One of the important collaborative efforts is the system of credit union professional courses. These multi-year commitments are preparing junior staff members for leadership roles in their careers.
I received the following note from a person attending one of the oldest and largest of these programs:
I am in my third and final year at Western Credit Union Management school. In working on my final project, I came across a past high honors project that I wanted to share with you.
It details one larger credit union’s growth strategy through mergers and acquisitions. What is particularly interesting is how they view the Small Credit Union category, which they define as $500 million and less.
“A very desirable new market or a significant new strategic capability would need to be evident for our cedit union to consider a merger with a small credit union. Otherwise, the operational disruption would not be worth it.”
She attached the full project of almost 200 pages. It is very professionally done. Well organized, lots of data, tables and clear presentation strucure. The student’s own credit union is analyzed with a SWOT framework. Various consultant views are offered and footnoted.
Mergers and acquisitions are just one of five goals to try to restart the credit union’s slowing member growth.
I did not thoroughly read the entire thesis. My question would be who is providing feedback on these major academic efforts?
For the work is filled with data and other documentation, current in its references, and logical in the recommendations.
I did not study all the points. It is written from an institutional perspective. I did not see any reference to two areas: credit union system’s future as a unique alternative for members, and what parts of the consumer market are in most in need of cooperative solutions. Growth was the goal.
The thesis is a well written document that should be used as a starting point, not a final plan of what this credit union aspires to be. Who are the readers and evaluators for these academic exercises?