Individual Change
Developing a Corporate Pension Strategy
Project Management
Gaining Competitive Advantage
The Next Generation of Family Members in Family-Held Businesses
Stategic Cost Accounting and Control
What Executives Should Know About Finance and Accounting
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4.5
$1,600
$1,770
$1,770
$1,770
$1,770
$1,825
$1,825
$1,825
$1,825
$1,825
$1,825
$2,200
$2,200
$2,400
$2,400
$600
$825
$995
$1,025
$1,350
$1,500
$1,640
$1,650
$1,770
$1,770
$2,000
$2,000
$2,300
$2,360
$2,360
$2,400
$3,200
$1,650
X
X
I
0
I
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
0
O
0
X
0
X
1
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
UNIVERSITY-BASED EXECUTIVE PROGRAMS
(Programs longer than one week)
NO.
OF
IMTVR1DQT' V'/TIMQTTE' UAME
Texas A&M University
University of California, L. A.
Indiana University
University of Miami
Center for Creative Leadership
University of Houston
University of Pittsburgh
Dartmouth College
Texas Christian University
University of Virginia
Northwestern University
orthwestern University
ODGRADM
.TI..
1W&EES TUITWION
Management Seminar
Engineering and Management Program
Values, Choice, and Executive Action-An Executive Devel. Progra
Minority Executive Program
Implementing Innovation
Managing Operations
Executive Program for Expanding Companies
Minority Business Executive Program
Managing Managers Program
McIntire Enterpreneurial Executive Institute
Transportation Marketing Strategy
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$1,250
$1,795
$1,800
$1,850
$1,950
$1,950
82,000
$2,200
$2,250
$2,250
$2,290
Logistics/Distribution
Management
INCLUD. INCLUD.
ROOM,
HEALS
EALOW OLY
O
O
X
X
X
0
O
X
X
X
X
1
$2,290
X
versity of Chicago
Product Management: Analysis, Planning, Decision Making
ornell University
The Effective Executive
erge Washington University
Managing in the Global Marketplace
Georgia State University
Management Development Program
Rutgers University
Advanced Management Program
University of Tennessee
Engineer/Scientist as Manager
..
Carnegie Mellon University
Strategic Management of Technology Through the 1990's
Center for Creative Leadership Dynamics of Strategy: Goals into Action
Washington Campus
Business and the Public Process: How Washington Works
University of California, L. A. Advanced Program in Human Resource Management
Simmons College
Managing with Influence
University of Virginia
Strategic Management for Line Managers
University of Virginia
Mergers and Acquisitions: Strategy and Implementation
Babson College
Changing Role of Procurement Management
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$2,295
$2,495
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,695
$2,750
$2,750
$2,750
$2,800
I
I
O
X
X
X
I
I
University of Tennessee
1
1
$2,800
$2,800
X
X
University
of Tennessee
Executive Development Program for Distribution Managers
International Logistics Program
INCLUD.
AIRFAR
X
X
X
X
X
,,
X
Cornell University
Southern Methodist University
Center for Creative Leadership
Northwestern University
orthwestern University
orthwestern University
versity of CA, Berkeley
CA. Institute of Technology
Managing the Next Generation of Manufacturing
Financial Management for Non-Financial Managers
Managing the People Process: From Idea to Market Entry
Corporate Financial Strategy
Managing Human Resources in Restructuring Organizations
Development Manufacturing's Strategic Potential
Competitve Marketing Strategies for Industrial Products
Management of Technology and Innovation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$2,850
$2,950
$2,974
$3,100
$3,100
$3,100
$3,100
$3,150
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
Baoson college
Achieving Global Integration
1
$3,200
X
Babson College
Babson College
Duke University
Duke University
Penn State University
Penn State University
University of CA, Berkeley
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
University of Virginia
University of Virginia
University of Virginia
University of Virginia
University of Virginia
University of Virginia
*niversity
of Virginia
University of Washington
University of CA, Berkeley
Aspen Institute
University of California, L. A.
Boston University
Boston University
Center for Creative Leadership
Dartmouth College
University of Tennessee
University of Tennessee
Managing and Devel. Human Resources: a Strategic Perspective
Market Segmentation Positioning and Competitive Advantage
Dynamics of Competitive Advantage
Managerial Finance
Management Program for Women
Industrial Sales Management Program
Management Development, A Comprehensive Approach
Management II: A Mid-Management Development Program
Applied Methods in Marketing Research
Creating the High-Performance Workplace
Eval. of Capital Projects: Appraisal in Uncertain Environments
Financial Management for Non-Financial Managers
The Art of Managing Human Resources
The Power of Info.: A Strategic appr. to Manag. Info. Resource
Marketing Strategy: Business to Business
Sales Management and Marketing Strategy
International Management: Doing Business in Japan
Advanced Strategic Marketing
Traditional Executive Seminar
Managing the Information Resource
Strategic Human Resources Management in a Global Economy
Implementing Manufacturing Strategy
Workshop in Organizational Action
Effective Management of Production Operations
Cost Management Institute
Senior Executive Institute for Productivity Through Quality
1
1
$3,200
$3,200
X
X
1
1
1
1
1
$3,200
$3,200
$3,200
$3,200
$3,250
I
X
X
X
1
$3,250
X
(D
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$3,250
$3,250
$3,250
$3,250
$3,250
$3,250
$3,250
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$3,250
$3,250
$3,300
$3,400
$3,490
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
X
0
X
X
X
X1
X
1
X 1+
X
X
__
~__
0
0
0
C
a
o
Northwestern University
Northwestern University
Business to Business Marketing Strategy
Consumer Marketing Strategy
1
1
$3,550
$3,550
X
X
Northwestern University
Dartmouth College
Increasing Sales Force Productivity
Marketing Strategy Program
1
1
83,550
$3,600
X
X
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
Corporate Financial Management and Strategy Program
Executive Compensation
Competitive Marketing Strategies for High-Tech Products
Competitive Marketing Strategies for Services
Strategies for Global Competition
Strategy: Formulation and Implementation
Excellence in Service Management
Successful Product Innovation
Executive Communication
Management of Managers
Finance for the Non-Financial Manager
Negotiating and Administering the Labor Contract
Organizational Career Development
Strategic Collective Bargaining
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
University of Michigan
Strategic Human Resource Planning
1
$3,600
X
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
Menninger Management Institute
Menninger Management Institute
Stanford University
Brookings Institute
Columbia University
Columbia University
Columbia University
Columbia University
Clumbia University
Columbia University
Columbia University
Columbia University
Applied Product/Market Management
Business to Business Marketing Strategies
Strategic Marketing Planning
Executive Seminar
Personal and Interpersonal Dimensions of Leadership
Effective Management of Production Operations
Understanding Federal Government Operations
International Strategy
Managing Strategic Innovation and Change
Accounting and Financial Manag. for the Non-Financial Exec.
Financial Management
Human Resource Management
Market Analysis for Competitive Advantage
Marketing Management
Sales Management
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$3,600
$3,600
$3,600
$3,700
$3,700
$3,700
$3,740
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
I
X
Columbia University
Operations and Production Management
1
$3,750
I
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
CA, Berkeley
CA, Berkeley
CA, Berkeley
CA, Berkeley
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
versity
niversity
versity
versity
University
University
University
University
University
University
iversity
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Measuring and Managing Service Quality
Implementing Strategy
Strategic Management
Strategy Analysis for Finance and Marketing
Managing Organizational Change
Managing Technology and Innovation
Finance and Accounting for the Non-Financial Manager
Financial Management
Mergers and Acquisitions
Pension Funds and Money Management
Advanced Competitive Marketing Strategy
nrrri···rllrr~rr
-r
Il-------r---~-I
I~~~_·
·u5IvJ.rVUL
ur renrnsylvana
Duszness/Lnaustrial Marketing Strategy
niversity of Pennsylvania
New Product Management: Development and Introduction
niversity of Pennsylvania
Sales Force Management
Stanford University
Advanced Management College
Mass. Institute of Techn.
Executive Program in Corporate Strategy
ass. Institute of Techn.
Executive Program in Manage. Issues for Corporate Counsel
ass. Institute of Techn.
Executive Program in Mangement of Complex Organizations
ass. Institute of Techn.
Executive Program in Japanese Technology Management
ass. Institute of Techn.
Executive Program in Financial Management
orthwestern University
Merger Week
Center for Creative Leadership Leadership Development Program
University of Michigan
Corporate Financial Management
Columbia University
Leading and Managing People
Harvard University
Contemporary Developments and Control
Stanford University
Manufacturing Strategy for Competitive Advantage
Aspen Institute
Corporation in Contemporary Society
enter for Creative Leadership Leadership at the Peak
arvard University
Executive Program in Competitive Strategy
aniversity of Minnesota
Management Academy
Stanford University
Executive Program in the Humanities
Colorado State University
Executive Development Institute
Texas A&H University
Management Development Program
Harvard University
Institute for the Management of Lifelong Education
iversity of Richmond
Management Development Program
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
83,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
$3,750
1
$3,750
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.6
1.8
2
2
2
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
$3,750
X
$3,750
X
$3,900
X
$4,000
X
$4,000
X
$4,000
X
$4,000
X
$4,000
X
$4,100
I
$4,200
1X
$4,200
X
$4,500
X
$4,500
X
$4,900
X
$5,300
X
$6,490
I
$7,500
1
$1,800
O
$5,200
X
$1,695
X
$2,800
$2,980
1X
$3,950 1
X
·
1
X
Emory University
University of Iowa
Tulane University
University of Georgia
Princeton University
University of Tennessee
Rice University
Northwestern University
Babson College
Southern Methodist University
Carnegie Mellon University
University of Maryland
Penn State University
Pnn State University
Penn State University
Boston University
Babson College
Penn State University
Penn State University
Penn State University
Penn State University
Penn State University
Duke University
Duke University
e University
niversity of Virginia
University of Virginia
niversity of Virginia
Penn State University
University of Michigan
University of Michigan
Columbia University
artmouth College
Varvard University
Oarvard University
Management Development Program
Executive Development Program
Program for Managers
Executive Program
"Ten Days at Princeton" Foreign Exec. Development Program
Admin. and Service Inst. for Productivity Through Quality
Advanced Management Institute
Advanced Transportation Management
Developing Managerial Effectiveness
Management of Managers: A Leadership Renewal Program
Program for Technical Managers
Executive Development Program
Financial Analysis for Strategic Management Program
Program for Logistics Executives
Strategic Purchasing Management Program
Managment Development Program
Technology Managers Program
Program for Strategic Leadership
Human Resources Management Program
Industrial Marketing Management Program
Manufacturing Strategy and Technology Program
Engineer/Scientist as Manager Program
Program for Manager Development
Strategic Human Resources Management Program
Marketing Management Program
Managing Critical Resources
Marketing and Sales Executives
Manufacturing Management Program
Managing the Global Enterprise Program
Human Resource Executive Program
Manufacturing Executive Program
Business Strategy
Dartmouth Institute
Corporate Financial Management
Managing the Information Services Resource
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
$3,975
$4,200
$4,250
$4,250
$4,500
$4,500
$4,580
$4,650
$4,900
$4,950
$5,100
$5,200
$5,300
$5,300
$5,300
$5,400
$5,500
$5,900
$5,900
$5,900
$5,900
$5,900
$6,000
$6,000
$6,000
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$6,900
$7,200
$7,200
$7,500
$7,500
$7,500
$7,500
_
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
I
I
i
I
I
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
I
X
I
X
X
Harvard University
Marvard University
University of CA, L. A.
University of Michigan
Stanford University
Stanford University
Stanford University
Mass. Institute of Techn.
Stanford University
Stanford University
Carnegie Mellon University
II···LI··~CC·i
C1·
· · rC Yil-~---L-
AIv=•LMrL
uVi
inawmu-a
Carnegie Mellon University
Texas A&M University
University of New Hampshire
Indiana University
Indiana University
arvard University
niversity of Tennessee
niversity of Chicago
arvard University
Simmons College
niversity of Virginia
orthwestern University
niversity of Pennsylvania
University of Tennessee
University of Houston
Dhio State University
nversity of Illinois
ry University
niversity of CA, Berkeley
ke University
eno State University
nn State University
oston University
Strategic Marketing Management Program
Manufacturing in Corporate Strategy
Advanced Executive Program
Advanced Human Resource Executive Program
Executive Program for Smaller Companies
Financial Management Program
Marketing Management Program
Manag. of R. & D., and Technology-Based Innovation
Executive Program in Organizational Change
Engineering Executive Program
College Management Program
I··-------_~_nanagement institute
Senior Executive Seminar
Advanced Management Program
Executive Development Program
Managing Business Strategies Program
Professional Manager Program
Program for Senior Managers in Government
Institute for Productivity Through Quality
Management Development Seminar
Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government
Program for Developing Managers
Young Managers' Program
Executive Development Program
International Forum
Executive Development Program
Executive Development Program
Executive Development Program
Executive Development Program
Advanced Management Program
Executive Program
Advanced Managment Program
Executive Management Program
Program for Executive Development
Leadership Institute
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
·
$*7,500
$7,500
$7,500
$7.600
$7,950
$7,950
$7,950
$8,000
$8,950
$6,200
$4,200
$4,800
$4,900
$5,300
$5,700
$6,500
$6,500
$6,700
$6,700
$6,900
$7,000
·
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
I
X
X
O
X
·
·
_~
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
3
3
3
3
3.6
$7,000
$8,500
$10,000
$30,000
$8,700
I
I
X
X
X
4
4
4
$9,950
$10,000
$10,000
X
I
I
4
4
4
4
4
4
$11,000
$11,500
$12,000
$12,500
$12,500
$13,500
X
I
1
1
X
0
O
Columbia University
Exec. Program in Business Admin.:
Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Michigan
Yale University
Dartmouth College
versity of Minnesota
illiams College
University of North Carolina
University of North Carolina
Northeastern University
Exec. Program in International Manag.:
Advanced Executive Program
Executive Program
Executive Management Program
Tuck Executive Program
Executive Program
Executive Program
Young Executives Institute
Executive Program
Executive Development Program
Ir · ___~___ r rr
AavanceO nanagment Program
Management Program for Executives
Executive Development Program
Wharton Advanced Management Program
Executive Program
Management Program
Program for Executives
Executive Program
unvewri•Ly ux nawall
University of Pittsburgh
Cornell University
University of Pennsylvania
Louisiana State University
Smith College
Carnegie Mellon University
versity of Virginia
abash College
arvard University
Simmons College
a~nloru uiversity
iversity of Arizona
arvard University
arvard University
ass. Institute of Techn.
arvard University
arvard University
versity of North Carolina
University of Illinois
Princeton University
Stanford University
niversity of Illinois
ass. Institute of Techn.
Man. the Enterprise
Han. for Global Success
Executive Program-A Personal Development Program
Program for Senior Executive Fellows
Program for Developing Executives
tSm
Executive Program
Executive Development Course
International Senior Management Program
Owner/President Management Program
Program for Senior Executives
Advanced Management Program
Program for Management Development
Program for Technology Managers
Specialized Program for International Managers
Executive Education Program in Public Affairs
Sloan Program
Program for International Managers
Sloan Fellows Program
4
$13,500
X
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
$13,500
$13,500
$13,500
$14,500
$14,800
$7,600
$8,800
$9,000
$10,500
$10,700
$11,000
$11,500
$12,500
$18,250
$3,500
$13,900
$16,100
$18,000
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
11
12
15
18
30
39
52
52
$9,000
$15,500
$17,500
$22,600
$2,900
$27,500
$29,625
$29,850
$29,000
$29,000
$5,745
$5,900
$15,540
$34,900
$17,700
$36,500
I
I
·
.
.Irr
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
0
O
O
X
O
O
CHAPTER
III
SURVEY
3.
1
Introdu
ctiCon
This survey was designed to obtain a response from a sample of
companies doing work in the field of construction. The focus was on
Executive Education Programs, both in-company and university-based. The
information retrieved from the questionnaire would help in assessing the
interest in, existing participation in, and possible demand for these
educational programs in the construction industry.
There were two mailings of the survey. The first was in the spring
of 1991. Five Hundred companies were selected from the Center for
Construction Research and Education's mailing list that were believed to
be design firms, construction companies or construction management
firms. The companies were then chosen if there was an individual
identified as a contact person. The individual preferably had the title
of President, Vice President, Chief Executive Officer, Director of Human
Resources or the like. The first mailing resulted in 82 responses
(16.4%).
Sixty-six (13.2%) of the responses were completed surveys used
in the final analysis. Forty-two (63.6% of the 66) respondents
identified themselves and their companies, therefor 24 (36.4% of the 66)
were anonymous.
The remaining 16 returned surveys of the total
responses were unusable and returned for various reasons such as the
individual has left the company or retired or is not interested in
completing the questionnaire.
The second round of surveys was mailed in the early part of the
summer of 1991. Again five-hundred names and companies were selected.
This time the sources were Engineering News Record's "Top 500 Design
Firms", "Top 400 Contractors", "Top 100 Construction Management Firms",
the American Consulting Engineers Council's Directory, and other minor
secondary sources. I endeavored not to repeat any companies both in a
mailing and with the previous mailing. Again officers of the companies
124
or Human Resources/Training and Development personnel were identified to
direct the questionnaire to.
This mailing also resulted in 82 responses.
Seventy-two (14.4%) of
the responses were completed and used in the analysis.
Thirty-four
(47.2% of the 72) respondents identified themselves, therefor 38 (52.8%
of the 72) were anonymous.
The remaining 10 returned surveys were
unusable for basically the same reasons as the first mailing.
The survey analysis was based on a total of 1000 initial mailings
and a response of 138 (13.8%) completed, useable questionnaires. The
analysis will be broken down into five parts.
information about the respondent.
The first will involve
The second part will cover aspects
about the respondent's company that help identify the interests of that
company.
The third part will be an overview of Executive Education
Programs and the companies' interest in and participation in these
The fourth part will analyze the respondent's
educational programs.
ideas about their company's participation in In-Company Executive
Education Programs.
The last section will analyze the respondent's
ideas about the company's participation in University-Based Executive
Education Programs.
Each section begins with a brief discussion of the
findings followed by related charts and tables.
Each of the one-thousand companies received a small packet of
material.
First was a cover letter informing the recipient of my
intention in addressing the survey to him or her and instruction on
redirecting the questionnaire to the appropriate person or department if
they are unable to complete the questionnaire themselves.
Next was a
page describing my intent for gathering information on company
participation in and demand for executive education programs, both incompany and university-based.
A deadline for returning the
questionnaire was given for each mailing.
envelope was included.
A return postage paid
The questionnaire consisted of 24 questions and
was printed on both sides of two legal size sheets of paper.
See
Appendix A-11i.
This report presents a statistical summary of the research findings.
It is not intended to be an in-depth analytical treatment of the survey
results, but rather a descriptive discussion of trends in the
125
construction field toward executive education and development.
The
completed questionnaire results for each company and question is located
in the Appendix. See A-12a through A-12f. This twenty-three page
exhibit lists the 138 respondents randomly, but, identifies their
particular response to each question according to their number.
The 1991 survey was designed to chart executive education and
development trends across three major construction industry groups:
Design Firms, Contraction Companies, and Construction Management Firms.
The 1000 companies receiving the questionnaire were selected from the
mailing lists and sources described above. This report presents a
composite analysis of the survey findings.
Where appropriate and where
noticeable differences were found, comparative results across the three
subgroups are reported.
3 .2
RESPONDENTS
As stated in the introduction to this section, the surveys were
addressed to the officers or Human Resources/Training and Development
personnel for each company. The questionnaire could then be completed
by that person or passed to a more relevant person. The 138
participating individuals completing the questionnaire for each
respective company are profiled in Exhibits 36, 37 and 38. The position
titles and functional areas of the individual respondents are depicted
in Exhibits 37 and 38.
The ages of the respondents are in Exhibit 39.
Over 60% (of the total 138 usable questionnaires) of the respondents
were Presidents or Vice Presidents of their companies. A few Presidents
indicated that they were also the company's CEO or a Chairman of the
Board. About half of the Vice Presidents indicated that they were
Executive Vice Presidents or VP's of particular divisions such as
Operations or Research and Development. Managers made up almost 11% of
the sampling. Of the 15 Managers, one third were from the Human
Resources department. Almost half were from Operations and the
remaining were from technical departments such as Research and
Development or Contracts and Project Administration.
126
Chairmen and CEO's comprised over 9% of the sample.
Human Resource
directors were over 50% of the respondents that indicated that they were
directors which comprised almost 8% of the total. Partners were
respondents to 8 (5.8%) of the questionnaires. Engineers were
respondents only twice. Titles that did not fall into these categories
were classified as "Other" and comprised 2% of the total.
The respondents were asked to indicate which functional area from
within the company they work.
It was sometimes difficult to distinguish
between the Executive Office, the Corporate Office, General Management,
and Administration. Many times presidents or CEOs indicated they did it
all and I would group them in the Executive Office category (21.74%)
unless they made a specific reference to Administration or another
group.
For the most part, I put respondents in the group that I felt
best fit their description of their job function.
Though only 1.45% of the respondents indicated that they were
engineers, almost 19% (second largest group) indicated that their
function within the company was Technical, Engineering or Architectural.
General Management, Administration, Human Resources, Corporate Office,
and Operations where very close in representation and in total comprised
over 50% of the total sampling.
Only 9 individuals (5.52%) worked in
Marketing and Sales or Finance.
Ninety percent of the respondents were men, while only 8% were
women, leaving 2% unidentified. The ages of the respondents ranged from
25 to 80. The largest number of respondents, 50%, were between the ages
of 45 and 59.
Seventy-five percent of the respondents were between the
ages of 40 and 64.
3.3
THE
COMPANIES
The respondents were asked to classify their companies either as a
Design Firm, a Construction Company or a Construction Management Firm.
These subgroupings were then used along with the total sampling to
analyze main trade practices, number of salaried employees, total
company billings, and billings according to classification of work.
127
These analyses are diagramed in Exhibits 40 through 51 located at the
end of the chapter.
(See Exhibit 40)
Sixty-six (47.83%) respondents indicated that
their companies were Design Firms. Construction Companies were
represented by 59 (42.75%) of the respondents and Construction
Management Firms were represented by 7 (5.07%) of the respondents.
A
little over 4% of the respondents indicated various combinations of
these three classifications or they left the question blank.
(See Exhibits 41, 42a, 42b, 42c)
The respondents were given
fourteen trade practices to choose from in identifying what their
company's main area of concentration is. The fourteen trade practices
were then condensed to best reflect the responses.
Engineer/Architect:
formerly Engineer-Architect, Architect-
Engineer, Architect
Engineer/Design Construction:
formerly Engineer-Constructors,
Design-Constructors
Consulting Engineer:
formerly Pure Consulting Engineer,
Soils/Geotechnical Engineer
Construction Manager:
formerly Project Manager, Pure Construction
Manager
Prime/General Constructor:
formerly Prime Contractor, General
Contractor
Subcontractor remains as such
Other:
were respondents who did not complete this section or
indicated other practices.
The group with the largest representation was Prime/General
Contractors.
Fifty-one of 138 respondents (36.96%) chose this area of
concentration to best describe their company's main trade practice.
Consulting Engineers were the next largest representing 38 (27.54%) of
the 138 respondents. Engineer/Architects comprised 26 companies which
was 18.84% of the total.
Subcontractors and Construction Managers were
the smallest groups representing 3.62% and 2.17% respectively.
The total number of respondents were then broken down into their
subgroupings; Design Firm, Construction Company, Construction Management
128
Firm.
Each subgrouping was then analyzed by main trade practices.
Fifty-three percent of the Design Firms chose Consulting Engineer as
their main trade.
Engineer/Architect as 37.88% of the total and
Engineer/Design Constructors and Construction Manager complete this
subgrouping with 7.58% and 1.52% respectively.
The Construction Company subgrouping was comprised mostly of
Prime/General Contractors (77.97%). This represented 108 companies.
Engineer/Design Constructors, Subcontractor, and Consulting Engineer
completes this subgrouping with representation of 11.86%, 8.47%, and
1.69% respectively.
The seven construction Management Firms were concentrating in the
areas of Prime/General Contractor (42.86%), Consulting Engineer (28.57%)
and Construction Manager (29.57%).
(See Exhibits 43, 44, 45a, 45b, 45c) The number of salaried
employees for all companies responding ranged from 0 to 4000. Almost
50% of the 138 companies have between 0 and 100 salaried employees.
Seventy-five percent of the companies have less than 300 salaried
employees.
There was then a gap between 300 and 500 employees making
the next largest group, at 14.5%, the companies with from 500 to 4000
employees.
The breakdown of the subgroupings by number of salaried employees
followed closely to the percentages of the total sampling. The largest
number in all three subgroupings was the 0 to 100 salaried employees
range. Breaking this down further shows that among the 66 Design Firms,
companies having between 11 and 25 salaried employees made up almost 25%
of the total, followed closely by firms having 26 to 50 salaried
employees.
The Construction Company subgrouping indicate having over
35% representation in the group of 0 to 10 salaried employees. The next
largest was companies having 11 to 25 salaried employees with over 25%
of the total 59 companies. The Construction Management Firms were
combined with the subgroup representing "Other" companies. Within this
group companies with from 26 to 50 salaried employees comprised 38.46%
of the total and all other ranges were equal at 15.38%.
(See Exhibits 46 through 51.) The respondents were asked to
indicate their company's billing for 1990. Thirty-one percent of the
129
billing ranged from $2 million to $19.99 million. Twenty-one percent of
the billings ranged from $50 million to $99.99 million. Over 83% of the
total billings ranged from $2 million to $299.99 million.
The respondents then completed the question classifying the billings
according to specific areas of the construction industry. The
respondent was to use percentages to indicate all areas in which their
company worked.
Using the total sampling of 138 companies, the most
common response, with 62% of the companies doing some proportion of
their work in this area, was General Building. About 40% of the
respondents' companies worked in the fields of Transportation and/or
Sewer/Waste Control. Twenty to thirty percent of the companies did work
in Water Supply Systems, Industrial Process/Petrochemicals, Hazardous
Waste, Manufacturing Plants and/or Power Systems. Some other areas of
work which contributed to their billings were heavy construction and
highways, surveying, site planning, environmental reports, mining,
marine design and fisheries.
The companies proved to be very diverse in their activities and this
is illustrated in Exhibits 47b, 48b, 49b, and 50b. Respondents
indicated what percent each activity comprised their total billings.
The largest percentage group was "</= 10%" meaning that the companies
billings were made up of 10% or less of a number of different activities
as opposed to 50% or more of one or two activities.
There were, however, a good number of companies that did specialize
in one activity. Their response would indicate billings of 100% in an
area. The most popular area in this group is General Building (55%).
Next would be Transportation and Industrial Process/Petrochemicals each
with 12% of this group.
The individual subgrouping's breakdown approximately repeats the
findings from the total sampling. General Building accounts for the
largest area of billings by the most responding companies, followed by
Transportation and Sewer/Waste Control. The subgroupings also showed to
be very divers in their activities because, again, most companies
participated in each of these activities less than or equal to 10% of
their total billings.
130
3.4
EXECUTIVE
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
The term "Executive Education Programs" refers to the training,
development, and enhancement of engineering, architectural, consulting
and contracting skills in the construction field for middle-level
management and senior-level management. The respondents were asked to
complete this questionnaire, for both In-Company Executive Education
Programs and University-Based Executive Education Programs, with this
definition in mind and for employees that fit this definition. The
results of the participating individuals completing these questions for
each respective company are profiled in Exhibits 52 through 55.
Only six of the fifty-nine Construction Companies, twelve of the
sixty-six Design Firms and two of the seven Construction Management
Firms had formal requirements for their middle-level and senior-level
managers to participate in some form of Executive Education Program.
Over 85% of the total 138 companies had no such requirement but often
sponsored or encouraged some form of educational development program.
Of the salaried employees within each company only a small
percentage of each were eligible to participate in Executive Education
Programs. Over 80% of the 138 companies stated having less than 100
eligible employees.
Over 45% of the total 138 companies stated that they do offer or can
offer in-company and university-based programs. Almost 19% stated that
they use only in-company programs. Over 15% stated that they use
university-based programs only. Twenty percents indicated that no
executive education programs are offered.
The proportions are similar when you break this sampling into the
subgroupings.
Again, the majority of the Design Firms (50%), the
Construction Companies (42.37%) and the Construction Management Firms
(71.42%) all indicate that both forms of executive programs are offered
or can be offered. Over 25% of the Design Firms state that only incompany programs are offered. While 13.56% and 14.29% of the
Construction Companies and Construction Management Firms offer only incompany programs.
Over 18% of the Construction Companies offer only
131
university-based programs only, while 10.6% of the Design Firms only
offer these programs. The Construction Management Firms indicate that
they do not offer University-Based Executive Education Programs.
Executive Education Programs Offered by Companies
NONE
20.29%
UNIVERSITY &
IN-COMPANY
45.65%
UNIVERSITY
ONLY
15.22%
IN-COMPANY
ONLY
18.84%
Design Firms
13.63%
50%
10.61%
25.76%
Construction
Companies
25.43%
42.37%
18.64%
13.56%
Construction
Management Firms
14.29%
71.42%
0%
14.29%
INDUSTRY
SEGMENT
Overall Industry
Respondents were asked to review a list of potential program topics
and subject matter that could be incorporated in Executive Education
Programs. The respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they
believed each topic is valued by their company. A number range was
given with "1" being not valued or the least valued and "5" being the
most valued. The following is the list of topics and their score in
order of most valued to least valued.
PROGRAM TOPICS AND SUBJECT MATTER
SCORE
1.
Project Management
560
2.
537
3.
Leadership, Motivation, Communication
Project Control, Scheduling, Estimating
4.
Corporate/Business Strategy Development
488
5.
Executive Decision Making
480
6.
7.
8.
General Management
Marketing
Emerging Technologies and Technology Trends
479
468
9.
Emerging Markets and Market Trends
450
132
521
458
10.
Law in the Construction Industry
420
11.
12.
Strategy Implementation
Finance and Accounting
416
13.
Organizational Change and Development
405
14.
403
15.
Human Resource Management
Production and Operations Management
16.
Information and Decision Support Systems
380
17.
Technology Management
362
18.
Executive Computer Skills
342
19.
Sales Management
340
20.
Business-Government Relations
312
21.
Logistics Management
310
22.
278
23.
Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures
Research and Development Management
262
24.
Global Business Environment
258
25.
International Finance
218
26.
World Trade and Economics
209
27.
Humanities and Liberal Arts
204
410
386
The top ten topics of interest for Design Firms, Construction
Companies and Construction Management Firms are separately listed below.
Note that approximately 80% of the top ten topics are identical among
One difference is that Emerging Markets and Market
Trends, and Human Resource Management falls within the top ten for
Design Firms only. Law in the Construction Industry is found in
subgroupings.
Construction Companies' and Construction Management Firms' top ten
rankings only. Strategy Implementation is only located in the top ten
ranking for Construction Companies.
Production and Operations
Management, and Organizational Change and Development are topics found
only in Construction Management Firms' top ten list.
DESIGN FIRMS' TOP TEN LIST OF
PROGRAM TOPICS AND SUBJECT MATTER
SCORE
1.
Project Management
272
2.
Leadership, Motivation, Communication
244
133
3.
Project Control, Scheduling, Estimating
244
4.
5.
Corporate/Business Strategy Development
Marketing
236
223
6.
General Management
222
7.
Emerging Markets and Market Trends
Emerging Technologies and Technology Trends
219
211
10.
Executive Decision Making
Human Resource Management
1.
CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES' TOP TEN LIST OF
PROGRAM TOPICS AND SUBJECT MATTER
Leadership, Motivation, Communication
8.
9.
213
188
SCORE
240
Project Management
Project Control, Scheduling, Estimating
235
221
6.
Executive Decision Making
Corporate/Business Strategy Development
Emerging Technologies and Technology Trends
203
7.
General Management
202
8.
Law in the Construction Industry
201
9.
Marketing
201
10.
Strategy Implementation
191
2.
3.
4.
5.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRMS'
TOP TEN LIST OF
PROGRAM TOPICS AND SUBJECT MATTER
224
211
SCORE
Leadership, Motivation, Communication
Project Management
30
General Management
Project Control, Scheduling, Estimating
Emerging Technologies and Technology Trends
28
25
25
8.
Executive Decision Making
Law in the Construction Industry
Production and Operations Management
9.
Marketing
23
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
134
29
28
25
24
10.
Organizational Change and Development
Other topics of interests that were mentioned by at least one of the
respondents were: Ethics in Business, Listening Training, LaborManagement Relations, Presentation Skills, Quality Assurance, and How to
Perform Construction Work Outside the United States.
3 . 4. 1
IN-COMPANY
EDUCAT ION
EXECUTIVE
PROGRAMS
The respondents were asked to complete this section according to
what they believe best represents their company's actions and attitudes
towards In-Company Executive Education Programs.
Of the 138
respondents, only 75% on average answered this section of the
questionnaire, therefor the analysis reflects this response. The graphs
represent participation by each of the subgroupings. These analyses are
diagramed in Exhibits 56 through 63.
In-Company Executive Education Programs were offered and/or
available to eligible executives by eighty-nine (64.5%) of the
responding companies. Fifty-six percent of these are Design Firms,
37.08% are Construction Companies, and 6.74% are Construction Management
Firms.
Forty percent of the companies completing this section of the
questionnaire stated that only top managers select the Executive
Education Programs and individuals to participate in these programs.
Fifteen percent of the companies stated that only immediate supervisors
are responsible for this task. Only 9% of the companies felt that all
levels of management as well as the participant should have some input
in who participates in in-company programs and what the programs should
be. Another 9% felt that everyone superior to the individual should
choose the contents of the program and who attends.
Eighty-five percent of the respondents said that in-company programs
are offered and available to both middle-level managers and senior-level
managers. Thirty percent of the respondents said that these programs
135
are only available to middle-level managers while only 2% stated that
only senior level managers are eligible for these programs.
The median number of in-company program enrollment during 1990 for
the survey population as a whole was twenty but in this particular year,
30% of the companies had between 26 and 100 participants in these
programs. From one to five years ago the median number was twenty-five.
From five to ten years ago the median number of participants was twenty.
In the last two time periods, the largest number of participants were in
the "26 to 100" category.
The companies' level of activity in In-Company Executive Education
Programs was shown to have no current intent to change in 36% of the
sampling.
More than 21% of the survey respondents expected their level
of in-company activities to increase by more than 10% while an
additional 20% expected an increase of up to and including 10%.
An analysis of the typical desired length of in-company programs is
given in Exhibit 61. Of the 138 companies, almost 50% indicated that
the preferred length of in-company programs was from one to two days.
Almost 30% preferred three to five days with 2% preferring programs
longer than two weeks.
Traditionally, four groups of people have played major roles in the
development and delivery of In-Company Executive Education Programs;
corporate training staff, other company personnel, professional
consultants, university faculty. Survey participants were asked to
indicate the degree to which each of these resource groups was relied
upon in the development and delivery of their company's in-company
executive education efforts.
The various levels of involvement for each group in the development
of in-company programs is on Exhibit 62. Professional consultants were
shown to have at least 30% of the responsibility for the development of
such programs by 19% of the companies. Company personnel other than
training show to be active in this development also, with 15% of the
companies relying on these personnel to contribute to 50% of the
development of programs.
Analysis of the data on the delivery of in-company programs
presented a very similar scenario. Again professional consultants
136
participated in the delivery of at least 30% of the programs almost 20%
of the time. Again company personnel other than training seemed to
deliver at least 50% of the program material for 16% of the companies.
3 . 4. 2
UNIVERSITY--BASED
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
EXECUTIVE
Like the previous section, the respondents were asked to complete
this section according to what they believe best represents their
company's actions and attitudes towards University-Based Executive
Of the total 138 respondents, only 70% on average
Education Programs.
answered this section of the questionnaire, therefor the analysis
reflects this response.
the subgroupings.
69.
The graphs represent participation by each of
These analyses are diagramed in Exhibits 64 through
University-Based Executive Education Programs were offered and/or
available to eligible executives by eighty-four (60.9%) of the
responding companies.
Over forty-seven percent of these are Design
Firms, 42.86% are Construction Companies, and 5.95% are Construction
Management Firms.
As in contrast to in-company programs, the individuals have more
input in their participation in and the selection of university-based
programs.
Thirty-four percent of the companies completing this section
of the questionnaire stated that the individual participant identifies
the desire to attend a university-based program. Thirty-one percent of
the companies stated that the suggestion and responsibility for
selecting programs and participants lies with the top managers.
Almost
eight percent of the companies stated that only immediate supervisors
are responsible for this task. Eleven percent of the companies felt
that all levels of management as well as the participant should have
some input in who participates in university-based programs and what the
programs should be. The rest of the categories, being combinations of
the above, represent 2% to 4% of the total companies.
137
Eighty percent of the respondents said that University-Based
Executive Education Programs are offered and available to both middlelevel managers and senior-level managers. As in contrast to in-company
programs, over 16% of the respondents said that these programs are only
available to senior-level managers while 4% stated that only middlelevel managers are eligible for these programs.
The median number of university-based program enrollment during 1990
for the survey population as a whole was three and in this particular
year, 63% of the companies had between one and five participants in
these programs.
From one to five years ago the median number was eight.
From five to ten years ago the median number of participants was also
eight. In the last two time periods, the largest number of participants
were in the "</= 5" category.
The companies' level of activity in University-Based Executive
Education Programs was shown to have no current intent to change in
41.5% of the sampling. Almost 18% of the survey respondents expected
their level of university-based activities to increase by more than 10%
while an additional 32% expected an increase of up to and including 10%.
An analysis of the typical desired length of university-based
programs is given in Exhibit 69. Of the 138 companies, 33% indicated
that the preferred length of university-based programs was from three to
five days. Almost 20% preferred one to two days with 18% preferring
programs longer than two weeks. This is quite different than in-company
programs which show to be more desirable if they are shorter.
3 . 4. 3
Perceived Benefits of
Executive Education Pror
ams
The respondents of the survey were asked what they perceived the
benefits are to both In-Company and University-Based Executive Education
Programs. Beyond the educational value of both programs, most
respondents quite sensible stated that In-Company Programs are more
company specific and as such represent the company's philosophy and
culture better. The company's needs are also met by having these
138
programs flexible, convenient, accessible and less costly. Just as
praiseworthy were the additional benefits to University-Based Programs.
Respondents felt that solid training and development is achieved in a
academic setting away from the distractions of the office. Outside
exposure to other viewpoints and networking with leaders in the industry
can be as vital and enlightening as learning about new technologies and
business strategies.
Generally, the respondents felt that the two types of programs work
best as complementary components to the development of executives and
Companies benefit most when executives are exposed
to both educational programs. In-Company programs are important to
shape the individual into the manager the company needs to operate and
business strategies.
function and University-Based programs are important to develop the
manager into the executive the company needs to survive in the industry.
Perceived Benefits of In-Company Programs
Benefit
Program more specific to the company and its needs.
Acquire company specific knowledge, policies,
practices, business strategy, philosophy, and style.
Uniform presentation of customized topics.
Response
Frequency
49%
Improve productivity, manager effectiveness, strengthens
the organization by increasing quality and enhancing
revenues and profit.
44%
Flexibility to company schedule. Lower cost to educate
more. Savings on time away from clients and the
office. Convenience of in-house location.
33%
Provide interaction with company personnel. Improve inhouse communication and morale.
21%
Perceived Benefits of University-Based Programs
Response
139
Benefit
Professional instruction in an academic setting.
Learning new technologies, management information and
business technics. A broader base of resources and
information.
Expertise in areas in which the
company is not capable of providing.
Frequency
73%
Develop networking capabilities with executives from
other companies and industries. Learn how others are
dealing with business problems and situations.
36%
Improve productivity, upgrade manager skills,
effectiveness and motivation, strengthens the
organization by increasing quality and enhancing
revenues and profit.
25%
More able to concentrate on learning when away from the
distractions of the office and the normal work
environment.
21%
Improves relationship between executive and company.
Participation is seen as a benefit
8%
Easy to plan for and participate in. Costs and time
frames are set. Planning is done by others.
6%
NOTES:
* Respondents could indicate more than one benefit in each type of
program.
* See Appendix A-13 and A-14 for the complete listing of perceived
benefits from the respondents.
3. 4. 4
Additional
Conmm ents
At the end of the survey respondents were given the opportunity to
write additional comments. Usually the comments were a more personal
opinion of the company's efforts to further educate their managers and
executives. "I have tried to put together a university program for our
facility. To be administered on Saturdays. This was at the instruction
of executive management. I found that local universities utilize an
adjunct faculty, not really connected to the university, for this
140
purpose. That coupled with the logistics of Saturday scheduling doomed
this effort.
I personally feel that sending a few executives at a time
to proven university programs is the best for our purposes."
Many respondents indicated that their company has participated in
seminars and courses organized by consulting agencies, institutions or
professional societies.
The Associated General Contractors of America,
the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Fails Management
Institute were three such organizations that were mentioned.
"Over the
past two years, the importance of professional society participation as
part of individual education has received increasing emphasis within
this company."
"We've been much more successful bringing in industry
consultants to provide training programs, compared to sending people to
college campuses."
In general the comments throughout the survey were positive views of
the two forms of executive education.
(See Appendix A-15 for the
complete list of additional comments.)
Occasionally, though, there were
negative attitudes towards academic settings.
programs are much higher priced.
"University based
So much [of the course] is not
applicable, but not all of it is bad."
"Most university-based programs
are too academic and are taught by people who have never made a mistake
in the real world.
We do a better job with in-house people who are
practitioners with a lot of experience."
"Executive training programs
tend to be expensive and in many cases cost prohibitive for the small to
medium size firms, especially in todays economic conditions."
141
Title of Respondents - All Companies
(Total = 138 Companies)
Other
2.17%
Engineer
Partner 1.45%
Direc
7.9
President
37.68%
Chairman/CEO
9.42%
Managei
10.87%
Vice President
24.64%
Functional Area of Respondents - All Companies
(Total = 138 Companies)
Finance
1.45%
Marketing/Sales
5.071
ive Office
1.74%
Operations
Corporate Office
9.42%
Engineering/Architect
Human Resources
10.87%
Admin:
1t
ural/
Technical
18.84%
General Management
13.04%
Age of Respondents for all Companies
(Total = 138 Companies)
taj
to
nn nn NUN
•m
m
m
mm
m
I
-- -
C 1.
25-29
1
I,
30-34
35-39
-mI
----- -
LCLLLL
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-80
N/A
Construction Industry - Respondent Subgrouping
(Total = 138 Companies)
Construction
~et Fi
5.07%
U~aMa
anagem
Ln
7,
Design Firms
47.83%
SConstruction
Companies
42.75%
I
I
Design Firms
O Construction Companies
Construction
Firms
]Design/Constr. /C. H.
(1.45%)
U Construction/C. H.
(1.45%)
[Other (.72%)
Design/Construction
(.72%)
Mangement
•
!
Construction Industry - Total Respondents by Main Trade Practice
(Total = 138 Companies)
Other
.72%
Subcontractor
3.62%
/Architect
.84%
Prime/General
Contractor
36.96%
Engineer/Design
Constructor
10.14%
Construct.
2.6 Is
j Engineer
27.54%
Design Firms by Main Trade Practice
(Total = 66 Companies)
Construction Manager
1.52%
Engineer/Architect
37.88%
Consulting Engineer
53.03%
esign
tor
7.58%
Construction Companies by Main Trade Practice
(Total = 59 Companies)
Subcontractor
Engineer/Design
A 474
Constriirtnr
ilting/Geotech.
Engineer
1.69%
tw
Co
'-
Contractor
77.97%
Construction Management Firms by Main Trade Practice
(Total = 7 Companies)
Conisulting Engineer
28.57%
Prime/General
Contractor
42.86%
Constructior Manager
28.57%
Number of Salaried Employees - All Companies
and Percent of Total
(Total = 138 Companies)
47.83%
__
U'
ul
w
o
Number of Companies
1-4
'-3
2y 0.29%
14.49%
7.25%
4.35%
3.62%
2.17%
-H
0-100
-c
-4--
101-200
-1-
i
201-300
301-400
401-500
Number of Salaried Employees
>500
N/A
Number of Salaried Employees by Subgroupings
(Total = 138 Companies)
35
-
30 25 -
20 -E
Number of Companies
i
15
10
5
IN.-
LE33
0
~
-J 64
~
m
ME
Lw]
I
i
mt
0-100
E Design Firms
im
I
101-200
I
l
i FýýA
201-300
301-400
401-500
Number of Salaried Employees
EOConstruction Companies
I
|
I
>500
EConstruction Management WOther
Firms
N/A
Number of Salaried Employees in Design Firms
(Total = 66 Companies)
9.09%
9.
w
)16.67%
16. 67%
2.4
24.24%
22.73%
0•
Number of Salaried Employees in Construction Companies
(Total = 59 Companies)
6.78%
8.
35.59%
8.47%
M
rn-
U'i
13.561
~
25.42%
Number of Salaried Employees in Construction Management Firms
(and other various firms)
(Total = 13 Companies)
15.38%
FA15.38%
9P.
I-I
/
38.46%
0
n
Total Billings for 1990 for all Companies
(Total = 138 Companies)
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
l26
24
Number of Companies 22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
I
I
I
< $2
$2 - $19.99
million
million
I
$20 $49.99
million
I
I
$50 -$99.99
$100 -
million
$299.99
million
>/= $300
million
N/A
Total Billings for 1990 for all Companies
(Total = 138 Companies)
2.90% 5.80%
14.49%
31.16%
w
1-4
I-I
21.(
16.67%
S< $2 million
0$2 - $19.99 million *$20 - $49.99
million
E $100 - $299.99
million
5i>/= $300 million
IMN/A
8$50 -$99.99 million
Company Billings According to Classification of Work.
All Construction Industry Respondents.
Other
1 Building
Manufacturing Pla
Water Supply
Transportation
Sewer/Waste Control
HaT
·UY
·
IYVY
nF....
Industrial
Process/Petrochemical
Company Billings According to Percentage of Classifications of Work.
All Construction Industry Respondents.
91%-100%
811
71%-8
61%-70%
51%-60%
</= 10%
S41%-50%
31%-40%
11%-20%
Design Firm's Billings According to Classification of Work.
A4.11-
luilding
Manufacturing Plar
Transportation
Water Supply
Power
Industrial
ss/Petrochemical
Sewer/Waste
Hazardous Waste
Design Firms' Billings According to Percentage of Classifications of Work.
91%-100%
81%-90%
411
</= 10%
31%-4
11%-20%
Construction Company's Billings According to Classification of Work.
Other
Building
Manufacturing PLI
Water Supply
Transportation
Sewer/Waste Control
Hazard
Industrial
Process/Petrochemical
Construction Companies' Billings According to Percentage of Classifications of Work.
OQP1 -
nrtl
81%-9(
71%-80%
</= 10%
61%-70%
w
's-I
H0
51%-60%
41%-50%
31%
21%-30%
11'-20%
Construction Management Firm's Billings According to Classification of Work.
!ral Building
Manufacturing Plant
Transportation
Water Supply
er
Sewer/Waste Control
Hazardous Waste
Construction Management Firms' Billings According to Percentage of Classifications of
Work.
..........
....................
.
...................
..
..*.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
,*.
.......
......................
..
.
.
.
..
..
..
..............
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.........................
.
.
.
.
.
.
..........................
...........................
......
...
*.''
.
.'.'.
..*.....
......
....
...I...
....I...
.............................
......................
.......................
.............................
. 0o II
..
..
...
..
..
....
..
.....
...
..
....
....
....
...
...
..
...
...
...
...
..
.....
...
.
..
...
.....
.
...
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
..
.
...................................
ýO
......
.....
........
......
...
...
....
.
...
..
.
............
...
..
.
..
.
.
::.
:
:
:
:
:
:
..
:
.
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
..
.......
...
.....
..
..
...
..
...
...
.
..
....
..
.
...
...
...
...
....
.
.
..
...
...
...
....
...
.........
Z-0
01
............
...
......
.........
-31%-40
81%-90%
oo
n
00,
w
til
I-I
</= 10%
- ---- SO
00
.. .... ... ...
.... ... .... .
31%-40%
oo
0 0"'
,,
o
I
I
Other Companies' Billings According to Classification of Work.
Atha-
Sewer/Waste Control
General Building
Industrial
Process/Petrochemic
Other Companies' Billings According to Percentage of Classifications of Work.
SI/= 1n
......
....
.... ... .
.......
....
..
........................
.......................
................
........................
........
..
...........................
.......................
. .. ..... ..
.. .... .
.
.
..
.
.
..
...........
... .........
.........
..............
*---.
.....
............
.
...............
............
I
..........
..........
............
..............
...............
.......
................
.......
............................................
..... ... ... .... .
.........................
oo
OOF,
...........
I;ol
..........
...........
...............................
..................
..........
--......
...............
...........
81%-90%
..................... ..........
.........................
....................
............. ...............................
..........
..........
...........................
*.*
.........
.....
..............................
....
..........
...
..
...
..
...
..
....
...
..
.
sN
:.:. ....
..
......
...
...-..
... ...
.
........
...
........
...........I....
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
..........
.................
.................................
..........................
.....................
..
....
..
..
......
......
....
........
...
....................................... ............................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
........... ..............................
.
.
.
........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......................
.............................
...........................................
...................
.........
.............
...................................
......................................
.......................................
.............................
....
.......................
......
......................................
......
..................
..
...
...
.......
..
....
..
...
...
..
....
..
....... .............
... ......
...............
...
....... ..................................
....
..
..
...
..
..
....
....
...
...
..
.....
...
.....
.....
.
.......
..
.............................
....
.......
..
91%-1
..
....
..
.....
...
....
I..
....
....
...
.....
...
.
..
..
....
..
..
.
..
...
.
..
.
.....
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..............
...
..
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
..
..
...
..
........
...................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
.
...
..
.
..
..
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
..
..
..
..
..
.
..
...
..
.....
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
M
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ý
ý
*
I
I
,
,
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... .......
...
....
.............
...
...
.....
..
.... .Z-1
w
sIC'
'-a
Formal Requirements for Participation in Executive Education Programs
(Total = 138 Companies)
Construction Companies with
Formal Requirement
4
A
35%
IRS
Design Firms with Formal
Requirment
8.70%
struction Management
Firms with Formal
Requirement
1.45%
I-*
1-i
UL
N3
Companie
F
orm
UL
I
Dn
=%
"IUIzJL.
L.
85.51%
Number of Salaried Employees Eligible to Participate
in Executive Education Programs - All Companies
and Percent of Total
(Total = 138 Companies)
120
0"1
00
•'4
PC1Iq.
110
100
90
80
-'-4
MI
Number of Companies
cA)
50 40 30 20 7.97%
10 -o
0-100
101-200
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
0.72%
201-300
301-400
401-500
>500
Number of Salaried Employees Eligible to Participate in Programs
N/A
Executive Education Programs Offered in the Construction Industry
(Total = 138 Companies)
In-manany
No Programs
20.29
Programs
nly
.84%
University-Based
Programs Only
15.22%
--- 3
~
University-Based
Programs
45.65%
Design Firms Offering Executive Education Programs
(Total = 66 Companies)
No Programs Offered
....
R PDT
.........
1
SO
. .... ..
University-Based
Programs Only
10.61%
.
... ... .... ..
00
0
00SO
10
...........
.........
. ... .... ..
60 001,
Soo
I
o'Z
ompany Programs
Only
25.76%
010
01
0 60
006
University-Based
Programs
50%
000
0
Construction Companies Offering Executive Education Programs
(Total = 59 Companies)
In-Company Programs
A -1..
k
No Programs Off
25.43%
University-Bas
Programs Onl1
18.64%
In-Company and
liversity-Based
Programs
42.37%
Construction Management Firms Offering Executive Education Programs
(Total = 7 Companies)
No Programs C)ffered
14.29%
In-Company Programs
lo
oI
o"
In-Company and
University-Based
Programs
71. 42%
I lJ
ol
0,
I0
14.29%
Companies Offering In-Company Executive Education Programs
(Total = 89 Companies)
Construction
Management Firms
6.74%
Construction
Companies
37.08%
Design Firms
56.18%
Personnel Involved in Selecting the Programs and Possible Participants of In-Company
Executive Education Programs.
(All Construction Industry Respondents.)
All Identified
Personnel
Individual
DW +;
w%+
All excel
Indivii
Immediate Supervisor
and/or Top Manager
.mmediate Supervisor
Only
Individual and/or Top
Manager
Individual and/or
Immediate Supervisor
Other
Top Manager Only
Management Levels to which In-Company Executive Education Programs are Offered.
(All Construction Industry Respondents.)
Middle-Level
Management Only
Seenior-Level
Manlagement Only
Middl e and Senior
Level Managment
Number of Eligible Personnel in Respondent's Company that have Participated in In-Company
Executive Education Programs.
(Total = 138 Companies)
Numbe; of
Compages
Number of Executives Participating in Programs
EWithin the Past Year
M From 1 to 5 Years Ago
E From 5 to 10 Years Ago
Company Expectations of Increasing Participation in In-Company Executive Education
Programs.
(Total = 138 Companies)
Less Than 10%
% Increase
Greater Than 10%
Increase
The Companies' Desired Length of Time for In-Company Executive Education Programs.
(Total = 138 Companies)
Greater than 3 Weeks
1 to 2 Days
2 to 3 Weeks
3 to
The Individuals use$to DEVELOP In-Company Executive Education Programs
20.00%
18.00%
16.00%
14.00%
12.00%
Percent of
Responses 10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Involvement of Various Groups in the Development of In-Company Executive Education Programs
SCorporate Training
Staff
E Company Personnel other m Professional
than Training
Consultants
f University Faculty
The Individuals usedto DELIVER In-Company Executive Education Programs
20 nn%
__
18.00%
16.00%
14.00%
12.00%
Percent of 10.00%
Responses
8.00%
CD
o0
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Involvement of Various Groups in the Delivery of In-Company Executive Education Programs
E Corporate Training
Staff
L]Company Personnel other I Professional
than Training
Consultants
iUniversity Faculty
Companies Offering University-Based Executive Education Programs
(Total = 84 Companies)
Constructio n
Managment Filrms
5.95%
nag
Other
3.57%
0
OF
g 0
Construction
Companies
42.86%
09 09
0
J
Design Firms
47.62%
Personnel Involved in Selecting the Programs and Possible Participants of University
Based Executive Education Programs.
(All Construction Industry Respondents.)
All Identified
Personnel
All except the
Individu
al
r
Immediate Supervisoi
and/or Top Manager
Individual
Participant Only
Individual and/or Top
Manager
Individual and/or
Immediate Supervisor
Other
Immed"iate
Supervisor
Only
Tron
M
Lr M
4ana
•
gayr
•
A•
A&
Management Levels to which University-Based Executive Education Programs are Offered.
(All Construction Industry Respondents.)
Middle-Level
Management Only
or-Level
!ment Only
Middle ar
Level Ma
Number of Eligible Personnel in Respondent's Company that have Participated in University
Based Executive Education Programs.
(Total = 138 Companies)
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
Number of 45
Companies 40
35
CO
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
</= 5
6 to 10
11 to 25
26 to 100
> 100
Number of Executives Participating in Programs
SWithin the Past Year
L-
ElFrom 1 to 5 Years Ago
--
M From 5 to 10 Years Ago
N/A
Company Expectations of Increasing Participation in University-Based Executive Education
Programs.
(Total = 138 Companies)
T
qk
M
1ft
IA
10% Increase
Greater Than 10%
Increase
No Change
The Companies' Desired Length of Time for University-Based Executive Education Programs.
(Total = 138 Companies)
Greater than 3 Week
Days
CHAPTER
IV
CONCLUSION
To be successful in todays highly competitive construction industry,
businesses have to follow a strategy that includes the development and
refinement of its managers and executives.
Executive education is a
vital element in building a company's competitive advantage. Both incompany and university-based programs help to broaden the views of the
men and women who run businesses. Better understanding their roles as
managers, improving their decision making capabilities and their
effectiveness in analyzing business problems and formulating policies
are only a few of the benefits obtained from an on going state-of-theart education.
Executive education programs can be university-based, in-company, or
developed and delivered by private organizations or societies. Incompany programs are sometimes preferred for the conveniences they
offer. Programs are held at company-specific locations and cover topics
most relevant to the company. Programs are tailored to the companies'
needs.
Program participants, lengths and times offered are flexible and
adaptable to accommodate any change or demand. Interaction and
communication channels among co-workers increases as well as general
morale and camaraderie.
University-based and other alternative
education opportunities away from the office are preferred for their
ability to handle a broad-base of technical information in an academic
or professional setting. Interaction and networking with outside
companies and industries is viewed as a valuable addition to the
educational experience. University-based programs are more structured
and elaborate.
Executives obtain new ideas from outside sources and
often view old problems in a fresh and enlightened way.
Nearly all University-Based Executive Education Programs offered
today, as described in Peterson's Guides, Bricker's International
Directories, Long and Short Term, are General Management Programs and
187
Functional Management Programs. These topics, though necessary for all
well run businesses are not directed to the specific interests of the
construction industry. Why haven't these sixty-six universities
developed construction related programs? Is there a demand for such
programs? Is the demand being met by private organizations and
consulting companies?
The conclusions that can be derived from the research done for this
paper is that there is a demand for business management courses and
construction-specific courses for managers and executives but the demand
is being met by the programs put out by universities and professional
societies and private consulting institutions. Technical and tradespecific issues are covered at in-company programs where the company has
the opportunity to get its views across to the entire staff. General
construction management and executive programs are covered at seminars
and taken by ambitious executives who request to participate in the
programs delivered by the societies or organizations that they are
familiar with.
The construction industry is very diverse and the interests and
demands of the people working in the various sectors of the industry are
as equally diverse. Architects, Engineers and Construction Managers
work in areas such as highways, buildings, waste disposal, water
resources, and the environment. Their interests could be as specific as
coastal planning, chemical processing, landscaping, petroleum,
surveying, structural engineering or planning. One thing that these
professionals have in common is that they need good human relation
skills to manage their staffs, good management skills to run a business
and good business skills to be competitive in todays economy.
The courses offered at the sixty-six universities researched for
this paper offer the broad topics needed for construction industry
professionals to develop and/or refine their business skills. The
courses appeal to all sectors of the business community and are most
useful and effective because of this broad approach. These courses have
the capability of teaching not only general managers, human resource
professionals or financial accountants, but also technical people the
188
skills to be effective managers.
One thing apparently lacking in these
existing programs is the relationship and references to the construction
industry.
Construction case studies could be used to help make more
identifiable the business problems and solutions of the industry.
Executives and all levels of management in the construction industry
can refine their technical knowledge and skills in programs held by well
known organizations and associations such as the Fails Management
Institute and the Associated General Contractors of America.
These
courses are often taught by industry professionals and are directly
related to both broad and narrowly focused issues of the construction
industry.
The general feeling arrived at from this research is that top
executives utilize these programs to shape and develop new technical
professional into middle managers and to perfect middle managers into
more diverse, productive and knowledgeable middle managers.
Participation in all forms of education described in this paper is
believed to be the most effective way to develop a well rounded and
effective professional.
The utilization of these programs at the
appropriate time in a professional's career, along with the experience
acquired through real working conditions, will help create a productive,
knowledgeable and valuable executive that will greatly benefit any
company.
Both the information acquired from existing University-Based
Executive Education Programs and the responses to the survey resulted in
an understanding of what executive are looking for in educational
programs.
The following chart represents the two most common responses
to some of the questions put forth by this research.
189
1st
2nd
Top
Response
Next
Response
Desired program length
1 week
2 days
Number of participants
accomodated per class
Size of company sending
40 people
30 people
> 1,000 employees
-
participants
Industry respresented by
Tele-communication
participants
Manufacturing
Senior Level
Managment level of participant Upper-Middle Level
Functional area of the
General Management
Operations/
participant
Production
Median age of the participant
40
-
Respondent's company
classification
Main trade practice
Company size
Design Firm
Prime/
consulting Engineer
General Contractor
< 100 salaried
101 - 200 salaried
employees
$2 million to
employees
$50 million to
$19.99 million
$99.99 million
General Building
Transportation or
Total billing for 1990
Work area
Construction
Company
Control
_ewer/Waste
Formal education requirement
or executives
NO
-
Topics of interest
Project Management
Leadership,
Motivation,
Communication
In-Company Programs
Selection of programs and
participants
Participant's management level
Desired length of program
niversity-Based Programs
Selection of programs and
Top Managers
Middle and Senior
1 to 2 days
3 to 5 days
Individual
participants
Participant's management level
Immediate
Supervisors
Participant
Top Managers
Middle and Senior
Desired length of program
3 to 5 days
190
1 to 2 days
Some basic conclusions can be identified. The most preferred length
of time for all forms of executive education is from 2 to 5 days.
Executive education programs are most readily available to the upper
levels of management though companies utilize the trade-specific courses
or basic management courses to invest in entry level managers and
prepare them for more responsibility within the company.
Topics of interest tend to be business and general management
oriented, but, it is assumed that executives would like the educational
approach to relate to construction issues. Project Management was the
highest ranked topic in the survey followed closely by Leadership,
Motivation, and Communication Effectiveness. These courses, though
general business topics, can be easily adapted to the construction
industry.
It is believed that courses encompassing a broader base of
information are more effective and desired. Executives want to see the
whole picture and have a basic understanding of the parts and how the
parts work together. Topics such as Project Management would cover an
infinite number of issues within the industry and would therefor be
appropriate not only construction managers, contractors, or designers
but also support professionals such as manufacturers or supplier.
Due to the number and type of survey respondents, it is not clear
exactly which sector of the construction industry participates most in
executive education programs; Design Firms or Construction Companies.
Both groups equally indicated that they are interested in these various
forms of education. Design professional tend to imply that they are
more inclined to participate in University-Based Programs. Construction
Companies more readily stated that In-Company Programs are most
preferred and are best suited to their needs but programs put on by
private organizations or associations were also utilized. Given the
economic conditions it can further be assumed that larger companies with
a greater budget for training and development can participate more
frequently and diversely.
Given the cyclical nature of the
construction industry two opposing conclusions can be made. During
tight economic condition companies will: 1. limit the amount of money
spent on all forms of development and training, or 2: take advantage of
191
the slower times to have their managers participate in development
programs to help gear up for the inevitable upswing in the economy.
Further market trends should be analyzed to better determine these
actions.
Executive Education is a vital tool for building competitive
advantage and for competing in a global, technologically driven
marketplace. The benefits of executive education are vast.
Participants in these programs broaden their knowledge, increase their
ability to manage new technologies, identify strategies that make the
most of limited resources, explore new tools and techniques, build their
capacity for conceptual thinking, improve their leadership skills and
expand their vision and values. They greatly benefit both themselves
and the companies they work for by being able to see the picture, not
only for it parts but more importantly, as a whole.
192
A
PPEND
IX
193
I
i
n
y'
I
I
c
II
ii
It
I
||
l
|
II
oo
:,
N~aIDND
mnI
o
M
I
N
n.
nn
1')INNF)
ID 0
ID
'
-W
.
I
0
o
Go
~IMDIDN'
ccj
n aw
a
tm
ID
Ion
wego
ID
to
~co
-vmals
w(I
c7) G
So
cy3 0N
ID
-r
c,
-w3a
p-f~
-ee
aC I aDs
nt
Goso
w-to~
c'):
~
~
e rro
w cna
oc-Do
co~
W r.-~·
W cc)o
ID
rse
tog
U,
01~L
-W
C
R cv
v
C.
cc
6^l
cm
C
o
QN
NI
IONDD
.
II
oo~g~oqcl
atl
,,
I
II
L, if
ID
it
~
U,
I,
I
it
II
n
II
||
:I
isI
uj. o 11
Z
I
)II
O>
II
I
I
I
SIn
II
51I
II =3 •
II
I
(I*I
I
II
to
ID
cl
D
6l.
fF~~
,
rl!
N
N
a
UW
aw
'Nt
N It
cc
r
oD
InD
iV
ass~pa
'olw3Rg.
M
8 -
IN
I
'-31
I cop
5
a:1
(2IID
I
to8"
898
10 C"
D4
O5
I-w
*W
c.
aCI
9
ISaCS
194
0*
M
r
to CAv
caassi A
APPENDIX Ala
se
Wev
cn
rI-
gassr
catoK
IsIcI
Goza
Esi
V2) c
~apg
,N
acmy
WE c
I
InI
3 =B h
52~f
8885Eu
ccjU
NOIN
S
",,•e•,.
ID
t,.. o,
ISO
I
I
I
I
*I
I
(*~
I
ii
I.II
coo IIC3
In
SIt
SI.
II
I
"
Z
w
5 II
tII:It
w ,,4s,,
"
onIZ
|!
ID
I11 (i
I||
I
,, ,.
,,
In
||E
I(
II
N
CD
'-ID
$R
C14
rS
F,
to
C43cli
I
a
._-
cpaj
If)
an
AB
IDI
Ccr 7a
col
r
f'I
S
ID
f
com
~g
-iD
N
c
ID
C-4
ce
I'
c)
ccCI
CI
I
Go
C') 8
ID'N
C4)
ý2
u!
w;
CY
C
C4 A
C.
CD
CZ
g
co r.
r-
C
co
N'-
B~rI-
a
rr f 5
5:8
' B
IN8
CIO
ID'S
c
to c
C-
C.)g
CI
to
fA
e4
iv
C-i:
,
0~'
io
~3l
=r~O
a8
cam
(aGo
Z
cucu
,s
,,
'
I
ac%
91"$
to
c',
Iri
"53
(3CU
ot
C3
w
*
S
O
n
LU
CO
US
CI
Co
CL
r
mLI
U
C)
I
I
S
I
*
C0
t---d
<.--,r-
co
":-
In
,!·,
"
*MaIo
co
m- cy)
CD
cm cc
m
co
10
"
c>I-
,
cu~
V-
OD
--
r,
m AD
c;
c
o
~
''
ccl
wi-
co -w
_j
uu,
>.•
IN
•i
i'
;-M R -M CVn
bi>
INS
eZt
ccl
li
(D
(D
cnr
u
..In ...
m
m
C14
-T
i_
rl
S
cm
Ir
,%
I.•
ou-
oac~~
coC
Pc%
d
C7a
CD
WIS P-
1_I
,zD,
Lar-A!DX
....
D
o
Mm
Mw ED
co (Dl
-wco
195
Ir
I
i
Coo$
ItCD
Lo o'
teII
.c0,
CC)
m
J
)
aD
c
".
r-1
,,
II
II
I!
II
I
,I,,
I
I
II
!3~
1
(I
!,,
it
I
81)IY
II
I(
is
II
II
I
4t4
"
,I
l: !,l
1
sii:!
SIo
Lo ...m ,,
CFs
*c
eoi It
"i~
if
~o
D•n ý2
0
c
v "i
u')
/uj
F
Ia
A cm I
o
~
o
:_·u-, u
CYCY
Lo
$t
|... cu
cu
<.
reI
M
D
r
u, a
%laliS
Hltl~
(i
SECT#
U.S.
-.---------
TOTMEM STUDENT
BYSECT. MEMBERS
EXCLUDINGBY
AS
STUDENTSSECT
SECTION(S)
------------------------------------------...-.
E.CAN.
EASTSECT.
43
0
0
W CAN.
WESTSECT
334
1
2
TOT.FORCANA
MEXICO
COLOMBIA
APO/FPO
TT.i
1086
4
13
ACTiVITY
ENROLLMENT
MEMBERSHIP
SU
ST
PL
-. ----. ,--.
UP
..--
1
1
131
16
40
--
- -
CO
EY
EM
EE
GT
HW
HY
IR
ME
MT
1
11
4
4
8
13
7
11
6
5
3
2
16
10
100
40
59
61
112
45
87
88
81
7
32
-
--- --
AT
28
343
132
178
199
347
125
229
MEX.SECT
125
2
1
3
51
18
20
17
41
10
26
COLOMBIA
177
4
0
6
47
25
7
20
49
22
33
MILITARY
370
11
16
25
217
34
20
85
66
62
52
202
223
31
-
71
28
26
2
10
38
23
6
5
442
43
AND
SECTIONS
BY
COUNT
STATES
LE
FE
CP
CR
CS
WR WW
UT
-.- -.--...- .._- .--
3
8
11
9
8
45
31
66
65
48
50
128
106
199
175
13
2
4
7
55
8
28
38
123
4
141
120
148
24
73
4
23
1
12
18
2
23
1
13
9
15
20
18
47
13
16
10
20
16
20
45
10
23
10
28
16
17
W,
w4 m4 asW
2W 3t52 71<
X77
Ns
1W43 'SO
51
39
83
44
74
12
16 114
128
15 7n7
47
15
me_:·2:
us Iowa
~VAL
6
RE
4364 am2.?
"N02$
JOURNALS
SUBSCRIBERS
(MEMBERS
ANDNON-MEMBERS
WHOSUBSCRIBE
TO THEFOLLOWING
JOURNALS)
5816
3166 2138 3082 192
6443 1107 1752 4138 6671
190
2252 1750
1621 1935
375
2622
,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MEMBERSHIP
DISTRICT
NUMBER
1
2
4
5
COUNT
ZONEI
(986)
(259);MOHAWK-HUDSON
(475); ITHACA
(3480); BUFFALO
(3639);METROPOLITAN
NEWJERSEY
(187)...........................
(358); QUEBEC
RICO
(477);PUERTO
(314); SYRACUSE
ROCHESTER
(683)
(3333);NEWHAMPSHIRE
(574);BOSTON
(1396);MAINE
CONNECTICUT
(43).......................................
(304); E. CANADA
(340); VERMONT
RHODE
ISLAND
(1279)..............
PITTSBURGH
(1640);
VALLEY(448);PHILADELPHIA
PENN(783);LEHIGH
CENTRAL
(1617).................................
(288);MARYLAND
(3248) DELAWARE
CAPITAL
NATIONAL
ZONEI.............
TOTAL
BY
DISTRICT
TOTAL
DISTRICTS
DISTRICT
NUMBER
8
10175
6673
4150
5153
AND
ZONES
15
16
ZONEIII
DISTRICT
TOTAL
(1502);
(1254);WISCONSIN
(118);MINNESOTA
(151);DULUTH
N.DAKOTA
.....
(495)..........
(174); MID.CANADA
(2697); QUAD-CITY
(841); ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
CENTRAL
..............................
(127)
MEXICO
(736);
(645); OKLAHOMA
(6308);NEWMEXICO
TEXAS
(565)
(519);KANSAS
(259);NEBRASKA
(2658);S. DAKOTA
(269);COLORADO
WYOMING
.........
(1141)...............
(362);ST.LOUIS
CITY(1231);MIDMISSOURI
(552);KANSAS
IOWA
ZONEIII............
TOTAL
7232
7816
7556
22604
26151
ZONEIV
ZONEII
(421)..............
(2019); W.VIRGINIA
(1045);VIRGINIA
CAROLINA
CAROLINA
(1709);SOUTH
NORTH
(713);
(510); CLEVELAND
OHIO(574); CINCINNATI
(300); CENTRAL
AKRON-CANTON
(2039) ..............................................
(340); TOLEDO
(384); MICHIGAN
DAYTON
(1391).........................................
(713);INDIANA
(1959);KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
(1884) ......................................
FLORIDA
(1480);GEORGIA
(3130);SOUTH
FLORIDA
(683) .........................
(1530);MISSISSIPPI
LOUISIANA
(401)
(1306);ARKANSAS
ALABAMA
TOTALZONEII.............
5194
4860
4063
6494
3920
(6190)
(556)LOSANGELES
(867);NEVADA
(1629);HAWAII
ARIZONA
(5959);UTAH(798) .....................
(1240);SANFRANCISCO
(1979);SANDIEGO
SACRAMENTO
(1857)
SEATTLE
(240);
COLUMBIA
(1332);
OREGON
(350);
(720);MONTANA
ALASKA
(335) .................
(294); WESTCANADA
IDAHO
(391);SOUTHERN
(367);TACOMA
EMPIRE
INLAND
TOTALZONEIV..........
19218
5886
25104
24531
INTERNATIONAL
(27)
(181);APOs(381);USTERRITORY
(42);REP.OFCOLUMBIA
FOREIGN PANAMA
........................
(6056) ..............
AMERICA
OFNORTH
OUTSIDE
ALLOTHERS
GRAND
TOTAL
ASCE
MEMBERSHIP...............................
6687
105077
- ST,
STRUCTURAL
PL - PIPELINE,
HY - HYDRAULICS,
ANDDRAINAGE,
IR- IRRIGATION
HW - HIGHWAY,
ENG.,GT - GEOTECHNICAL,
EE- ENVIRONMENTAL
EM- ENG.MECHANICS,
EY- ENERGY,
CO- CONSTRUCTION,
AT- AIRTRANSPORTATION,
AS- AEROSPACE,
RE- RESEARCH,
FE - FORENSIC,
PRACTICES,
CP- COMPUTER
CR- COLDREGIONS,
& STANDARD,
CS- CODES
WAY& COASTAL,
WW - WATER
WR- WATERRESOURCES,
TRANSPORTATION,
UT - URBAN
PLANNING,
UP- URBAN
SU- SURVEYING,
& EARTHQUAKE
LIFELINE
MT - MATERIAL,
PAGE
3
BUSINESS/POSITION BREAKDOWN
OWNERS, PRES.,
V.P.
GEN.
MANGRS.,
OCCUPATIONAL & MILIT. OFFICERS
TOTAL
ENGINEERING
EMPLOYMENT
ENG.
PRIVATE
PRACUlCE40NSULT. ENG
PROJ.
MGRS.
COORDS. CHIEF,
&STAFF
ENGRS.
STAFF
ARCH.,
DESIGN,
DRAFTS
CONST.SUPT,
SUPERVISORS,
STAFF
PERSNNL
DEPT
HEADS
DEPT
MNGRS.
OTHER
PERSONNEL
&CO.ADDRESS
35459
14916
16377
1657
101
1045
ENG.
PRIVATE
PRACTICE-ENG.
ARCH.
3958
1436
1847
273
27
183
192
ENG.
PRIVATE
PRACTICEUILDING
2069
995
719
69
65
113
ENG.
PRIVATE
PRACTICE-NON
BUILDING
108
2154
778
ENO.
PRIVATE
PRACTICE-OTH
895
107
90
2294
165
119
759
10f4
92
65
190
134
SUBTOTAL
FEDERAL
ENG.
GOT.
ENG.
GOVT./STATE,
COUNTY
&TOWN
ENG.
GO MUIACIPAL
ENG.
GOV.1
FOREIGN
SUB TOTAL
45934
2nm9
20m
4641
395
549
4219
781
523
1463
2016
6.
6640
477
423
3681
1636
U82.
541
655
62
18883
1823
11854
1570
1065
1758
3874
471
708
499
3976
367
166
ENG. GENERAL INDUSTRY
6466
812
ENG.
SCHOOL
INSTRUCTORS
4601
286
219
22
92
16
316
45$
490
68
8
126
99
218
50
71
18
41
ENGt
STUDENTS
ENG.
ASSOC.
PROD.
MATERIALS
ENG.
MANUFACTURE
CONSTR.
EQUIP.
OTHER
EN. ALL"TO R"
1107
411
8lt
101484
DDA
149
159
515
a
0a3
3W3n
168
4384
4494
42
6824
TY
ERS
ZONE III
OF
T SOCIETY
EERSSECTION
$ul"10O
SIC, Of
PUERTORICO
SECTION
I-4
t
h
t
I·t
IT
41
..0
c,,
Sectionboundaries
State borders(where
differentfrom
section boundaers)
Dislrict boundary
f
i
th
N
A
Subdivi
son
o
or
merica
int
ions
as
or
November
1,
less.
APPENDIX A2
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
MEMBERSHI P
AK
AL
STATE COUNTS
261
MT
619 .
NC
LIST
130
1,615
AR
463
AZ
ND
621
176
NE
449
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
2,656
694
609
1062
170
4,247.
1,215
302
629
307
2,509
857
709 .
994
952
877
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
201
2,160
469
280
3,015
2,514
1,144
326
2,894
193
640
219
961
5,341
122
1,707
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
922
161
1,878
908
1,668
618 &
VT
WA
105
546
WI
WV
WY
1,093
376
115
TOTAL
52,125
199
JULY
1990
SPECIALTY SELECTS AND
COUNTS
erospace
330
Agricultural
311
Architectural
325
Chemical
1,435
Civil
17,146
Computer
270
Electrical
6,069
lectronics
583
Industrial
916
Materials
185
echnical
8,108
Manufacturing
471
Petroleum
573
Structural
1,822
AREAS OF PRACTICE
Construction
Education
Government
Industry
Private Practice
5,443
1,473
6,597
15,069
19,523
UNIVERSITY--BASED
EXECUTIVE PROGRAMS
AVAILABLE IN
1990
*
(Programs less than one week)
UNIVERSITY/INSTITUTE NAME
Aspen Institute
2 Brookings Institute
3 California Institute of Technology
PROGRAM TITLE
A
B
C
A
B
C
The Future of the Corporation
Weekends at Wye
The Corporation and the Changing International System
Issues in Telecommunications Policy
Federal budget: Fiscal Year 1991
The U.S. in the World Economy:
Policy Issues and Choices
D Financing National Health Care: Tradeoffs Between Access and Cost Control
E Tne National Security Agenda for the 1990's
F Science, Technology, and Industrial Productivity
A Artificial Intelligence: Understanding and Development Strategic Applications
B
Manufacturing Cost Strategies:
Meeting the Competitive Challenge
C Restructuring Your Manufacturing Operations: A Framework for Organizational Change
D Bld., Executing. & Intgrtd. Strategic Plan: Linking Markting, R&D,& Production Stratgies
E Managing Techn. as a Strategic Resource: Positioning for Competitive Advantage
F Just-in-time Manufacturing
G Manufacturing Strategies: Building for the Future
4
University of California, L. A.
5 Case Western Reserve University
6 Center for Creative Leadership
nI iversity
of
Chicago
Role of the Board of Directors
Advanced Management Program for M.B.A.'s
A Managing for Commitment
A
A
B
C
A
Designing Systems for Executive Development
Values in Action
B
C
D
E
F
Developing Marketing Plans
Industrial Marketing
garketing Analysis and Tactical Decision Making
farketing Communications
larketing Strategy and Planning
leasurements for Compeitive Marketing Strategy
G
Creating New Products and Services
--
I
8 Dartmouth College
9 Georgia State University
10 University of Houston
A
A
A
B
C
11 University of Illinois
A
B
C
D
12 Indiana University
A
B
C
D
F
G
13 Massachusetts Institute of Tech.
14 Menninger Management Institute
A
A
B
15 University of Michigan
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Pricing Strategy and Tactics
Bales Force Productivity Strategies
Customer Satisfaction: Management Strategies and Tactics
Stategic Cost Accounting and Control
Finance and Accounting for NOn-FinancialManagers
Advanced Purchasing Workshop
Essentials of Purchasing
Purchasing Negotiation Skills
Fundamentals of Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Executives
Bond Analysis and Portfolio Management
Pension Fund Management in Volatile Markets
Simplified Strategic Planning for Small to Mid Sized Companies
Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Managers
Improving Management Skills
Fundamentals fo Marketing Management
Leadership for the 1990's
Organizing and Managing for Customer Satisfaction
Production Management:
Inventory Control in the Computer Age
Production Management: Manufacturing Management in the 1990's
Current Issues in Information Systems
Managing Organizational Change and Resolving Conflict
Work and Family: Understanding Change, Health and Growth
Advanced Financial Analysis for Commercial Lending
Financial Analysis, Planning and Control
Basic Management for the Newly Appointed Manager
Managing International Joint Ventures
Project Management
Classroom Training Techniques
Employee Discipline and Grievance Handling
How to Prepare and Win More Arbitration Cases
Interviewing: A Strategic Approach
Cost Effective Purchasing Management
Business to Business Marketing Strategies
Effective Sales Management
Marketing for Non-Marketing Managers
16 University of North Carolina
Strategies in Sales Management for Sales Executives
0 Delegation and the Team Effort: People and Performance
P Effective Managerial Coaching and Counseling
Q Gaining Competitive Advantage
R Heeting the Japanese Challenge:
Building Competitive Organizations
Strategic Management of Technology
Finance for the Non-Financial Manager
B Total Quality Management
C Building the Winning Organization
D Customer Satisfaction:
The New Competitive Edge
E Increasing Sales Force Productivity
F Making Your Marketing Strategy Work
G Harketing Professional Services: Advanced Strategies for Implementation
H Harketing Strategy and Planning
I Pricing Strategies for Maximized Profits
J Product Profiling
K Strategic Planning for the $10-to $50-Million Company
L Customer-Driven Manufacturing:
The Manufacuring-Marketing Connection
H Increasing Productivity of Professional Services
N Just-inTime:
Managing Lead Times and Delivery Reliability
Manufacturing Strategy for competitive Advantage
A Vendor Certification
A Communicating with the Japanese Business World
B Advanced Futures and Options Strategies for Professional Financial Managers
C Credit Analysis and Financial Reporting
D Developing a Corporate Pension Strategy
E Managing Financial Risk with Futures and Options
F Strategic Financial Planning
G Decision-Making Strategies for Managers
Negotiation Strategies for Managers
I Hanaging Communications in
H
the Changing Marketplace
J The Art of Venturing: Entrepreneurship for the Businessperson
A Credit Analysis
B Finance for Non-Financial Managers
C Psychology of Persuasion
N.
17 Northern Illinois University
18 Northwestern University
19 University of Notre Dame
20 University of Pennsylvania
21 Rice University
22 University of Rochester
23 Stanford University
24 University of Texas at Austin
25 Vanderbilt University
26 University of Virginia
27 University of Washington
28 lashington and Lee University
A
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
F
A
B
A
B
C
D
F
A
A
Business Forecasting Using a PC
Chief Executives and Senior Officers of Family-Held Businesses
The Next Generation of Family Members in Family-Held Businesses
Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Managers
How to Manage the Sales Force
Successful Negotiation Skills
Hanagement cost Accounting
Advances in Manufacturing Systems Design
Manufacturing costs and Performance Measurement
Uptime Management: Reliability, Maintenance and Support
Financila seminar for Non-Financial Managers
Program on Managing Innovation
Program on Market Strategy for Technology-Based Companies
Accounting for Non-Accounting Managers
Financial Decision Making: Integrated Strategies for the Non-Financial Managers
Managing Salespeople for Performance
Marketing Strategy for Competitive Advantage
Customer Service: The New Competitive Advantage
What Executives Should Know About Finance and Accounting
Effective Management Techniques
Managing the Manager
Training the Trainer
Essentials of Purchasing for the Newly Appointed Buyer
Effective Marketing Techniques
Leadership for Extraordinary Performance
Managing Organizational and Individual Change
Finance and Accounting for Non-Financial Executives
Marketing Research
Marketing Strategy, Analysis and Decisions
Bales Hanagement and Strategies
Managing Change
Successful Negotiating Skills
Institute for Family Business
According to Briclýer's Short-Term iExecultive Programs, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1990
EXECUTIVE
UNIVERSITY-BASED
AVAILABLE
(Programs
1991*
IN
than
longer
UNIVERSITY/INSTITUTE NAME
1 University of Arizona
2
Aspen Institute
3 Babson College
F
A
B
C
D
5 Brookings Institute
6 University of California, Berkeley
7 California Institute of Technology
8 University of California,
Los Angeles
Carnegie Mellon University
week)
one
PROGRAM TITLE
A
A
B
A
B
C
D
E
4 Boston University
PROGRA4MS
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
A
Executive Development Course
Corporation in Contemporary Society
Traditional Executive Seminar
Developing Managerial Effectiveness
Achieving Global Integration
Technology Managers Program
Managing and Developing Human Resources: a Strategic Perspective
Market Segmentation Positioning and Compeitive Advantage
Changing Role of Procurement Management
Managment Development Program
Leadership Institute
Strategic Human Resources Management in a Global Economy
Implementing Hanufacturing Strategy
Understanding Federal Government Operations
Executive Program
Management Development, A Comprehensive Approach
Corporate Financial Management and Strategy Program
Executive Compensation
Advanced Strategic Narketing
Competitive Marketing Strategies for High-Tech Products
Competitve Marketing Strategies for Industrial Products
Competitive Marketing 8trategies for Services
Management of Technology and Innovation
Advanced Executive Program
B Advanced Program in Human Resource Management
C Managing the Information Resource
D Engineering and Management Program
Program for Executives
--
Program for Technical Hanagers
C College Management Program
D Senior Executive Seminar
Strategic
10 Center for Creative Leadership
ii University
of Chicago
12 Colorado State University
13 Columbia University
Management
of
Technology
Th
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
Executive Development Institute
Executive Program in Business Admisinstration: Managing the Enterprise
Executive Program in International Management: Managing for Global Success
Business Strategy
International Strategy
Leading and Managing People
Kanaging Strategic Innovation and Change
hccounting and Financial Management for the Non-Financial Executive
Financial Management
G
H
I Ruman Resource Management
J
14
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
15
L6 Duke University
s
A Dynamics of Strategy: Goals into Action
B Implementing Innovation
C Leadership at the Peak
D Leadership Development Program
E Hanaging the People Process: From Idea to Harket Entry
F Workshop in Organizational Action
A
ganagement Development Seminar
B Product Management: Analysis, Planning, Decision Making
K
L
H
A
B
C
A
B
C
larket Analysis for Competitive Advantage
Larketing Management
ales Management
)perations and Production Management
the Effective Executive
Executive Development Program
4anaging the Next Generation of Hanufacturing
finority Business Executive Program
ruck Executive Program
)artmouth Institute
D larketing Strategy Program
E Effective Management of Production Operations
kdvanced Managment Program
Program for Manager Development
Dynamics of Competitive Advantage
D Hanagerial Finance
H Strategic Human Resources Management Program
Proramu
Maunaueet
larketinar
.....
....-..
-'
A Advanced Management Program
B Management Development Program
C
17 Emory University
18 George Washington University
19 University of Georgia
20 Georgia State University
21 Harvard University
A
Managing in the Global Marketplace
A Executive Program
A Management Development Program
A Advanced Management Program
B International Senior Management
Program
C Owner/President Management Program
D Program for Management Development
Executive Program in Competitive Strategy
F Institute for the Management of Lifelong Education
G Program for Senior Executive Fellows
H Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government
I Program for Senior Managers in Government
J Contemporary Developments and Control
Corporate Financial Management
Managing the Information Services Resource
Strategic Marketing Management Program
N Manufacturing in Corporate Strategy
22 University of Hawaii
23 University of Houston
24 University of Illinois
25 Indiana University
26 University of Iowa
27 Louisiana State University
A Advanced Hanagment Program
A Executive Development Program
B Managing Operations
A Executive Development Program
B Program for International Managers
C Specialized Program for International Managers
A Managing Business Strategies Program
B Values, Choice, and Executive Action-An Executive Development Program
C Professional Manager Program
A Executive Development Program
A Executive Program
k~
4~·
28 University
of Institute
Maryland
Hassachusetts
Technology
29 Massachusetts
Institute
of
of Technology
Hiami Institute
of Michigan
Hanagement
of
Hemninger
30 Henninger Management Institute
University
31 University of Miami
University
32 UIniversity of Michigan
A
A
B
C
D
F
G
H
A
B
A
A
B
C
D
E
33 University of Minnesota
Executive Development Program
Program for Senior Executives
Sloan Fellows Program
Executive Program in Corporate Strategy
Executive Program in Management Issues for Corporate Counsel
Executive Program in Hangement of Complex Organizations
Executive Program in Japanese Technology Management
Executive Program in Financial Management
Management of Research, Development, and Technology-Based Innovation
Executive Seminar
Personal and Interpersonal Dimensions of Leadership
Minority Executive Program
Executive Program
Strategies for Global Competition
Strategy: Formulation and Implementation
Excellence in Service Management
Successful Product Innovation
Executive Communication
F
G Management of Managers
H Management II: A Hid-Management Development Program
I Corporate Financial Management
J Finance for the Non-Financial Manager
K Advanced Human Resource Executive Program
L Human Resource Executive Program
H Negotiating and Administering the Labor Contract
N Organizational Career Development
0 Strategic Collective Bargaining
P Btrategic Human Resource Planning
Applied Methods in Marketing Research
R Applied Product/Market Management
S Business to Business Marketing Strategies
T Strategic Marketing Planning
U Hanufacturing Executive Program
Executive Program
Hanagement Institute
34 University of New Hampshire
35 University of North Carolina
A
A
B
C
36 Northeastern University
37 Northwestern University
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
38 Ohio State University
39 Penn State University
A
A
B
C
D
F
G
H
J
40 University of Pennsylvania
Hanagement Academy
Executive Development Program
Executive Program
Young Executives Institute
Program for Technology Managers
Executive Development Program
Advanced Executive Program
Advanced Transportation Management
Executive Development Program
Corporate Financial Strategy
Merger Week
Managing Human Resources in Restructuring Organizations
Business to Business Marketing Strategy
Consumer Marketing Strategy
Increasing Sales Force Productivity
Transportation Marketing Strategy
Development Manufacturing's Strategic Potential
Logistics/Distribution Management
Executive Development Program
Executive Management Program
Management Program for Women
Managing the Global Enterprise Program
Program for Executive Development
Program for Strategic Leadership
Financial Analysis for Strategic Management Program
Human Resources Management Program
Industrial Marketing Management Program
Industrial Sales Management Program
Manufacturing Strategy and Technology Program
IK Program for Logistics Executives
L Strategic Purchasing Management Program
Engineer/Scientist as Manager Program
Measurinar and Manaa~cina Servicer
Oualitv
6Wharton Advanced Management Program
SB
C Implementing Strategy
Strategic Management
E Strategy Analysis for Finance and Marketing
41 University of Pittsburgh
42 Princeton University
43
44
V546
Rice University
University of Richmond
Rutgers University
Simmons College
17 Smith College
48 Southern Methodist University
T9 Stanford University
F International Forum
G Managing Organizational Change
H Managing Technology and Innovation
I Finance and Accounting for the Non-Financial Manager
J Financial Management
K Mergers and Acquisitions
L Pension Funds and Money Management
H Advanced Competitive Marketing Strategy
N Business/Industrial Marketing Strategy
O New Product Management:
Development and Introduction
Sales Force Management
A Executive Program for Expanding Companies
B Management Program for Executives
A Executive Education Program in Public Affairs
B "Ten Days at Princeton" Foreign Executive Development Program
A Advanced Management Institute
A Management Development Program
A Advanced Management Program
A Managing with Influence
B Program for Developing Executives
C Program for Developing Managers
A Management Program
A Management of Hanagers:
A Leadership Renewal Program
B Financial Management for Non-Financial Managers
Advanced Management College
B Executive Program
C Executive Program for Smaller Companies
D Sloan Program
E Executive Program in the Humanities
F Executive Program in Organizational Change
G Engineering Executive Program
H Financial Management Program
I Marketing Management Program
J
F
G
H
Effective Management of Production Operations
manufacturing Strategy for Competitive Advantage
Executive Development Program
Cost Management Institute
Administrative and Service Institute for Productivity Through Quality
Institute for Productivity Through Quality
Senior Executive Institute for Productivity Through Quality
Executive Development Program for Distribution Managers
International Logistics Program
Engineer/Scientist as Manager
51 Texas A & H University
A
B
Advanced Management Program
Management Development Program
C
Management Seminar
52 Texas Christian University
53 Tulans University
54 University of Virginia
A
Managing Managers Program
K
50
•niversity of Tennessee
A
B
C
D
E
A Program for Managers
A Executive Program
B Managing Critical Resources
C McIntire Enterpreneurial Executive Institute
D Strategic Management for Line Managers
Creating the High-Performance Workplace
Young Managers'
Program
G
F Evaluation of Capital Projects: Appraisal in Uncertain Environments
H Financial Management for Hon-Financial Managers
I
J
Mergers and Acquisitions: Strategy and Implementation
The Art of Managing Human Resources
A Strategic Approach to Managing Information Resources
L Marketing and Sales Executives
Marketing Strategy: Business to Business
N Sales Management and Marketing Strategy
0 Manufacturing Management Program
K The Power of Information:
55 Wabash College
56 University of Washington
57 Washington Campus
58 Williams College
59 Yale University
*
A
Executive Program-A Personal Development Program
Business in Japan
A International Management:
Doing
A Business and the Public Process:
A Executive Program
A Executive Management Program
How Washington Works
According to Bricker's International Directory, Long Term, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 199'1
UNIVERSITY--BASED
*
IN
1990
( ProgrX-am.M
Xe
t
tk11a rL
C>rn4 .
rr:·
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
1
Aspen Institute
2 Brookings Institute
i:::
DURATION
A
B
C
A
B
:···
::
2 days
C
I:::
~··
ii
-·I·
si
· ··
E
F
3 CA. Institute of Tech.
A
i#
:::
··
~i
· ··
2 days
2 days
3 days
ii
·····
3
3
3
3
D
E
4 University of CA.. LA
5 Case Western Reserve U.
6
Cntr for Creative Leadership
F
G
A
A
A
B
C
University
t!
:X
·:·:
ii
·:·:
i::
::::
m
i:ij
:s
:~::
-R
P
a:
n:·~
i::
s·:
:~
of Chicago
B
C
D
E
F
/SESSION
I
r~a
r~i~ii~
i~j~i
i..:
:i·
B
C
days
days
days
days
r~~
'.'"
;:~:.
'''
iii~
':'';''
';
""
:.::::::
""'
"·'
1T:
:X
:~
&i
j,
Q
~~
P
Cil
u
3 days
2 days
2 days
2 days
2 days
2
2
2
2
4
days
days
days
days
days
3 days
2 days
3 days
3 days
i:t~p
~I:
·.·.
,:-~:
·
.:f::
~r?
'''"''
:::~::;
r~~~
iox
:~:i
:::::::i
ii···-z
a~i
''';
15-20
35-70
35-70
35-70
35-70
35-70
35-70
32
30
20
30
32
32
32
35
~::~i
30
24
:· :
~ii~i
:··
X
·
18
18
2 days
:i:i:
'I"J
i·~i
sr
·YY
i.·:·:·:
··-·F·
~~::1
3 days
i
3 days
:i~~
:,.,,
2 days
3 days
15-20
15-20
;·-·i
100
30
75
30
90
AVAI LABLE
)
;·····
?,:
a·····
.j:
a
:~
·
1··
a
,i:
I
ii:
··
ii:i~
a
~~
z~
:··
i~
:j:
ei:
···
is
:;::
35-65
45-865
40-70
N/A
35-55
35-55
35-55
35-55
N/A
30-55
:·:
,·P
~·
w
ii:
ra
30-55
30-55
30-55
Bi
B
:r:
ir:
30-55
30-55
30-55
::i
:s
a
U
i.-.
I
a
::i
j~
···
tl
ia
·;·
is
ia
x
'~'
IEDIAN
·····
RANGE :~~:
AGE
~~
u
I PARTICIP. ,,. AGE
**
iS
ot
* NO. OF
ii,
i:::
a:
D
PROGRAMS
EXECUTIVE
35-55
40-42
24-62
31-63
26-64
:a
-·;
:i:::
··
-·
,,· ··
a::
·c:
SALARY
RANGE
3:·:
50
~·;:
N/A
u
:··
:~:i:
:fii:
·· ··
~~
2,.
N/A
Si5
""
N/A
55
N/A
N/A
N/A
s·:''
N/A
:~~
N/A
N/A
W:
3zi
iii
·--;-·
· ···
; i
"''
#i:
~$
:·,:
·
·:
~·;f
:::
:::ii·:
I:i
~ii.i.
ai
· ··
'"·
::::::
i,
ii
:::u
~'
:-:·:
::ii
-;·
$a
::::~
'"
'''''
44
44
44
44
44
44
N/A
N/A
43
44
42
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
:i:i
::::u
iioi
~D
;
···ul
Ix:
::·:·
:i:~
Q
';''
'''
''
i":
:81:
Lit
'~
"'
:·:·i
i:~
·
:::e
L
ii
;·~.
F:~:
44
N/A
:.:
:i:a
a
M
;··
ri.
I;
I
is
c~~
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MANAGEMENT LEVEL
:a1·~:
···
:·~
k,:
i~..·
UPPER
ENTRY MIDDLE MIDDLE SENIOR
I
35%
65%
iS3
85%
15%
~~:
40%
u
i·.:·:
20%
20%
~~:
:~:::
20%
a·
20%
20%
ii·
~:-:
20%
:a
~ls
63%
47%
:~r:
··· ·
i:ii
60%
:·I:·
··
43%
fa
46%
75%
19%
::::,
~ls
,,
··~··
,1
,:::
~i~
N/A
2%
us
.···
;·
w
~,
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
'jl
N/A
N/A
n·
ae~:
::~
~··
~:·i
u
·-·· ·
~·
~xi
Q
:~·::
""
:c'
~iZ
13%
20%
21%
33%
9%
51%
70%
8%
~:
N/A
N/A
N/A
19%
17%
29%
44%
45%
37%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
18%
40%
20%
36%
21%
16%
30%
100%
30%
24%
38%
32%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 days
H
I
~.·
I
~si
3 days
2 days
2 days
8 Dartmouth College
9 Georgia State University
A
A
4 days
10 University of Houston
A
2 days
2 days
I days
B
3 days
:~:::
C
11 University of Illinois
A
B
C
D
12 Indiana University
A
~iiii
"';
·`'·'
jj~
L
a
D
E
F
13 HA.
Institute of Tech.
14 Henninger Management Inst.
G
A
A
B
15 University of Michigan
B
C
,····
I
':
"
U
s
r:
fi
~
u
45-50
:'''''
,
·.·
ic~i
i::s
~
a
30
2 days
3 days
C`j
:,::
P~
·.
I·`
I8:-
ii
:·
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3 days
3 days
40
D
~~
4 days
3 days
40
40
40
40
4 days
3 days
3 days
4 days
F "
G
3 days
2 days
H
2 days
I
3 days
S4
K
days
4 days
Wi
3 days
40
200
·
~
::;:a
I:·.-.
:·:·:e
i~i:i
r:::i:
-~·
w
""
~·~'··
.:~f:.
~~i·i
L:i]
uu
:i·y
::~:
'~''~''
h
~
r
:i
1
a
s
f
;;
a
3
i:
w
~
~
i;
a
~:
I
ii
I
1:
:·B
r
40
40
-::
iiTa
?c·:·:
~I:
~-
43
35
1i
45
'"'''
rc~
Oil
"'"
'"'''
29-57
N/A
2 days
2 days
3.5 days
2 days
42
N/A
2 days
:':::
`~''~
35-50 i
u
X
40
30
30
3 days
3 days
3 days
N/A
N/A
N/A
.. N/A
N/A A
N/A
N/A
N/A
40
d)·l···I
D
E•
L
100
100
r
i~S
B
C
..
'"
30
38
[
N/A
N/A
25-60
30-50
30-55
25-50
25-50
25-50
25-50
25-50
40
40
40
35
35
35
35
35
30-60
35
35
40
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25-50
25-50
25-42
N/A
""
m
a
O
~:~·
a
N/A
N/A
N/A
:s
C
:·%
x:i
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
95,000-220,000
'·''
·
*·:
·
"·
,,
~i
ir;
3~·
~:
;~
·
5~~
R"
LI
tk
···
~;rii~
~:~
:.·
iiis
a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1'''
I'"''
1
"'
L
"
i
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30%
55%
25%
75%
85%
80%
25%
15%
50%
25%
50%
75%
30%
30%
30%
10%
10%
10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30%
30%
30%
30%
10%
10%
10%
10%
N/A
50%
20%
40%
40%
60%
"'
iii
;'''
:i:i: 60%
w
:·;~
60%
~:~
~: 60%
~t,
vc
8·
60%
iii
:rr
~-·
60%
a
N/A
50%
N/A
N/A
r::::
~~
26-60
39
!i
30,000-110,000
38
22-60
33
20,000-124,000
38
27-50
28
35
. 25-55
" 23-58
37
32
34
N/A
27,000-63,000
:·,
~~
14,000-70,000
a;
30
30
30-55
30-55
40
40,000-80,000
40
30,000-75,000
26
24-45
36
23-59
32
40
21,000-60,000
20,000-130,000
39
24-61
38
24,000-120,000
40
25-60
39
30,000-98,000
30%
100%
60%
N/A
N/A
70%
20%
N/A
N/A
I
a
15%
75%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
;tr
~a
u
15%
68%
~~
r:i
iii)
':i:::
:·;
a
a
~::~
li~i
76%
85%
15%
50%
23%
35%
65%
24%
70%
25%
6%
40%
35%
70%
50%
5%
5%
5%
40%
80%
60%
55%
30%
30%
10%
15%
35%
40%
10%
40%
50%
10%
3%
25%
N
0
p
P
Q
R
w
iiiji
,·,
·:·
;:I
w
~·:
::t:
1
Univ. of North Carolina
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
U
all
·····
·····
!::::
-·:·:
:~i
''"
''''
:~::
I
a:::
J
K
L
N
N
17 Northern Illinois Univ.
18 Northwestern University
19 University of Notre Dame
A
~e
'·'··
ig:j
."·
:~s
:·:·:·
iii
·`·'
~~I
· ····
h'``''
~::::
:ii:
3 days
3 days
3 days
3 days
4 days
3
3
3
2
2
days
days
days
days
days
2 days
2 days
2 days
2 days
2 days
3 days
2 days
2 days
2
2
2
2
days
days
days
days
2 days
'·"~
~::':
'·`:'·`
'·'·
·'·····
.:~:
:s~~·
I
k
a::
::a
···
······
~j~~:
::s
:··
I
35-55
25-62
~Si
xic
P::'·:
.~·:·~
:::':':·
:~::~
:t
:·,:-:
·
~j~is
'`'''
~:.-::
:iE8
Bai
;····
:iii:
--;··-
20
25-62
N/A
20
25
ij
::~
;-~
·
I::~35-55
25-62
N/A
~
ua
:~~·
·
iYi
:·:·:
··
W
::~i:
''''''
~ii~i
'"''
P
"w::
N/A
25-62
N/A
b
25-62
N/A
ri~
····
20
20
1
N/A
50
N/A
~Bi
:·~:
50
N/A
zn
'-'~·
50
N/A
D
E
4 days
3 days
~:~::
~~·~
F
2 days
G
3 days
`~~'
''~·
''-'
~i~Si
""
,ai
''';`
H
I
J
3 days
3 days
~~~
''"'~
::jq
2 days
ii~iijj
N/A
35
3 days
:~~j:
'···~·
:·.::
40
t'
N/A
26-60
N/A
:::
9
I
w
~iii~
''''''
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
""·~·
:2:~
:::::`;
XW
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i~W
:~nl
a
d
N/A
"'i
:~·a
····
~~
N/A
:·I
a
iZ
B
N/A
36
N/A
a
,,
a
::i
I~~
i::
6
.·:
-:·
..·.
·;·;
"
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25-62
70
3 days
~:3
es
"':j:i:
25- 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
C i
I
a::
(a
35
50
50
75
40
65
i~ji~i
N/A
25-62
35-55
25-62
30,000-135,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
a
O
::::
25,000-120,000
29,000-102,000
24,000-120,000
~:
it
!j
N/A
N/A
ic~
:.:.:
25-62
60
30
35
30,000-75,000
r
'ZI"'
35-55
I
a···
m
:~
·
30,000-125,000
32,000-112,000
''':'"
N/A
15
25
30
gjr
·
35
20
20
20
3 days
~jiji
o
:i·i
··
B
A
B
38
38
38
38
1
u
rs
28-60
2 days
2 and 3 days
38
"·
A
::·:·::'
28-58
27-62
~ 41.
25-59 li~~~38
-24-58 l 38
29-62 &~38
24-59
4
41
,
"'
.,,,.
.·~.~·
~x:
''~`'
~::::i
;~··~
I"""
c
'~'''
::~:~
3j~M
sP5i
21
~iiii
~w
.:.·.:·
i~i~ii
""'
.·.·.ri
~i:w
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
73%
18'''
a
~:~
···· ·
w
:i8i
''
~~
·~·~·
5%
9%
5%
10%
W
::::::
:·:-:
:·:e
35%
80%
66%
35%
35%
50%
20%
60%
20%
21%
55%
45%
40%
4%
5%
20%
5%
95%
52%
33%
15%
15%
47%
50%
21%
44%
50%
32%
6%
50%
58%
46%
9%
27%
85%
15%
N/A
N/A
~:::
`"`
2::i
Ix-~
32%
50%
85%
N/A
100%
18%
:· :·
~#
50%
86%
28%
iiSi
7i~S
"-;.
:i:(::
P
'~''~
I
:;r~
a
33%
:;w
·-··
27%
I
I:ii
::::::
:·,
~~
;;·
N/A
j::::
~·~·~
~~
?i:i
~s
··:·:
··-·
~cs
:'':'
W
II::::
qil
513
~iil
·.-i
N/A
14%
50%
80%
80%
10%
10%
10%
10%
80%
10%
80%
10%
20%
20%
10%
80%
10%
80%
20%
i:i;
ij.;ii
w
#s
::::,
15%
22%
50%
10%
20%
10%
8i
iii
2:·:·
85%
10%
N/A
50%
70%
70%
80%
20%
80%
10%
N/A
N/A
50%
20 Univ. of Pennsylvania
21 Rice University
A
B
A
22 University of Rochester
B
C
,tI
A
B
23 Stanford University
~· :l
C
D
A
B
24 Univ. of Texas at Austin
iap
C
D
25 Vanderbilt University
A ,,.
i:i:ii
B
C
1
r;
r
I.
:~
r;
ri
c
::
n
w
I
s:
s
a
:i
a
z
p~
t
a
a
~
N/A
35
25
45
50
32
30
30
30
30
30
70
60
80
40
40
40
40
40
35
35
2 days
35
4 days
4 days
4 days
4 days
35
20-25
35
35-40
A
4 days
3 days
N/A
30
B
C
2 days
25
D
3 days
2 days
25
30
2 days
25
2 days
4 days
25
50
F
28 Washington and Lee Univ.
____4 L
3 days
hi
27 University of Washington
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
4.5 days
D
E
26 University of Virginia
2
2
3
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
A
B
F
A
A
k
S
w
4
p
~
a
p
:1
a
i4
I
G
I
e
si
b
f
S
a
I
sl
i;
z
P
w
a
1
a
r
I
I9
I
I
g
ii
k
N/A
16-55
21-55
28-51
34-37
32-49
30-50
30-50
30-50
30-50
29-60
34-60
29-58
31-57
33-56
35-57
35-54
33-52
25-55
25-55
25-55
N/A
N/A
25-55
N/A
N/A
/AI&
a
o
s
:.:
r;
I
:3
I
i;
I
a
c
B
ii
1
n
w
i:
a
a
s
~
1
.e
c!
iii
a
:::
a
g
ii
~
P
3
:i
a
~
d
:1
N/A
N/A
39
31
37
39
41
40
40
40
40
39
43
43
42
44
43
43
44
35
35
35
N/A
N/A
35
N/A
N/A
N/A
40,000-130,000
40,000-130,000
41,000-93,000
38,000-105,000
46,000-83,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2N/A
N/A
i Ni
/A
i
N/A
N/A
23-63
wIN
N/A
42
* According to Bricker's Short-Tera Executive Programs, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1990.
** See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
30%
Ii;
B
:i
I
27%
13%
25%
1
i,d
ii
B
B
25%
18%
56%
35%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
35%
25%
k
35%
33%
45%
24%
40%
25%
s
I;
:5
i;
50%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60%
33%
67%
18%
21%
31%
40%
40%
40%
40%
20%
70%
40%
41%
30%
41%
15%
57%
45%
40%
75%
50%
67%
33%
37%
10%
9%
20%
20%
20%
20%
15%
30%
25%
34%
35%
26%
40%
19%
15%
35%
25%
20%
100%
35%
45%
55%
20%
5%
25%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
45%
50%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
:3
40%
N/A
100%
UNIVERSITY-- BASED
IN 1991 *
( Programs
longer
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
i
University of Arizona
2 Aspen Institute
3 Babson College
6 University of CA.
Berkeley
A
A
B
A
B
C
D
E
A
D
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
7 CA. Institute of Tech.
University of CA.,
Los Angeles
Crie
H
A
A
B
C
D
9 days
1 week
;::::
1 or 2 weeks
2 weeks
1 week
2-1 week units
1 week
1 week
•::•i
1 week
2-1 week sessions
2-2 week modules
1 week
1 week
1 week
;··-;i
4 weeks
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
2 weeks
1 week
1 week
1 week
40
15-20
15-20
35
.:.:.:.
'i~i
iill
30
35
40-45
,::::
...
Wiji
,:·
;.;.;.;
a!
~i
,,;·.·.·
~ii:
F:n
AGE
RANGE
a
I
*ii
N/A
40
30
!ii~ii
40
35
40
ilii~
AVAILABLE
wemk)
/SESSION
DURATION
**
B
C
5 Brookings Institute
than
PROGRAMS
NO. OF
PARTIC.
F
4 Boston University
EXECUTIVE
40
60
50
40
36
30
60
50
40
44
40
45
60
35
:·-·
,:·b
n
:::
~·~~
...· ·
~
:~
~iii
:":'
""'
I~
w
:·:·r
::x:
·~
;~
'·':
··· ·
:~::
a
:a:
:a:
:":
;·,
··-~
~cw
Q
~:r
~~:
::~::
1
:~~
ij::
~:~
·-
"' MEDIAN
j:t
AGE
U
I
34-54
u
N/A
I
N/A
30-45
35-55
29-42
35-50
35-55
35-55
28-58
35-50
33-45
37-48
35-60
35-50
33-50
35-55
35-53
35-55
30-50
32-52
28-50
35-55
35-55
N/A
35-50
N/A
··
··
n
s
I
I
r~
~~
.·~
e.~
ia
i8
~~
~
;5;
a
··
n
~~
:·
I:
w
:~
I
a··
ii
41
N/A
N/A
37
40
36
40
40
40
35
40
38
43
45
43
~~
:~
a
w
:ji3
'·`
I~~
::
· ··
N/A
42
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
~~;
·t:~
~:::
~j
:~a
::~:;
:u~
35,000-109,000
N/A
:·~i~ii
·:-:
N/A
N/A
35,000-55,000
w
:~iil~
I
t::i
~
op
I,·
.·,
,,
75,000-120,000
65,000-100,000
75,000-150,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
60,000-150,000
50,000-150,000
!:·L
:.~
a
60,000-200,000
44
45
40
40
44
N/A
N/A
":::
38 t
45
42
SALARY
RANGE
D
ni
~~:
r~i
I
I
50,000-150,000
N/A
45,000-150,000
··· ·
B
as
2~~
m
a::
~·
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i::::
;;
x-:s·
·
~:·:·
::i5
LEVEL
MANAGEMENT
--
UPPER
ENTRY MIDDLE MIDDLE SENIOR
~
10%
45%
45%
0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
""
rrr
75%
25%
~i~:
100%
55% 45%
:":
~
50%
50%
~s
10%
90%
···-·
10%
90%
~:i:
5%
80%
15%
iii
xw
w::···
10%
90%
iY
~i8
25%
60%
15%
~~:
42%
58%
;~:·i
··
30%
70%
:ie
iii
···
55%
40%
5%
a
::::i
70%
30%
:;::i
70%
30%
.:::::
30%
10%
60%
:·:·?
58%
42%
50%
25%
25%
~~
15%
75%
10%
1'11
·.,·
50%
25%
25%
I:·:~·
34%
27%
39%
::':::
:::"
100%
70%
30%
a
50%
50%
20%
60%
20%
9 9Carnegie
6 weeks
Hellon Univ.
B
C
D
"'
2 weeks
25-30
3 weeks
3 weeks
25-35
-:
:t·
·
j:i
1
1
1
1
1
I
10 Cntr for Creative Leadership A
B
11 University
of Chicago
12 Colorado State Univ.
13 Columbia University
ii:::
m
;··:
~:~:
C
9t
r:
D
E
qle
:~~:
F
~
iii:i
week
week
week
week
week
1 week
1 week
35
N/A
12
24
24
20
ii::.::
40-45
30
:i:i:ii
20
:·:·:·:
·
75
N/A
1 uweek
36
1 week
35
50
J
1 week
40
·::
1 week
~:i:
1 week
D
E
BF~
·r~,:i
··.
33-57 ii
.
N/A
43
47
N/A
N/A
42
jJ
41
41
iH
H
N/A
N/A
32-58
•i::43
28-55
29-53
,';'
N/A
N/A
39
42
N/A
N/A
--
37I
II..
/A
60
28-57
39
1 week
60
ii]
28-60
40
50,000-200,000
i week
....
,.
30
•.
28-59
:-::n
30-60
30-55
32-54
43
50,000-200,000
Bi!!!
5 weeks
40U
70
Fiiiii
35
60
1 week
4 weeks
2 weeks
1 week
1 week
::i:.:
....,
.;..;
40
*
N/A
42
*
40,000-160,000
43
N/A
45,000-160,000
43
90,000-220,000
45
i.50,000-120,000
:·i 30-55
35-55
36-57
32-50
66
45
55
45
,,
.·.·.~1
N/A
40
...;,;.
N/A
1%
15%
26%
10%
29%
5%
45%
7%
38%
6%
15%
53%
a
':;:::
:a:
Q
ai:
:·:
r·i:
5%
N/A
25%
30%
N/A
A~i
50,000-100,000
0,000-200,000+
week
5%
N42
N/A
40
1
25%
N/A
I
w
5%
N/A
N/A
N/
43
":!:
i
i
:::
!is
N/A
15%
40%
10%
30%
35%
17%
40%
30%
60%
10%
ijii
i 85,000-190,000
i
·;·.·.·1
70%
85%
'';'
iii
::i
I
;w
I''''
Ni/:-
26-53
a:
..
•:•:
15%
·-···
N/A
I[
44
-
:':::
33,000-116,000i
i
42
2I7,_ 57
*
45
27-55
33-63
7n
1 week
C
N/A
30-50 iiiii 43
o50
1 week
B
N/A
41
44,000-130,000
I week
Dartmouth College
N/A
36
30-55
F
G
H
I
X
44,000-210,000
[34-56
B
C
40,000-75,000
43
75
!:i
ii28,000-65,000
28-60
25-58
50
A
42
45
N/A
2 weeks
K
L
i.: 85,000-200,000
38
4 weeks
i:ii
":'
40
26-62
B
E
15
27-57
30-58
35-66
;:;:::
25-65
27-58
3 weeks
1 week
2-1week phases
4 weeks
.
Zi~
N/A
24
A
B
A
A
C
D
50,000-165,000
:3.
.:.::::
.....
::
14 Cornell University
35-55
34-54
31-52
35-60
:-:-:
20%
23%
50%
N/A
N/A
40%
41%
6%
40%
40%
37%
46%
65%
16%
25%
30%
42%
55%
44%
55%
37%
60%
55%
54%
63%
42%
50%
40%
60%
75%
15%
15%
20%
N/A
N/A
40%
32%
94%
21%
10%
18%
48%
20%
26%
75%
70%
33%
15%
56%
30%
23%
30%
15%
11%
20%
18%
20%
30%
25%
20%
80%
30%
60%
40%
54%
70%
40%
40%
23%
Duke University
B
C
D
E
i:ii
···
a
:~:
I
::'
9''
'"
f
"···
w
x·
17 Emory University
18 George Washington Univ.
19 University of Georgia
20 Georgia State University
21 Harvard University
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
C
D
E
::~
····
~i
~n
::::
..~
:::
··· ·
L
":
*I
:~:
a
~
n
:"
:·:·
ii
sr
.
....
):·X~
1 week
1 week
2weeks
2 weeks
55
55
55
4 weeks
2-1 week units
40
45
30-45
30-45
i
i
u
35-50
30-45
35-58
i
1 week
i
20
48
11 weeks
9 weeks
160
96
3-3 wk units
100oo-120
12 weeks
125
1 week
60
75-80
.
N/A
::
:i
1
i
a
ii
i,
37
36
40
42
~
40
:·
N/A
i
N/A
~
ic
38-43
40
:~
26-55
N/A
36-56
46
37-55
46
i:
30-65
42
si:
i
i::
30-44
27-60
32-60
37
44
45
1
"
I
P
~
a weeks
M/A
N
H
3 weeks
N/A
28-50
43
I
3 weeks
N/A
J
N/A
1 week
N/A
L
M
N
A
A
B
A
B
C
25 Indiana University
A
26 Jniversity of Iowa
B
C
A
___
-
'''
X1
ii
iii
c
:~
w
w
~i
w
:~
a
:~
::~
"
[
60
,
2 weeks
60
2 weeks
120
--
/A
-
36-50
35-55
~F I
;s
a
2
weekse
6:0
:
2
weeks
70
C~35-55
5; weest
66
L
4 weeks
35
1 week
20
4 weeks
30-36
12 months
4 months
3 weeks
1 week
3 weeks
2 weeks
25
!:•:
20
35
20
35
30
t:
d
f
i!
k
:·:
i
:·
;s
r
~r
33-61
r
:~
:3
I
34-54
31-51
32-48
36-55
26-45
28-42
i! 35-58
30-58
-:i
bi.:
ii
33-53
32-54
i:
~
s
i,
a
:i
i
4
"i
5::
d
~
i
N/A
.
44
N/A
30%
N/A
N/A
65%
10%
N/A
30%
60,000-150,000
10%
65%
65%
10%
40%
30%
62%
75%
40%
22%
7%
70%
39%
45%
39%
48%
N/A
N/A
N/A
20%
80%
35,000-90,000
25%
_
.
N/A
N/A
N/A
100,000-250,000
100,000-300,000
N/A
N/A
a
I 45,000-250,000
:I
N/A
N/A
"
a
x
s
a
p
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ii
50,000-250,000 Eii•
50,000-250,000
44
42
36
50,000-200,000
i65,000-150,000
38,000-140,000
41
iii38,000-100,000
42
33
.?
i
:·:
:·:
f
45
42
43
N/A
50,000-200,000
I I60,000-250,000
45
45
34
43
:·:
b
e
i:
r
:·
a
ii
i
65%
5%
15%
5%
50%
70%
55%
30%
40%
65%
t
w
P
:i
~
i
r
w
35%
N/A
w
a
AI
UI/
II
- 1*1
g
x
a
i:
a
I
20
2 weeks
1 week
2 weeks
35-55
30-45
"
i
b
B
c
60
G
n
24 University of Illinois
-
al
1,i
22 University of Hawaii
23 University of Houston
41V)
2 wks or 2-1 wk
(-2 Ak, or
r
55,000-140,000
N/A
N/A
55,000-150,000
75,000-400,000
50,000-120,000
35,000-150,000
Fiii
;:;:
N/A
5%
10%
15%
10%
55%
18%
25%
19%
50%
24%
28%
65%
75%
60%
50%
70%
50%
65%
45%
55%
60%
36%
40%
37%
2F4%
37%
4%
5%
25%
5%
38%
15%
20%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%
72%
35%
21%
40%
45%
20%
35%
25%
27%
15%
45%
10%
39%
39%
27
Louisiana State Univ.
28 University of Maryland
29 MA. Institute of
Technology
i::
A
A fi
a
::::
B
C
D
::::
E
i~E
:::
FI
30 Menninger Management Inst.
31 University of Miami
32 University of Michigan
ir
L
:i
G n:I:I~
u;
H ::.:
P
A ::i*i
B ~I
'''
A Y
A '::
ii
B si·;
a
C
P
2 weeks
9 weeks
12 months
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
2 weeks
iiiii~
P
1 week
r·;::
·
......
1 week
1 week
4 weeks
1 week
1 week
·~-:·
'''';
E
1 week
F
1 week
G
1 week
•. !ii.E
1
H
.
I
:;:~i
SSSS
"""
'''"
~:~·i·~
:rie:
·
'~"
:::":.
:::r:
n
2:E~
·-·-·
~s;
'·a:1
· ..
:.:.:.:
~:
i·~1·.·
···-.·.
::ix·
·:·~.·
.···cSP
'"''
~igl
:r~
'·'··
·
35
50
56
50
25-30
30
25-30
45
70
N/A
24
60
55-60
45
45
35
35
20
38
..
9
week
35
a
~
p
s
s
i
a
1;
~
~
:·
r
r;
30-55
30-50
38-55
30-48
30-57
N/A
N/A
N/A
30-60
r
i
a
N/A
27-58
a
:i
(1
ii
L
i
k
e
:r·.
i:
i
5
34-64
28-60
36-56
I
42
45
36
40
N/A
N/A
N/A
40
N/A
42
43
N/A
42
N/A
34-61
N/A
N/A
N/A
25-59
31-61
f 28-60
I~ 28-59
38
40,000-130,000
:a
:K
N/A
ri:
iit
i
I
i.
I
B
30,000-200,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
75,000-200,000
N/A
K50,000-250,000
9
8
9
i~
N/A
26,000-100,000
40
38
44
30,000-158,000
35,000-155,000
60,000-202,000
36-58
J
K
L
1 week
2 weeks
2 weeks
40
30
35
•.30-60
42-58
35-55
40
30,000-165,000
49
42
86,000-200,000
45,000-110,000
1 week
45
26-60
39
30,000-110,000
40
42
45,000-100,000
50,000-100,000
O
P
R
S
:·:
·
B
r::
I
x:
:·:
·
~
T
a
U
A
w
a
:j:
I3r-0 A35ar.-
W.ahmi
1 week
32
1 week
35-40
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
2 weeks
5-1 week units
35
I
·~.·
iii~j
"'
I
:rn
;-·
:··~
~;··
Q
:~
32
39
40
45
beek.
"
'i:
·
i
~
·
a
I)
:i
i~·
::
u
~
r
36-57
25-58
N/A
38
N/A
30-51
N/A
24-61
38
26-60 i 38
38-55 ii 45
31-53 ....;,
~i
·-··
I
····
i:rs
'~'~
"
zf:
::::
a
:ii
~·
25,000-120,000
15%
d
iii
~:i
::::
a~:
5%
:r~
u
~
s~
w
.~·
42%
20%
15%
40%
45%
60%
35%
80%
30%
55%
30%
a
:;i
1
:ib
m
15%
50%
57%
45,000-122,000
24,000-120,000
25,000-120,000
r:i
a
~i
a
5%
3a
10%
w
w
:i
t:i
ii;
40%
50%
40%
30%
a
a
ra
::~
~~
N/A
80%
25%
55%
50%
60%
20%
20%
33%
47%
4000%
1
:ji
ai
N/A
N/A
70%
35%
64%
iis
:·:
·
N/A
41,000-117,000
15%
5%
P
"
60,000-248,000
40
1
I
J
B
~
i:
ia
ii
W
5
5%
i5i
:a
N/A
N/A
1 week
I
33%
40%
N/A
I
H ii
a
N a
33 University of Minnesota
3-2 wk summers
60%
60%
67%
60%
100%
10%
60%
100%
20%
75%
30%
50%
36%
40%
80%
80%
25%
33%
500%
10%
10%
10%
20%
25%
50%
20%
40%
25%
40%
40%
20%
19%
75%
35%
20%
75%
40%
75%
20%
80%
20%
10%
20%
30%
30%
24%
25%
10%
25%
60%
:··:
r:j:
34 Univ. of New Hampshire
35 Univ. of North Carolina
36 Northeastern University
37 Northwestern University
A
A
B
C
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
of
Pennsylva
:j15
··:·
;·:·:
i::::
:ii:
·~·~·'
:i:::
1-2 wk unit &3-1 wk
K
L
I week
J
Univ.
:·r:·
4 weeks
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
1 week
I
38 Ohio State University
39 Penn State University
:~:::
·-.
· ···
b
3-1 week units
8 days
3 weeks
5-1 week units
5-1 week units
5-3 day units
'"
:t·:I
~t
I:::i:
'-'
r·
iir
'"·
g
·r~:
:·::::
i:i~
'''''
:ii
R
ii5li
i:i:
"'''
uii; |
:i::j
xa
:r~:~
sa:
~:·:·:·
53~i
'`'''''
~;'''
ww
iii~gj
·~·····
:::;::::
~i~ij~
i~i~l
Y·~~
"""
'`'''`
'''"~
a:::
i:iiiiii
·.·.·.-.
'..'.'.
i$
uw
i35~
--·~-··
A ! -2wk units over 2 yz
A
4 wks or 4-1 wk
iSigl
B
1 week
~~:
wcl
'''"
C
2 weeks
:·:~·:
'·'
r*i)
D
4 weeks
i:' ·I,
:·:·~:
E
2 weeks
F
10 days
''`'''
G
H
I
2 weeks
2 weeks
1 week
b~i
iii:
J
K ~81
L I::::::
::::
M
2 weeks
ia
B
16:
::·:
·
j::::
10 days
10 days
2 weeks
1 week
5 weeks
|
I
22
50
50
45
32
60
I:··r
.i:
:··
..·r!
Z
2::
L
45
60
50
75
50
65
60
60
45
50
45
50
46
20-30
N/A
42
25-35
25
25-35
30-55
28-52
32-49
35-58
26-43
28-45
30-55
36-55
29-58
33-48
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30-60
N/A
30-60
30-54
38-54
28-46
35-51
29-41
34-55
35-52
34-55
cu;
i~it
:i9i
··-··
I
I
.i
"
I
u
c:~l
~~~
P
''"
:~a
:·:;:·
·
:.:~i
i~ii~
ill
~5·x
;'·'·'
~ws
''"
:·:·r4
ja
42
i:
43
34
36
41
46
40
38
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
::~i
·-·
:::::
:is
DM
:~:
~:;
"
B
D
~:~
'"
I
a---·
N/A
41
N/A
f
F
"
j
a
K
I:
r;
::
O
33-57
32-56
32-55
33-55
33-50
30-53
35-59
s·-·
:·
i~iii
~~i
;i*
·--····
··;
ii~i
e
n:·:·~
:· ···
iiio
"
N/A
N/A
::,:
-···
a
N/A
33,000-91,000
N/A
N/A
B:ii
p·:::;
L
i:
35,000-90,000
e~:
i::::
:·~:
42
N/A
~fi
:j::;
I~
43
N/A
35
N/A
44
36
N/A
N/A
46
N/A
44
N/A
45
N/A
•
40
43
43
45
38
~:;
~
lij
:~
P
d
:~
I
N/A
'''~
:~:
ri
45
,m
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
55,000-175,000
:i:: 85,000-400,000
22%
1 56%
-8%
22t
22%
!
c.:
···
40
· 4
O
a
···-
&X
:,...
w
·x·:
ziri
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i J
20-30
25-35
20-30
20-30
35-45
N/A
N/A
N/A
"
a
N/A
-····
w,
·-N/A
90,000-200,000 ~a
ijijii
35,000-90,000
I
:w~
60,000-150,000 ::~i
·····
a
~i:
N/A
a
N/A
i:ti
·····
N/A
a
N/A
i·3! N/A
h~:~
2n--n
fl._
:·:·s
~~5
j3~j
`;·
~8~
'
'`''
iii~i
""
20%
15%
5%
25%
33%
70%
10%
30%
10%
20%
20%
33%
58%
65%
6%
87%
10%
60%
15%
42%
30%
70%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
47%
80%
35%
40%
59%
20%
94%
8%
90%
15%
85%
25%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
7%
60%
41%
100%
i:IS
L
'`''
~:~:
"'
fjt~
"-`i:
iii
'''
'''
::~::
~~:
;j~
·~
P
~j~
~s
Eli:
""'
~~·
'~'
22t
20%
22%
60%
88%
67%
51%
80%
57%
76%
80%
60%
53%
83%
54%
40%
12%
33%
49%
20%
43%
24%
20%
40%
47%
17%
24%
100%
41 University of Pittsburgh
42 Princeton University
43 Rice University
44 University of Richmond
45 Rutgers University
46 Simmons College
1 week
D a
1 week
E ··1 week
a
F ~y
3-1 week units
G :n
1 week
H ~i~
1 week
B
I Ei
1 week
E~
J ..
1 week
I
K #:
1 week
L fi
1 week
M t::
1 week
N
1 week
:·i
O ::~
1 week
":
1 week
i:::
I
A
1 week
a
B i;ir!
5 weeks
-···
A A···.
30 weeks
B iiij
10 days
a
A i:.I·2 weeks
A E·i
2 weeks
A ii;~~
1 week
A ::~
1 week
B '''
8 weeks
C
47 Smith College
48 Southern Methodist Univ.
1
.,-~
iiiiiiii
ki~
r~
:·:::::
~~a
:4'
~·i
30
30
20-30
~:~i
I-.x
:::::~
LiW
:::i:i
:~:j
*iS;
·~:i::
·-·
-··
:S·x
r-s
···~
E·::::::
I:~·~
'~'~
I
""
t:ru
·-····
:··
I
::::,
'".
r-:
E~E~
'·
':':':'
:s~
~~::
;·-·
Ci4
i~~
I
o~r
::i:::
:~1:
rr-
42
23-60
42
29-53
25-62
39
40
25-63
39
28-60
39
26-60
41
27-59
:~'''
28-61
27-43
:~3:
;i~ii
5-··
:·c·~
31-~55
K~~
30-50
38
45
29-49
40
25-50
26-45
29-48
35
39
37
29-49
36
32-58
25-54
45
40
H
2
II
180-190
10n
'"
:':':
"'
nl
· ··
I
:'"····
40,000-130,000
40,000-130,000
.·.·~
40,000-130,000
~~. 40,000-130,000
50,000-150,000
u
:~~
~I~·40,000-130,000
xli
~:
:·~:·
40,000-130,000
40,000-130,000
34
N/A
i~ii
42
N/A
N/A i:o~·i:
N/A
Q
38
20
N/A
30
40,000-150,000
6
~~I
''
29-53
s~
:::j:
:~~.
r·
····
:·:~:~:
i~ii
1
''''
40,000-150,000
40,000-150,000
:~ 40,000-130,000
r·-·
I
:~r
···-· 100,000-800,000
;-··
55,000-150,000
u
·-;
~
j`i:
k~
fl~i·1
:·r:i
N/A
:·:-:
·
L
i::::
N/A
65,000-230,000
45,000-85,000
ii:~
28,000-85,000
:·:· 36,000-160,000
aa
j·:~ 23,000-56,000
:·:·:
·
~ai 40,000-100,000
url
:::~
IB 40,000-140,000
:~~
r:~
·
u
32,000-82,200
N/A
28-56
38-55
30-62
29-46
45
45
37
N/A
N/A
N/A
41-57
50
N/A
'":'''
P
t'
i
~·
u; 1
;j:
!r:
·
I
i
D ~---b
35%
26%
45%
52%
45%
40%
32%
62%
36%
45%
37%
42%
52%
58%
79%
53%
52%
36%
45%
44%
46%
47%
48%
34%
21%
44%
12%
72%
80%
35%
10%
8%
100%
16%
2%
19%
~----
i
*i
~
:i:i
Ir:
t
/------
··
ul
:·:·
liii
ii:
~:
:i'
····
4
*1
il:f
B
":
'''
252
58%
10%
7%
55%
60%
48%
44%
100%
70%
55%
40%
40%
11%
17%
11%
8%
88%
20%
10%
65%
38%
5%
52%
53%
3%
5%
Q
fi
r
i8
·~!
ii:
P·s
j::
:·:·
d
:~
:;::
O
A
:il
42
20
2 weeks
42
~'''
G
40
:·:·:·
~~
35-56
33-58
46
45
N/A
N/A
:i:j
i~i
12 days
H
2 weeks
66
,,
~::::
32-56
44
N/A
ii::
"`
::::
iri
i
39%
~--L
a~~
iii
'·'·
9 months
9 days
F
1
:~: 1
''''''
43
40
120
week
44
29-59
32-54
1 week
1 week
8 weeks
B
32-57
35-55
40
''~
x··
:S
!8
·-q
X
43
40
50
32
36
2 weeks
r:r:
''''
~j:
26-57
26-60
29-60
40-70
40
:':i'
`;
i"
B
D
E
:':::::
,,
..;...
,:~w
i·i
Cr~
45
2-3 wk units 2 yrs
C
:"
weeamk
1~
49 Stanford University
:-:::·:
·
40
35
30
25
35
50
35
40
30
35
50
35
F:~:
''
'i·
c~~
~·:3
3
:~:
··
:~
A
A
P~
r.~,·
·'·'·'
a
i8
''
50%
10%
35%
48%
25%
65%
14%
66%
50%
20%
50%
42%
15%
80%
100%
10%
100%
100%
20%
100%
2 weeks
2 weeks
1 week
1 week
"'
50 University of Tennessee
51 Texas A & M University
52 Texas Christian Univ.
53 Tulane University
54 University of Virginia
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
A
A
A
B
C
D
E
ii5ij
t:e
;···
::::::
;"
P
::':·
:~:
IOi
I
x·:
·:·:·:
I-·
·~~
''''
''
~~
:~·:
i:::i
::~::
~:~::
s~s~ii
::::::
:~~
r· :e
sj~
F
G
H
''''''`
-····~
'"'"
3-1 wk& 1-3 day
38
1 week
2-1 week units
36
36
3-1 week units
80
1 week
1 week
1 week
40
35
36
l week
25
3 weeks
30
2 weeks
40
1 week
40
1 week
25
9~
B
I
si
:~
a
a
F
'"
32-55
:a·
35-55
30-50
30-56
28-45
.
3
i"
5:
:~
s
cl
i:
Iii4
I 35-60
t
N/A
S 29-54
6 weeks
100
31-56
29-53
D
I
"i!
b
30-62
N/A
43
41
35
48
40
42
34
N/A
44
43
N/A
41
N/A
N/A
27-40
32
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
1 week
30
N/A
N/A
1
L
1 week
40
N/A
N/A
H1
N
o
A
A
A
,.-..
40
week
2 weeks
Iweek
I week
2 weeks
7 weeks over 3 years
1 week
N/A
40
40
N/A
N/A
25-30
I week
N/A
5 weeks
.. .
N/
33-54
N/A
N/A
35-52
31-58
N/A
:·
a
:~
~
a
a
a
:i
a
29-62
-.
30
1 31-59
9
28
a
:~
it
N/A
38
N/A
N/A
42
38
N/A
42
50,000-120,000
N/A
40,000-125,000
42,800-370,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i8
"~Si
'"
ii]
Q
i:::
w
i~
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
x~
i!!
i.
:i!
:~:
~~
i8
::::
r·
10%
ii I
li:i
P
:a
D
is
ill.
I
::i
:~:
a
sri
a.Ii
:s
;;·
:i:i
N/A
N/A
x
i::.
N/A
N/A
::~
w
::::
i:::
5;;
,·
····
N/A
'?
N/A
N/A
N/A
:·:·
~:i
N/A
i::
10%
N/A
9...·
:i.
5%
20%
80,000-235, 000
22,300--130,000
"
·::u;
L
w
R
si'·
10%
65%
40%
40,000-100,000
s~
·
O
:
35,000-85,000
u
I
ii:
ii:
a
::::
~::
155
"'
i:!
nnn-r00- nnn00
45,000-300,000
75,000-150,000
u
Si
liij
:5
Qi
:~
;
·-·
20%
40%
50,000-150,000
d
36
2
70%
N/A
i 40,000-90,000
28,000-60,000 i 20%
45,000-150,000
35
35
N/A
30-60
20%
N/A
N/A
N/A
45
40
33-60
40
N/A
i
/A
45
40
.Ii 30
45
_I__
'';"'
....+,
30-59
33-56
32-53
30-60
28-65
2 weeks
2 weeks
1 week
1 week
1 week
3 weeks
1 week
--
40
K
57 Nashington Campus
58 Williams College
110
110
1 week
J
55 Wabash College
56 Univ. of Washington
"'""
55%
10%
45%
80%
75%
20%
15%
50%
20%
60%
60%
25%
30%
47%
10%
40%
45%
45%
20%
30%
55%
20%
60%
86%
30%
20%
70%
16%
15%
15%
40%
65%
45%
50%
25%
14%
40%
50%
50%
20%
50%
62%
70%
80%
80%
10%;
10%
60%
25%
70%
10%
80%
35%
20%
10%
60%
8%
60%
10%
70%
25%
100%
30%
15%
30%
30%
50%
10%
50%
84%
50%
25%
22%
15%
15%
16%
10%
10%
15%
85%
40%
15%
70%
)
i59•Yale University
)
iA
4 weeks
50o
33-54
Hý42•
. 36,000- 250, 000i
* According to Bricker's International Directory, Long Term, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1991.
** See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
20%
i 40% i 40%
UNIVERSITY--BASED
(Programs
less
EXECUTIVE
than
PROGRAMS
one
r-
-
-.....
REPRESENT
FUNCTIONS
-
IN
*
1990
week)
COMPANY
-
AVAILABLE
r
-
-
r----
"""'
w--•ml•
D
r----
I
r
II
1 Aspen Institute
A
B
C
A
B
2 Brookings Institute
100%
D
15%
:·· ·
8
:ri;
C
::r::
100%
25%
25%
10%
10%
25%
10%
25%
10%
10%
10%
25%
F
3 California Institute of Tech.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A
A
4
5
Dniversity of California, LA
Cas Western Reserve U.
6
:enter for Creative Leadership A
B
C
45
6
Iniversity
of
Chi
I
I~li
~ai
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
25%
5%
we!
B
2%
4%
4%
36%
2%
11)
70%
N/A
N/A
--- -- --~----~- ------~
E
a
r!
a
10%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
9%
30%
5%
34%
5%
63%
16%
23%
64%
48%
17%
6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7%
N/A
N/A
17%
22%
2%
33%
N/A
N/A
N/A
a
87%
13%
3%
6%
85%
20%
i
12%
:~
B
·:r
i
n
~
r
g
11%
2%
7%
1
r;
~
r
r
D
N/IA
NIA
1I1
N/A
j/N/A
N/A
r
ZIS
OF
nnn
25%
25%
25%
a
ii
51
w
20%
20%
it
:i
a
I
C
:r
i:
r
:·
11%
19%
100%
16%
I/A
N/A
5%
II
I
22%
6%
17%
3%
I
I
46%
11%
33%
40%
11%
33%
S
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
4%
15%
9t
I:·::
o
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
H/A
N/A
50%
55%
49%
15%
AlA
N/A
ORGANI:ATION
1,00010,000
>10,000
50%
25%
40%
50%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
N/A
N/A
35%
N/A
N/A
N/A
25%
80%
60%
80%
80%
80%
80%
N/A
H/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50%
28%
24%
35%
36%
NI/
N/A
17%
27%
50%
45%
AI/
N/A
!!+iN/A
D
N/A
N/A
F
0
N/A
H
N/A
I
N/A
J
N/A
A
20%
A ii+!+
A
N/A
B :·::~::
N/A
C
10%
A
10%
B ··-·- 20%
C
D
N/A
8 Dartmouth College
9 Georgia State University
1C University of Houston
12 Indiana University
A
B
C
D
E
F
..
L3 fassachusetts Institute of Tec A
14 lenninger Hanagement Institute A
B
L5
A
n
of
iversity
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10%
80%
20%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
n/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
M
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
70%
1%
D
30%
E
F'
15%
G
30%
H
20%
I
10%
iH
20%
15%
C
1K
N/A
20%
20%
30%
N/A
B iii
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i/A
N/A
N/A
30%
14%
2%
40%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5%
N/A
N/A
30%
15%t
35%
35%
9%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
N/A
5iO
10%
N/A
N/A
10%
N/A
N/A
10%
50%
N/A
N/A
5%
N/A
N/A
N/A
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
N/A
N/A
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
5%N/A 30%
N/A
N/A
15%
10%
20%
16%
20%
20%
15%
25%
12%
11%
8
':
t!
i!
:·
~
t:
d
U I
MI
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
80%
10%
20%
N/A
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
75%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
19%
25%
30%
10%
20%
20%
17%
40%
S
S
40%
40%
a
40%
E
E
:i
40%
40%
N/A
N/A
10%
11%
~
s
25%
13%
>
80%
2%O
l2%
10%
25%
100%
40%
25%
70%
-20
N/A
70%
80%
80%
5%
10%
:·
__
N/A
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
5%
20%
N/A
10%
5%
3%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
20%
20%
20%
20%
10%
5%
N/A
10%
N/A
5%
+s~!!+
University of Illinois
nI
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
10%
N/A
N/A
85%
35'
3t
15%
10%
10%
5%
15%
---
20%
30%
20%
10%
5%
5%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10%
50%
N/A
N/A
50%
YI&
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
A/N
85%
80%
70%
50%
N/A
N/A
40%
20%
20%
25%
40%
40%
20%
20%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
80%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
25%
50%
16%
40%
35%
39%
25%
40%
40%
45%
50%
50%
38%
20%
74%
40%
45%
44%
50%
40%
30%
35%
40%
45%
57%
90%
0
10%
5%
F
Ii 20%
5%
8%
30%
10%
5%
11%
20%
15%
20%
5%
20%
30%
30%
10%
16%
20%
5%
35%
10%
5%
1f
University of North Carolina
A
25%
B
24%
5%
57%
53%
E
56%
44%
F
35%
65%
31%
-
i0
25%
70%
N/A
N/A
14%
N/A
16%
25%
75%
25%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
23%
41%
34%
N/A
O
100%
NIA
A
100%
ic:
N/A
50%
27%
73%
N/A
N/A
95%
L
N
N
36%
A
ii85%
.·i.
N/A
N/A
11%
a~i
8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
5%
15%
66%
90%
N/A
NIA
N/IA
NA
N/A
N/A
10%
30%
60%
6%t
48%
B
90%
10%
40%
60%
C
90%
10%
50%
50%
90%
10%
20%
80%
80%
20%
78%
5%
8T%
34%
19%
29%
26%
•iiii
·'·i
N/A
3%
12%
8%
9%
9%
15%
26%
10o
4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20%
20%
N/A
N/A
25%
N/A
N/A
20%
N/A
25%
B
A
7%
14%
76%
B
A
B
20%
15%
20%
9%
University
12%
3%
17%
80%
N/A
6%
:·i
20%
50%
B
23%
12%
N/A
C
I.
50%
25%
N/A
42%
K
B
1
25%
10%
niversity of Notre Dame
ice
70%
25%
N/A
H
I
niversity of Pennsylvania
63%
25%
25%
•iii!
F
0
22%
5%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10%
N/A
D
.9
15%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50%
Illinois University
L8 Iorthwestern University
50%
15%
15%
75%
D
3
rorthern
10%
60%
10%
H
L7
10%
50%
30%
75%
90%
C
20%
45%
10%
N/A
8%
3%
6%
19%
N/A
N/A
20%
N/A
20%
N/A
N/A
3%
6%
28%
27%
36%
10%
61%
12%
9%
11%
6%
a
si
iI
10%
30%
50%
N/A
N/A
N/A
49%
76%
64%
28%
30%
70%
20%
80%
20%
70%
20%
80%
30%
70%
20%
50%
40%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35%
16%
21%
3%
27%
9%
46%
26%
10%
N/A
12%
22 University of Rochester
23 Stanford University
24 University of Texas at Austin
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
A
B
C
D
'~
20%
c~i
h~·l:
i :·
A
B
C
D
26 University of Virginia
27 University of Washington
i:~~
i~51a
28 Washington and Lee University
26%
27%
43%
30%
50%
::8':·'
15%
15%
15%
15%
20%
50%
20%
22%
11%
15%
18%
14%
70%
50%
100%
::~
i··:·:
-
100%
10%
20%
11%
32%
5%
N/A
25%
33%
25%
80%
9%
15%
20%
20%
20%
20%
15%
25%
22%
13%
42%
W
a
3%
23%
55%
36%
33%
5%
4%
5%
5%
9t
5%
I
a
10%
N/A
5%
8%
28%
45%
26%
N/A
20%
22%
8%
75%
See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
L
I
I
B
80%
70%
10%
* According to Bricker's Short-Term Executive Programs,
*
25%
18%1
50%
50%
50%
50%
20%
25%
100%
ji
F
A
49%
y:-i
~csi~i;
"""
E
F
A
B
A
B
C
D
31%
w
E
25 Vanderbilt University
42%
15%
15%
15%
15%
4%
N/A
11%
14%
10%
53%
N/A
N/A
45%
11%
29%
25%
10%
20%
3%
N/A
13%
6%N
N/A
17%
Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1990.
N/A
4%
16%
N/A
5%
23%
13%
ID
I
20%
20%
20%
20%
34%
40%
26%
41%
38%
41%
32%
33%
N/A
N/A
75%
N/A
20%
6%
6%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
24%
20%
20%
20%
20%
35%
30%
34%
9%
8%
33%
36%
19%
N/A
25%
N/A
25%
N/A
70%
42%
31%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
60%
60%
60%
60%
31%
30%
40%
50%
54%
26%
32%
48%
N/A
75%
N/A
N/A
10%
52%
63%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UNIVERSITY-BASED
EXECUTIVE
( Programs
than
longer
one
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
2
University of Arizona
Aspen Institute
3
Babson College
1
~a·~
A
A
B
A
sW1
i~:r·
B
II I
I I
25%
15%
25%
10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25%
62%
10%
REPRESEN
8%
"':;~:
I,.
10%
D
iiSC
5%
N/A
N/A
10%
15%
6
University of California,
Berkeley
~':''
I
U
~:~~
:i~:
7%
25%
10%
25%
20%
25%
10%
40%
25%
5%
California Institute of Tech.
8 University of California,
A
A
10%
20%
5%
ii:~i
w
~r~
::·,:·
rifi
"'"'
:::::::`
:~·::::
N/A
N/A
5%
,,
20%
2%
N/A
:,·
B
:j·
30%
40%
I
5%
:~:
10%
30%
30%
n
i;:
5%
25%
ig
10%
10%
20%
:·
10%
20%
,.
20%
5%
8%
85%
10%
10%
75%
5t
w
::::
:w
10%
Q
70%
5%
5%
80%
7%
2%
5t
10%
5%
9t
---
68%
98%
70t
50%
90%
90%
15%
50%
10%
77%
40%
30%
40%
10%
40%
50%
20%
50%
40%
40%
45%
15%
N/A
80%
10%
10%
5%
I
2%
30%
50%
10%
10%
80%
50%
85%
15%
10%
20%
70%
5%
N/A
65%
100%
I
5%
15%
50%
25%
N/A
N/A
35%
50%
35%
> 10,000
N/A
N/A
':"
:s:
50%
15%
10%
10%
5%
7%
,i:O
~-~------~
ORGANIiATION
1,00010,000
50%
95%
20%
10%
::,.:
7
N/A
N/A
-
ZIS
OF
25%
15%
23%
75%
D
HI
N/A
N/A
90%
C
F
G
N/A
N/A
15%
40%
20%
A
B
C
A
A
B
10O
100%
A
F
5 Brookings Institute
5%
50%
iic
1991-*
D
10%
15%
I
~::
.:~::
D
~--`---
1,000
::`:
4 Boston University
IN
E
20%
C
AVAILABLE
week)
FUNCTIONS
COMPANY
~1
PROGRAMS
5%
60%
40%
60%
50%
50%r
80%
N/A
Los Angeles
B
100%
I
10%
,,JI
9
Carnegie Mellon University
A
7%
,,
t),
12%
B
C
D
E
10
Center for Creative Leadership A
B
C
D
E
11 University
of Chicago
12 Colorado State University
13 Columbia University
-:·
I:::::·:
*iii
~~i3i
:il
ii~ii
r3~ts!
N/A
14%
10%
t
65%
75%t
24%
18%
10%
70%
Irrr
t
40%
10%
73%
2%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5%
N/A
i
N/A
::::
i:i
N/A
25%
N/A
9%
6%
14%
3%
15%
4%
6%
19%
72%
3%
6%
10%
30%
7%
10%
15%
5%
12%
20%
11%
50%
15%
5%
10%
10%
20%
20%
10%
2%
12%
15%
10%
15%
5%
11%
40%
19%
10%
85%
10%
32%
32%
5%
16%
45%
49%
10%
12%
17%
13%
9%
9%
C
6%
27%
25%
10%
32%
8%
24%
19%
36%
9%
16%
K
3%
71%
~::~:::
:··:·
...
N
15%
B
C
A
B
C
...
13%
•:'::~::
20%
5%
3%
33%
3%
6%
4%
3%
12%
74%
5%
92%
11%
8%
it
7%
20%
7%
63%
1225%
22%
30%
25%
10%
10%
10%
13%
21%
12%
16%
3%
40%
20%
8%
8%
27%
11%
7%
25%
30%
70%
5%
27%
62%
12%
53%
3%
10%
25%
2%
15%
5%
95%
70%
N/A
49%
26%
N/A
21%
36%
43%
22%
47%
31%
30%
40%
30%
26%
32%
42%
24%
5%
50%
29%
26%
5%
45%
21%
5%
66%
16%
50%
74%
84%
4%
16%
80%
20%
60%
19%
1
:a
10%
9%
·~
13%
i·
8%
36%
56%
:::·
6%
53%
:~·
6%
30%
36%
o
3%
76%
40%
83%
65%
62%
11%
8%
41%
35%
2%
8%
27%
65%
9%
22%
69%
20%
60%
5%
20%
35%
5%
100%
10%
2%
10%
30%
48%
10%
60%
N/A
N/A
N/A
lici
10%
40%
35%
10%
E·!
''r~·jl
a
80%
35%
90%
21%
4%
30%
27%
,j
lil
ii::
,,.·.·
tt
I~
N/A
30%
28%
3%
19%
:r;
I ~:~
i:i:
5%
4%
20%
10%
80%
70%
20%
20%
30%
14%
25%
25%
88%
65%
p::~:i:
t
11%
13%
3%
D
E
40%
13%
3%
L
14 Cornell University
25%
14%
13%
13%
25%
,·:
~::
::::
20%
36%
I
12%
B
4%
·:·:
40%
rri
10%
10%
N/A
60%
~--------
10%
40%
29%
F
30%
A i:i 10%
B iQi 21%
A
21%
A i~i~
H
I
J
Duk,1*
fniersim44Duke-Univ-rs
L0
7%
15%
100%
I
G
16
18%
20%
D
a t!i~ii
L5 Dartmouth College
10t
bi
I
:li
a
.1
,:1
a
11%
9%
dL•
5%
5%
;;r
5%
57%
60%
90%
50%
80%
55%
I
C
D
B
17 Emory University
18 George Washington University
19 University of Georgia
20 Georgia State University
21 Harvard University
A
B
A
A
a::i
~B
L
8%
20%
ii
3%
I
r·:~-
,
····
J
K
L
I
22 University of Hawaii
23
University of Houston
N
'':''
A
A
I
B
24 University of Illinois
25
26
27
28
29
Indiana University
Dniversity of Iowa
Louisiana State University
Jniversity of Haryland
fassachusetts Institute of
rechnology
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A
A
A
B
f:··
10%
40%
50%
5%
20%
75%
10%
10%
13%
61%
100%
8%
15%
5%
20%
31%
11%
20%
12%
a
zi
7%
rs!
~
5%
I:.
F~i
1
D
3%
B
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5%
93%
7%
4%
5%
4%
34%
14%
5%
20%
40%
20%
10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
62%
8%
4%
64%
11%
34%
23%
5%
40%
8%
23%
6%
14%
35%
'~;~
80%
20%
20%
4i
9%
3%
45%
10%
60%
5%
N/A
N/A
59%
N/A
N/A
3%
E
N/A
20%
9%
I
~1
%i
d
86%
10%
20%
I
"
15%
12%
14%
8%
19%
27%
16%
10%
9%
3%
8%
8%
26%
25%
12%
28%
14%
27%
23%
10%
lot
10%
10%
10%
2%
10%
N/A
N/A
si
95%
N/A
N/A
N/A
5%
35%
60%
23%
14%
N/A
N/A
N/A
38%
56%
39%
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
20%
N/A
N/A
N/A
50%
50%
40%
N/A
N/A
N/A
25%
32%
58%
45%
64%
40%
70%
60%
29%
32%
39%
N/A
N/A
90%
N/A
10%
4%
62%
37%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5%
70%
11%
C
N/A
79%
15%
14%
N/A
N/A
N/A
21%
5%
d
..
26%
i;
25%
6%
55%
14%
D
65%
10%
10%
15%
5%
10%
6%
15%
43%
H
77%
5%
14%
20%
12%
55%
15%
20%
14%
N/A
8%
30%
15%
25%
N/A
N/A
35%
15%
8%
15%
5%
8%
G
H
10%
15%
10%
100%
70%
15%
40%
30%
60%
55%
20%
5%
50%
55%
35%
15%
23%
60%
45%
30%
10%
25%
25%
5%
15%
5%
15%
15%
E
F
I
83%
5%
5%
8%
5%
14%
10%
10%
20%
,·
P
64%
15%
A
B
C
D
14%
3%
3%
1%
12%
8%
A
76%
7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
[9
iii
5%
o
5%
I
as
L
1
1
I
5%
10%
L
:::·
5%
13%
3%
N/A
N/A
23%
34%
18%
L
L
I
n
10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15%
5%
N/A
N/A
W
6%
a
N/A
16%
30%
75%
N/A
N/A
N/A
35%
45%
60%
45%
8%
55%
18%
30%
25%
N/A
15%
24%
70%
N/A
85%
60%
11%
50%
10%
3%
65%
15%
N/A
N/A
2%
G
30
H
Henninger Hanagement Institute A
I
B
31 University of Miami
32 University of Michigan
A
A
B
C
I
I
i8~
D
:·-:a
·;·
E
''';·
F
G
H
ZIBf
I
:::~
·
:s:::
J
20%
105
10%
6%
8%
10%
10%
N/A
5%
I
10%
10%
80%
40%
5%
10%
33%
5%
8%
10%
10%
27%
18%
13%
28%
11%
90%
10%
5%
20%
17%
i
5%
N/A
N/A
70%
23%
13%
45%
N/A
12%
5%
3%
15%
42%
17%
17%
82%
1
::::li
10%
N
II20%
0
10%ot5%
R
4%
5%
5%
T
U
33 University of Minnesota
34 University of New Hampshire
35 University of North Carolina
5%
6%
30%
4%
16%
30%
10%
10%
151
N/A
e:
20%
t
22%
~il
8%
15%
O
A •g
B
C Iii
A •':·a::
10%
A
B
C
A
13%
A •.ii15%
B
C
,:s:::
...
2%
24%
D
E
20%
10%
14%
10%
5%
13%
8%
5%
35%
20%
5%
3%
4%
10%
10%
i
i?
94%
80%
80%
80%
5%
90%
5%
5%
Ei:
a
10%
2%
60%
10%
25%
64%
7%
St
80%
10%
70%
10%
--i10%-%
10%
5%
8%
17%
1%
31%
15%
46%
5%
15%
14%
25%
13%
31%
27%
37%
7%
35%
15%
15%
55%
12%
44%
25%
40%
23%
10%
10%
10%
36%
20%
"
42%
Iiii
36 Northeastern University
37 Northwestern Univorsity
5%
40%
N/A
60%
10%
42%
30%
40%
45%
38%
14%
30%
50%
40%
10%
16%
21%
10%
80%
10%
10%
8t
6%
10%t
10%
N/A
100%
L
40%
10%o
N/A
22%
50%
60%
40%
N/A
10%
15%
11%
15%
13%
24%
10%
40%
20%
15%
10%
10%
10%
5%
11%
3%
50%t
2%
7%
49%
15%
90%
3%
10%
55%
20%
3%
5%
10%
r·
10%
u:·:·
5%
7%
a
F1
W
ii!
a
13%
22%
I··1~
20%
:::'
iiY,
i0
9%
6%
63%
16%
10%
15%
5%
--I
2%
10%
10%
a
a
12%
10%
50%
N/A
40%
80%
42%
64%
40%
45%
59%
82%
60%
40%
50%
30%
70%
40%
40%
30%
40%
25%
43%
50%
20%
80%
50%
60%
50%
70%
50%
10%
50%
40%
5%
60%
10%
35%
40%
15%
60%
50%
25%
22%
39%
39%
20%
45%
20%
15%
35%
65%
8%
40%
40%
52%
60%
n
a,i
77%
23%
5%
35%
60%
I:ir
9%
32%
59%
a
20%
80%
U
20%
20%
80%
75%
80%
100%
G
H
i:~~
I
:::::::::
J
K
:·:-:·:
·3·1!
:'tiii3
::
7%
90%
6%
10%
25%
94%
15%
25%
30%
A
7%
28%
B
5%
A
14%
10%
~si
5%
41%
':::':'
14%
~:~il
u
17%
19%
23%
23%
7%
C
··
:.
D
E
F
G
H
I
:;s
:·;:::·:
i~i~i
i:::i::
~:::i:
10%
1%
40 University of Pennsylvania
::~::::
:·
A
i$il
a:·:::::
B
C
3%
8%
D
E
F
H
i~·:::
~~
I
J
::a::::
-·::·:
rjii~i
K
L
N
'"'''
...,.
11%t
81%
A
B
j42 Princeton University
A
15%
17%
17%
39%
10%
5%
7%
17%
8%
40%
20%
30%
25%
26%
55%
37%
31%
23%
80%
59%
65%
67%
35%
59%
63%
69%
6%
40%
54%
70%
3%
6%
30%
49%
40%
4%
5%
5%
55%
61%
52%
61%
65%
18%
38%
35%
37%
11%
85%
8%
94%
13%
a
14%
11%
10%
7%
10%
4%
6%
8%
4%
7%
88%
9%
43%
7t
88•
43t
4%
75%
4%
14%
28%
53%
34%
50%
30%
55%
30%
38%
33%
19%
27%
53%
41%
13%
16%
40%
68%
60%
4%
44•
44%
4%
::
3%
13%
3%
13%
11%
33%
11%
16%
14%
9%
10%
34%
11%
5%
40%
4%
24%
41%
49%
18%
4%
4%
73%
75%
8%
13%
31%
5%
6%
56%
43%
52%
75%
36%
42t%
2%
3%
14%
100%
38%
29%
37%
19%
29%
17%
15%
3%
17%
3%
10%
t1% 16%
7%
27%
8%
26%
80%
9%
3%
3%
14%
6%
5%
9%
9%
86%
7%
5%
12%
80%
3%
13%
27%
12%
#8381
46%
2%
5%
4%
7%
65%
8%
52%
54%
24%
10%
13%
10%
45%
34%
44%
36%
22%
36%
44%
37%
34%
33%
40%
35%
30%
30%
38%
26%
29%
19%
23%
31%
47%
18%
5%
4%
8%
12%
Iii
ji
3%
7%
13%
20%
49%
18%
28%
29%
28%
10%
35%
15%
3%
11%
13%
16%
20%
24%
5%
20%
3%
6%
~1
41 University of Pittsburgh
2%
3%
23%
8%
20%
18%
11%
P
8%
4%
10%
ig~i
~::~
m*
x··:
8t
76%
r~:-·
G
29%
10%
5%
80%
80%
80%
80%
85%
20%
20%
10%
93%
::-::·
10%
11%
5%
18t
23%
5t
18%
''
~iji
'·'
:·):::'
dij
f::::'
Ifrr
~·r:
15%
3•
15%
3%
4%
9%
3%
18%
5%
J
K
L
H
90%
35%
1%
20%
L
38 Ohio State University
39 Penn State University
25%
10%
100%
16%
39%
43
44
45
46
Rice University
University of Richmond
Rutgers University
Simmons College
47 Smith College
48 Southern Methodist University
B
A
A
A
A
B
C
A
A
B
49 Stanford University
A
B
C
D
10%
i:i:::i
10%
15%
5%
20%
20%
8%
uSilii~
32%
17%
ii:ii·:·
30%
5%
~iiiiiii
...,.
15%
10%
9%
16%
9%
12%
9%
10%
5%
10%
10%
15%
··:i·
E
25%
9%
F
G
H
I
•::?:-•.
!i:
i:!I
2%
J
50 University of Tennessee
K
A
B
C
D
~iiiiri
16%
..... ·
85%
10%
2%
5%
8%
90%
80%
45%
5%
20%
15%
10%
25%
9%
24%
56%
65%
20%
71%
50%
16%
15%
20%
5%
40%
16%
5%
15%
10%
17%
10%
20%
15%
12%
6%
10%
10%
5%
17%
6%
10%
20%
10%
22%
17%
10%
5%
15%
A
30%
B
13%
20%
C
8%
20%
10%
52 Texas
Christian University
53 Tulane University
54 University of Virginia
A
A
25%
A
11%
B
C
D
E
11%
F
20%
10%
20%
32%
10%
10%
8%
15%
5%
15%
10%
10%
22%
40%
30%
28%
100%
35%
10%
25%
liu
-1
ii:i·
69%
~lc
e~i
s#
65%
2%
F
51 Texas A & H University
i8t
10%
5%
15%
4%
10%
10%
30%
16%
20%
15%
5%
17%
14%
25%
10%
5%
85%
50%
16%
10%
40%
60%
80%
100%
80%
45%
10%
19%
22%
25%
5%
17%
20%
4%
5%
ISt
16%
·i:
a
Ilii
'"
35%
$F
U
I
6%
20%
10%
10%
26%
35%
2%
100%
10%
34%
5%
20%
t5%
5%
20%
10%
20%
10%
2%
10%
L
I
45%
10%
20%
18%
2%
~I
10%
5%
ii·i.
a*
t:j
·
F~~~25
6%
3%
50%
25%
6%
13%
10%
20%
ii6
L:E
w
10%
50%
13%
10%
5%
10%
5%
,Y
18%
7%
21%
7%
5%
25%
25%
6%
10%
H
10%
20%
15%
31%
11%
20%
30%
19%
60%
::iiii
G0
5%
17%
35%
20%
14%
17%
15%
15%
25%
25%
11%
8%
10%
15%
21%
65%
35%
21%
25%
45%
53%
35%
38%
20%
33%
50%
37%
45%
45%
60%
20%
60%
30%
35%
60%
35%
30%
25%
40%
30%
56%
57%
50%
10%
31%
100%
66%
25%
60%
79%
94%
80%
65%
45%
21%
30%
60%
70%
33%
45%
43%
50%
50%
20%
70%
20%
60%
65%
38%
65%
60%
75%
40%
70%
38%
40%
50%
25%
85%
63%
100%
6%
10%
4
14%
31%
30%
2
32%
63%
60%
54%
60%
H
I
J
K
L
H
55
56
57
58
Wabash College
University of Washington
Washington Campus
Williams College
59 Yale University
A
A
A
A
I`
I
11%
5%
44%
20%
19%
31%
65%
20%
10%
60%
10%
10%
40%
8%
8%
40%
10%
60%
5it
5%
10%
7%
20%
4%
10%
14%
10%
17%
18%
10%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
15%
20%
29%
90%
90%
90%
5%
90%
25%
4%
10%
,ii
ii:
I
n
8%
25%
10%
5%
23%
21%
35%
10%
10%
3%
8%
15%
40%
5%
31%
12%
* According to Bricker's International Directory, Long Term, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1991.
** See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
P
"''
10%
10%
B
.~,.
20%
4%
I
I
ii;i
5%
24%
20%
33%
30%
30%
49%
40%
40%
45%
50%
60%
60%
38%
60%
60%
55%
50%
50%
40%
30%
100%
15%
80%
48%
36%
UNIVERSITY-BASED
AVAILABLE IN
1990
(ProgramsMless
than
P
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
1 Aspen Institute
2 Brookings Institute
California Institute of Tech.
A
B
C
N
C
I
P
week)
-
A
-
L
I
N
--
D
U
.
. .
8
.
T
..
R
.
I
E
w~
S
.•
R
m
.
..
.
u
°.
-
m
D
fj~
I
C
i
A
B
A
*
t
jt~
!:'::
:
*-
+
*
r
cc-
**
*
:~.·
D tliii
ii
E
F
5*
G
- -I
4 University of California, LA A
A
5 Case Western Reserve U.
"
6 Center for Creative Leadership A ::i:
:-:··
B
C :::::':
of Chicago
I
A
C
ýUniversity
R
one
PROGRAMS
**
D
3
EXECUTIVE
*
*
*
*
*
*
-3
I
*
*-
*
*-
*
*r~
*
*
*
*-
*
*
*
*
*
*
I
*
-- I
I
*
*
-I
-- 1
i
*
1-"
I
*
i
B
rii~i
C
D
I
!in!
I
I
Dartmouth College
Georgia State University
,9
10 University of Houston
I
*
1
i
I
I
C
University of Illinois
[ii
12 Indiana
A
B
C
University
*-
I
i*
*
r
-·1
I
*I
I
I
-I
--I
A
*
1
3
--I
-i
c-
*
*
c-
*
I
*T
--
*
--
I
*
*
F
G
13 Massachusetts Institute of Tec A
14 NHnninger Management Institute A
B
A
University of Michigan
1
=I
--I
*
*
-
*
*
1
I
1
i
I
t
I
B
I
*
*
*
1
*
*
--
*
*
*I
I
B
C
D
I
J
*
I
*
::::::
*
H
-I
I
*
i--
I
D
C
D
E
F
G
1
r
I
ii~i!
C
*
I
--I
-I
A
B
1
--1
1
I
A
I
It
c--
A
IC
C
i
J
18
--I
I
-I
H
I
I
I
F
G
I
I
--
*
*~
*
*
I
*
-I
r
I
I
*
*
*
*
-I
L
H
--
j,··:
i,:1~
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*I
0
P
u:·:
::~·
izi
*
*
R
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
H
N
0
17 Northern Illinois University
18 Northwestern University
A
':''
i:·
I--
Ti
*
*
*
--I
*-
--
*
a
i:::
i?
*
*
s
Is
:j:
*
*
a
--
P
*
*
*
*
1:~
1
*
a
*
:~~
a
A
*
B
*
C
D
E
F
G
H
L
*
*
L
~
C;
*
*
B
*~
*
*
~
J
University of Notre Dame
*
I--
i I
*
j
*
1
16 University of North Carolina
*
1
O
:I::
iZ
A
B
:·:·
C
iX
I
L
t
*
c-
t
20 University of Pennsylvania
21 Rice University
22 University of Rochester
23 Stanford University
A
B
A
B
C
A
is~
B
I~
C
D
A
B
24 University of Texas at Austin
*
*
I
I:i'
b
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
i
*
c:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
m
;:·:~
;·-·:
*
*
Ii::j:
*
r
I'·'-'
C
A
B
iii
a
C
r:-::
*
:····
*
*
*
*-
r
*
D
*
E
25 Vanderbilt University
A
*
*
*
*
*
i::::
It::a
*
I
D
n
a
*
*
*
26 University of Virginia
27 University of Washington
28 Washington and Lee University
w
F
A
B
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
O
3*
33
*
:i~
i·:i
:i:·:
3
''"'
i~li
*
:~:
ii
x·,:
U
*
iili
0
10
0
11
0 13
'4 1?
6
2
0
0
* According to Bricker's Short-Tern Executive Programs, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1990.
** See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
9
22
S
4
1
12
0
0-
UNIVERSITY-BASED EXECUTIVE
AVAILABLE IN
1990*
(Programs
less
than
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
1 Aspen Institute
2 Brookings Institute
-
A
B
C
A
E
A
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
University of California, LA
5 Case Western Reserve U.
61 Center for Creative Leadership
A
iS·
:·
A
C
university
of Chicago
--
-
-
'-
RE
D
*
I
A
*
IO
g
C-
1
w
·:·16
P
***
*
r
O
~1
*i
*
*
7
*
*
u
X1
Q
:::_
1
iQ
Y
ja
*
*
ri:i
i;ii,
*
I
*
A
B
7
-
INDUSTRIES
::
:ii
5il
4
---
(Continued)
S
B
C
3 California Institute of Tech.
week )
one
PRINCIPAL
PROGRAMS
*
~::
*
I
i:ii
*1
3
8
i·
:I:,:
i::i
7
-
I-
----
j
' ----
j
-~
---
j-
-i
j
--
7-
B
C
D
E
F
B Dartmouth College
9 Georgia State University
10 University of Houston
11 University of Illinois
12 Indiana University
G
H
I
J
A
A
A
B
C
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
Ili~i
1
I
c
I
I
f
*
I
I
I1
*
1
1
*
I=
B
':':'
I
*
n
*
*
I
*
'·'
*
*
L
I
*
A
,:·:::
13 Kassachusetts Institute of Tec A
14 Henninger Hanagement Institute A
B
15
*r
1
G
*
re
:j~
*
*
P
;:::
*
*
:::
*
*
I
''"
University
of
Michigan
B
C
D
*
I
I
ja
ksi
··:ji:
;ii
··;I··
E
~:
F
;';''
*
*
*
*
G
*
H
*
I
J
w
*
--
iI
-I
I
K
*
-1
L
N
-I
N
0
p
Iill
-I
*--
*
*
*
*
Q
I
1
University of North Carolina
B
C
D
E
i·
I
*
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
*
a
--
*
*
B
a
a
N
*
*
17 Northern Illinois University
18 Northwestern University
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
*
a
a
*
~!
I
*
p:
199 University of Notre Dame
C
r
*
*
*
B
d
*
*
A
B
*
c-
G
H
~
*
*
L-
*
i,
*
C
i·ii
r
C
20 University of Pennsylvania
D
A
E
-TI
B
21 Rice University
22 University of Rochester
A
B
C
A
:i
*
a
i:iii
~
ibl
Irli
*
*
*
*
B
C
D
23 Stanford University
24 University of Texas at Austin
A
B
C
*
,·:
ii
A
B
C
D
*
*
--
*
*
--
i::·I
::i
~~·il
:i:a
*
*
*
*
*
*
25 Vanderbilt University
E
*
A
B
D
K2
I
*
*
*s
*
*
--I
I
3I
rl
~~I:
~i:i:
A
B niil~
C
i
I
,,:::,,
~i;ii
*
*
Q
27 University of Washington
*
-I
I
"'
,i,
:·:,,
26 University of Virginia
I
*
*
I
*
*
*
*j
19i
aK
F
A
28 Washington and Lee University
A
iii·
::::i:
31
0
0
0
4
0
5
4
4
0
0
5
* According to Bricker's Short-Term Executive Programs, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1990.
** See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
2
3
0
0
0
1
3
3
3
0
UNIVERSITY-BASED
AVAILABLE
IN
1990 9
( Programs
less
EXECUTIVE
*
than
one
PRr-
PRINCIPAL
N
PROGRAMS
week
A
I
)
IN
INDUSTRIES
r-
r-
(Continued)
U
REPRESENTE
I
E
TR
REPRESENTED
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
1 Aspen Institute
A
B iii~
C
2 Brookings Institute
3 California Institute of Tech.
4
5
6
7
A
B
C
D
E
F
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
A
University of California, LA
A
Case Western Reserve U.
Center for Creative Leadership A
B
C
A
University of Chicago
*
I--
li~i
*
*
*
1
1
*
1
--
!i*•
I
*
I
*
i
~iii
*
I
I
*
B
C
D
C
E
F
G
H
I
8 Dartmouth College
9 Georgia State University
10 University of Houston
11 University of Illinois
12 Indiana University
A
A
L
"':
I
C
-1
*
*
i~3
iii
B
C
I
i:::.
iiia
G
I
i:·::
A
13 Massachusetts Institute of Tec A
14 Henninger Management Institute A
i
C
B
C
F
I
1
A
D
A
B
C
D
E
F
-I
*
:r:::
lie
*
-I
L
'~i:
*
*
*
*
*
*
i
~~::
ul
B
Q
B
s~l
bI:
B
~:-:·
I
I
*
*
15 University of Hichigan
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
I
*
*
~
=I
-I
*
:.:.:.:
wo
I7~i
I
*
i
I
___
3
K
L
H
N
O
P
b
n·;··
R
::.;:
S
~::::
:::i:
:iL
:pl:
t
.~p
H
I
I
ii~
41;
~:~
i;·
I
--
i
*
1
*
*
i:i
C
'·::·:
:··
:::·:
*
i
I
* ~I
16 University of North Carolina
B
C
D
E
F
G
:::i
1
17 Northern Illinois University
18 Northwestern University
I
*
*
*
i
Q
:~·
.·:·
i~
:··
···
· ·-
:::~
J
:~~i
::::
~i
A
*
*=
I
N
E
1
u
:::·
::~~
L
N
~I
1
*
*
--1
I
iiir
--
*
I
C
i
*I
i
Q
:·::;
~2:
iw
I
"8
,~
··''
''
I
I
1
--
I
i~lii
~,:
1
i
8:::
:jj
A
C
--
I
I
1
~I
I
*
*
I
--
*
-I
*
D
E
F
V
H
I
J
19
Jniversity of Notre Dame
B
C
i~i~
:,r
C:~l
C`Y
,,·
i
i:'''
C':c''
I:1
d
I
,a:l
L;r
*-
*
I
*
I
*
*
i
*
*
*
*
--
iii
20 University of Pennsylvania
A
B
21 Rice University
A
B
*
~
*
C
22 University of Rochester
23 Stanford University
24 University of Texas at Austin
A
B
o
:::i
C
D
A
B
C
A
B
C
'·':'
C-
1
a:
a
t
1
*
:::i
P
*
*
D
*
*
25 Vanderbilt University
i
A
B
C
D
F
26 University of Virginia
27 University of Washington
28 Washington and Lee University
A
B
A
B
C
D
F
A
ii;
*
L
i
1
i
:·:·:
:I
a
iI
*
*
~i~
a
n
ii
*
*
*
37
6
£
*
·:·
ii
~I:
:a
m
*
5
'"
~I
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
1
*
£
7-
*
i::.
0
*
5
0
4
0
2
0
1
* According to Bricker's Short-Term Executive Programs, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1990.
** See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
0
I
0
--
o
UNIVERSITY--BASED
EXECUTIVE
AVAILABLE
IN
1 9 9 1 *
(Programs
longer
than
R
P
I
one
N
r-
1
1
2
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
C
r-
I
P
r--
week)
A
I
L
1~
YYY
N
I
~
r-
r--
D
U
T
S
R
R
I
r'
E
'1
·I
r'
I
a
EC.R Ia]
W
-~--
.
~
D
I
w
.
]ili::_i
ii
]:;
University of Arizona
2 Aspen Institute
A
B
::::::
3
A
:.:.:
Babson College
r--
PROGRAMS
i
1
A
*
*
It
z
tv
*
:.:·:
riii]•
*
C
D
E
F
4
Boston University
*
*
*
C
5 Brookings Institute
6 University of California,
Berkeley
6
*
A
.....
,.
*
D
*-~
A
I•::i:i *
A
.. ..
B
*
*
B
5
o
w,
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
22Yli;!II
C
D 1:11.2
E •:i]!ii
F
G
*
H
*
*
*
*
*
*
7
-
7 California Institute of Tech.
8 University of California,
9
10
11
12
13
A
A
Los Angeles
B
C
D
Carnegie Hellon University
A
B
C
D
E
Center for Creative Leadership A
B
C
D
E
F
University of Chicago
A
B
Colorado State University
A
Columbia University
A
--*
ii:ilr
i;.
*
*
*
*
*n
··-·-·-
*
*
*
*
:ii:ii
·
Li
*
n
*
I
*
I
*
i::ii:ii
I
::lj:~
--I
*
I
*I
::·:·:·:
*
*
*
rcl
::::·
::::::r:
*
*
~liiiri
m
i;il:ii
*
*
*
*
I
::::-:*
:Ijiii
--1
*
n
::::::::
I
*
*
*
B
:ii)lii *
C
D
E
F
:·-::-:
rrrr
I:·~i:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
iii!
*
;iiir
i:::::ii
i;
G
H
I
J
K
L
14 Cornell University
A
B
C
15
Dartmouth
:::
u
::·
:--·:
·-·
*
*
I
1
:·::·ji
*
~II!
ik
,~:·:
~:;:i:
rm
iii
iii:
n
:::li:i
iii
*
::i::
i~
College
B
*
iii~iii
I
C i'::::
*
j
1
---
D
E
16 Duke University
A
B
C
D
E
F
17 Emory University
*
i:::;:;
*
*
*
*
*
*
:. :.:
:::
*
*
George Washington University
University of Georgia
Georgia State University
Harvard University
*
:1:::.:i
A
A
*
*
*
*?
*
i--
*
*
*
*
*
7
*
B
18
19
20
21
-
*
:::::::
*
*
*
*
A
*
A
*
A
....
B
::::
*
*
*
*
*
*
C
D
E
F
G
H
*
*
I
:~:-:::
*
*
::::::
*
*
*
--I
::jl:
*
*
;e
K
L
H
N
22 University of Hawaii
23 University of Houston
A
A
*
*
tiiiiii
*
:-i:111
*
,~I~
*
~iiiji
*
*
*
*
*
*
i.::::i:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
B
24 University of Illinois
25 Indiana University
26 University of Iowa
27" Louisiana State University
A
::::,.:
B
:.:;::
*
*
C
~iii
*
*
A
:iii:,i
B
C
::;:1::
A
.:...:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I
*
*
*
--
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
28 University of Maryland
29 Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
A
A iiiI
B :
*
,
*
C
D
E
F
G Ciii~iiii
D
"
I I I• I *
H rjiiiiiiiil
I
*,
,
•
,
•
,
,
,
,
30 Nenninger Hanagement Institute A
B
31 University of Miami
32 University of Michigan
A
A iiiii
B
C •
Aiiil
I
*
,
*
D
E
F
G
H ii;3
I
*
H
34 University of New Hampshire
•* •
K
A iliii!i••
L
H
N
.....
'.rii~i:i~~
0
D liiii~ii~il •
331~~Jnive~~sity
of Hinnesota
I
3rlllnivtsit ofNew
ampeir~A
33 University of Hinnesota
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,.....,.I
T
*
,
R
A g0
!i:i~i~lI (*i•I
P ::!Y
,::,:,
:
B~jili
,
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'''''"'''''""
I
I
,
A
B
C
35
University
of
N
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I*I
I
I
I1
B
36 Northeastern University
37 Northwestern University
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
38 Ohio State University
39 Penn State University
I
*
*
*
jiii.
*;
*
L
1
*
*
*
:::~::
*t
*
i~i~l·
B
*
*-
*
ii:iiiii
--
*
':::':·:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
::::j:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*J
*-ii ''
~j
K
L
iir*
*
*
*
*
I
J
*
*
Z:i
*
*-
-I
*
*
-1
*
--
:::·:::
*
*
i`'iii'
*I
I:::,:
iii,
*
iij:iii
*--
*
i
F
-1
G
H
I
*
iiiij
D
A
B
C
D
E
*
*
I
c-
Si~iii
H
F-ir
i
~~:~:I
cic
Lili;
L
A
A
B
C
E
F
G
H
40 University of Pennsylvania
rm
-- 1
*--
*1
-- 1
iiiii.
--
1
I
r
*R
J
K
L
H
N
O
41 University of Pittsburgh
42 Princeton University
43 Rice University
44 University of Richmond
45 Rutgers University
46 Simmons College
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
1
*
liili:
47 Smith College
48 Southern Hethodist University
49 Stanford University
F
G
H
m
:::r
*
F
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
T
*
*
*
I
*
ix
*
ii
*
*
*
*ii
iu
w
:ii:i
*
*
--
*
*-
*
i~a
*
*
U
:iiii
*
*
*
:iii~i
::::i:
m
18~
*
*-
*
*
*
:.::
·
*
*
*
·ilii
· ii
iiiiii
r
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
::w
*
*
--
*
*
*
*
*-
-I
*
*
*
I
*
*
*
A
E
*
*
K
B
C
D
*
*
*
:'::':
B
ir,·
p:a
r~:;
I
J
50 University of Tennessee
*
*
B
C
A
A
B
A
B
C
D
E
i
*
*
:ii
*
iiil
*r
I
i-i:
G ~i:i:i
*
i:::::
51 Texas A & H University
52 Texas Christian University
53 Tulane University
54 University of Virginia
A
B
C
A
A
*
liii:
:m
····
i:::
*
bii:li
A
C
D
E
*
*
B
*
lisr
*
*
i--
ir;
*
F
G
H
I
J
55
56
57
58
59
Wabash College
University of Washington
Washington Campus
Williams College
Yale University
*
*
Eiiii
*
rii:i
~I
!~:i
*
*
I
L
H
N
0
A
A
A
i~ii
Ijilji
lu
A
:Ili
A
ilii
I
*
*
/-"
*1
%~
I1
31
8
31
2
58
5
45
68 10
5
37
1
2
* According to Bricker's International Directory, Long Term, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1991.
** See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
10 18 66 20
4
3
98 40
1
UNIVERSITY--BASED
AVAILABLE
IN
1991*
EXECUTIVE
( Programs
than
longer
one
1
2
T- r- r-- r-- r-
of Arizona
2 Aspen Institute
3 Babson College
4 Boston University
A
A
B
A
B
C
D
E
5
6
INDUSTRIES
w
- -rl- --a - l- -M
:
Ii
ii
ii
*
7-
C
D
Brookings Institute
University of California,
Berkeley
W
L1
A
REP
YYY···LYY
I
D
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
*r
*
a
i:
*
1a
:i
i
*
9
*
*
A
B
6
-- --- r-
F
4
5
-
(Continued)
i
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
I University
)
week
PRINCIPAL
r-
PROGRAMS
*
I
*
a
::·
x
*
*
*
*
::
a
*
*
*
r
i·
r
n
n
:i
e
:~
·I
j
r
ii
~
*
*
*
*
*
3
*
--
*
i
j
*
7 California Institute of Tech.
8 University of California,
Los Angeles
A
A
B
3
*
*
:·:
C
D
9
Carnegie Hellon University
A
B
C
D
E
10 Center for Creative Leadership A
B
C
D
E
F
11 University
of Chicago
A
I
4· ~
-i:
isi
:I-:1::
.:
ii:::
::·::
:~:::
w
D
a:
w
J
K
L
H
14 Cornell University
A
B
C
15 Dartmouth College
A
B
C
*
*I
*
*
*
*
*
:··
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
*
*
*
A wi.:::
A
7Th
*
:B
iir
iai
i;;
B
12 Colorado State University
13 Columbia University
*
*
*
-- 1
:····
··:-:~:
m
*
*
*
*
*I
*
*
*
n
*
i
*
*
*
'iii
*
m
*
~
*
*
t-.
*
m
P
ili~
c:
:::
w*;
i·~:·
I
i:::.:
iB
·:?
!~7
::::
a
*
C
r
I
*
P
il:i~
:-::
·
C-
Li
16 Duke University
D
E
A
*
B
*
C
17 Emory University
18
19
20
21
George Washington University
University of Georgia
Georgia State University
Harvard University
22 University of Hawaii
23 University of Houston
24 University of Illinois
25 Indiana University
26 University of Iowa
27 Louisiana State University
*
*
*
*
~:•:
D
*
E
F
A
;:
·
*
B I:::::
A
A
*
A
*
A
B *tli
C i:·:·:
*
D erli
E
iiii
F :::::::
*
G
*
*
*
I
*
*
*
iiil
H
I
J
K
*
L
H
N
A
A
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
*
*
I
*
*
*
n!i
A
*
*
**
I
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*S
j
ii~ii
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
A
--
*
S*
28 University of Maryland
29 Nassachusetts Institute of
Technology
A
A
m
*
B
C
D
E
F
*
*
*
':`~
O
si
1
*
I
I
*
i
*
ia
*
*
-·
I
--I
*
*
*
*
*
,,:
*
H
I
I
--3I
*
D
E
F
G
*
*
I
G
H
30 Henminger Management Institute A
B
A
31 University of Kiami
A
32 University of Michigan
B
C
*
*
ZJ
*
*
*
u
*
J
K
L
N
N
*
1
s,
*
..
*
p
R
8
T
U
P
i:j
m
34 University of New Hampshire
35 University of North Carolina
A
B
C
A
7-
ar
Sr
L
33 University of Minnesota
*
I
I
a
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
--
*
*
i
t
C
*
B
B
36 Northeastern University
37 Northwestern University
A
A
B
*
*
n
*
*
C
*:
*
D
I
E
F
G
H
-I
I
J
38 Ohio State University
39 Penn State University
K
L
A
A
B
C
D
*
I
i:::
I
i
*
*
*
I
*
*
*
I
*
*
is
*
I
*
F
G
*
H
-I
*
*
I
J
*
*
--I
*
L
N
40 University of Pennsylvania
B
C
f
D
F
I
*
i
i:
*
KY
41i University of Pittsburgh
42 Princeton University
Rice University
University of Richmond
Rutgers University
Simmons College
47 Smith College
48 Bouthern Methodist University
i;i
A
A
A
*,
*
--
.ia
A
B
ii:
;ii
ell
C
:~
·
:::'
*
A
C*
*
A
B
C
D
*
S
*
A
A
I
*
in
:·::
c~
~·
·
:·::
ii,
i~i
t-2
i
r
C
::::
B
49 Stanford University
i
B
B
43
44
45
46
*
A
E F
1
*
L
N
0
--
*
**
:· j
~
*
*
*
*
*
*
~E
~::
c
*s
E
F
G
H
I
ifi
j·
::j
*
*
aM
J
K
so Iniversity of Tennessee
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
z
ij!
a
,·1
n
:i·
-i
*
·-·
m
*
w
-·i
*
:·
m
,a
I
111
·'···
51 Texas A & H University
52 Texas Christian University
53 Tulane University
54
University of Virginia
A
B
C
A
A
A
*
w
··;·
I
* *
*
I
*
D
*
*
*
B
C
D
E
F
G
*1
~:
*
**
::·o
.:·e
H
I
J
K
L
H
N
55 Wabash College
56 University of Washington
57 Washington Campus
58
Williams College
59 Yale University
O
A
A
A
A
A
*
*
O
s:l:
*
1
i:-···
u:r,
···
i:;·
*
iii;·
I
*
I
I
*
*
:·,
n!
~p
*
I
1
:·:·
*
9
r
*
I
Iiii
I
I
*
60
*
El
*
2
2
25
11
1
9
21 57
1
44
1
1
£
* According to Bricker's International Directory, Long Term, Peterson's Guides, Now Jersey, 1991.
** See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
12
S2
7
1
2
6
4
12
12
UNIVERSITY-BASED EXECUTIVE
AVAILABLE
I N 1 991 -,*
(Programs
longer
than
P
R
one
I
N
C
I
P
PROGRAMS
week)
A
I
L
N
(Continued)
D
'
U
S
'"
T
R
I
"
E
D
w
I
UNIVERSITY OR
INSTITUTE NAME
University of Arizona
2 Aspen Institute
1
A
B
3 Baboon College
C
A
A
B
C
tm
i
i::.:.
Boston University
5
Brookings Institute
University of California,
Berkeley
A
B
*
C
D
E
F
G
H
i
I
I::
!it
":'
~I
I
*
*
*
*
*
*
I
I
*
*
*
t
*
0
*
t
*
*
C-
i
FZ
t::
I-
*
t
r
t
D
iiia
i
I
iI
E
F
A
B
C
D
A
*
r
*
F
*
C
*
*
I
*
*
-j
*
7 California Institute of Tech.
University of California,
Los Angeles
9
Carnegie Hellon University
A
A
ff
:d
:::z
is
B
'i:
C
D
A
B
C
D
E
10 Center for Creative Leadership A
B
C
D
E
F
11 University of Chicago
A
B
12 Colorado State University
A
13 Columbia University
A
B
C
D
E
I
--
*
H
*r
*
a
::?:
i·
n
i;
u:1
*r
i:;
m
a:i
r:
-b
-1
a
ii
*r
K
14 Cornell University
*r
r;i
*
iiii
*r
:a
*
*
*r
*
w
iii~
:::;
*
*r
':·
*r
*r
*
*
*
*
*
*
*r
*
~
-i
*
*r
*
*
c-
:ii
a
*
L
Zil
H
:"
A
B
B
~Ii
a
C
15
*
ic;
I
J
*
*r
*
i,
n::·
a
w
F
G
I
-
B
*
*
I
L
*
r-
Dartmouth College
B
C
ci*
:·5
i
L-
i
D
16 Duke University
A
m
*
*
B
C
D
E
F
17 Emory University
18 George Washington University
19 University of Georgia
20 Georgia State University
21 Harvard University
*
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
*
*-
*1
*
*
*
*
*
a
*
*
*
*
C
I
D
E
F
G
H
*
ij
cn
*
*
*-l
*
*
I
J
*
L
H
N
22 University of Hawaii
23 University of Houston
*
*t
*
A
B
C
24 University of Illinois
A
B
C
25Indiana
*
University
26 University of Iowa
27 Louisiana State University
A
B
C
A
C
*
--
28 University of Haryland
29 Hassachusetts Institute of
Technology
A
m
B
C
30 Hnninger Management Institute A
B
A
31 University of Niami
A
32 University of Hichigan
B
C
D
E
F
G
*
I
C--
*L
::i~
:~
O
*
*-
r
*
*
*
*
iii
~:·:
*
)S
I
8
*1
cii:
· :·;-
*
I
- -
iii
*-
*
*
H
I
i''
c·x
J
:ia
K
a~
::i
1
::a
.c·~
I
*
-
I
*
-3
*
I
I
*
i
=i
*
*
*
I
*
=i
j
*
O
*--
*
--1
0
B
C
34 University
of Noew Hampshire
35 University of North Carolina
I
I
".
:::::I
*
iB
1
:jb
:-i
*
li~i
I
C-
*
A
A
*
*
P
33 University of Minnesota
*
I
I
N
R
S
T
U
A
*
1
i0
~II
B,:
u
ax
:·
L
H
C
:iZ
D
E
F
G
H
*
E
A
1
i:::
I
L
C-
t
*
*
t7
i
B
EE
G
36 Northeastern University
37 Northwestern University
A
A
B
C
··
o
:j:
I
D
a
ft
L
*
J
K
38 Ohio State University
39 Penn State University
L
A
A
B
Yniversity of Pennsylvania
j
ft
a
ft
j:·
:::1
*
ft
a::·
m
n:i
~
ft
*
*t
*
re
D
a
*
*
*
~
I
;a
*
*
Z
*
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
*
TI
--
ft
**
*
G
:a:
H
I
:i:
w
..
J
a
ft
L
id
i*
rl
ft
A
a
I
C
..
ft
*
'I
*
ft
*
ft
7
--
1
--I
I
ft
I
ft
I
ft
ft
n
----I
F
G
H
I
,:r
3
ii
1
1
1
ft
1
ft
*
-I
I
ft
-7
i
1 I
-]
*
I
40
E
*
C
C
F
ft
L
E
I
C
*
D
F
G
H
F
C
C
C
I-I
3
J
L
M
-~---
t
j
ii
a
-*
*
*
*
i
3
h
*
*
*
0
O
k
A
j
*
*
*
*
I
41 University of Pittsburgh
B
42 Princeton University
B
43 Rice University
A
44 University of Richmond
A
45 Rutgers University
46 Simmons College
A
A
B
C
A
47 Smith College
48 Southern Methodist University
*
a
A
1
*
*-
Z
i;
*
c.
*
B
A I
B
49 Stanford University
*
*r
n
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
o
i
*
s
*
*f
ii
H
I
*
x
*
*
I
*
*
- -
J
K
i
i
Jniversity of Tennessee
B
C
D
E
I
*
--·
a
a
s
s;
I
F ~
T
-- 3
Z
*
*
*
*
r
*
3
--
3
)
)
51 Texas A & M University
A
52 Texas Christian University
53 Tulane University
54 University of Virginia
B
C
A
A
A
::
:::
I::,:
1:
·.·..
*
1
I
~1
=i
-7*
-1
*I
---- (
**I
ai
I
B
*
C
D
F
G
H
rl
*
a*i
*
m
*
I
i
*
~
6
·:·:
*
f
*
*
I
J
K
L
i::::
m
*
-I
*
n
:·:::
N
*
:::i;
55
56
57
58
59
Wabash College
University of Washington
Washington Campus
Williams College
Yale University
0
A
A
A
*
6
i·
I*
*
~:~
m
47
::::::i
::·.::
A
A
35
---47
2
3
3
4
1
--
5
* According to Bricker's International Directory, Long Term, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey, 1991.
** See previous Exhibit for Program Titles.
14
6
2
22
1
3
3
2
APPENDIX Alla
CENTER FOR CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS 02139
May I.
- 991
RE:
Dear:
Executive Education Questionnaire
Recipient of this questionnaire,
I endeavored to mail this questionnaire to as wide of a
selection of the construction industry as possible.
I used a variety
of sources to obtain the names and addresses of individuals and
companies.
It was my intent, when possible, to address the
questionnaire to individuals identified within each company as having
the responsibility for executive education and development.
Where no
such individual was identified, the questionnaire was directed to the
firm's vice president of human resources, president, vice president,
or chiet executive officer.
If you have obtained this questionnaire
and are unabie to complete it, please pass it to the correct person
or department in which it might by completed.
Sincgely,
9
Susan Tomlinson-Dykens/
Research Assistant
MIT
267
APPENDIX Allb
CENTER FOR CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS 02139
The attached questionnaire is designed to gather information for a study on
company participation in and demand for executive education programs, both incompany and university-based. You are kindly asked to participate in this
study. You will note that the questionnaire is fairly general and covers a
number of areas. This is necessary because we are trying to obtain
information about education and development patterns and their relation to
personal and occupational characteristics in well established construction
related firms. Basically there are questions concerning your firms
construction related specialty and size, and policies and participation in
educational programs.
The results of this study may be of interest to you, as a construction
professional. It will also be important to organizations that employ
construction related professionals and promote the education of said
professionals. Because we hope to get a large sample, we are using an
objective question format, even though this sometimes forces respondents to
give answers in terms of categories that do not permit them to express the
nuances of opinion. Please feel free to elaborate on your answers. You may
write on the questionnaire itself or on a separate piece of paper.
In order for the information obtained to be valid, maximum participation in
this research project is necessary. Our pretesting indicates that it takes
about 20 to 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire and we very much hope
that you will be willing to give that amount of time to this important
project. A pre-paid return envelope is enclosed for your convenience. If for
any reason you cannot answer some questions, leave those blank and fill in the
rest.
Please return the questionnaire by July 19, 1991.
Your answers will be kept confidential in every way. No individual
questionnaire will be seen by anyone except the immediate research staff, and
only group results will be reported. On request, these results will be made
available to all participants.
We greatly appreciate your help in this effort.
Please note: The quetionnaire is printed on both sides of the page.
"
Susan Tomlinson-Dykens
Research Assistant, Center for Construction Research and Education
~euut
UetY.Itv
:reester Hnst
:i17urn
Researc
~Center
cr
onstI
i~on Researcnh
d Educaton
and Education
PAGE I
Note: In most questions the form of the answer is indicated with specific directions (circle one, check one, check all
that apply). Where no directions are given, please fill in the blank.
I. INFORMATION ABOUT RESPONDENT
1. Sex (circle one):
Male
Female
2. Age:
3. Respondent's title:
3. Functional area within the company:
5. Title of Respondent's immediate supervisor:
II. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPANY
6. The Company would best be described as a:
(circle only one)
7. The Company's areas of
concentration are:
Design Firm
Main trade practice
(check only one)
Engineer-Architect
Engineer-Constructor
Pure Consulting Engineer
lArchitect-Engineer
IDesign-Constructor
jArchitect
ISoils/Geotechnical Engineer
IPlanner
1Project Manager
IPrime Contractor
IJoint Venturer
IGeneral Contractor
ISubcontractor
IPure Construction Manager
Contractor
Construction Manager
Other capabilities and practices
(check all that apply)
Engineer-Architect
Engineer-Constructor
Pure Consulting Engineer
Architect-Engineer
I Design-Constructor
I Architect
I Soils/Geotechnical Engineer
I Planner
I Project Manager
Prime Contractor
I Joint Venturer
I General Contractor
I Subcontractor
Pure Construction Manager
8. The number of salariled people employed by the company:
9.
Iless than 2 million
Total billings for 1990 (check only one)
12 million to 9.99 million
110 million to 19.99 million
120 million to 29.99 million
130 million to 39.99 million
140 million to 49.99 million
50 million to 59.99 million
160 million to 69.99 million
70 million to 79.99 million
80 million to 89.99 million
190 million to 99.99 million
1100 million to 199.99 million
1200 million to 299.99 million
1300 million to 399.99 million
1400 million to 500 million
Igreater than 500 million
10.
Percentage of billings according
to classification of work:
Type of Work
IGeneral
Building
Transportation
Power
Industrial Process/Petrochemical
Hazardous Waste
I Sewer/Waste Control
I Water Supply
Manufacturing Plant
1 Other (please specify
PAGE 2
III.
EXECUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Note: The term "Executive Education Programs" refers to the training, development, and enhancement of
engineering, architectural, consulting and contracting skills in the construction field for middle-level
management and senior-level management. If your company participates in Executive Education Programs, either
In-Company or University-Based or both, please answer the questions accordingly. If your company does not
participate in these programs and/or is interested in them, please answer the following questions according to
what you believe would best serve your company's needs.
11.
What is the number of employees that qualify for Executive Education Programs as described above?
12.
Is there a formal requirement in the company for ongoing executive educatic--?
13.
What type of executive programs are offered by the company?
(circle all that apply)
Yes
J
In-Company Programs
No
I
I
(check the answer, under each catagory,
14.
that best fits the question.)
Who selects and identifies the program and
possible participants?
Individual Participant
Immediate Supervisor
Top Manager
Other
University-Based
Pogram
1
ms
UnvriyBsdPor
In-Company
Programs
University-Based
Programs
)
15.
These programs are offered to:
I
Middle-level management
Senior-level management
Both
16.
How many of the eligible personnel have participated
in one of these programs...
(fill in a number)
Within the past year
From 1 to 5 years ago
From 5 to 10 years ago
17.
Does the company expect an increase in the number of
people participating in these programs?
Less than 10%
10 percent
Greater than 10%
No Change
18.
What is the desirr]d lenqth of time for an executIve
proaram?
.1 to 2 davs
3 to 5 days
2 to 3 weeks
Greater than 3 weeks
PAGE 3
19.
The list below shows a number of topics that your company might be interested in as elements of an executive program
Please indicate to what extent you believe each topic is valued. (circle one answer for each topic)
not
valued
most
valued
Business-Government Relations........................................
1
2
3
4
5
Corporate/Business Strategy Development..............................
1
2
3
4
5
Fmerging Markets
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Executive Computer Skills............................................
1
2
3
4
5
Executive Decision Making..........................
1
2
3
4
5
Finance and Accounting................................................
1
2
3
4
5
General Management.............................
.....................
1
2
3
4
5
Global Business Environment .....................
....................
1
2
3
4
5
Humanities and Liberal Arts ...................... ...................
1
2
3
4
5
Human Resource Management.......................................................
1
2
3
4
5
Information and Decision Support Systems.............................
1
2
3
4
5
International Finance ...............................................
1
2
3
4
5
Law in the Construction Industry.....................................
1
2
3
4
5
Leadership, Motivation, Communication...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Logistics Management....................... .........................
1
2
3
4
5
Marketing................................ .................
............
1
2
3
4
5
Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures...............................
1
2
3
4
5
Organizational Change and Development.................................
1
2
3
4
5
Production and Operations Management.................................
1
2
3
4
5
and Market Trends ..............................
Emerging Technologies and Technology Trends ..............
.........
.................
20.
Project Control, Scheduling, Estimating.......
1
2
Project Management ...........................
1
2
Research and Development Management............
1
2
Sales Management..............................
1
2
Stragegy Implementation..
1
2
Technology Management........ ..................
1
2
World Trade and Economics.....................
1
2
Other
1
2
1
2
1
2
(please specify)
......................
......
If in-company executive programs are used, where is the training personnel to
develop the programs acquired? Indicate percentage used.
Corporate training staff
Company personnel other
than training
Professional consultants
University Faculty
Other
21.
If in-company executive programs are used, where is the training personnel to
to deliver the programs acquired? Indicate percentage used.
Corporate training staff
Company personnel other
than training
Professional consultants
University Faculty
Other
PAGE 4
22.
What are the perceived benefits of in-company executive programs?
__
23.
What are the perceived benefits of university-based executive programs?
24.
Any additional comments are welcomed.
OPTIONAL
If
you rould
NAME:
COMPANY :
ADDRESS:
0'
l1ke a Gopy of the analysLs of this rurvey please print yourname and address.
PART 1 - INFORMATION ABOUT RESPONDENT
.estioni
2 3
NO.
1
ID
SEX AGE TITLE
H 35 Operations Manager
2
H
3
45 Vice President
H 51 President
FUNCTIONAL
AREA
Operations
Construction Services
Executive Vice President
Owner
70 Partner
2 - INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPANY
6
...... ____
IMMEDIATE
SUPERVISOR
President
CEO
4 ii H 64 Principal
5
-PART
4
___TYPE
Chairman
N/A
7A
OF MAIN
::iiiCOMPANY TRADE
(see note (see note)
C
GC
C
D,C
",C
Wastewater Treatment Desi Group of Partners
PC
D-C
7B
OTHER
CAPABILITIES
(see note)
SUB
JV,GC,SUB
E-C,GC
SUB
PC,JV
E-A
PCE,PM
6
7
8
F 39 Human Resources Director
Corporate Director
M 45 Director, Controls & Service Engineering Management
H 62 Project Manager
Administration
Executive Vice President
President
Owner
CM
C
C
PCH
GC
SUB
E-C,PH,PC,JV,GC,SU
E-C,SUB,PCM
E-C,D-C,PC
9
10
11
M 43 President
M 51 President
M 63 Partner
N/A
N/A
General
N/A
N/A
N/A
C
C
D
S/G
GC
PCE
PM,PC,JV,GC
PC
S/IG
12
M 37 Contract Division Manager
Construction Division Man President & CEO
C
PC
D-C,GC,SUB
13
M 66 Chairman & CEO
Kii
Management
Board of Directors
D
E-A
PCE
14
M 62 Partner
Administration
N/A
D
PCE
S/G,PL,JV
15
M 72 Chairman
Senior Executive
N/A
16
17
H 62 Chairman
KMii
CEO
N/A
N/A
President
C
GC
SUB
18
M 50 Vice President, Operations Corporate
President
19
K
H 71 Senior Consultant
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
F
64 President
Operations
Chairman
40 President
N/A
46 Vice President
48 Vice President
67 Chairman
Human Resources
uman Resources
Management
PC
C
GC
D-C,PM,SUB.
President & CEO
President
Chairman of Board of Directors
C
D
D
GC
PCE
PCE
PC,JV,SUB
N/A
N/A
D
C
E-A
GC
E-C,PCE,D-C,S/G,PM
PM,PCM
C
D-C
E-C,D-C,PCGC,SUB
PCE
E-A,8/G,PM,PC,SUB
N/A
N/A
N/A
Administration
Management
President
Owner
45 Executive Vice President
Administration/Management President
64 Chairman
CEO
N/A
H N/A Principal
Technical Manager
President
M 52 President
H 58 President
M 61 Vice President
CEO
N/A
Engineering
Board of Directors
N/A
President
31
32
33
34
.......
N/A
N/A
M 40 Vice President
M 46 CEO, President
H
E-A
B-C,PC,JV,SUB
S/G
GC
H 80 Chairman of the Board
30
D
GC
PCE
:C
M 57 Group Manager, Operations & Engineering & Technology President
M 35 President
CEO
N/A
29
C
D
.iD:.PCD
D
PCE
.iD
D
PCE
E-A
PL
D
E-C
PCE,D-C,S/G,PL,PM,
D
C
..,.C
E-A
GC
E-C
N/A
N/A
GC
PCE,PM,JV,PCM
D
53 President
iiN/A
H I40 Vice President
35
36
37
38
39
1_
N
45 JPresident
H 59 JPresident
50 CEO
N········:
~--I-L
58 President
L ·I-iH
::_ 53 President
41
n
M~~i
F 53 Office Manager
42
40
......
43
M 54 President
44
F
45
48
49
N/A
D
D
N/A
N/A
Vice President
Management
N/A
'-----
50
S
51
M
50
52 I
53
54
55
56
57
58
-·
59
.::
Project
I__
48 President
H
K
::::i:
.
H
H
52
50
44
31
--
Manager
Chairman
President
Vice President
President
President
__
__
47
1:
3
·
x
N
'~iiiiii
:~ic:i:
·
-
43 , President
N 57c----------------------Managing Partner
:::::::t:
--
63
---
53 ' Vice President, R & D
52 Sr. Vice President
*
i. Ni
66
*
n
67
*
N 49 President
68
69
*
Mn 49 Director, Human Resources
H 32 Project Engineer
*
39 Vice President
F 60 Vice President, Personnel
70
* I
42 Vice President
·
Vice President
General Manager
Administrative
All
Human Resources
Sales/Public Relations
Vice President
68 Chairman
MN 62 Partner
~:::·:.·
H 147 Chairman & CEO
N
·
Management
I::i H
60
61
62
CM
_
D
D
CEO
General Management
CEO
Construction
Entire
t----
------------------
President
Chairman
President and CEO
President
L-
::S
'''~'
'''
:::
D
·
:ii
·-C
PCE
N/A
GC
PM,PC,JV,SUB,PCM
::I:~
-C
•i!!i
PC
JV,GC,SUB
PCE
S/G,PM
I•I,
C
`'':'1'-------LI
1
GC
C
.cisii8
ii
-:·I::::------D PCE
PC
:::
:4
PC
C
':'':"'
PCE
D
GC
C
D
C
N/A
D
Corporate President
e----
Administrative
President & CEO
-Chief Inspection Division President
President
Operations
C
C
D
CM
~;~..·
le
~-------
E-C,D-C,PC,JV,PCM
PM, SUB, PCM
GC, SUB
E-C,D-C,PC,JV,GC
I--'
PH
N/A
i
Cil .:
N/A
N/A
N/A
JPLPH
:'':''':
..
:.:
. ..
HiaB
H 38 Director, Human Resources
':·`:·'·
__
PL,PCH
_-A
jPCE
CM
Human Resources
~I~
E-A
.,.,...
·
F 33 Human Resources Manager
N/A
D
N/A
Engineering, Technical, A N/A
President
N/A
JV,GC,SUB
-- -~
E-A,PCE,S/G,PL,PM,
,
II
Technical
President
Administration/Management N/A
H 59 President
i - 38 Assistant Treasurer, Control Finance, Administration President, Treasurer
N 50 President
Manager
I;::`:I::::
47
64
T37 President
M-si~41 Vice
i
---·
71
Management
Management
Administration
S/G
:C
:·iiiiii•i;i•c
D
'"'" :::i
E-A
D
IChairman
ILegal/Corporate
Administration
--
--~~
PM,FC,SUB,PCM
PC,GC
t
r
----- ~
PC, GC, PCM N/A
E-C,PM,PC,GC,SUB
D-C
----E-A
PCM
~
N/A
D-C,PM,PC,JV,GC,SU
--
PL,PH,JV
C,CM
GC
D-C,PM,PC,JV,PCH
President of Subsidary fo Parent's President
C
PC
E-C,PCE,D-C,PM,JV,
Human Resources
Technical Staff
D
D
E-A
PCE
PCE,A-E,A,PL,PH,JV
E-A,PL,PM,PCM,SURV
Personnel, Risk Managemen President
D
IE-A
PL_
Marketing, Business Devel President
C
GC
D-C,PH,PC,PCH
President
Vice President
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
H
H
** •
H
*
*
H
::'::1
H
:MH
''"
51
52
38
41
30
54
39
President
Executive Vice President
Technical Manager
Vice President
Project Manager
Director, Human Resources
CEO
CEO
c----
Operations
Corporate
-1
Operations
Upper Hanagement
Human Resources
-
I·-
N/A
President/CEO
--Sr. Vice President
.
President/Coo
President
President/CEO
Board
r•an of
Chai
Chairman
of the
the Board
lBoard of Directors
President
·
C
C ---;::::::
:::::::,---
C
D
C
ili!!!!i!!!
''''C
D
C
D
·
E-C,PC
E-A,E-C,D-C,PM,PC
E-C,S-GEO,PL,PM,P(
D-C,PC,JV,PCH
D-C,PM,PC,SUB
D,S.GEO,PL,PM,PC
SUB,PCM
A-E,A,PM,JV,SUB
E-C,D-C,PM,PCM
E-A,PM,JV,PCM
IGC
~-`--
D-C
GC
"'-
GC
PCE
GC
E-A
GC
President
-1--------------*
H
Executive Vice President
•
52 Partner
PCE
Administration
52
GC
M
Director,
Business
Developme
Sales
and
Marketing
N/A
* 'iiii;i
L-:
7~
-------~-------------------I-:.i:::::::------------t
*
GC
M 54 President
Total
Board of Directors
C . &:
*
PC
M 41 Owner
Administration, Project M
C-,CHM
!•i
.....
iilc
,
C
Operation
GC
42 Exec.
Vice
President
CAdv
Operations
Chairman,
President
------·------------------------t-------------*
GC
31 Manager, R & D
R&D, Engineering
VP, Construction Group Advisor C
*___;:i
67 President
.D,C,CH
E-A
Architect,
Builder
N/A
i:
ili M
H
:i:ii
F 51 Vice President
E-A
D
Area Manager & Exec. VP
Department Manager
• •ii::ii·I
H
D
PCE
59
N/A
CEO
President
• iii~ijii
x
·:
*
38 President
C
E-C
Oil/Gas/Chemicals
President
48 President, CEO
PC
C
~--~
*
*$r
PC
Daily Operations
President
S
41 Sr. Vice President
M8
:.:
----MMn58 Corporate Vice President
D
E-A
Marketing
President
~---`Management
Board
of
Directors
D
M 59 President
LE-A
___
·
---------------M 63 Chairman
Administration
PCE
D
!Board of Directors
:;::o
~~--*• iiii!
PCE
Operations -~-'-D
SM 51 Executive Vice President
President
''
Siiiiii!:
M 46 Manager, Human Resources Dir Human Resources
E-C
D
President, CEO
M 46 Vice President
Administration
C
PC
CEO
::
* :::; F
60 Assistant Director of Personhuman Resources
PC
CH
VP & Director of Personnel
•,.,.
...
59 President
Administrative
Board of Directors
C
SUB
*
SM55 Director, Personnel Developm Corporate Office
GC
C
Vice Pres., Administration
Chief Engineer
PCE
D
H 40 Vice President
President/CEO
Quality, Human Res ources, President
PC
C
Mi 51 Manager of Operations
*
President of Construction Group C
D-C
Construction
48 President
H
48 Vice President
Management
C
GC
Executive Vice President
N/A
GC
C
*
M 59 President
N/A
* i
•
Engineering
CLAIMS
LAW
Principal of Firm, Lawyer
M125 Construction Engineer
•
M- 48 Vice President
Architect, Project Manage President
D
A
-- L
D-C,PM,PC,JV,SUB,I
GC,PCM
PC,JV,SUB
D-C,PL,PM,PC, JV
A,PL,JV,GC
S/G,PL,PCH
N/A
N/A
SUB
N/A
__
--
PCE,A-E,A,S/G,PL,P
S/G,PL,PM,JV,PCM
E-A,PM
SIG
D-C,PM,JV
GC
PL,PH,PC,SUB
E-C
E-C,PM,PC,JV,PCM
E-A,D-C,S/G,PL,PM,
PM,GC,SUB,PCM
E-A,E-C,PCE,A-E,A,
D-C,PM,PC,PCM
D-C,PM,PC
N/A
N/A
109
*
110
*
N
111
112
*
*
H 49 Sr. Vice President
H 65 President
113
114
115
116
117
118
*
N
* i
* i
*
N
*
N
*
H
N/A N/A President
63 President
60
59
42
37
53
61
President
Chief Financial Officer
President
Director
Sr. Vice President
President
119 *
M 50 President
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
*
M
N
N
M
M
127
*
128
N/A
N/A
D
PCE
A-E
Management
N/A
D
PCE
N/A
Marketing
CEO
President & CEO
Board of Directors
C
D
GC
PCE
E-C,D-C,PM,PC,JV,S
E-A,S/G,PL,PH,JV,S
N/A
Financial
Administration
Human Resources
Bales/Contracts
CEO
N/A
CEO
Chairman of the Board
Vice President
President
N/A
C
D
C
C
C
D
GC
8/G
GC
D-C
SUB
I-A
PH,JV,SUB
JV
D-C,PC
E-C,PCE,PM,PC,GC,P
GC
PCE,S/G
EngineeringDesign
N/A
D
PC
PL,P
N/A
C
Director, Corporate Engineering D
President, CEO
iD,C,CH
VP
D
xec. VP, Human Resources
D
Board of Directors
D
N/A
D
GC
PM
E-C
E-C
-C
PCE
A-E
N/A
E-A
D-C,PC,GC
E-A,PCE,A-E,D-C,PH
E-A,PCE,A-E, D-C,
S/G,PM
PC,JV,SUB
Board of Directors
D
N/A
D
D-A
129
*
N
All
N/A
D
130
131
132
133
*
N
M
M
F
Engineer in Charge, COO
Operations
CEO
Human Resources
Stockholders, Board of Directot D
President
CM
N/A
C
President
D
PCE
I-A
BIG
PCE
GC
D-C
E-A
N/A
*
President
CEO
Director of Projects
Corporate Engineering
Sr. Vice President, Operatio Engineering, Construction
Director
Proposals
Mgr. Training & Management DPersonnel
President
angement
Executive Vice President
Director of Engineering
M 54 Chairman, President
Set Policy and Goal for F
H 49 President
Corporate Management
E-A,PH
D-C,PL,PN,PC,JV,SU
E-C
PCE,A-E,A,PL,PM,PC
E-A
PM
E-A
A-E
PL,PH
PCE,D-C,PL
E-A,A-E,A,PL,PH
N/A
N/A
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
53
53
47
40
44
M 56
M N/A
55 President
62
49
63
N/A
President
Executive Vice President
President
Manager, Human Resources
134
*
*
N/A
N/A
135
136
137
*
*
*
F 28 Manager, Human Resources
M 57 Chairman, CEO
N 59 President
Human Resources
Policy
CEO
138
*
F
Human Resources
Director, Finance and Administr D
Board of Directors
D
Board of Directors
:::DP:i
D
Chairman & CEO
C
N/AN/A N/A
43 Vice President
D
N/A
PCE
Qesaon
8___
9
10
I OF
TTOTAL
PERCENT OF BILLINGS
SALARIED BILLINGS GENERAL
EiMHPLOYEE (see note) BUILDING
NO.
1
6
2
TRANS.
50%
2
500
14
10%
3
4
4
4
2
100%
5
135
3
6
650
16
400
13
7
120
2
6
230
13
100
2
40%
20%
12
67
8
2%
95%
13 i
640
7
14
154
3
7
9
8
10
11
25%
20%
100%
10%
5%
6
2
30
3
17
45
2
1s
ISO
4
50%
19
90
11
10%
200
12
5%
520
16
95%
420
5
100%
35%
21
22
'
25
2
13
N/A
25
100
8
100%
26
150
11
60%
5
50%
40%
2%
2%
5
5%
OTHER
1%
OTHER IF INDICATED
40%
10%
5%
Precast Concrete
Petroleum
5%
15%
Maintenance
100%
Heavy Highway
10%
10%
10%
31%
24%
10%
3%
39%
10%
101
5%
20%
5%
30%
20%
36%
45%
6%
Analytical Labs
50%
Consulting
20%
Plant Maintenance
10%
Environmental Reports
60%
Nechanical, Electrical, Desi
10%
Utility System
10% Home Development
40%
5%
30%
10%
5%
50%
15%
3
4
30 i
880
12
31
150
3
32
350
5
15%
50-60
8
100%
75
9
St
5%
55%
110
i-9-90%
5%
40%
300
34
25%
60%
65%
29
'
25%
MANUF.
PLANT
65%
10%
28
33
WATER
SUPPLY
65%
90%
10%
24
450
SEWER
WASTE
100%
23
27
HAZARD.
WASTE
90%
15
i
INDUSTR.
__
50%
2
16
20
POWER
50%
20%
oo100%
20%
10%
5%
5%
95%
5%
10loo0%
100%
90%
5%
10%
30%
15%
25%
35
55
3
30%
10%
36
100
12
5%
85%
40
2
10%
30%
15%
15%
/A
3
10%
70%
5%
4
5%0
20%
37
38
39
i
100
5%
25%
5%
40
3
1
100%
41
550
5
10%
42
10
1
43
130
2
20%
5%
44
4
1
89%
10%
45
50
3
100%
46
24
2
85%
10%
47
24
7
65%
10%
48
75
8
20%
40%
10%
Misc. Project Evaluations
20%
10%
Laboratory
70%
10%
10%
Fisheries
Commercial
10%
Telecommunications
40%
1%
34%
94
4
50
200
12
40%
30%
51
52
150
300
10
4
30%
20%
100%
15%
53
66
6
60%
10%
54
55
95
150
8
2
60%
20%
90%
5%
49
5% Site Review
30%
65
9
57
N/A
11
20%
58
600
16
100%
59
150
13
100%
60
250
3
61
75
8
100%
62
98
11
100%
63
0
3
30%
64
200
13
95%
65
25
2
66
80
8
90%
67
60
155
10
3
38%
Planning
20%
Prison
5%
5%
33%
33%
50,25
10%
General Environmental, Geote
10%
Mining
10%
Mining Development
25%
Surveys
85%
Land Planning
35%
30%
30%
10%
5%
1%
25%
56
68
15%
10%
90%
100%
20%
10%
50%
10%
43%
200
3
20%
70
N/A
3
22%
71
55
10
100%
20%
20%
1%
1%
5%
3%
69
50%
8%
4%
10%
25%
10%
25%
66%
75%
26%
26%
25%
15%
15%
Municipal, surveys
2%
5%
5%
Software
72
45
6
73
7•
55
12
74
1500
9
75
76 --
40
35
7
12
77
37
3
78
79
110
250
12
4
70%
10%
80
45
6
100%
81
82
220
42
5
7
40%
100%
60%
50%
25%
10%
30%
10%
20%
10%
100%
90%
83
80
7
70%
80
50
9
7
100%
86
1000
16
99%
87
88
89
90
91
92
2
1200
4
750
160
70
1
12
1
13
9
6
100%
93
400
6
94
2700
95
750
96
35
4
97
1800
N/A
98
280-320
12
99
100
115
5
7
2
101
102
1500
140
16
3
103
Studies, EIR's
65%
Land Development, Planning,
5%
40%
Industrial Waste
Hospitals
10%
5%
84
85
10%
25%
10%
5%
10%
25%
20%
50%
10%
40%
30%
10%
30%
60%
10%
15%
5%
23%
34%
5%
5%
10%
Harine
20%
Site Development
5%
8%
High Technology
50%
10%
Hisc. Engineering
50%
Geotechnical
15%
Underground
100%
Legal
1%
33%
10%
100%
10%
20%
90%
80%
70%
30%
45%
15%
13
85%
2%
8
20%
10%
20%
50%
100%
41%
33%
26%
100%
60%
35%
15%
379
15
104 ii 200
105
100
16
12
10%
10%
106
107
10
20
2
N/A
100%
108oe 145
3
100%
10%
75%
25%
10%
20%
20%
5%
5%
5%
15%
10%
10%
100%
5%
40%
70%
5%
5%
5%
15%
109
0
1
100%
110
85
2
100%
111i
2500
16
55%
10%
112
195
3
11%
29%
113
3
114
N/A
115
102
116 iL 2684
1
100%
6
8
16
10%
50%
117
400
12
5%
118
119
10
24
1
2
1 iiilO 1
120
N/A
6
121
122
50
600
2
12
20%
123
700
12
5%
5%
80%
5%
124
4000
16
6%
8%
61%
10%
125
320
4
10%
25%
10%
5%
126 i
127
70
105
2
2
75
128
70
2
15%
5%
129
195
4
20%
10%
30%
20%
2%
2%
1i
0%
38%
6%
40%
10%
15%
5%
10%
16%
Urban Desing, Waterfronts
100%
25%
20%
100% Waterfront Structures
35%
20%
45%
100% Heavy Highway
85%
50%
100%
40%
10%
20%
5%
3%
1%
8%
5%
10%
130
120
3
N/A
9
90%
132
133
N/A
50
N/A
4
N/A
N/A
134
220
3
15%
135
140
3
136
210
3
N/A
N/A
137
210
3
13
27%
24%
1100
10%
5%
15%
50%
131
138 i
10%
5%
3%
2%
50%
2%
3%
35%
35%
5%
5%
2%
Real Estate, Corporate
10%
Site Development
20%
Industrial,
5%
Structural
5%
100%
10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fire Protection
Consulting
N/A
N/A
85%
85%
N/A
N/A
10%
5%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15%
13%
5%
11%
5%
100%
R&D
Surveying
,:.PART 3. EXECUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
12
11
13
14A
14B
PROGRAMS PROGRAM, PARTICIPANT
i OF
OFFERED IDENTIFIED BY:
NO. iQUALIFIE FORMAL
EMPLOY. REQUIR. (see note) (see note) (see note)
NO.
1
5
2
200
3
4- !ii--lOON/A
1
I,U
15A
15B
16A
PROGRAMS ARE
OFFERED TO:
NUMBER OF
(see note) (see note) <1 YEAR
16B
PARTICIPANTS
1-5 YRS 5-10 YRS
UN-1
UN-2
UN-3
1
N/A
10
ON- 2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
N
I,U
1,2,3
1,2,3
3
3
200
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
N/A
N
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I,U
1
1
50
N/A
50
N/A
N
N/A
N/A
N/A
50
N/A
3
N/A
5
6
40
10
10
8
100
N
I,U
2,3
3
3
3
15
45
N/A
7
10
5
7
120
N
2
1
3
1
N/A
40
N/A
2
10
N/A
6
N
N/A
U
N/A
1
N/A
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
2
2
9
N/A
N
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
25-50
N
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
U
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I,U
I
I,U
3
3
3
3
3
3
N/A
3
10
-
11
40
12
15
N
13
100
N
14
20
N
t.
~----------
15
S
5
Y
I
N/A
--------
c-
-------
2
N/A
N/A
-----------
-----------
15
15
10
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
5
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
1
30
20
2
----
8
N
3
1
3
N/A
3
8
N/A
N/A
8
N/A
8
N
I
N/A
17
2,3
N/A
3
N/A
N/A
2
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
18
20
N
I
3
1
3
3
10
20
20
14
20
20
19
5
N
U
1
2
1
2
12
N/A
N/A
1
2
8
20
35
N
2,3
1,2,3
3
3
35
N/A
N/A
25
N/A
N/A
21
40
N
2
3
3
15
40
40
1
6
150
Y
I,U
I,U
2
22
2
3
3
2
50
100
100
2
5
7
23
10
N
N/A
1,2
1,2
1
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24
200
Y
1
2,3
1
2
200
200
200
N/A
5
5
25
15
N
2
1
N/A
3
2
15
15
N/A
2
N/A
26
N/A
N
3
N/A
3
25
75
N/A
N
1
1
3
200
0
0
20
N/A
0
N/A
450
N/A
3
5
27
I
3
N/A
3
N/A
0
20
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
100
16
'
I,U
I
N/A
I
I,U
20
N
29
100
N
2,3
N/A
3
N/A
30
100
Y
N/A
2
N/A
3
N/A
31 iiiil
5
N
N/A
3
3
3
32 iziiii,
200
5
33 ,,..
:::::
20
34 if!i!!
N
I
1,2,3
N/A
1,3
3
N/A
1
28 i
N
0U
2
N/A
N
I,U
22
-I
-----------
--
N/A
3
I
40
0
30
20
N/A
N/A
N/A
S50
80
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
40
0
150
175
190
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
4
0
N/A
N/A
----
0
0
0
1
5
0
Queauon
7iiA 17B
ISA
7EXPECTED
INCREASE
NO.
(see note)
(see note)
4
4
1
2
4
N/A
1
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
4
N/A
N/A
5
4
4
1
6
4
4
7
4
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13
14 15
OTHER
16 17 18 19
20 21
22 23 24 25
26 27 28
1
1 4 3 5 5 5 4 5 1 2 2 5 1 5 5 2 4 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 4 2 1
4
3
:!,%-.,
5
3
5
3
5
4
5
4
2
2
1
32
4
N/A
3
3
5
4
5
3
55
4
4
1
3
1
1
3
2
4
4
4
3
2
2
4
3
5
3
3
1
2,3
1
2
3
4
3
4
3
4
1
14
4
2
4
1
3 3
2 2
4
2
4
1
1
N/A
1
N/A
2
1 4 3
4
4
N/A
N/A
3
4
4
2
4
10
1,2,3
1,2,3
2
2
1
3
3
3
1
3
11
N/A
4
N/A
2
3 4 3
12
4
4
1
2
4 3 2
5 4
2 1
3 1
1 3 1 1
3 4
2 4 1 2
2 2
4 2 3 3
2 1
13
2
N/A
1
N/A
2
4
4
5
4
1
2
2
4
5
14
4
4
2
1
3
3 2 3 4
4 4
5 2 1 3 0 1
4 5
5 3 1 2
15
4
N/A
2
N/A
1
2
4
3
3
2
1
,)
£9
1.B
PREFERED PROGRAM INTEREST IN TOPICS - VALUED 1 TO 5 (5 BEING MOST VALUED)
LENGTH
(see note for topic identification numbers I through 27))
--
3
2
,
2
3
5
3
2
3
4
2
5
5
5
3
5
5
2
3
2
2
5
4
5
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
4
2
5
1
2
4
3
2
4
3
5
1
3
2
5
3
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
5
5
4
3
1
45
2
4
3
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
1
3
1
1 5
1
3
1
4
4 4
4
1
2
4
1 1
2 1 4 3
3 1 1 2 3 2
2 4
1 4 4 4 3 4
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
3
4
3
4
2
2
3
3
4
2
4
1
3
1
3
4
1
1
1
3
3
5
4
3
4
3
2
2
3
4
2
41
2
2
1
5 3
5
1
3
5
2
4
4 2 5 1 2 4 3 1
3
2
1
11
4
2
2
3
1
1
3 4
5
3
2 2 1 3
3
2
1
1
2
2
4 2 2 4 2 1
5 5
5 4
4
3 3
5 1
1
3
3
2
4 5
4 1
2
3
2
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
4
1
1
16
4
4
1
1
2 5 3 1 1
5 3
3 1
1 5 3 1
3 5
1 1 1 5
3 5
5 1
1 3 3 1
17
3
N/A
2
N/A
1
1 1 4 1
1 2
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
18
4
4
1
1
2
3
2
3
4
4
4
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
3
4
4
2
3
3
2
1
19
4
4
1
2
1
1
3
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
3
4
2
2
1
5
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
20
2
2
2
2
2 4 2 3 1
5 5
5 2 4 4 3 2
5 5
4 4 3 4
21
N/A
1
1
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
22
4
4
2
2
4 1 1 1 1
1 4
11
1
1 1 1
23
24
N/A
N
3
N/A
1
2
2
2
3
2
5
3
5
2
3
4
2
2
3
2
4
5
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
4
1
1
3
3
3
5
2
3
3
3
1
1
4
2
5
3
4
4
5
3
1
3
3
2
5
5
3
4
3
4
5
3
3
2
2
1
3
4
1
1 4 1
5
2
3
4 5
5 3
3 5
3
5
5 3
3
4
1 3
1
1
2
2
4
5
5
5
5
3
1
4
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
3
4
5
5
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
113
3
3
11 1
25 i
3
3
1
2,3
3
26
4
N/A
2
N/A
2 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 0 0 2 4 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 4 5 3 0 2 3 00
27
3
4
2
4
28
1
N/A
1
N/A
3
5
5
2
4
5
5
4
4
2
4
3
3
4
5
3
4
4
3
4
5
5
2
2
3
2
2
29
1
N/A
1
N/A
3
5
4
4
2
4
3
4
3
2
4
3
2
2
4
2
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
30
4
N/A
1
N/A
1
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
22
14
3
1
1
114
1
3
1
5
5
1
4
3
5
1
31
3
2
1
2
4
4
4
5
2
3
3
4
2
2
1
3
4
2
3
2
4
5
5
3
3
4
2
32
4
1
N/A
33
N/A
3
N/A
3
1
5
4
4
44
2
3
3
2.
.2
54443222232451532444343
34
34
i
N/A_
5 2 3 4 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 3 3 5 5 1
24344
43
1
5
1
5
2
1
3
3
3
44 2
44235342345534-4
422
311311444124444114
-544.4.4.3.2.2223.24
2 2 2 2
.
32
4
34332
35
3
3
2
2
2
5
4
5
3
5
4
4
2
3
5
4
1
4
5
4
4
3
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
1
36
3
N/A
1
N/A
4
4
4
5
2
3
4
3
1
1
3
2
1
4
5
2
2
1
4
3
4
5
1
1
2
1
1
37
N/A
4
N/A
1
2 4 4 4 3
5 4
4 3
1 3
4 1
2 5 3 4
2 4 3 5
4 2 2 3
4 1
0
4
0
0
0
5
0
38
4
4
1
1
0
3
39
4
N/A
2
N/A
2
4 1 2 2 3 2
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
3
0
0
3 3
2 4
2 3
3 4 1
0
5 1
3
3
2 4 4 2
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
4
4
3
5
4
4
2
3
2
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
3
0
0
0
0
3 3
3 1 5-How to perform constru
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
40
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
5
3
2
41
3
2
1
1
3
4
4
4
3
3
42
43
N/A
4
4
4
N/A
1
2
2
3 5 5 4 2 2 4 4 1 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 3 2 2 3 5 4 3 3 3 2 1
3 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 2 2 4 2 1 4 5 1 4 2 3 4 4 5 2 2 3 3 1
44
45
3
1
3
1
1
N/A
1
2
3
1
4
5
46
4
4
1
1
2
3
47
4
N/A
2
N/A
4
3
48
3
3
1
2
2
4
49 i.!
3
N/A
I
N/A
3
5
50
2
2
1
1
3 4 4
4 3
3 2 3 2
2 4
3 4
51
N/A
4
N/A
2
2
52
2
N/A
2
N/A
53
N/A
1
N/A
4
4
4
N/A
1
2
56
2
2
2
57
N/A
1
N/A
58
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
/A //A/
/A / /A ///A//A
/ /A /
59
60
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
2
/A /
2
4
/A
4
4
/A /A
3
3
61
2
2
1
2
2
5
3
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
62
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
1
5
63
1
1
1
1
2
5
3
5
2
4
2
5
2
2
3
64
3
3
1
2
2 4 4 4 5
65
1
1
1
1
3
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
1
3
3
3
1
4
4
4
5
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
66
N/A
4
2
2
2
4
4
3
4
5
4
5
3
2
2
3
2
4
5
4
4
2
4
4
4
5
3
4
4
3
4
67
3
1
1
2
3
2
3
5
4
3
4
4
2
2
3
2
2 5-Listening Training
68
1
3
1
2
4
5
5
3
3
5
4
4
2
2
4
4 22
5
3
5
5
5
4
4
5
2
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
2
2
S54ii
55
69
70
71
i
3
4
2
4
4
1
2
4
3
4
5
4
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
4
4
4
1
4
1
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
4
3
3
3
4
2
4
5
3
2
2
1
1
3
1
3
2
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
4
1
2
4
4
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
2
3
4
4
3
5
4
2
4
5
3
4 5
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
2
3
2
5
3
1
5
2
5
3 5
1 44 4
1
3
1
1
3 1
3
1
5
2
3
4
3
3
5
4
5
1
4 2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
4
4
3
4
3
3
2
3
5
2
2
4 5
4 1
3
2
4
3
4
4
3
1
1
4
5
155
2
3
1
2
2
5
5
1
11 1
/A 4
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
4
5
3
3
3
3 1
2
1
4
2
4
2
5
3
4
1
1
5
3
1
4
5
3
4
1
3
2
4
4
1
2
3
3
2
N/A
3
2
2 2 4 3
4 3 3 4
1 3
4 3
2 3 1 4
5 2 1 3
2 3
2 2
4 1 3 2
1 4 4 5
2
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
0
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
3
4
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
2
/A /A/A/
A /A /A /A
2 4 2
2 3
1
5 3
2
2
5
5
2
3
5
5
2
5 2 2 3
1
2
32
21
3
5 3
1
2
A //A/A
1
1
1
2 4 4 4
23 2 4
4 2 1 2 3 2
51 2 2 2 2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
/A
/A /A///A
/A /A / /A
2
3
/A
/A /
1 4
/A /A
5
4 4
3
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
3
2
2
4
3
4
5
3
4
2
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
3
3
1
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
5
3
3
3
4
1
4 1
1
2
4
4 5 3 3
3
4
2
5
/A
/A/A
/
2 2
1 4
A /A/A/A /A /A/
2 4
4 1 3 4
3 5
5 2
_
/A
4 1
2 3 3 2
5
3
5
1
3
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
2
4
2
3
2
3
433
2
4
5
3
5
2
4
3
5
5
3
work outside the US
2
3
1
3 5-Ethics in Business
3
72
72
73
4
4
2
41iiii4
N/A
74
1
75
4
76
2
2
1,2
2
2
N/A
143345341123125322454411431
1
4 3
4
5 3
1 1
2 3 4 3 3
2 2
3 1 1
N/A
1
N/A
44 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 1 4 41
3 414
N/A
1
N/A
2
3
3
4
1
1
1
3
2
44
77
4
4
1
4
1
3
2
78
3
1
N/A
N/A
2
5
4
79
2
N/A
2
N/A
0 45425
80s
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 34
3 2
3 3
41
3 341
81
3
2
1
2
444
5
2
3
1
82
N/A
4
N/A
2
2 3 54 3 3 3 3 3 33 44 3 3 3 3 445
83
3
N/A
2
N/A
84
N/A
3
N/A
1
1
4
5
85
N/A
3
N/A
2
3
4
4
86
4
4
1
4
455545444344245334543444543
87
N/A
2
N/A
2
5
88
2
N/A
1
N/A
2
3
4
3
3
444
1
3
3
4
3
3
5
2
3
1
11
3
2
3
5
1
1
22
5
1
1
3
3 55
2
2
2
4
1
3
2
1
1
2
4
5
4
2
4
2
1
4
2
5
3
4
5
4
3
1 1
1
2
1 2 4 341
5
5
4
2
1
5
4
5
3
42
3
3
5
5
1
3
3 1
1 11
2 2 2 1
1
3
4
3
4
1
2
2
5
5
2
3
3
3
1
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
4
2
3
4
2
2
4
3
2
1
2
5
15
1
3
445
1
1
2
1
1
2
4
5
1
3
5
5
5
4
3
4
5
3
1
3
2
1
4
3 5
5 5 455445
4 4
2 5 34
1 3
3 5
5 1
44
3 1
4
2
4
3
3
4
5
3
4
4
2
1
4
3 3 3 3 44
44534545235425535455554
4 4
4
2
2
3 3 3 3 55
4
3
1
1
3 4
5542
4
0
3
2
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
5
5
4
3
1
3
4
2
1
3
5
4
5
4
4
2
3
3
2
3
4
3
1
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
3
4_
3
3
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
224413221132114142245512341
1 1
89
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
'.0
90
3
3
1
2
1
C
91
N/A
3
1
1
135432231142155241
92
93
N/A
3
3
N/A
N/A
1
1
N/A
3
2
5
2
1
5
2
5
1
3
5
4
4
3
3
4
1
2
2
1
33
2 3
1
3
44
3 5
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
2
3
1
5
4
94
3
2
2
2
4
4
2
3
2
4
3
3
2
1
5
2
1
1
3
2
4
1
3
95
4
4
1
2,3
1 3 3 3 1
96i
96
4
4
N/A
N/A
2
2
N/A
N/A
3
4 4 5 3
5 4
4 2
344535442234244343234422332
97
3
3
1
2
98
4
N/A
2
N/A
99
4
1
2
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
3
4
1
3
4
5
1
4
5
3
4
3
4
5
4
4
2
100:
4
4
2
1
3
4
4
5
2
4
2
3
1
1
3
2
1
4
4
2
5
1
2
1
3
3
1
101
2
3
2
3
3
5 4 4 3 5 5
5 3
3 4 4 3
4 5
3 4 4 5
3 5 5 3
2 5
102
N/A
1
N/A
2
1
4
3
2
2
4
1
3
2
1
3
3
2
4
3
1
103
3
3
2
4
1
3
1
3
4
5
1
3
2
2
4
3
13523151
104
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
4
5
3
5
4
2
44
3
4
5
4
3
3
4
3
5
5
3
3
4
43
105
3
N/A
2
N/A
2
4
3
3
1
5
2
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
5
4
4
1
4
2
3
3
2
2
4
2
1
106
N/A
N/A
N/
/A
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
1 4 3
1
2
4
4 1
1 2
2
1
107
4
4
1
1
5
1
2
2
2
2
4
5
11
2
2
2
5
2
2
1
1
5
5
1
1
108
4
4
1
2
3443
1
3
1
2
1
441
1
3
/A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A
1
5
4
5
5
5
5
1
5
1
1
1
4
3
4
2
//
4
A /
3
/A
1
3
/A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A
145
1
4
2
4
1
1
1
3
3
1
5
5
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
4
2
1
4
4
2
53241133
1 3
3
4
4
5
3 1 1 5 3 1
2
114
2
1
5
4 5
1 5
2 2
4 4 5 2
3 1
1 1
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
2
3
3
4
1
3
14
3
4
5
1
4
2
443423332133124341233434331
3
14
4
2
1
4
3
144
3
2
5
3
1
3
3
1
3
4
2
2 4-Labor Management Relat
4
3
2
1
34_1
4
3
4 2 5- PresentationSkills
4
4
1
2
4
3
2
4
5
2
2
4
3
1
5
1
11
11
109:
N/A
4
N/A
4
1
4
3
2
3
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
5
3
2
4
3
2
110
3
4
1
4
1
N/A
1
1
1
1
1
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5 0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
111
4
4
2
2
3
1
4
3
112
2
N/A
2
1
N/A
2
2
1
3
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
2
14
2
1
113
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
114
4
4
1
2
115
4
2
1
3
1
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
5
4
116
3
4
1
3
1
5
3
4
4
5
5
3
3
1
5
3
2
117
1
1
1
1
2
54
5
4
5
3
2
4
4
3
118
N/A
4
N/A
1
3
4
4
1
3
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
119
3
1
1
4
5
4
4
0
3
4
2
3
1
1
2
3
120
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/
A/ /A /A
A /
/
121
122
4
N/A
3
4
1
N/A
2
2
1
2
1
3
123
3
3
4
2
2
124
1
3
2
2
3
2
1 5 3 3 2 3 4 5 2 1 3 2 1 3 5 2 5 3 4 5 4 5 1 4 5 3 1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0.
1
4
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
4
1
3
2
2
1
4
4
4
3
2
4
5
3
4
2
5
2
4
2
3
5
4
5
2
5
5
3
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
51
1
4
3
4
/
/A /
/A /A /A
1
2
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
5
1
5
4 3
4 3
4
2
5 2
1 3
4
2
4
4
3
3
4
3
1
3
5
4
4
1
1
4
1
3
5
1
1
3
4
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
43 3
4
5
1
2
4
2
2
5
5
3
5
5
4
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
4
3
4
4
2
3
3
3
1
/A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A /A
3
5
2
4
1
5
1
3
4
2 3
1
4
3
5
5 3
3 3
3
1 5-Quality Assurance
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
4
1
4
4
4
5
4
1
2
2
1
3
3
5
3
3
4
1
3
4
4
1
1
2 5 5
5 4
5 4
5 2
2 4, 4 1
1 5
3 4
4 4
1 4 4 3
4 4
4 1
126:
N/A
1
N/A
1
2
5
5
5
3
3
3
2
2
4
4
2
2
4
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
3
1
2
127
4
4
1
4
1
4
4
3
2
14
2
1
1
3
2
1
11 1
1
4
2
3
1
3
3
1
1
2
3
1
128
2
2
1
1
3
4
4
4
129
4
5
3
1,2
4
2
1
2
1,2
4
5
3
3
2
4
1
3
3
4
5
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
4
41
3
4
4
1
125ii•
3
4
5
1 4 2 1 3 4 3 5 1 1 3 3 1 4 5 4 5 1 3 2 1 5 2 3 4 3 1
130
4
4
2
3
1
5
131
i 1
1
1
2
2
2 2
5 3
3 3
4
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
5 2
1 1
3 1
5
2
4
3
5
3
55
4
5
2
2
5 5
5 2 2 2
2 1 5-Development Economics,
3
132
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
44
3
2
3
4
4
1
2
3
3
1
4
3
3
4
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
3
133
1
N/A
2
N/A
3
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
3
2
3
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
05
5
5
134i
135
4
N/A
4
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
4
0
4
5
5
0
4
0
2
0
4
0
4
0
3
0
3
0
5
0
4
0
5
0
3
0
4
0
4
5
5
0
4
0
4
0
5
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
4
3
4
3
4
5
5
4
3
44
1
3
/A /A /A /A /
5 4 5 5 2
136
-------------3
2
1
137
138i
4
4
4
1
2
h".--4 3
/A /A //A /A
/
3 4 4 3 2
/A /
2 3
/A /A /A /A /A /
2 4 4 2 4 2
/A /
3 3
5
/A /
4 4
/A /
2 3
/
4
1
2
0
4
0
3
3
3
/A /A
4 2
Nanaging Change
ues#pon
20
21
DEVELOP PROGRAM
DELIVER PROGRAM
(see note)
:i(see note)
NO.
1%
2
3
1
25%
75%
2
80%
20%
50%
3
4
5
95%
70%
5%
30%
6
70%
30%
7
15%
75%
8
11
12
13
5
1
3
75%
80%
20%
50%
95%
70%
10%
4
5
50%
5t
30%
70%
30%
15%
75%
10%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
80%
N/A
10%
N/A
60%
10%
N/A
N/A
30%
1001
100%
100%
10%
15%
40%
2
25%
50%
100%
9
10
4
100%oot
50% 10% 30%
15%
30% 40%
60%
N/A
N/A
40%
30%
40%
30%
30%
40%
15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20%
20%
14
19
100%
100%
18
60%
20
34%
20%
20%
33%
33%
60%
100%
95%
5%
95%
St
22
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
23
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
24
40%
30%
30%
40%
30%
30%
25
25%
75%
2%
25%
75%
26
50%
50%
50%
50%
21
28
29
100%
100%
27
N/A
10%
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50%
30%
10%
10%
50%
30%
10%
30
10%
40%
50%
0%
20%
20%
60%
0%
31
32
40%
40%
70%
10%
30%
10%
N/A
N/A
75%
N/A
25%
N/A
N/A
33
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
34
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
APPENDIX A12f
NOTES :
Question No. 6:
D = Design Firm
C = Construction Company
CM
I = Construction Management Firm
Question No. 7A & 7B:
E-*A = Engineer-Architect
E-C = Engineer-Constructor
PCE = Pure Consulting Engineer
A-E = Architect-Engineer
D--C = Design-Constructor
A = Architect
SPG = Soils/Geotechnical Engineer
P = Planner
P? = Project Manager
P( = Prime Contractor
J1 = Joint Venurer
G = General Contractor
S1b = Subcontractor
P'M = Pure Construction Manager
Question No.
Less than $2 million
2 million to 9.99 million
10 million to 19.99 million
20 million to 29.99 million
30 million to 39.99 million
40 million to 49.99 million
50 million to 59.99 million
60 million to 69.99 million
70 million to 79.99 million
: 80 million to 89.99 million
: 90 million to 99.99 million
: 100 million to 199.99 million
: 200 million to 299.99 million
: 300 million to 399.99 million
: 400 million to 500 million
: Greater than 500 million
Question No. 13
I = In-Company Executive Education Programs
U = University-Based Executive Education Pr
Question No. 14*Aand 14B:
1 = Individual Participant
2 = Immediate Supervisor
3 = Top Manager
4 = Other
Question No. 15A and 15B:
297
1 = Middle-Level Mangement
2 = Senior-Level Management
3 = Both Levels of Management
Question No. 17A and 17B:
1 = Less than 10%
2 = 10 Percent
3 = Greater than 10%
4 = No Change
Question No. 18A and 18B:
1 = 1 to 2 Days
2 = 3 to 5 Days
3 = 2 to 3 Weeks
4 = Greater than 3 Weeks
Question No. 19:
1 = Business-Government Relations
2 = Corporate/Business Strategy Development
3 = Emerging Markets and Market Trends
4 = Emerging Technologies and Technology Tr
5 = Executive Computer Skills
6 = Executive Decision Making
7 = Finance and Accounting
8 = General Management
9 = Global Business Environment
10 = Humanities and Liberal Arts
11 = Human Resource Management
12 = Information and Decision Support Syste
13 = International Finance
14 = Law in the Construction Industry
15 = Leadership, Motivation, Communication
16 = Logistics Management
17 = Marketing
18 = Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures
19 = Organizational Change and Development
20 = Production and Operations Management
21 = Project Control, Scheduling, Estimatin
22 = Project Management
23 = Research and Development Management
24 = Sales Management
25 = Strategy Implementation
26 = Technology Management
27 = World Trade and Economics
28 = Other
Question No. 20
1
2
3
4
5
and 21:
= Corporate training staff
= Company personnel other than training
= Professional consultants
= University Faculty
= Other
298
APPENDIX A13
PERCEIVED
BENEFITS
EXECUTIVE
OF
EDUCATION
IN-COMPANY
PROGRAMS
(Obtained from Question 22 of the related survey)
* Learn and share company-specific knowledge.
* Better understanding of the company's policies, practices, business
strategies and quality implementation.
*
More company-specific. Timing, hours of the day, amount spent on
topic, and relevance of topic is better. Exchange of ideas-common,
but yet separate.
*
We are more able to direct trainiiig to key areas than people from
outside who are not familiar with our situations and the present
stage of development of our people.
*
Not sufficient for our purposes.
*
Improve productivity.
*
Better efficiency and coordination of management.
* Meeting company needs versus someone else's ideas of those needs.
*
Develop better management staff.
* Development, motivation.
* Presume they would be more focussed on areas important to the firm.
* Education and improvement of employee. Visiting and exchanging views
with fellow employees from other locations.
* Increased responsibility.
* Showing commitment to employee.
* Peer interaction.
*
Employee improvement.
Company specific emphasis.
Savings in dollars.
Develops large group of staff and enables exchange of company ideas
and helps understanding between various levels of the company.
* Manager effectiveness.
299
* Shorter time periods for classes, less time taken away from projects.
Location of in-house training is convenient. Train employees in that
company's particular way.
* Time management, project control, budgeting and planning, team
building, negotiating, marketing, presentations.
*
Control, applicability, take home value.
* Focusing of planning and implementation programs on a macro scale.
Relative to all aspects of construction. Exposure to new concepts
and ways to foster positive change and growth in personnel to
strengthen the organization.
* More employee interaction with each other.
*
Develop skills. Satisfy individual desires to develop
professionally. Team and morale building.
* Train the trainer. Schedule convenient, Shared time (part company,
part individual). Direct applicability.
* More focused programs to meet needs.
* Training is dedicated to special needs.
* Enhance individual development but relevance increased through
program being tailor made or at least delivered on one turf.
* A better appreciation for many of the issues.
*
Curriculum designed to be directly related to practical applications
in-house.
*
Develop a consistent management philosophy and style. Develop
familiarity with peers from other operating units. Certain problems
common to all units; dispels feeling of uniqueness. Develops broad
knowledge of company abilities and potential.
* Growth of individuals, adding value to the company, higher morale and
greater participation in company.
*
Lower cost, can be done over intermittent period of time, able to
reach larger percentage of management.
* Tailored to company.
More relevant to personnel.
*
Less time away from office.
*
NONE.
Less expensive.
300
* They don't take a busy manager away from his staff and clients for
more than one day.
* The development of management skills.
*
Better management. More focused programs.
Enhance profits. Increase quality.
Enhance revenues.
* Customized design and delivery of program.
* Programs are more directly related to the company environment.
* Experience.
Co-philosophy.
*
Save travel time.
personnel.
*
Standard of base-level knowledge by management staff. Control of
quality of material presented. Control of scheduling.
Allow selective participation of company
* Geared directly to the company's needs.
culture.
Fits in with the corporate
* Content is developed for our business and situations.
* Middle management can participate in a cost effective program which
can be customized to our needs. In company experts may participate
in delivering selected portions of the curriculum. Easier to
schedule and substitute managers when cancellations are unavoidable.
*
Educate staff at minimum cost.
*
Less costly.
duration.
*
Team-building, skills enhancement, culture building.
*
Development of people.
Least disruptive to work on billable time.
Shorter
Enhancement of skills.
* More specific to our firm's needs. Requires additional thought and
preparation on part of presenter which usually improves their skills.
Most cost-effective for group training and development due to
logistics and pricing.
* Mentor relationship, hands on experience, schedule control.
*
It lets your people know they are important.
new ideas.
It opens their eyes to
* Can be tailored to more closely match needs.
location.
Convenience of in-house
301
* Lower cost per individual.
Reduced time away from company.
* Appropriate.
* Professional development to increase skills in the area of training.
* Less expensive. Easier to schedule around office deadlines.
geared toward our specific needs and issues.
* More participants.
Are
Less cost.
* Improved communications. Improved project management and profits.
Improved technical skills.
* Keeps minds open to new and different thoughts.
* Demonstrated interest in employees.
Added levels of skills.
Improve corporate communication.
* Keeps an influx of new ideas.
* Lower cost.
Target specific needs.
* Improved ability and understanding.
*
Professional growth, train future leaders.
* Precision in targeting training objectives. Greater flexibility.
Greater control. Less costly. Potential of broader participation.
*
Improved management, decision-making, communications, happier clients
- repeat business, increased profits.
*
Convenience, cost, participation.
*
Believable.
Develop "teachers" skills.
Requires research.
* We select subject. Presentation is uniform to all attenders.
control time and cost. We select instruction material and
instructors. All material can be previewed.
We
* Able to customize topics to real needs and company issues. Gets
management trainers to rethink their jobs. Allows teachers and
managers to get to know each other better. It's cheaper.
* Tailor made, convenient schedule, economy.
*
It is very difficult to assess any direct benefit, but assumption is
that some how there is some beneficial improvement in executive
knowledge/ability.
302
* Team work, groups working toward some goal, morale builder.
* Ability to develop own material.
*
Quicker and better decisions, less exposure to errors and omissions
claims.
*
Greater relationship to business at hand.
*
Better format when subject related to company operations.
*
Education of our staff in those areas that relate specifically to our
business. This allows us not only to touch on the character and
value of our corporation, but also draw on over 60 years of
experience in our field.
*
Better trained managers who act uniformly to given situations.
*
Programs would be specifically tailored to the organization.
*
Can cover many subjects with more frequency.
* More employees can be trained at one time.
to company.
Cost effective.
* Provide common language and vocabulary for action.
opportunity for corporate culture development.
Tailored
Provide
* Addressing issues of special interest to our firm and clients.
employees hearing the same thing at the same time.
All
* Usually executives are less attentive due to "still at the office".
Cost less to offer.
* Builds company loyalty, increases efficiency.
* Further learn "our way", no lost time or expense in travel, program
designed to fit.
* Common goals and objectives.
* Every day occurrences can be experienced with actual situations used
as training programs.
* Uniformity, establishment of corporate policies.
* Consistency, relevance, capacity to be tailored.
* Better focus on specific needs of the organization.
303
*
Poor - external programs better.
* More profitable long term results. Better cooperation between office
and field. Better, courteous relations.
*
Improved management quality control.
* Minimal time.
Better product to client.
Same or common problems addressed.
304
APPENDIX A14
PERCEIVED
BENEFITS
OF
UNIVERSITY- BASED
EXECUTIVE
EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
(Obtained from Question 23 of the related survey)
*
Perspective, professional instruction, interaction with peers.
* MBA type programs.
*
Broader based information. Expertise in areas which company lacks.
Exchange of ideas from diverse groups.
*
The academic surroundings.
immediate circle.
* Solid training.
Obtaining ideas from others outside your
Concentrated effort.
* Improve productivity.
* Outside knowledge, newest trends.
*
Specific target areas of company needs can be served.
* Specialized training.
* Development, motivation.
* Wider selection of presenters, broader viewpoint, availability of
greater expertise and experience.
* Education and improvement of employee.
* Upgrading of skills.
* Showing commitment to employee.
* New ideas.
Employee improvement.
Interaction with other types of businesses.
* Broader generalized training and some specific specialized training.
Some of our executives have gotten a MBA at night.
* Manager effectiveness.
* More diverse, employees experience what other companies are doing.
This helps to cultivate new ideas.
305
*
Cross fertilization, better resources.
*
Chance to converse with peer groups.
*
Concentrated, focused, but also expensive. Most smaller companies
can not afford expense of loss of utilization of a manager for
extended periods of time. Today's market place won't allow extra
management layers to support this long term planning. Competition
will capitalize. Hard to sell to management.
* More broadening. Compare company to experience of others. More
thinking when out of company. Professional "teachers" (but not
always).
* Better general education.
* Alternate perspectives.
training.
Topics beyond capabilities of in-house
* Stronger educational component, stronger faculty, more interface with
counterparts in other organizations.
*
I have not used one before.
*
More general curriculum providing cross-cultural exposure with other
companies.
*
Develop knowledge of other companies. Benefit of interfacing with
outside executives. Develops networking capability. Program
development and delivery by academic experts. Develops "big picture"
concepts. Provides focused learning without day to day business
demands.
* Access to better staff and facilities. Chance to get away from work
environment is a perceived benefit plus allows uninterrupted time on
topic.
* Broader range of subjects and more in-depth coverage.
* Taught by professionals, very intense, away from normal office or job
environment.
*
Separated from daily tasks.
Independent view.
* Less distractions. Sharing experiences with wider range of people.
More professionally presented. Greater access to other resources.
* Better teachers.
Known cost, Broader student base.
306
*
Better management. More focused programs.
Enhance profits. Increase quality.
*
Objective view of industry and business.
Enhance revenues.
* Interaction with individuals from other companies and industries.
* Technical training.
Outside thinking.
Remove
*
Cross pollination with other company's personnel.
distractions of day-to-day business.
*
State of the field technology.
*
Expertise not available within corporation. Participants represent
different corporations and environments.
Use of experts in field.
* Variety of available topics.
*
Executives can "rub elbows" with others (peers) and gain a better
insight into the "big picture" of fortune 500 executive management.
High quality of established university programs.
*
University-based courses can cover a much broader range of topics.
*
Being located in the Metropolitan Boston area, we are able to take
advantage of top researchers and practitioners in all fields that
benefit our company: Architectural, engineering, business and
management; as well as technical skill development programs.
* More involvement by participant.
program.
Fewer interruptions in training
* Generally not used because they tend to be too broad for a company
that is highly specialized.
*
Sometimes offers specific expertise not otherwise available.
* More specific expertise not otherwise available.
*
Brings in new ideas from the outside.
* Outside expert, new ideas, authority.
*
Interaction with persons from other companies.
from office.
*
Isolated from company.
*
Broad based.
Net-working with others.
307
Provides time away
* Are harder to "blow off" if an office deadline occurs. Better
trained and prepared instructors. Networking with classmates. Is
considered more of a perk by staff.
*
Richer interest.
*
Improved technical skills.
resources skills.
*
Keeps minds open to new and different thoughts.
More focused.
* Added level of skills.
Perceived as a company benefit.
Improved administrative and human
Willingness to invest in employees.
*
Provide in-depth technical knowledge.
*
Interface with people outside of our organization.
*
Improved ability, and understanding.
*
Professional growth, train future leadership, acquire new skills.
* More objective (no politics, no hidden agenda, etc.). Newer
technology, more thoroughly researched. More capable of enhancing
executives' perspective. Greater openness. Seclusion...(away from
interruption, crises, phones, etc.)
* Better organized.
* Quick and easy. Meet leaders of similar interests.
*
Selective enhancement is available. Time can be scheduled. Exact
instruction to need. Limited cost known.
*
See what others are doing. Builds outside relationships, even new
clients. Get new views.
*
Usually more professional, broader input, broader participation.
* Exposure to industry counterparts, professional teachers.
business setting. Focus on learning something new.
* Technical advancement.
* Work towards advanced degree, accredited.
*
Stay current with latest technology.
* Greater professionalism and broader theoretical approach.
*
Better format when subject is highly technical.
308
Away from
*
University-based and other professional organizations provide a much
better and broader background in general areas of training such as
management skills, computer applications, quality management,
specific technical skills, etc. than are normally found in any
corporate organization.
*
Better educated personnel who keep up to date with the latest
technology.
*
Interaction among members of different organizations could be of
benefit.
*
Can isolate from day to day business distractions.
depth presentations.
Can handle in
* Exposure to other companies. Knowledge of instructors.
relationships developed with other participants.
Long term
* Higher degree of detail, greater depth, opportunity for individual
commitment.
* Exposure to other company's employees and ideas. Net working.
person at a time. Less interruptions of work schedules
One
* Education environment makes learning the priority - "away from the
office". Instructors more qualified - teaching to teach.
* Wide scope of knowledge.
* Should have professional presentation, though at times is certainly
proved not to be any better.
* More technical and structured programs can be used as broad based
information to support future needs.
* different opinions.
* Expansion of trainee consciousness on commonality of problems. Lack
interruptions, therefore more effective and efficient concentration.
Refreshment or sabbatical effect.
* University instructors are very poor compared to industry consultants
who specialize in construction. University teachers are good for a
very limited amount of general education. They lack familiarity with
the real world.
* Blend of ideas from others.
* Technological development of individual engineers.
* Little or no experience with these.
309
*
People with their individual areas of expertise provide more direct,
specific assistance.
*
Diversity different points of view.
*
More rounded. Consistent and updated material from course to course.
Not perceived as company propaganda. Interaction with executives
from other companies.
310
APPENDIX A15
ADDITIONAL
SURVEY
COMMENTS
FROM
RESPONDENTS
(Obtained from Question 24 of the related survey)
* We need to do more.
* Our company is small and executive development is left up to the
individual.
* There needs to be a good one week executive program that uses a
mixture of professors, professional consultants, and one or two
practitioners, i.e. company presidents. An individual could take a
different core subject each year, i.e. quality, marketing, etc.
* University based programs are much higher priced. Time and tuition
are greater. Most courses are not directed to Architects-Engineers.
So much is not applicable but not all are bad. No course is tailored
to engineering education short fall: human resources, business,
decision making.
* Most university-based programs are too academic and are taught by
people who have never made a mistake in the real world. We do a
better job with in-house people who are practitioners with a lot of
experience.
*
We are a modest sized construction company with no in/house executive
programs; we also have not participated in university based
programs. We have however participated in programs put on by the
Associated General Contractors of America, Fails Management
Institute, and Jack Miller Seminars.
* MIT could do a better job of training engineering managers for the
consulting engineering professions.
*
Short training periods are best.
*
I have tried to put together a university program for our facility.
To be administered on Saturdays. This was at the instruction of
executive management. I found that local universities utilize an
adjunct faculty, not really connected to the university, for this
purpose. That coupled with the logistics of Saturday scheduling
doomed this effort. I personally feel that sending a few executives
at a time to proven university programs is the best for our purposes.
* Note that response is related to small consulting engineer group who
perform multi-tasks.
311
*
If we were to model the objective of our organization, we might say
its purpose is to: "Manage" the "Application" of "Technology". Most
of our training effort is directed to enhancing executive and middle
level staff. Skills in one of these general areas (i.e. Management;
application of functional skills...estimating, scheduling,
purchasing, engineering, etc; and technology...of building systems
and materials.) Such training is immediately beneficial to our
performance and profit. Thus, with limited resources and time, this
has to be our thrust. Also valuable is "expansive" training for
upper level personnel. However such mind broadening is generally
left to the individual.
*
Executive training programs tend to be expensive and in many cases
cost prohibitive for the small to medium size firms especially in
todays economic conditions.
We would like to see institutions such as MIT offer a master's degree
program in management for executives with technical or engineering
backgrounds on a part time basis to include Saturdays and at a
reasonable cost that small and growing firms are able to send some of
their executives to.
* Your focus was only on in-house and university we currently use out
side 1-5 day seminars as our main avenue for employer education.
These are conducted by outside consultants.
*
Over the past two years, the importance of professional society
participation as part of individual education has received increasing
emphasis within this company.
*
We are interested in part time and weekend degree programs.
*
Limited training funds, and overhead reduction (time) efforts driven
by a depressed market have curtailed both in-house and employee
selected university programs since January 1, 1990. Prior to that,
during prior growth periods (=/- 5 years), major investment in both
areas was budgeted and done. We hope to do likewise when business
situation improves sufficiently to do so.
* We've been much more successful bringing in industry consultants to
provide training programs, compared to sending people to college
campuses.
*
We frequently use seminars by AMB, Fails Management and others,
usually on their premise with one or two member of our firm
participating. Sometimes on our premises with 13 to 15
participating. We run courses at a local community college for our
engineers and supers. Usually 20 participants 10 to 12 - 3 hour
sessions. Speakers from our company and subcontractors or specialty
themes such as roofing, air conditions, etc. The company sponsors
engineers at the local university for certain education and graduate
courses.
312
3
Table 1. Annual Value of New Construction Put in Place: 1986-1990
(Millions of dollars)
Constant (1987) dollars
Current dollars
Type of construction
411,605
410,196
405,212
399,942
393,690
324,435
325,948
319,541
314,367
308,514
293,934
196,551
139,202
116,898
22,304
57,349
186,851
129,855
110,719
19,137
(NA)
195,377
139,052
106,621
32,430
56,325
194,622
139,893
114,432
25,462
54,729
190,292
133,469
112,045
21,424
56,823
182,045
128,944
108,279
20,665
53,101
169,993
118,149
100,735
17,414
(NA)
103,358
18,507
28,597
7,617
30,791
2,972
3,308
7,537
4,028
102,427
20,564
25,247
8,413
29,381
2,985
3,788
8,128
3,921
94,794
14,293
29,742
7,746
29,283
2,806
2,435
5,637
2,853
91,944
13,695
26,422
7,381
28,994
2,751
3,437
6,031
3,233
93,518
14,375
27,012
6,547
28,946
2,718
2,806
6,954
4,160
96,033
17,188
26,582
7,078
28,601
2,762
3,072
7,005
3,744
92,703
18,609
22,855
7,616
26,592
2,700
3,427
7,354
3,549
422,075
432,066
319,639
327,102
333,515
.
187,148
133,192
102,154
31,038
53,956
194,656
139,915
114,463
25,452
54,741
198,101
138,947
116,649
22,298
59,154
.
91,171
13,747
28,591
7,451
28,170
2,702
2,343
5,422
2,745
91,994
13,707
26,430
7,380
29,015
2,753
3,438
6,035
3,236
97,102
14,930
28,044
6,794
30,059
2,822
2,912
7,219
4,320
Public utilities ................
Telecommunications ..........
Other public utilities ..........
Railroads ..................
Electric light and power ......
Gas ......................
Petroleum pipelines ..........
.
Public construction .............
Highways and streets ..........
Military facilities ...... .......
Conservation and development ..
Sewer systems ...............
Water supply facilities ..........
Miscellaneous public'..........
433,999
410,208
313,613
Farm nonresidential ...........
Buildings ....................
Housing and redevelopment ....
Industrial ...................
Educational .................
Hospital
....................
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other
1990r
398,206
.
2 .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
1989
1989
..
All other private
1988
1988
Total new construction.......
Nonresidential buildings ........
Industrial ...................
Office ......................
Hotels, Motels ................
Other commercial ............
Religious ...................
Educational .................
Hospital and institutional .......
Miscellaneous' ..............
1987
1987
Private construction ............
Residential buildings ...........
New housing units ...........
1 unit ...................
2 or more units .............
Improvements ..............
1986
1986
.
1990'r
2,072
2,503
2,270
2,356
(NA)
2,154
2,503
2,187
2,190
(NA)
30,948
9,106
21,842
2,891
15,392
3,273
286
27,858
9,194
18,664
2,451
12,656
3,188
369
27,503
9,801
17,702
2,793
10,873
3,659
377
28,549
9,132
19,417
2,716
11,743
4,616
342
(NA)
9,261
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
31,353
9,195
22,158
2,886
15,605
3,372
294
27,842
9,160
18,683
2,454
12,669
3,191
369
26,338
9,690
16,648
2,668
10,186
3,440
354
25,746
8,198
17,548
2,513
10,583
4,144
307
(NA)
8,244
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
2,275
2,628
2,126
2,702
3,326
2,270
2,630
2,033
2,501
3,024
84,593
90,569
94,973
98,551
109,564
85,658
90,655
90,845
91,429
99,756
31,115
3,029
1,657
10,948
2,334
13,148
32,962
3,262
1,457
11,476
2,559
14,208
36,163
3,366
1,413
14,267
2,693
14,424
39,202
3,841
1,300
16,727
2,486
14,848
45,255
3,926
1,470
20,338
2,711
16,810
32,351
3,164
1,724
11,368
2,429
13,666
32,955
3,262
1,458
11,471
2,558
14,207
34,820
3,233
1,361
13,737
2,594
13,896
36,404
3,557
1,208
15,534
2,310
13,795
40,963
3,573
1,330
18,393
2,455
15,212
25,318
3,867
4,937
7,654
3,183
8,517
26,958
4,324
5,519
8,998
3,674
8,134
30,141
3,579
4,728
8,634
3,917
7,810
29,502
3,520
4,968
9,229
3,923
8,207
31,988
3,733
4,734
10,302
4,911
8,641
24,909
3,907
5,005
7,757
3,228
8,500
27,050
4,327
5,517
8,994
3,669
8,143
28,449
3,417
4,567
8,342
3,792
7,459
27,368
3,265
4,589
8,524
3,684
7,593
29,497
3,413
4,247
9,237
4,544
7,855
'Revised.
2
'Includes amusement and recreational building, bus and airline terminals, animal hospitals and
shelters, etc.
lncludes privately owned streets and bridges,
3
parking areas, sewer and water facilities, parks and playgrounds, golf courses, airfields, etc.
Includes general administrative buildings, prisons, police and fire
stations, courthouses, civic centers, passenger terminals, space facilities, postal facilities, etc. 4Includes open amusement and recreational facilities, power
generating facilities, transit systems airfields, open parking facilities, etc.
Table 3. Monthly Value of New Construction Put in Place-
Not Seasonally Adjusted in Current Dollars
(Millions of dollars)
Private construction
Period
Total
new
construction
Public utilities
Nonresidential buildings
Residential buildings
New housing units
Total
1 unit
structures
2 units
or
more
25,697
20,186
-21
18,696
14,043
-25
15,782
11,589
-27
22,399
25,215
26,558
28,817
30,148
12,592
14,494
15,953
17,385
18,378
9,254
10,588
11,301
12,078
12,759
39,669
41,795
40,757
39,782
37,721
32,978
30,365
31,564
30,389
30,450
28,931
25,486
18,864
19,062
18,112
17,799
16,665
14,020
January ......
February......
March ........
April .........
May .........
June .........
29,954
29,497
32,954
35,096
38,283
39,934
23,057
22,828
25,751
26,939
28,787
29,632
July .........
August .......
September ....
October'......
November'
..
December' .
40,465
42,120
39,606
38,995
35,915
31.180
January' ......
February".....
26,689
25,809
Other
Hotels,
commotels mercial
Reli- Educagious
tional
Hospital
Misand
institucellational neouss
4
TelecommuniAll
caother
tions privates
Total
Industrial
Office
2,914
2,453
-16
15,332
14,116
-8
2,957
3,018
2
4,064
3,485
-14
1,243
1,177
-5
4,404
3,589
-19
429
406
-5
501
531
6
1,133
1,350
19
600
560
-7
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
1,211
(NA)
(NA)
529
480
-9
7,589
8,848
9,416
10,129
10,709
1,665
1,740
1,886
1,949
2,049
7,474
8,118
7,959
8,524
8,826
1,199
1,296
1,439
1,499
1,615
2,250
2,454
2,335
2,460
2,456
556
636
610
618
649
2,109
2,310
2,200
2,471
2,613
224
216
216
243
240
226
251
230
260
312
580
593
594
639
623
331
361
335
334
319
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
661
763
708
820
805
172
185
195
216
215
13,235
13,231
12,756
12,399
11,858
9,964
11,150
.11,143
-10,822
10,508
10,095
8,368
2,086
2,088
1,934
1,891
1,763
1,596
8,657
9,547
9,472
9,557
9,271
8,277
1,528
1,717
1,826
1,787
1,690
1,635
2,288
2,523
2,494
2,405
2,410
2,236
660
689
667
702
670
608
2,675
2,946
2,883
3,081
2,923
2,401
231
264
240
291
321
232
331
358
304
289
287
244
609
697
714
651
644
594
335
354
344
352
327
328
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
731
813
728
802
791
879
226
234
259
271
283
268
13,023
12,674
14,803
15,907
17,061
17,661
9,499
9,197
10,737
11,165
11,683
11,895
8,054
7,728
9,208
9,515
9,881
10,242
1,445
1,469
1,529
1,650
1,803
1,653
7,620
7,712
8,184
8,272
8,687
8,927
1,415
1,542
1,622
1,646
1,749
1,760
2,063
2,001
2,106
2,026
2,084
2,246
606
638
748
745
767
743
2,164
2,241
2,324
2,389
2,550
2,550
227
202
208
209
230
221
258
242
261
284
310
334
579
554
588
630
671
735
308
292
328
342
327
339
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
597
614
768
720
848
782
272
257
259
245
262
283
30,248
30,467
28,934
28,308
26,283
23,201
17,921
17,956
16,789
16,125
14,722
12,210
12,231
12,128
11,509
11,118
10,233
8,461
10,551
10,429
9,905
9,432
8,750
7,025
1,680
1,700
1,604
1,686
1,483
1,436
9,329
9,386
9,158
8,871
8,370
7,911
1,956
1,796
1,809
1,797
1,694
1,777
2,205
2,266
2,226
2,133
1,993
1,898
782
736
704
679
647
620
2,710
2,818
2,673
2,510
2,347
2,107
250
294
330
297
283
235
357
399
373
358
331
281
725
713
718
771
754
690
345
364
326
328
319
304
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
775
877
808
904
880
688
301
297
301
291
296
263
19,983
19,172
10,473
9,713
7,358
6,685
6,085
5,504
1,273
1,181
7,105
7,011
1,496
1,522
1,756
1,729
589
587
1,830
1,759
207
199
258
273
686
665
283
277
(NA)
(NA)
595
(NA)
247
233
-- 7
--9
--7
--1
2
-2
(Z)
-4
-4
6
-3
-2
(NA)
(NA)
-6
Total'
Total
2
59,451
52,498
-12
45,885
39,155
-15
February ......
March ........
April .........
May ........
.
June ........
28,178
31,352
33,783
37,514
39,337
July .........
August .......
September ....
October ......
November ....
December ....
Total
Year to Date
February 1990 .........
February 1991 .........
Percent Change ........
Monthly Data
1989:
1990:
1991:
Percent Change
Janlary 1991
February 1991 ........
See footnotes at end of table.
-3
-4
-10
Table 3. Monthly Value of New Construction Put in Place-Not Seasonally Adjusted in Current Dollars--Continued
(Millions of dollars)
Public construction
Buildings
Period
Other
public Highways
e
buildings and streets
Military
facilities
2,432
2,669
10
2,865
2,500
-13
644
297
-54
Conservation and
develop- Sewer systems
ment
Water
supply
facilities
Miscellaneous
public'
715
747
4
1,354
1,228
-9
571
648
13
1,153
862
-25
Total
Total
Housing
and redevelopment
13,566
13,343
-2
6,264
7,059
13
564
617
9
200
238
19
2,627
3,148
20
2,724
2,767
3,102
3,261
3,453
288
253
296
333
355
90
124
105
120
127
1,066
1,130
1,278
1,328
1,516
206
190
198
220
212
1,075
1,071
1,225
1,261
1,244
1,095
1,328
1,885
2,703
3,120
239
310
273
325
362
321
336
275
494
435
582
544
704
795
770
235
275
314
330
324
584
576
672
788
724
Industrial
Educational
Hospital
441
387
-12
Year to Date
February 1990 .........
February 1991.........
Percent Change........
Monthly Data
1989:
1990:
1991:
February ......
March ........
April .........
May .........
June .........
5,779
6,137
7,225
8,697
9,188
July .........
August .......
September ....
October ......
November ....
December ....
9,304
10,230
10,367
9,332
8,790
7,492
3,611
3,805
3,668
3,442
3,446
3,276
331
376
331
349
345
328
104
121
165
87
93
111
1,649
1,781
1,605
1,489
1,478
1,338
206
220
199
226
197
236
1,321
1,307
1,369
1,290
1,332
1,263
3,121
3,• 19
3,492
3,245
2,620
1,826
268
317
412
173
305
296
463
469
714
361
390
395
846
863
940
924
916
785
326
381
365
368
371
308
669
757
777
820
743
605
January ......
February ......
March ........
April .........
May .........
June .........
6,898
6,668
7,203
8,157
9,496
10,302
3,133
3,131
3,296
3,531
3,735
4,076
286
279
322
316
315
355
121
79
151
132
100
136
1,316
1,310
1,367
1,451
1,628
1,769
222
219
220
272
269
243
1,188
1,244
1,235
1,359
1,423
1,573
1,465
1,400
1,492
1,971
2,823
3,147
320
324
425
421
455
489
359
356
372
406
432
333
668
687
728
859
923
923
308
263
330
336
433
494
645
508
561
633
695
838
July .........
August .......
September ....
10,217
11,653
10,672
3,986
4,583
4,226
311
332
328
124
150
178
1,880
2,314
2,003
233
219
211
1,438
1,568
1,506
3,192
3,927
3,576
276
241
212
403
457
471
1,027
1,043
948
413
448
487
921
954
752
October' ......
10,686
3,945
367
92
1,874
217
1,396
3,885
165
337
1,019
508
826
November' ....
9,633
3,920
373
95
1,777
206
1,469
3,050
249
389
848
483
695
407
612
December'....
7,980
3,693
343
112
1,646
179
1,412
2,059
158
420
631
January' ......
6,707
3,479
304
124
1,544
177
1,330
1,236
183
398
625
346
439
February .....
6,636
3,580
312
115
1,604
210
1,338
1,264
114
349
603
302
423
3
3
-7
4
19
1
2
-38
-12
-4
-13
-4
Percent Change
January 1991-
February 1991 ........
-1
'Revised. Z Less than 0.5 percent.
NA Not available, but estimates are included in totals. PPreliminary.
categories, not shown separately. 2Includes residential improvements, not5 shown separately. Slncludes amusement and recreational buildings, bus and airline
'Includes farm nonresidential and other private
4
Includes privately owned streets and bridges, parking areas, sewer and water 7facilities,
railroad,
and petroleum pipelines, not shown separately.
shelters,
etc.
Includes
gas,
electric,
terminals, animal hospitals and
parks and playgrounds, golf courses, airfields, etc. eIncludes general administrative buildings, prisons, police and fire stations, courthouses, civic centers, passenger terminals, space facilities, postal facilities etc. Includes
open amusement and recreational facilities, power generating facilities, transit systems, airfields, open parking facilities, etc.
BIBLIOGR
A
PHY
American Consulting Engineers Council Directory, September 1990.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, "Education for the 1990's and
Beyond, Continuing Education, 1990", course description brochure,
345 East 47th Street, New York, New York, 10017.
Associated General Contractors of America, "National AGC Management
Conference Season, 1991/92", Division of Conference Programs, 1957
E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20006.
Bricker's International Directory, University-Based Executive Programs,
Volume 1: Long-Term, 22nd Edition, Peterson's Guides, New Jersey,
1991.
Bricker's Short-Term Executive Programs, 2nd Edition, Peterson's Guides,
New Jersey, 1990.
Business Horizons, How Companies Use University-Based Executive
Development Programs, Albert W. Schrader, March-April 1985, p.5362.
Construction Industry Institute, "Education For Implementation, Project
Management Education Module Action Team", 1991 CII Annual
Conference, Monterey, California, August 13-15, 1991.
Construction Industry Institute, "Education For Implementation,
University Short Course Action Team", 1991 CII Annual Conference,
Monterey, California, August 13-15, 1991.
Corporate Tuition Aid Programs, A Directory of College Financial Aid for
Employees at America's Largest Corporations, Second Edition,
Joseph P. O'Neil, Conference University Press, 1986.
Engineers News Record, The Top 500 Design Firms, Momentum propels firms
into '90s,Robert McManamy, April 5, 1990, p.40-72.
Engineers News Record, The Top 400 Contractors, Foreign Markets rev up
as domestic ones slow,Robert McManamy, May 24, 1990, p.38-82.
Engineers News Record, The Top 100 CM firms, Billings are climbing
higher as CM attracts new converts,Roger Hannon, June 21, 1990,
p.30-38.
Engineers News Record, The Top 250 International Contractors, Foreign
contracts stay alive as markets take on a new look, Peter Reina,
Roger Hanan, July 5, 1990, p.24-48.
316
Engineers News Record, The Top 200 International Design Firms, Designers
seek the global edge,Peter Reina, Roger Hanan, August 2, 1990,
p.46-68.
Engineers News Record, The Top Specialty Contractors, August 30, 1990,
p.39-64.
Executive Education in Major Corporations: An International Study of
Executive Development Trends, Albert a. Vicere, College of
Business Administration, The Pennsylvania State University, 1988.
The Fails Management Institute, "Management Consultants to the
Construction Industry", and various course schedules and
brochures, 5151 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27612.
The Hartford Graduate Center, "Construction Sciences Program Spring 1990
Course Bulletin", 275 Windsor Street, Hartford, Connecticut,
06120-2991.
Harvard Business Review, Six Lessons for the Corporate Classroom, Harry
B. Bernard, Cynthia A. Ingols, September-October 1988, p. 40-47.
Harvard Business Review, Reaction to University Development Programs,
Kenneth R. Andrews, May-June 1961, p.116-134.
Hughes Institute for Continuing Education, "1991 Intensive Design
Courses...Electrical Power Systems for Facilities", Course
Brochure, P.O. Box 17968, Milwaukee, WI, 53217-0968.
Northeastern University, Center for Continuing Education, "Building and
Construction Technology, Winter 1991 Course Brochure", 370 Common
Street, Dedham, MA, 02026-4097.
317