CMA vs MBA

The other day I was asked how the CMA designation and MBA degree differ. 

Obviously this individual had done some research to recognize there is a similarity.  The CMA designation is not purely focused on accounting, but also broader business acumen and management skill.  The framework for the CMA designation process is defined by six functional competencies and four enabling competencies:

The six functional competencies:

1.       Strategic management

2.       Risk management and governance

3.       Performance management

4.       Performance measurement

5.       Financial management

6.       Financial reporting

And the four enabling competencies (in other words the soft skills CMA candidates develop in order to fulfill the above functionalities):

1.       Problem solving and decision making

2.       Leadership and group dynamics

3.       Professional and ethical behaviour

4.       Communications

It should be evident that the CMA designation encompasses more than just accounting, but also business acumen and management skills – quite similar to an MBA.

Now that I have highlighted that point, here are the differences between the CMA and MBA:

• Getting your CMA is much less expensive than the MBA program.  In today’s environment many universities promote the MBA as a means to advance one’s career, but with the high costs associated with the MBA it is worth considering the ROI. 
• The CMA designation requires on-going membership in good standing, which in turn requires continued skill development.  In this way, the designation reflects a certain level of subject matter knowledge, skill and integrity.  The MBA, on the other hand, is a university degree that once completed, is … well … completed.
• To remain impartial (if that’s still possible), an MBA from a reputed institution such as Kellog, Harvard or Sauder is quite influential.  The CMA designation has only one issuing institution and thus does not offer a second information tier to indicate quality.
• The private sector collaborates closely with good MBA programs, giving MBA students an opportunity to develop networks and gain exposure.
• My final point is I believe the most important: CMA and MBA are both just letters.  The letters alone do not guarantee a lucrative job.  In either program, one student can complete with barely 50% and another with a strong mark, and they both share the letters.  But what differentiates the successful from the not successful is the knowledge and skills acquired, which comes from effort and talent.  On a resume or at the interview, this will be evident.

"Out of the box" - an approach to problem solving -

Let me illustrate my approach to problem solving with a puzzle.

Draw five dots on a page like below.  Without lifting pen off the paper or retracing a line, connect all the dots together with straight lines so they are all connected with one another.

Scroll down for the solution.

Keep going!

A bit more!

That’s far enough.  Here it is … ta da!

I like to believe this puzzle provided the origin for the expression “out-of-box” thinking. 

Like many problems, the solution is simple.  Yet we prevent ourselves from easily seeing the solution because of self-imposed constraints.  In this case, by seeing four “corners” we automatically assume that we must work within those four corners, or “the box”.  In fact, if you re-read the instructions at no time does it stipulate such confines, just simply instructing to keep the pen on paper.

I have observed a similar behaviour in the way people approach problem solving and analysis.

Many people tend to think linear, following a thought process in the diagram below. 

1.       A problem is presented requiring a solution or analysis

2.       The analyst identifies the available resources, whether it is skill set, data and information, or people.  This step becomes the self-imposed constraint.

3.       The analyst then relies on those available resources to devise a solution or conclusion

4.       Based upon this information, a solution is presented and implemented.

I like to follow a different approach, not to think linear, but backwards.

1.       Like above, the whole process starts with a problem arising

2.       My next step however is to visualize the solution, asking myself “what does the ideal solution look like”.  At this early stage the visualization will be devoid of actual figures, but I know that it will provide the answers we seek.

3.       After identifying the ideal solution, I list what resources will be required to achieve that solution.  These resources may be skills, data, information, knowledge, people, etc…

4.       I will then go about gathering those resources and working on the analysis and solution.  Naturally, not all the ideal resources may be available, in which case at this point I will preliminarily use a lesser quality resource, a substitute or an estimate.

To summarize, when approaching problem solving follow the following hints:

·         Consider the problem statement very carefully.  Beware of developing constraints when non exist.  Do not create self-constraints.

·         Being with the end in mind; ask yourself “what does the ideal solution look like?”

·         Keeping the end in mind, identify the ideal resources and aim to acquire those resources (which may involve seeking someone new in the organization or developing a new skill), or contrive a suitable substitute if not available