Continuous Improvement, Not Just Compliance

• As Wroclaw University of Economics and Business began the accreditation process, it started asking new questions about how to use existing management tools to better support institutional goals and continuous improvement.
• The school also began focusing more on how data could support management decisions and help address challenges such as student retention.
• Accreditation activities led the school to see that responsibility for continuous improvement must be shared across program managers, researchers, administrative unit managers, and university leaders.

 
Business schools in Central and Eastern Europe have undergone profound transformation over the past three decades. Today, strategic planning, quality assurance, and performance reporting are well-established elements of university governance, supported by formal structures designed to promote accountability and continuous improvement. However, the existence of these mechanisms does not automatically translate into evidence-informed decision-making, organizational learning, or long-term strategic development.

At Wroclaw University of Economics and Business (WUEB) in Poland, one reason we pursued AACSB accreditation was that we believed it would help us achieve objectives shared by many other schools in our region: to strengthen our international position, learn from global standards, and enhance overall program quality. Supported by a national program of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, we initially approached accreditation primarily as a demanding quality assurance project.

Over time, however, our perspective changed. Rather than focusing on whether we had the required strategies, procedures, and indicators, we increasingly asked whether these mechanisms genuinely helped us understand institutional performance, support better decisions, and foster continuous improvement.

The AACSB accreditation process did not so much introduce us to new management tools as change the questions we asked about the ones we already had. It also encouraged us to rethink institutional strategy, evidence-informed decision-making, and continuous improvement. Although our journey is still evolving, we hope our experiences may resonate with other business schools navigating similar transitions.

Embedding Strategy in Institutional Governance

In Central and Eastern Europe, national regulations require universities to define their long-term priorities and development directions. Therefore, we entered the AACSB accreditation process with a strategic framework for growth already in place, and we initially focused on whether it adequately described our mission, priorities, and future ambitions. But we gradually began considering a different question: To what extent does our strategy actually influence the way the university is managed?

Our mentor encouraged us to “tell our story” as simply and clearly as possible. Through multiple cycles of discussion and self-evaluation, we came to realize that this advice applied not only to accreditation reporting but also to our thought processes on strategy, evidence, and institutional priorities. This perspective reinforced our mission-driven approach to Strategy 2030, grounded in our mission, values, long-term aspirations, strategic priorities, and an assessment of our key challenges.

Throughout the accreditation process, we came to view our mission statement not simply as a formal statement, but as a reference point against which we could reevaluate our priorities, hone our decision-making, and direct our continuous improvement efforts.

As an example, we introduced a cascading performance management framework that linked the university’s strategic priorities with the activities of individual organizational units. Strategy 2030 defined institutional key performance indicators (KPIs), each overseen by the leader responsible for a particular strategic direction. These KPIs were translated into unit-level performance indicators (PIs) developed by academic and administrative units.

We came to view our mission statement as a reference point against which we could reevaluate priorities, hone decision-making, and direct continuous improvement efforts.

The university built organizational capacity by helping academic leaders understand how strategic priorities could be translated into measurable outcomes. Deans, department heads, and unit managers participated in workshops on strategic management, performance indicators, and evidence-informed decision-making before working with their teams to develop PIs. This collaborative approach enabled staff to better understand how strategic priorities are translated into everyday management and how the work of their own units contributes to the university’s long-term development.

As a result, strategy gradually became less of a document owned by senior leadership and more of a framework used across the school. Annual strategic reviews now draw on both institutional KPIs and unit-level PIs and involve representatives from across the university, including academic and administrative staff, students, alumni, business partners, and members of advisory bodies. This broader involvement has transformed strategy development from a formal planning exercise into a collaborative conversation.

In addition, this approach has started to inform other elements of the school’s governance, including discussions about projects, resource allocation, and risk. Perhaps the most valuable result is that, instead of asking whether the university has an appropriate strategy, we have started reflecting on whether strategy genuinely informs decision-making, strengthens shared responsibility, and helps guide continuous improvement.

Making Evidence a Part of Decision-Making

WUEB has long collected extensive data drawn from student evaluations, research performance metrics, graduate outcomes, financial indicators, and human resources. Much of this information is needed to meet reporting requirements for external ministries, accreditation bodies, and funding organizations, as well as requirements for internal stakeholders.

When we began the AACSB accreditation process, it was therefore clear that the issue was not whether data was available, but how data could be used to support management decisions, contribute to institutional development, and monitor progress toward the school’s priorities. We soon realized that KPIs, assurance of learning results, student feedback, research performance, internationalization indicators, and financial data were more valuable when we considered them together rather than as separate reporting streams.

This shift became particularly visible in the area of student success. Rather than focusing solely on measuring student dropout rates, we began asking how to identify students who were at risk. Academic and administrative units that had previously operated independently came together in interdisciplinary design thinking workshops to map the student journey, identify moments where disengagement could occur, and discuss how to spot early warning signals.

This integrated approach changed the nature of the discussion: We no longer treated dropout rates as an outcome to be reported but as a problem to be addressed through earlier, coordinated intervention. The experience reinforced our belief that evidence creates the greatest value when it informs institutional dialogue rather than simply fulfilling reporting requirements.

One of the most valuable lessons from the accreditation process has been that we learned to use existing evidence more purposefully.

Our strategic reviews also began to evolve. Our emphasis shifted from considering individual indicators toward interpreting what they might collectively tell us about the university’s development and future priorities.

As an example, internationalization was identified as a key strategic direction in the Strategy 2030 initiative, and it is supported by a dedicated International Development Plan. WUEB is also a leading Polish public business school in the Erasmus+ program, which supports education, training, and sports throughout the European Union. Even so, data showed that outgoing student mobility was below the university’s potential, prompting us to explore possible barriers.

Ultimately, we launched communication and promotional initiatives, including mobility fairs, information sessions, and peer-to-peer experience sharing. We also made curriculum-level changes by introducing a designated mobility semester across all study programs and reducing compulsory courses during one semester to make study abroad more accessible. Over the following years, outgoing student mobility increased substantially. This demonstrated to us that institutional indicators create the most value not when they are merely reported, but when they prompt diagnosis and action.

Looking back, we believe that one of the most valuable lessons from the accreditation process has been that we learned to use existing evidence more purposefully to make more informed decisions and gain a deeper understanding of our own performance.

Embedding Continuous Improvement in Governance

At the beginning of our journey, we considered accreditation to be a strategic project with defined objectives and requirements. However, over time we realized that preparing reports and coordinating evidence will not create lasting change unless they are connected to the university’s governance.

We also came to understand that continuous improvement cannot be achieved through individual initiatives or managed exclusively by an accreditation team. We saw that responsibilities need to be shared and that strategic intentions need to be supported by institutional practices.

As an example, sustainability was established as one of the university’s seven strategic directions in our Strategy 2030 initiative and now is supported by a dedicated Sustainable Development Plan. Responsibility is not assigned to a separate organizational unit but is distributed across program managers, researchers, administrative units, and university leadership. These measures, along with our new policy of translating strategic objectives into institutional KPIs and unit-level PIs, have made sustainability a shared responsibility supported by evidence, regular monitoring, and continuous dialogue.

Seeking AACSB accreditation encouraged us to look at familiar practices from different perspectives and reflect more critically on how they support institutional development.

As we shifted our understanding of who has responsibility for improvement, we began to see that the accreditation team members should not be the only ones handling accreditation activities. Academic leaders, program managers, administrative unit managers, and professional staff also needed to be involved in preparing evidence, interpreting performance, and identifying areas for improvement.

To foster a greater understanding of how particular changes related to the school’s priorities, we developed AACSB Accreditation Insights, a newsletter designed to clearly articulate the accreditation journey to multiple stakeholder groups. Through regular updates, explanations of AACSB standards, and reflections on key milestones, the newsletter helped connect accreditation requirements with a broader conversation about quality, strategic development, and continuous improvement. It also helped build a sense of ownership of both the accreditation process and broader organizational development.

Many committees, review processes, and management structures were already in place before our accreditation journey began, but what changed was how we used and connected these structures. They increasingly became forums for integrating evidence, encouraging cross-functional dialogue, and strengthening a shared sense of responsibility for institutional development. As a result, continuous improvement gradually became less associated with accreditation as a separate project and more closely integrated into the university’s everyday governance.

Perhaps the most valuable lesson for us was recognizing that sustainable improvement depends not only on procedures, but also on the quality of reflection that those procedures enable. We came to see governance as a framework that allows stakeholders across the university to discuss evidence, develop a common understanding of priorities, and work toward continuous improvement.

Offering Final Reflections

For our university, one of the more valuable aspects of the accreditation process was that it led us to formulate better questions. Instead of merely asking whether particular procedures or indicators were in place, we began reflecting on whether our governance mechanisms genuinely supported strategic decision-making, organizational learning, and continuous improvement.

Seeking AACSB accreditation also encouraged us to look at familiar structures and practices from different perspectives and reflect more critically on how they support institutional development. We realized that we do not need to replace mechanisms for strategic planning, quality assurance, reporting, and performance indicators, but to consider what roles these systems already play and how they could be better connected. Even so, we recognize that we are in the middle of an ongoing process and that many of our systems will continue to develop over the coming years.

While our experiences are unique to us, we believe that many business schools across Central and Eastern Europe may recognize elements of their own accreditation journeys in our story. If there is one observation we would like to share with these other schools, it is that the greatest value of accreditation may lie not in demonstrating compliance, but in creating the conditions for continuous improvement. Meaningful institutional development does not necessarily begin with finding better answers, but with learning to ask better questions.