For many years one of the criticisms laid at the door of the Business Schools was that stimulating and developmental as they might be for the individual, there was often little corporate benefit to show for quite substantial investments. To some extent these concerns were addressed in company-specific programmes, where Business School input could be combined with discussions about application, visits from company senior executives etc. AIMS, an 18-month programme I directed for Digital Equipment Corporation, in partnership with INSEAD, involved participants working between modules on action-research projects in customer organisations.

The final module saw participants, customers and Digital's board coming together with faculty to discuss the implication of the research for their globalisation efforts; a case of executive development informing and shaping, not simply implementing, corporate strategy.

However, company-specific programmes are not a practical option for many medium-sized companies. Business schools often work on an assumed group size of 40+ participants - just look at the their amphi-theatres! The economics of customised programmes for smaller groups can be prohibitive at most mainstream schools.

Consortia programmes are another option. In these, several companies join together, each sending 5 or 6 people to each course. The participating companies agree the focus and design of the programme between them. Consortia are a great idea in principle, but in practice they can often be marred by problems. One or two large players may dominate the consortium, companies may vary in their commitment to the programme, and interests that once converged may drift apart over time.

Given all this, it is interesting to note the introduction of team enrolments, especially among the US-based schools. It is true that for some programmes, diversity of participants is the goal, and forms a key part of the learning experience, so that enrolments from the same company are restricted.

But for others, the enrolment of small groups from the same company is encouraged. Often there are discounts for multiple registrations and, most importantly, time is set aside on the programme for these groups to work on their own company issues with the benefit of faculty and peer coaching. Also on offer for some programmes are pre-programme materials to conduct a company diagnosis or prepare a company case, and post-programme follow-up.

This approach seems particularly helpful for addressing issues that need cross-functional understanding and effort to succeed - for example Supply Chain or New Product Development. By sending key people from the relevant functions together, they have the opportunity to develop a common perspective and process, as well as to build the personal relationships that will help them work effectively as a team.

Devil's Advocate: In support of the Course

Headlines announcing the imminent demise of the course seem to come around with depressing regularity. Often they are accompanied by predictions about some new approach to learning that will make the course obsolete; Computer-based training, Action Learning, Executive Coaching, Self-Managed Development, and now of course, Web-based learning. Evidence is mustered about how ineffective the course is as a means of learning useful, job- relevant information, how difficult it is to have whole weeks off the job in today's leaner organisation, how little is retained months after the programme, and of course the difficulty of transferring learning from the classroom to the workplace.