http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz Project-based strategic management education: A client perspective on key challenges Mariano Garrido-Lopez1, Yue C. Hillon2, Wendy Cagle3, Ed Wright4 1Western Carolina University, USA, mglopez@email.wcu.edu 2Western Carolina University, USA, ycai@email.wcu.edu 3Western Carolina University, USA, wcagle@email.wcu.edu 4Western Carolina University, USA, ewwright@email.wcu.edu A B S T R A C T This paper explores the benefits of project-based learning from the small business client perspective. The reflections of a sample of small businesses were collected through a feedback survey after participating in a semester-long project-based learning process de- veloped for the Strategic Management curriculum in the College of Business at Western Carolina University (WCU). The clients that participated in projects are primarily local and regional businesses in Western North Carolina; they were sourced through the Small Business Centers (SBC) located at the area community colleges and the Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC) located at WCU. Most participating organizations are existing small businesses or start-ups with a high probability and capacity for growth that will enhance the economic development of the region. Literature review of both small business and project-based pedagogy challenges demonstrated the potential for co-creation of value. This study laid out the steps we took to organize a project-based Stra- tegic Management pedagogy. Our analysis of both close- and open-ended client feedback revealed four key success factor themes for developing a mutually beneficial project-based pedagogy: communication and interaction, project organization and student preparation, quality of work, and co-creation of value; the specific priority actions for each theme are detailed in the paper. Keywords: Journal of Small Business Strategy 2018, Vol. 28, No. 02, 68-79 ISSN: 1081-8510 (Print) 2380-1751 (Online) ©Copyright 2018 Small Business Institute® APA Citation Information: Garrido-Lopez, M., Hillon, Y. C., Cagle, W., & Wright, E. (2018). Project-based strategic management education: A client perspective on key challenges. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 28(2), 68-79. w w w. j s b s . o rg Project-based pedagogy, Small business resources, Small business challenges, Strategic management education Project-based pedagogy with industry clients offers students practical learning opportunities linking conceptual knowledge and skills with the reality of business dynamics and complexities. To build a sustainable applied education- al model, a meaningful partnership with students, faculty, local business clients, industry liaisons, and the educational institution is a must. Several studies have explored ways to develop healthy pedagogical designs for applied-learning and investigated students’ reflection on their applied peda- gogical experiences (e.g., Kraft & Goodell, 1991; Thomp- son, & Edwards, 2009; & Gaumer, Cotleur, & Arnon, 2012). In addition, it has become critical for universities to of- fer students project-based learning opportunities to provide a workforce with practical experience. These opportuni- ties are also meaningful to universities to accomplish their strategic objectives for student engagement and establish- ing community relationships and development activities. Given this, project-based learning appears to be beneficial to the student and educational institution; however, the perspective from the small business client on the benefits derived from their experiences must also be taken into con- sideration (Wolf, 2010). Carnegie has a prestigious award that recognizes higher education’s commitment to com- munity engagement in which project-based learning falls. Building on Driscoll’s (2006) defined importance of com- munity engagement for universities, Carnegie Community Engagement Classification defined community engagement as those activities and collaborations between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, re- gional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial ex- change of knowledge and resources in a context of partner- ship and reciprocity (Carnegie Foundation, 2013). It seems we are measuring the benefits from project-based learning Introduction http://www.smallbusinessinstitute.biz http://www.jsbs.org 69 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 but not from the client perspective; and given Carnegie’s definition of community engagement, we cannot claim to have accomplished engagement without acknowledging first the benefits to all parties involved. To build on this repository of knowledge in developing project-based pedagogy with industry, this study reflects on over four years of collaborative experience with small business clients and analyzes 140 complete client survey responses to understand their experience participating in a project-based learning context as part of the Strategic Man- agement capstone program at WCU. Small Business Challenges Small businesses, defined by Small Business Adminis- tration (SBA) as companies with less than 500 employees or $7.5 million in average annual receipts, have consistently served as the economic foundations creating jobs, encour- aging innovation, and fostering competitiveness to stimu- late economic growth. Although small businesses are more flexible and adaptive to changes, global competition contin- ues to exert pressure on them (Moutray, 2008). Technology advancements shifted the economic structure, innovation, governance, and trade and gave new meaning to “global village” and “global competition” (Markman, Devinney, Pedersen, & Tihanyi, 2016). Thus, more than ever, strategic innovation is the driving force for sustainable competitive advantage (Taneja, Pryor, & Hayek, 2016) demanding the integration of business knowledge and technical knowledge in small business education (Penley, 2001). Business strategic innovation is closely related to le- veraging, securing and organizing resources (Achtenhagen, Ekberg, & Melander, 2017). Small business owners need a clear understanding of the competitive environment and organizational resources and capabilities while cultivating an internal strategic focus to improve performance (Harris, Gibson, & McDowell, 2014). However, with limited mar- keting budgets, dated marketing techniques (Jelfs & Thom- son, 2016), staffing, time, resources and expertise, small businesses cannot afford competitive intelligence programs for long-term strategic planning (Prescott & Miree, 1998). Thus, a lack of a strategic plan is one of the current crucial weaknesses of small businesses, especially in family-owned businesses (Ward, 1997). Small business owners believe philanthropy and com- munity social commitments positively contribute to per- sonal or business sustainability (Besser & Miller, 2004); hence, they frequently align to social engagements based on enlightened self-interests (Matten & Crane, 2005; Jenkins, 2006; & Peake, Harris, McDowell, & Davis, 2015). This strategic opportunism with abundant resources and capabil- ities allows firms to capture opportunities; however, small businesses lack the resources, which results in limited com- mitment, coordination, trust, and quality communication. As a result, their participation with these alliances cannot be successful or sustainable (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). Table 1 summarizes some of the key challenges of small businesses in no particular order that emerged from the review of the literature. Table 1 Small Business Key Challenges Small Business Key Challenges Citations Pressure of global competition Moutray, 2008 Family business dynamics limit innovation Chang et al., 2011 Difficulties in recruitment and retention McMillan, 2016 Poor knowledge of strategy and competition Ward, 1997; Harris et al., 2014; & Taneja et al., 2016 Marketing resource constraints Jelfs & Thomson, 2016 Need to leverage, secure, and organize resources Prescott & Miree, 1998; & Achtenhagen et al., 2017 A key leveraging resource for many small businesses is the regional economic development centers, such as Amer- ica’s Small Business Development Centers (SBDC). SBDC was formed in the 1970s as a partnership among U.S. Con- gress, SBA, state government, and universities, providing free counseling and training to small businesses in business planning, marketing, compliance, capital investment and more. The very first partnership of this kind was the Rutgers MBA Team Consulting Program, recognized as the inspi- ration behind the Small Business Institute (SBI) program encouraging cooperation between SBA and U.S. universi- ties and colleges (Cook & Belliveau, 2005). In 1984, Small Business Technology Development Centers (SBTDC) was established as an extension of SBDC to strengthen techni- cal assistance. Although a key resource to small businesses, many of these centers also face difficulties attracting and retaining skilled counselors and lack the resources needed from host institutions to appropriately provide extended 70 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 service to the business community (Gray & Black, 2015). SBDC and SBTDC networks are usually located within a university or have a direct connection to the higher edu- cation systems within the state that they are located. This makes these centers the most logical sourcing mechanism for small businesses to identify and engage in project-based learning experiences with universities. The universities’ teaching and learning spaces complement the resources pro- vided by the SBDC and SBTDC. Therefore, project-based pedagogy appears to have the potential to contribute to the co-creation of value among participants (i.e. university stu- dents, small businesses, small business development cen- ters). This is one of the key premises the paper is attempting to demonstrate. Applied-Learning in Strategic Management Education Beyond the traditional textbook-based approaches, three primary experiential methods have been adopted in Strategic Management education: case studies, simulations, and project-based learning (Jennings, 2002). Case study method was introduced by Harvard’s School of Business Administration in 1910 and has since occupied a major role in Strategic Management education (Alexander, O’Neill, Snyder, & Townsend, 1986). Although case studies offer students a clear contextual framework for analysis and syn- thesis, they are limited in representing the realities of an organization and its environment (Yin, 1989). Gilbert Ryle (2009) distinguished applied-learning from abstract theoret- ical knowledge with two labels: knowing how vs. knowing what and sustainable knowledge intelligence requires the in- tegration of the two. The use of simulations no doubt elevat- ed the complexity of decision-making and allowed students to immediately re-strategize based on direct evaluations of previous decisions; it still only offers students confined and controlled parameters without direct interactions with the environment and the opportunities to manage uncertainty and unknown (Solomon, 1993; Gilgeous & D’Cruz, 1996). Project-based learning moves Strategic Management education from the confinements of a classroom and hypo- thetical situations to the realities of the world we live in with real problems and challenges (Jennings, 2002). Im- proving organizational performance is difficult even when challenges are clearly defined and understood (Boje, Hillon, & Cai, 2007). Project-based learning in Strategic Manage- ment exceeds traditional formats in achieving the desired learning outcomes (Watts & Jackson, 1995). It helps stu- dents develop insights into how theories translate to actions, gain a deeper understanding of organizational complexity, encourages critical reflection of assumptions and beliefs shaping practices, improves professional and interpersonal skills (Hillon, Cai-Hillon, & Brammer, 2012), and increas- es self and greater socio-cultural awareness (Marsick & O’Neil, 1999; Weinstein, 1997). Project-based learning, is cross-disciplinary and pro- vides students an opportunity to link concepts taught in the classroom with real world applications and challenges (Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2008; & Dekkers, Howard, Adams, & Martin, 2014), reflect and learn in unfamiliar environments, and interact with diverse audiences and situations (Ash & Clayton, 2009). The learning is only “maximized when it is active, engaged, and collaborative” (Ash & Clayton, 2009: p. 25). Helping students develop higher order of thinking skills such as comprehension, problem solving, and com- plex forms of mental processing continues to be important but also challenging for educators (Glaser, 1984; & Nicker- son et al., 1985). Since the mid-1990s, applied-learning in management education have gained attraction as exempli- fied by the special issues in the Academy of Management Learning and Education in 2005 and the Journal of Man- agement Education in 2007. Project-based applied-learning, partnering with small businesses or non-profit organiza- tions, delivers specific domains for problem solving and has shown to acclimate students to the reality and expectations of a post-graduation professional world (Kramer-Simpson, Newmark, & Ford, 2015). However, an overwhelming celebratory scholarly nar- rative of applied-learning resulted in a “love fest” while overlooking the critical knowledge and success factors (Schwartzman & Henry, 2009). In 2008, Kenworthy-U’Ren pointed out that a key concern in moving project-based learning forward is designing effective and sustainable uni- versity/community partnerships. To reinforce this point, the heart of this partnership is the individuals and their commit- ment to this co-creation of value (Hillon, Hillon, & Bunch, 2015), a co-creation of value that would benefit all constit- uents: “the client, the student team, the student, and the in- structor” (Cook & Belliveau, 2005: p.7). Thus, this inspired the inquiry of this paper: How to develop a project-based applied-learning pedagogy, that not only benefits student learning but also helps address small business challenges. Most of project-based learning introspective research, specifically reflecting on projects with industry in business education, has primarily focused on either the professors’ or students’ self-reported experiences (e.g., Kraft & Goodell, 1991; Thompson, & Edwards, 2009; Parsons & Lepkows- ka-White, 2009; Bove & Davies, 2009; Gaumer et al., 2012; Gray, Stein, Osborne, & Aitken, 2013). Therefore, a study from the clients’ viewpoint could add value to the repository of knowledge in developing successful applied pedagogy 71 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 with industry that results in constructive socio-cultural im- pact (Craig, 1999). Additional key challenges behind developing proj- ect-based learning framework with clients include a time-consuming process in establishing partner relation- ships with businesses, the tension between meeting client needs and providing a valuable learning experience for students, and students’ tendency for quick-fix solutions in- stead of developing independent critical thinking (Lamond, 1995). Table 2 Project-Based Pedagogy Key Challenges Project-Based Pedagogy Key Challenges Citations Balancing client needs and student learning Lamond, 1995 Selecting appropriate clients Lopez & Lee, 2005; & Hillon et al., 2012 Sustaining long-term partnerships Lamond, 1995 Managing team-client interaction Carvolho, 2012; & Kramer-Simpson, et al., 2015 Managing team dynamics Kotval, 2003 Training students to think critically Lamond, 1995 Co-creating value Runquist et al., 2006; & Johnson & Johnson, 1975 To overcome some of the key challenges of proj- ect-based pedagogy (see Table 2) emerged from the review of the literature and create a mutually beneficial learning environment, the professor must monitor, coach, and some- times provide interventions throughout the project. She or he also has the responsibility to integrate course learning objectives with project deliverables (Hillon et al., 2012). This entails two main activities: One, collaborating with the industry liaison starting with exercising care when selecting clients (Lopez & Lee, 2005; Hillon et al., 2012), and two, creating a learning framework that encourages collabora- tive and co-creation of value (Johnson & Johnson, 1975; Runquist, Kerns, Fee, Choi, & Glittenbery, 2006) for stu- dents, clients, industry liaison, professors, and other com- munity partners. WCU Project-Based Strategic Management Pedagogy The Strategic Management curriculum at Western Car- olina University (WCU) College of Business makes an ef- fort to facilitate project-based learning to enhance senior business students’ transferable professional skills prior to graduation. An experience that is only possible because of the collaboration and alignment of the strategic directions among all participants: • University of North Carolina System • Western Carolina University (WCU) • WCU College of Business • North Carolina Small Business Technology Development Center (SBTDC) • North Carolina Small Business Centers (SBCs) This symbiotic relationship aims to strengthen econom- ic development and community engagement for a stronger state economy through building partnerships, alliances, leveraging resources, and community-based learning. The student engagement process leverages human resources, or- ganizational development tools, and faculty expertise and leadership for the benefit of the community. Through a five-step process of project-based pedagogi- cal engagement, developed in partnership by WCU Strategic Management faculty and SBTDC, professors partner with the SBTDC at WCU and regional SBCs to serve the small businesses and non-profits in Western North Carolina: 1) Determining Business Challenges and Needs; 2) Develop- ing Specific Scope of Work for Student Teams; 3) Managing Client Projects; 4) Presenting Research and Deliverables; and 5) Feedback Gathering. These steps align with Cook & Belliveau’s (2005) student team consulting process, with two areas of heightened emphasis in understanding client business challenges and needs (step 1) and feedback gather- ing at the end of the project collaboration (step 5). Step 1: Determining Business Challenges and Needs Before each semester, SBTDC at WCU and regional SBCs survey clients to assemble a pool of small business- es with specific challenges and needs who are interested in working with students in the Strategic Management course. These challenges and needs might include market expan- sion, new product or market development, marketing strate- gy improvements, and process improvements. These needs are usually large enough to require significant research but are not notably time sensitive; they are also small enough to be accomplished during a semester through student proj- ects. These projects require a significant amount of research 72 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 and have the ability to drive the company forward creat- ing economic development through job creation, increased owner wealth, or capital infusion for growth. Potential cli- ents selected must also be fully aware of the time, energy and human resource investments necessary for the project and their active roles in shaping students into professionals. The selection of clients directly impacts the success of proj- ect-based learning outcomes for the students, clients, and instructors (Lacho, 2009). Step 2: Developing Specific Scope of Work for Student Teams SBTDC/SBC counselors and professors next interview the potential clients to determine best projects balancing Strategic Management course learning objectives and ap- propriate project deliverables. Lacho (2009) indicated that a clear definition of the project scope of work is one of the key project-based learning success factors. The information collected during this meeting consists of the following: 1. Information and history of the business 2. Challenge or need creating a barrier 3. Deliverable expected from the student team engagement 4. Willingness of the company to provide pertinent information 5. Availability of the company contact during the semester 6. Ability of the company to implement recommendations 7. Industry fit based on the professor’s background and knowledge Once the clients are selected, professors define project scopes and appropriate number of teams allocated for each client. Step 3: Managing Client Projects The Strategic Management curriculum is designed as a practicum giving senior business students, close to gradu- ation, an opportunity to apply core knowledge acquired to address a real business need using a strategic mindset and tools. Project teams are formed based on best fit between project scopes and the students’ majors (Management, Mar- keting, Sports Management, Accounting, Finance, Business Law, Computer Information Systems, and Entrepreneur- ship), grade point averages, and learning and work styles. Over a three-month period, the students gain Strategic Management knowledge, learn about the company, conduct competitive intelligence research, assess the company’s in- ternal environment (i.e. strengths and weaknesses), work on client specific problems, and complete the project delivera- bles agreed upon. It is vital that students learn how to make recommendations based on facts obtained through second- ary and primary research. This is accomplished through the development of a business Situational Analysis. Some of the specific content includes: Client Profile, External Situa- tion Analysis (e.g. Environmental Scan, Industry Analysis, Market Analysis, Competitive Benchmarking), Internal Sit- uation Analysis (Value Chain Analysis, Resource Analysis), and Summary of the key findings and recommendations from the Situational Analysis (Wright & Fowler, 2017). During the project, student-client interaction is a key mo- tivator of students’ enthusiasm towards the project (Lacho, 2009). Figure 1 briefly describes the project’s investigation process from the initial company research to developing recommendations. The students are responsible for manag- ing all aspects of the process and the client relationship. Figure 1. Strategic Management Project Investigation Process 73 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 Step 4: Presenting Research and Deliverables Students present and provide detailed reports of project research and actionable priorities to the clients and SBTDC/ SBC counselors at the end of the semester. The presenta- tions generally range eight to ten minutes followed by one- on-one meetings to address specific questions. Next, SBT- DC/SBC counselors set up a meeting with their clients to assist in analyzing the findings and moving forward with implementing proposed action steps. This collaboration creates a seamless process and long-term business develop- ment companionship, where the client company continues to feel supported after the semester. Step 5: Feedback Gathering The final key step in the project is gathering feedback from students, client companies, and industry liaisons at the end of each semester so the professors can reflect on con- tinuous improvement needs. To do so, students complete a 360-peer review (Hazucha, Hezlett, & Schneider, 1993) of member contributions and a written project reflection re- port, professors follow up with industry liaisons to assess impact, and client companies fill out an evaluation of team performance and overall experience. As noted by Ash and Clayton (2009), this critical reflection process helps students deepen sustained learning and educators overcome one of the biggest challenges of project-based learning, which is facilitating and assessing learning beyond the superficial in- terpretations of complex issues. The exploratory study described in the following sec- tions helped us understand how small business partners per- ceive the value of a project-based Strategic Management program and what are some key success factors to develop- ing a meaningful project-based pedagogy while addressing small business challenges and needs. Research Strategy and Methods The research strategy for this study is to explore client experience participating in a project-based Strategic Man- agement program. A sample of 140 client company proj- ect evaluations, collected over a four-year period, was an- alyzed. These participating organizations were at different stages of maturity from ideation to well-established. Client companies offered feedback at the end of the semester using a nine-question survey (see Table 3). The analytic interests of this study include the inves- tigation of client experience correlations, key success in- dicators, and clients’ overall satisfaction. These living experiences offered insight into whether project-based ped- agogy helps address small business challenges and needs (Creswell, 1994). The study used a single approach design using a survey. The analysis of quantitative and qualitative feedback offered multiple viewpoints and served multiple analytic research interests (Morgan, 1996; Neuman, 2006; Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007; Tashakkori & Ted- dlie, 2010; Andres, 2012). Researchers tell stories about the data (Lyotard, 1979/1984) and even statistical work in so- cial sciences use narrative and rhetoric to explain discover- ies (Gephart, 1988). This survey strategically included both closed and open-ended questions to better understand the relationship among experiences impacting client’s perceived value and provide a space for client companies to voice opinions and highlight new issues not captured in the closed-ended ques- tions (e.g. Geer, 1991; & Krosnick, 1999). If open-ended questions provide value-added insight (Geer, 1991; Roberts, Stewart, Tingley, Lucas, Leder-Luis, Gadarian, Albertson, & Rand, 2014), the responses would afford researchers an additional perspective and reliability into the respondents’ thinking (Roberts et al., 2014, Krosnick, 1999). Project-Based Strategic Management Education: Client Experience Analyzed Data Analysis: Closed-Ended Survey Questions Table 3 presents the questions included in the survey distributed to clients at the completion of the project-based learning engagement. Table 3 SBTDC Client Project Evaluation - Questions Client Survey – Questions Q1 Did you find the team’s communication and behavior to be polite and professional? Q2 How many times were you in contact with your stu- dent team over the course of this project? Q3 Was the content of the team’s report meaningful and of adequate depth? Q4 Was the content of the team’s final presentation mean- ingful and of adequate depth? Q5 Do you foresee making changes to your business based upon the recommendations by the team? Q6 How likely are you to recommend a student project to another company or organization? Q7 Overall, how satisfied were you with the student proj- ect you participated in this semester? Q8 How would you rate your satisfaction with the student team logistics this semester? (This includes commu- nication with your lead counselor and other SBTDC counselors about the project and scheduling the initial meeting and team presentation, if applicable). Q9 Please add any additional comments you would like to share. 74 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 With the research study strategy in mind, a factorial ANOVA was performed to measure the effect of Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7, and Q8 have on Q5. Q5 - Client’s willing- ness to make changes based on student recommendations was selected as the dependent variable because it best mea- sures project-based pedagogy’s potential impact on address- ing small business challenges and needs. Results shown in Figure 2 indicated: • A significant main effect for the client’s per- ceived quality of presentation (Q4), F(3, 116) = 3.290, p=0.023. • A significant main effect for the client’s like- lihood to recommend the program to another organization (Q6), F(2,116) = 5.005, p=0.08. • A significant main effect for the SBTDC/SBC counselors’ interaction (Q8), F(3,116) = 5.104, p=0.02. Further, strong positive correlations were found be- tween client’s overall project satisfaction (Q7) and the fol- lowing factors: • Client’s likelihood to make changes based on student recommendations (Q5) (r=0.427, n=140, p<0.001) Figure 2. Factorial ANOVA Results • Client’s perceived quality of report (Q3) (r=0.717, n=140, p<0.001) • Client’s perceived quality of presentation (Q4) (r=0.620, n=140, p<0.001) Data Analysis: Open-Ended Survey Questions Open-ended responses are considered to be more diffi- cult to analyze than closed questions (Schuman & Presser, 1996; Roberts et al., 2014). However, the analysis of the responses allows researchers to identify patterns that may provide the basis to support certain conclusions. The tech- niques traditionally developed to analyze qualitative data are commonly used to analyze responses to open-ended sur- vey questions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). One of these tech- niques is content analysis, which includes coding. In this study, the following process was used to analyze open-end- ed responses (see Figure 3). Through this iterative reading, coding, and re-coding analysis process, key themes emerged that helped our un- derstanding of clients’ perspectives of their project experi- ence. The discovery of these themes is supported by direct quotes from the clients to minimize researcher narrative bias inhabited when telling someone else’s story (Boje, 2001). First, clients appreciated students’ courteous and pro- fessional communication skills as well as the centralization of communication on one team member to reduce dupli- cation and miscommunication. Second, clients appreciat- ed students’ breadth, depth, and thoroughness of research showcased in the presentations and reports. Third, clients satisfied with the overall experience, indicated that the teams’ assessment and recommendations validated their current strategies, plan to make or consider several changes to their businesses based on the recommendations from the student teams, and would be excited to participate again and recommend the program to other suitable organizations. Fourth, clients highlighted that the program is a valuable asset for the small businesses, especially for those with lim- ited resources and business experience in certain areas such as social media marketing. Fifth, clients recognized or hint- ed that there must be a clear definition of project objectives and a match between project deliverables expectations and course learning outcomes to build a successful partnership. While clients appreciated students’ engagement, some also pointed out opportunities for improvements, which in- cluded: More frequent and better quality communication and interaction and better site visit / meeting scheduling and punctuality; additional research and/or more elaboration on certain aspects of the project in the reports and during presentations; enhanced data-driven and originality of rec- 75 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 ommendations; allocating more time for final presentations and client interaction with student teams; enhancing stu- dent training on business etiquette and professionalism; and more engagement from SBTDC/SBC counselors during the project. Feedback also showed that many clients appreciated their partaking in the co-creation of value for a win-win ex- perience for businesses and students. The clients recognized their role as mentors in shaping students as future profes- sionals and were able to observe their growth throughout the project. How could we strengthen project-based pedagogy to address small business challenges? Integrating our quantita- tive and qualitative analyses of client project feedback with Figure 3. Content Analysis Process of Open-Ended Responses existing scholarly contributions on small business challeng- es and project-based pedagogy challenges, we compiled a list of key success factors to answer this question (see Table 4). Discussion and Future Research Existing research on project-based pedagogy has large- ly emphasized its impact on student learning (e.g. Kraft & Goodell, 1991; Thompson & Edwards, 2009; Gaumer et al., 2012; & Gray et al., 2013) and program competitive ad- vantages (Rundle-Thiele, Bennett, & Dann, 2005), and little on the impact on industry collaborators. Wolf (2010) urged researchers to “pay more attention to the ‘client’ perspective in industry-integrated learning opportunities”. In fact, Wolf Table 4 Key Factors for a Project-Based Pedagogy to Address Small Business Challenges Key Success Factor Themes Theme Priorities Communication and Interaction Timely and centralized communication Frequent interaction Courteous, punctual, and professional Quality of Work Thorough research with breadth and depth of content Data-driven recommendations Originality of ideas Project Organization and Student Preparation Adequate time for presentation and follow-up Learn client company story and business Engagement from counselors Co-Creation of Value Clear match between project deliverables and learning outcomes Client has a role in student professional development Client desires new perspectives Alignment of strategic priorities among all participants 76 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 (2010) identified six types of distinctive clients through a study of 12 client-centered learning experiences over three and half years: “The Social Justice Advocate, The Lifelong Learner, The Indebted Graduate, The Self-Promoter (It’s all about me!), The No Budget client, The Doing a Favor cli- ent, and Emergence of the Community Partner” (p.120). The analysis of a sample of 140 client company proj- ect evaluations revealed four key success factor themes for developing a mutually-beneficial project-based pedagogy that addresses small business challenges: communication and interaction, quality of work, project organization and student preparation, and co-creation of value. These key success factor themes support the thesis that project-based Strategic Management education directly addresses some of the small business challenges identified in the literature (Ward, 1997; Prescott & Miree, 1998; Harris et al., 2014; Jelfs & Thomson, 2016; Taneja et al., 2016; Achtenhagen et al., 2017). This study therefore deepens the understanding of the typologies of clients in client-centered projects by identi- fying clients’ perceived value of project-based learning en- gagements and their impact on addressing business chal- lenges. Clients perceived a heightened collaborative value when working with an engaged team whose members exer- cised professionalism and effective communication; when the project was well organized and students were well-pre- pared; when recommendations were well-supported, origi- nal, actionable, and relevant; and when the project process encouraged a co-creation of value for all participants in- volved, including alleviating the limited workforce chal- lenges of SBDCs (Gray & Black, 2015). These key success factors might seem straight forward, but designing a proj- ect-based pedagogy that incorporates them requires the ef- fective management of complex networks of collaborators. Three future directions for research emerged from this study. First, utilize the key success factors in client selec- tion (Lopez & Lee, 2005; Hillon et al., 2012) and determine if they are effective predictors of successful outcomes. For instance, some clients were more interested in solution im- plementation than the necessary research to produce those deliverables. Second, study the role of industry liaison in project-based pedagogy in order to determine skills and characteristics for facilitating meaningful partnerships (Hil- lon et al., 2012; & Gray & Black, 2015). Finally, explore whether clients implemented students’ recommendations to understand the authentic impact of project-based learning on client business success. References Achtenhagen, L., Ekberg, S., & Melander, A. (2017). Fos- tering growth through business development: Core activities and challenges for micro-firm entrepre- neurs. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(2), 167-185. Alexander, L. D., O’Neill, H. M., Snyder, N. H., & Townsend, J. B. (1986). How academy members teach the business policy/strategic management case course. Journal of Management Case Studies, 2(3), 333-44. Andres, L. (2012). Designing and doing survey research. London: Sage. Ash, S. L., & Clayton, P. H. (2009). Generating, deepening, and documenting learning: The power of critical reflection in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 25-48. Besser, T. L., & Miller, N. J. (2004). The risks of enlight- ened self-interest: Small businesses and support for community. Business & Society, 45(4), 398-425. Blake, D. (2007). Exploring the challenge of applied learn- ing reform. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 3(3), 58-76. Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizational & communication research. London: Sage Publish- ing. Boje, D. M., Hillon, M. E., & Cai, Y. (2007). Small business consulting in New Mexico. In A. F. Buono & H. Sa- vall (Eds.), Socio-economic interventions in orga- nizations: The intervener-researcher and the SEAM approach to organizational analysis (pp. 215-228). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Bove, L. L., & Davies, W. M. (2009). A case study of teach- ing marketing research using client-sponsored proj- ects: Method, challenges, and benefits. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(3), 230-239. Carnegie Foundation. (2013). Community Engage- ment Classification: http://nerche.org/in- d e x . p h p ? o p t i o n = c o m _ c o n t e n t & v i e w = a r t i - cle&id=341&Itemid=618. Retrieved on November 22, 2017. Carvalho, A. (2012). The impact of problem-based learn- ing on transferable skills development: Students’ perceptions in a management undergraduate cap- stone course (September, 20). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2192435 or http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2192435 Chang, E. P., Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., & Welsh, D. H. (2011). What can drive successful entrepreneurial http://nerche.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341&Itemid=618 http://nerche.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341&Itemid=618 http://nerche.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341&Itemid=618 https://ssrn.com/abstract=2192435 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2192435 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2192435 77 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 firms? An analysis of Inc. 500 companies. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 22(2), 27-49. Cook, R. G., & Belliveau, P. (2005). The experiential stu- dent team consulting process. Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Com- munication Theory, 9(2), 119-161. Creswell, J.W. (1994) Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dekkers, A., Howard, P., Adams, N., & Martin, F. (2014). Approaches to applied learning. In A. Bain- bridge-Smith, Z. T. Qi, & G. S. Gupta (Eds.), 25th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education: Engineering the knowl- edge economy: Collaboration, engagement & em- ployability (pp. 661-668). Barton, ACT: School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University. Driscoll, A. (2006). The benchmarking potential of the new Carnegie Classification: Community Engagement. In B. Holland & J. Meeropol (Eds.), A more perfect vision: The future of campus engagement. Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Retrieved from http://www. compact.org/resources/future-of-campus-engage- ment/the-benchmarking-potential-of -the-new-car- negie-classification-community-engagement/4257/ Gaumer, C. J., Cotleur, C. A., & Arnone, C. (2012). Use of client-based projects in business education: A com- parison of undergraduate and graduate pedagogy. The Coastal Business Journal, 11(1), 70-81. Geer, J. G. (1991). Do open-ended questions measure ‘sa- lient’ issues? Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(3), 360–370. Gephart, R. P. (1988). Ethnostatistics: Qualitative founda- tions for quantitative research (No. 12). Newbury, CA: SAGE Publications. Gilgeous, V., & D’Cruz, M. (1996). A study of business and management games. Management Development Review, 9(1), 32-9. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93. Gray, S. R., & Black, J. (2003). Small business develop- ment centers: Challenges and opportunities. Jour- nal of Small Business Strategy, 14(2), 109-122. Gray, B., Stein, S., Osborne, P., & Aitken, R. (2013). Col- laborative learning in a strategy education context. Practice and Evidence of the Scholarship of Teach- ing and Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 35-55. Harris, M. L., Gibson, S. G., & McDowell, W. C. (2014). The impact of strategic focus and previous business experience on small business performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 24(1), 29. Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. (1993). The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32(2-3), 325-351. Hillon, M. E., Cai-Hillon, Y., & Brammer, D. (2012). A brief guide to student projects with industry. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 13(1), 10-16. Hillon, M.E., Hillon, Y.C., & Bunch, C. (2015). Socio-eco- nomic management consulting in America: A diffu- sion of innovation study. In J. Conbere, H. Savall, & A. Heorhiadi (Eds.), Decoding the socio-economic approach to management - Results of the second SEAM conference in the United States (pp. 47-64). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Jelfs, A., & Thomson, H. (2016). Marketing small and me- dium sized enterprises in the digital age: Opportu- nities and challenges. Teaching Business & Eco- nomics, 20(1), 4-7. Jenkins, H. (2006). Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 241- 256. Jennings, D. (2002). Strategic management: An evaluation of the use of three learning methods. Journal of Management Development, 21(9), 655-665. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition and individu- alization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition mixed methods research. Jour- nal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(20), 112-133. Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. L. (2008). A decade of service-learn- ing: A review of the field ten years after JOBE’s seminal special issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 811-822. Kotval, Z. (2003). Teaching experiential learning in the ur- ban planning curriculum. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(3), 297-308. Kraft, F. B., & Goodell, P. W. (1991). Issues on the use of “client” projects in marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 1(3), 32-44. Kramer-Simpson, E., Newmark, J., & Ford, J. D. (2015). Learning beyond the classroom and textbook: Cli- ent projects’ role in helping students transition from school to work. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 58(1), 106-122. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567. 78 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 Lacho, K. J. (2009, January). A Small Business Institute (SBI) project: Multiple views: Client, students, judges. In Proceedings of the 2009 Allied Acade- mies International Conference. Academy for Eco- nomics and Economic Education (pp. 14-17). New Orleans, LA: Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc. Lamond, D. A. (1995). Using consulting projects in man- agement education: The joys and jitters of serving two masters. Journal of Management Development, 14(8), 60-73. Lopez, T. B., & Lee, R. G. (2005). Five principles for workable client-based projects: Lessons from the trenches. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 172-188. Lyotard, J. F. (1979/1984). The postmodern condition: A re- port on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Markman, G., Devinney, T. M., Pedersen, T., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Global entrepreneurship: Assessment and challenges. In Global entrepreneurship: Past, present & future (pp. 35-43). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Marsick, V.J., & O’Neil, J. (1999). The many faces of action learning. Management Learning, 30(2), 159-176. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: To- ward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166-179. McMillan, H. S. (2016). Addressing the 12 major challeng- es today’s organizations face. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 21(2), 125. Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of part- nership success: Partnership attributes, communi- cation behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135-152. Morgan, D. L. (1996). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In J.T.E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences (pp. 159- 174). Leicester UK: BPS Books. Moutray, C. (2008). Looking ahead: Opportunities and challenges for entrepreneurship and small business owners. A working paper for the Office of Advoca- cy U.S. Small Business Administration. Retrieved from https://sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs332tot.pdf Neuman, W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (2014). The teaching of thinking. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Parsons, A. L., & Lepkowska-White, E. (2009). Group projects using clients versus not using clients: Do students perceive any differences? Journal of Mar- keting Education, 31(2), 154-159. Peake, W. O., Harris, M. L., McDowell, W. C., & Davis, P. E. (2015). Get what you give? An examination of enlightened self-interest, philanthropic intent, and engagement in philanthropy for small firm owners. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 25(2), 77-95. Penley, L. E. (2001). Challenges ahead for small business education. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 12(1), 1-7. Prescott, J. E., & Miree, C. E. (1998). Small business solu- tions: Building and leveraging a competitive intel- ligence capability without going broke. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 9(2), 57-76. Remmers, H. H., Marschat, L. E., Brown, A. & Chapman, I. (1923). An experimental study of the relative difficulty of true-false, multiple-choice, and in- complete-sentence types of examination questions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 367–372. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Led- er-Luis, J., Gadarian, S., Albertson, B., & Rand. D. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended sur- vey responses. American Journal of Political Sci- ence, 58(4), 1064–1082. Runquist, J. J., Kerns, R. D., Fee, S. S., Choi, M. & Glit- tenbery, T. (2006). A co-created learning process in a doctoral seminar. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(1), 32-34. Rundle-Thiele, S., Bennett, R., & Dann, S. (2005). The successful preparation and development of future marketing professionals: A recommended method- ological framework. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 7, 27-35. Ryle, G. (2009). The concept of mind. London, UK: Rout- ledge. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Schwartzman, R., & Henry, K. B. (2009). From celebra- tion to critical investigation: Charting the course of scholarship in applied learning. Journal of Applied Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-23. Solomon, C. M. (1993). Simulation training builds teams through experience. Personnel Journal, 72(6), 100- 107. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative https://sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs332tot.pdf 79 M. Garrido-Lopez, Y. C. Hillon, W. Cagle, & E. Wright Journal of Small Business Strategy / Vol. 28, No. 2 (2018) / 68-79 research: Techniques and procedures for develop- ing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Taneja, S., Pryor, M. G., & Hayek, M. (2016). Leaping in- novation barriers to small business longevity. Jour- nal of Business Strategy, 37(3), 44-51. Thompson, J. B., & Edwards, H. M. (2009). Preparing grad- uate students for industry and life long learning: A project based approach. In Education and Technol- ogy for a Better World (pp. 292-301). New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Vakil, A., Marans, R. W., & Feldt, A. (1990). Integrative planning workshops: The Michigan experience. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10(1), 61–69. Ward, J. L. (1997). Keeping the family business healthy: How to plan for continuing growth, profitabili- ty, and family leadership. New York, NY: Family Business Consulting Group Publications. Watts, L. R., & Jackson, W. T. (1995). The SBI program and student outcomes: A study of business policy classes. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 6(1), 93-103. Weinstein, K. (1997). Participants’ voices. In M. Pedler (Ed.), Action learning in practice (3rd ed.). Alder- shot, England: Gower Publishing. Wiewel, W., & Lieber, M. (1998). Goal achievement, re- lationship building, and incrementalism: The chal- lenges of university—community partnership. Journal of Planning, Education and Research, 17(4), 192–306. Wolf, K. (2010). What’s in it for me? Re-discovering the ‘client’ in client-centered learning. Education, 11(3), 125-135. Wright, E., & Fowler, D. (2017). A guide to strategic plan- ning: How to build & critique a plan with data & research. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research, design and method. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Appendix A SBTDC Client Project Evaluation Form