Das Portal von Handelsblatt und WirtschaftsWoche

Global wird Mode

Christoph Mohr
Es ist eine kleine Revolution in der Business-School-Welt: Die Wharton School in Philadelphia, die derzeit als die beste Business School der Welt gilt, und Insead (Fontainebleau), eine der drei führenden europäischen Schulen, gehen eine sehr weitreichende Allianz ein.
Es ist eine kleine Revolution in der Business-School-Welt: Die Wharton School in Philadelphia, die derzeit als die beste Business School der Welt gilt, und Insead (Fontainebleau), eine der drei führenden europäischen Schulen, gehen eine sehr weitreichende Allianz ein. In Zukunft werden Wharton und Insead an vier Orten (Fontainebleau, Singapur, Philadelphia und San Francisco) gemeinsam Programme für gut zahlende Manager anbieten

Stimmen zur Allianz:

Johnson Graduate School of Management
Tuck School of Business
Stanford Graduate School of Business
Ashridge Management College
Instituto de Empresa
IMD
Sloan School of Management
Haas School of Business
Bocconi University School of Management
Solche ?globalen? Programme sind derzeit in Mode - wobei dahin gestellt bleiben mag, ob sie einer realen Marktnachfrage nach ?globalen? Managern entsprechen oder mehr dem Marketing und der Imagepflege der Schulen dienen. So starten London School of Business und Colombia Business School (New York) im Mai ihren ?Global Executive MBA?. Teilnahmegebühr: 100.000 US-Dollar. Stern (New York), HEC (Paris) und die London School of Economics bieten ein ähnliches Programm an, das auch noch Aufenthalte in Lateinamerika und Asien einschließt. ?Jet-Set-MBAs? scheinen gleichsam zum High-End-Produkt von Business Schools zu werden

Die besten Jobs von allen


Doch die Allianz zwischen Wharton und Insead geht deutlich über gemeinsam organisierte Einzelprogramme hinaus und stellt alles bisher Dagewesene in den Schatten. Verkürzt dargestellt, legen die beiden Top-Schulen ihren gesamten Executive-Education-Bereich und auch einen Teil ihrer Forschung zusammen

Welche Auswirkungen hat die Wharton-Insead-Allianz auf die europäischen Top-Schulen? Nachdem sich mit Insead und der London Business School nun zwei der drei führenden Schulen fest gebunden haben, sind alle Augen auf IMD gerichtet, zumal die relativ kleine Schule am Genfer See besonders stark im Bereich Executive education ist

IMD-Präsident Peter Lorange erklärt gegenüber dem Handelsblatt überraschend: ?Wir sind derzeit in Gesprächen mit einer führenden US-Schule über eine ähnliche Allianz.? Gerüchten zufolge handelt es sich dabei um die Harvard Business School, was durchaus pikant wäre, da die Topschule kürzlich mit dem Erzrivalen Stanford Verhandlungen über gemeinsame Programme aufgenommen hat. In Boston war auf Anfrage keine Stellungnahme zu erhalten

Noch einen Schritt zurück ist die Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), die als viertbeste europäische Business School gilt und punktuell mit einer ganzen Reihe von Schulen wie Babson College, Manchester, McCombs (Austin, Texas), Ivey oder Recanti (Tel Aviv) kooperiert. ?Mit diesen Schulen und mit anderen Partnern diskutieren wir strukturelle Allianzen und eine integriertere Zusammenarbeit?, berichtet RSM-Dean Kai Peters

Natürlich versuchen die europäischen Schulen, die sich diesem wachsenden Druck ausgesetzt sehen, die Karte der europäischen Vielfalt zu spielen. Elio Borgonovi, Dean von Italiens bester Business School Bocconi (Mailand) erklärt: ?Wenn ?globale? Programme uniforme, standardisierte Programme bedeuten, die in einem großen Maßstab in so vielen Ländern wie möglich angeboten werden, dann macht das wenig Sinn. Management-Ausbildung muss die unterschiedlichen historischen und kulturellen Bedingungen miteinbeziehen.? Und Leslie Hannah, Chief Executive des Ashridge Management College, einem führenden europäischen Anbieter von Manager-Fortbildung, behauptet gar: ?Wenn ein amerikanischer Kunde uns Wharton oder Insead vorzieht, dann deshalb, weil er eine europäische Erfahrung mit einem britischen Anstrich sucht und keine Schule, die von amerikanischen Lehrern dominiert wird.?

Aber auch in Amerika zeigt die Wharton-Insead-Allianz Wirkung. Schulen der absoluten Spitzenklasse wie Sloan (MIT) oder Stanford können sich sicherlich eine gewisse Gelassenheit erlauben. ?Wir suchen keinen Allianzpartner, nur um einen Allianzpartner zu haben?, erklärt Sloan-Dean Richard Schmalensee. ?Ich fühle da keinen Druck, vielleicht auch weil MIT schon ein ziemlich guter globaler Brand ist.?

Ganz anders sieht es schon in der zweiten Reihe aus. Robert J. Swieringa, Dean der Johnson Graduate School of Management (Cornell) gibt eine unverblümte Antwort auf die Frage, ob seine Schule durch solche Allianzen unter Druck geraten ist: ?Die einfache Antwort ist: Ja. Diese Allianzen generieren Publizität und Aufmerksamkeit, besonders wenn sie solche bekannten und sehr angesehenen Player umfassen.?

Jay Stowsky, Associate Dean der Haas School (Berkeley), eine der drei führenden Business Schools an der US-Westküste, berichtet, dass auch Haas schon in Verhandlungen mit den Schulen stand, die jetzt Schlagzeilen machen. Ohne Ergebnis. ?Wir schauen uns nun bestehende Programme an anderen Universitäten in den USA und Asien an, mit denen wir kooperieren könnten. Wir versuchen deren akademische Qualität zu bewerten, die Qualität ihrer Bewerber und auch die Studiengebühren, die sie verlangen, und die Einkünfte, die sie generieren.?

Paul Danos hingegen, Dean der Tuck School of Business, der kleinsten der fünfzehn führenden US-Schulen, glaubt nicht daran, dass Größe allein ein Marktvorteil ist. ?Ein oder zwei hochklassige Experten reichen aus für ein hochwertiges Programm. Das gilt für eine kleine Schule wie Tuck, die in den letzten Jahren keine Schwierigkeiten hatte, hochqualifizierte Dozenten zu rekrutieren, und es würde auch für eine sehr große Schule gelten.?

Zweifel bestehen auch daran, ob der Markt wirklich nach Programmstandorten auf allen Kontinenten schreit. ?Wir glauben, dass es für ein Programm wichtig ist, globale Teilnehmer und globalen Inhalt zu haben. Aber wir glauben nicht, dass es für uns notwendig ist, unsere Programme an verschiedenen Orten abzuhalten?, sagt Stanford Business School-Dean Robert L. Joss

Gleichwohl werden in der Zukunft alle Augen auf die Fortentwicklung der Wharton-Insead-Allianz gerichtet sein. Die beiden Partner wollen ihre Ehe in zwei Jahren einem genauen Revisionsprozess unterziehen. Bei einem positiven Ergebnis ist auch schon die Zukunft angedacht: Dann könnten Wharton und Insead gemeinsam Niederlassungen in China und Lateinamerika gründen. Was dann wiederum eine neue Dimension darstellte: die ?super-globale? Business School.

Stimmen zur Allianz

Johnson Graduate School of Management - Robert J. Swieringa

1. How do you evaluate the need for such "global" executive education programmes?

The "need" for global executive education programmes is driven by globalization, one of several market-driven streams that are reshaping the fabric of business schools and management education. (Other streams include leadership, entrepreneurship, and technology.) Each school is crafting international strategies to make its programs and community more global and inclusive, to enhance the global content of its curriculum and research, and to develop strategic initiatives and partnerships in various regions of the world. We all are evaluating alternatives in the context of our mission, culture, values, and opportunity set.

2. Do such alliances as those between Insead and Wharton, LBS and Columbia, or HEC and NYU put pressure on the Johnson School to follow the trend and to look for a "global alliance?"

The simple answer is "yes!" These alliances generate publicity and attention, especially when they include well-known and highly regarded players. Yet signing an agreement is the easiest part of what will become a difficult long-term effort.

There have always been alliances between universities and their departments and schools. Most of these are loose alliances that reflect in part the relationships that exist within universities. Descriptions of recent global alliances emphasize merging the knowledge bases of multiple faculties and increasing the flow of information to alumni and corporate clients through joint online knowledge portals.

This is truly a daunting task. Bringing multiple faculties together is incredibly difficult because most universities and schools have different cultures, expectations, and norms about the quality and importance of research and teaching. Most are also protective of access to alumni and corporate clients. Creating the kind of merged knowledge to which these global alliances aspire would prove difficult and complex within a single university. We can expect it to be even more so across universities. Some alliances announced several years ago have not lived up to initial expectations, because merging knowledge bases was problematic in the face of fundamental differences between schools. Given the quality of the players and the depth and breadth of what is being attempted, many business schools are evaluating their activities and alliances or relationships with others. We witnessed somewhat similar developments as universities and schools jointly announced eLearning initiatives. Few of these initiatives developed as quickly or along the lines expected. Ultimately, whether these "global alliances" are successful will depend on the quality of execution. We need to have realistic expectations about what can be accomplished in a defined time period under the arrangements recently announced. There will be winners and losers, and the marketplace will carefully monitor progress.
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth - Paul Danos

1. How do you evaluate the need for such "global" executive education programmes?

2. Do such alliances as those between Insead and Wharton, LBS and Columbia or HEC and NYU put pressure on Tuck to follow the trend and to look for a "global alliance"?


Tuck has alliances with other business schools for the delivery of specific programs. For instance, Templeton College at Oxford is our partner for the Global Leadership 2020 program, a corporate leaders program, and the Global Bridge Program, a business immersion for young associates. The Hanoi School of Business is our partner for a Vietnam Executive Program we offer in Hanoi and Hanover each year. Though we plan to have multiple partnerships of this kind, we are not planning a comprehensive partnership for delivery of all or our programs and we are not planning new campuses. Out strategy is to be a quality-oriented, independent and nimble provider of cutting-edge knowledge for MBAs and executives.

The big question about the future of university-based executive education is:
Will a number of high-quality, independent providers of executive education thrive as they have to now or will there be a consolidation where only a few huge schools or coalitions of schools dominate? In order to approach an answer to the big question, we must first address the following subsidiary issues:

  • How does a provider assemble the necessary critical mass of expertise?

  • What is the most effective learning setting for participants?

  • Are economies of scale a key cost factor in the executive education production process?

  • How much will buyers demand customization and exclusivity in programs?

  • How much do buyers value a diversity of points of view?

    Expertise. I believe that those providers with the best expertise will ultimately dominate the business school world. I see no evidence, however, that the winners will have to be huge. As a matter of fact, Tuck - the smallest of the top schools - has had a very successful period of recruiting faculty experts who are expert at teaching MBAs and executives. What I have not seen is the need for huge scale to accommodate the high end of the public and customized executive education programs. For instance, a great faculty member or two who specializes in brand management could arrange and deliver a program for a specific corporation or for a class of unrelated people. A very large school would also rely on only one or two faculty to be the intellectual core of such a program. Scale does not seem to give any special intellectual or expertise advantage to the big players.

    Learning Environments. I believe that top management want to be educated in a personal setting with expert faculty and colleagues with whom they can share expertise. At the lower levels of management, some amount of mass production is necessary, but even there the desire is for more personal learning to the extent it is feasible. Participants like to come to a campus and they like the notion that a traditional school with its standards, prestige and history is involved.

    Cost functions. There is always evidence that costs are important, especially at the lower end of the staff pyramid, where the large numbers are. Distance techniques, however, will allow for smaller providers to leverage their efforts. Technology creates its own scale dynamics that may be different than the conventional way of thinking about them.

    Customization. Corporations now want more tailored programs, but that alone will not give the big providers an advantage. Will corporations demand one-stop shopping and thereby stop using smaller and niche providers? I believe that some will try this and there will be a natural cycle where some switch back to multiple providers. Corporations may want customization for specific topics but that does not mean that a smaller provider cannot create an outstanding custom program for one corporation. As a matter of fact, the smaller provider may be more credible than the mass producer in this area.

    Idea diversity. I believe that corporations will want their highest level people to get a variety of ideas, and therefore there will be a natural limit to exclusivity. I know of no CEO who wants all the strategic ideas in her/his organization to come from one source.

    All in all, I believe, that there will be no one pattern that will dominate. Independent, rather small scale schools such as Tuck with outstanding faculty will mount very attractive programs, sometimes in conjunction with other schools and sometimes on their own. Many corporations will not want "one-stop shopping," but will value diversity of ideas and the flexibility of having multiple providers.

    Finally, I believe that the only stable factor in all of this is the century-long preferences of all types of business leaders to deal with high-quality educators in independent, research-based schools. This will continue for degree and non-degree programs as long as schools have the requisite experts.

    Although large entities will have some advantages, the running of large executive education businesses has a down side for university-based schools in terms of the bloated bureaucracies they require and loss of focus they may cause. Because of the special nature of the higher education, I believe that outstanding results can be attained with flexible coalitions among schools, that will allow the high-quality, more nimble and focused independent schools to be fully competitive for the executive education business in which they want to participate. Tuck, for one, will follow that strategy.
    Stanford Graduate School of Business - Dean Robert L. Ross

    1. How do you evaluate the need for such "global" executive education programmes?

    WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR EXECUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO HAVE GLOBAL PARTICIPANTS AND GLOBAL CONTENT AND COURSE MATERIAL. WE HAVE THIS TODAY, BUT ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO IMPROVE IN THIS DIMENSION. WE DO NOT BELIEVE WE NEED TO DELIVER OUR PROGRAMS IN DIFFERENT PHYSICAL L OCATIONS, AND THUS FAR HAVE FOUND SUBSTANTIAL DEMAND FOR PROGRAMS DELIVERED AT THE STANFORD CAMPUS. AT THE PRESENT TIME PARTICIPANTS IN OUR CORNERSTONE PROGRAM - THE STANFORD EXECUTIVE PROGRAM - ARE 48 PERCENT FROM NORTH AMERICA (INCLUDING MEXICO AND CANADA)THE REMAINDER COME FROM ELSWHERE IN THE WORLD. OVERALL, STANFORD BUSINESS SCHOOL'S FACULTY OF ROUGHLY 85 INDIVIDUALS INCLUDES 31 WITH AT LEAST ONE DEGREE FROM A UNIVERSITY OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES. EACH YEAR WE HOST A NUMBER OF VISITING FACULTY WHOM WE BELIEVE ADD IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVES.

    2. Do such alliances as those between Insead and Wharton, LBS and Columbia or HEC and NYU put pressure on Stanford to follow the trend and to look for a "global alliance"?

    WE HAVE LOTS OF INQUIRIES ABOUT ALLIANCES, BUT THUS FAR HAVE NOT FOUND AN ALLIANCE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE FOR PARTICIPANTS. WE WILL CONTINUALLY EVALUATE THIS, AND WATCH WITH INTEREST WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING. WE'VE HAD A JOINT PROGRAM WITH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE FOR EXECUTIVE PROGRAMS FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS AND HAVE AT VARIOUS TIMES OFFERED OTHER JOINT PROGRAMS WITH INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN MEXICO, HONG KONG, BRITAIN AND OTHER LOCATIONS.
    Ashridge Management College - Leslie Hannah

    1. How do you evaluate the need for such "global" executive education programmes?

    "Our global clients often want us to deliver in Asia Pacific and America as well as in Europe and we often do that either with our own staff, or, sometimes, bringing in local business school partners. But our customers resist a "one size fits all" formula and packaged solutions: we win business from some of the best known international consortia precisely because we listen to customer needs, rather than reaching for an off-the-shelf international package.

    2. Do such alliances as those between Insead and Wharton, LBS and Columbia, or HEC and NYU put pressure on the Johnson School to follow the trend and to look for a "global alliance?"

    The importance of alliances is growing much stronger for MBAs and open programmes. We do feel the pressure from the market here. But when an American client comes to our open programme, in preference to Wharton or INSEAD, they come for a distinctive European experience with a British flavour and to get away from classrooms dominated by American teachers and American participants! It is not clear that allying with an American business school for co-branding of open programmes makes it more likely that we will recruit participants! We have a very international faculty, many of whom have experience of working for US multinationals, so our clients don't loose out on the global picture! Nonetheless we are talking to existing international partners about widening or deepening our relationships, where this will really add value for clients."
    Instituto de Empresa - Santiago Íñiguez

    1. How do you evaluate the need for such "global" executive education programmes?

    Corporate clients are demanding increasingly integrated programs that can satisfy their need for a more international-oriented management education. The same applies to individual participants, who look to expand their international outreach. Many business schools are trying to satisfy this demand for more global programs by changing their curricula, assigning professors with international orientation or intensifying the international experience of the program by running modules in diverse campuses throughout different continents.

    Instituto de Empresa was one fo the first business schools in Europe to launch an international executive MBA program that comprises presential modules both in Madrid and Miami combined with online sessions that keep up the learning momentum and enhance the network among participants and instructors.

    We also run tailored programs for companies which take place sequentially in different places in order to immerse participants in the real culture of the different countries where their companies operate. We believe we are currently the leading reference of management education in the Spanish-speaking business world, a world which shares language and many traditions, but which at the same time is very different in many other respects.

    But certainly one of the elements which makes management education really global is the broad range of origins of program participants. Diversity is thus experienced in its purest form. Here European business schools take the lead from North Americans. The Instituto de Empresa International MBA program, for instance, currently has over 75% of foreign students which makes for a true melting pot of cultures.

    2. Do such alliances as those between Insead and Wharton, LBS and Columbia or HEC and NYU put pressure on Instituto de Empresa to follow the trend and to look for a "global alliance"?

    Alliances that work should be focused on issues that add value both for the schools involved, and , of course, the clients you aim to serve. The alliances that have been set up in recent times grab headlines because of the big players involved, and will certainly make many other players sit up and take notice.

    Instituto de Empresa enjoys a wide network of strategic alliances at different levels in Europe, and the Americas. In some cases, we analyze and implement joint strategic agendas, and develop programs far beyond the mere exchange of students or faculty. Many of these alliances are justified in order to respond to the demands of our corporate clients, who are more than happy to obtain integrated solutions for their learning needs. For example, we are currently running five different tailored programs for large European corporations in alliance with our Latin American partners.

    In any case, the management education industry closely mirrors what is happening in the business environment, and we should certainly be prepared for further surprises.
    IMD - Peter Lorange

    1. How do you evaluate the need for such "global" executive education programmes?

    Need for "global executive education programs". There is a strong need for global programs in the sense that one must bring together executives from a broad set of country locations throughout the world, to work together in specific program settings, so that they can also network with each other and learn from each other, based on program inputs that are of "global" interest. We at IMD feel that we have a very effective approach to this, having worked hard on creating "IMD being the global meeting place". We think the key is to meet at one physical location, and to get people from all over the world together in this location, to work out program issues of global interest. We thus do not see any particular benefit of having executive programs run at the four campuses that Insead and Wharton have together (Fontainebleau, Singapore, Philadelphia, San Francisco). Busy global executives are doing more than enough travel. They key is that they get together as one global group, in one location that is best for nurturing such global networking. We see no reason to deviate from our approach to make IMD the global meeting place in this respect. We think that what we are doing is more "global" than focusing on four regional centers.

    2. Do such alliances as those between Insead and Wharton, LBS and Columbia or HEC and NYU put pressure on IMD to follow the trend and to look for a "global alliance"?

    The recent stream of alliances between leading U.S. schools and European schools does put pressure on us at IMD to re-examine what we are doing. We are in fact talking with a leading U.S. business school regarding some similar issues that we hope to address through an alliance with this school. There are, however, some major differences:

    - We put heavy importance on the fact that any such alliance must be highly pragmatic and focused. If it is too broad and general, we feel there is a real risk of simply creating a lot of "noise", expending a lot of organizational energy, but delivering relatively little.

    - We feel that we hope to work with our U.S. counterpart specifically therefore on
  • co-marketing of programs so we can have broader communication vis-à-vis executives both in the U.S. and in Europe regarding program availability
  • a specific faculty exchange, linked to specific research projects that both schools are interested in
  • a specific exchange of program ideas, both at the MBA level and the executive development level
  • a specific cooperation when it comes to new venture incubator activities.

    All such alliances must however be strongly based on a broad commitment and positive buy-in among the faculty groups on both sides. Again, we do not think that such an alliance will be effective unless this is the case. This will perhaps be the major acid test behind the major alliances that have been formed: are the faculty groups on both sides fully behind them?
    Sloan School of Management (MIT) - Richard Schmalensee

    1. How do you evaluate the need for such "global" executive education programmes?

    As in business, alliances have costs and benefits. There are advantages in both brand development and logistics here; there are coordination and other costs.

    2. Do such alliances as those between Insead and Wharton, LBS and Columbia or HEC and NYU put pressure on Sloan to follow the trend and to look for a "global alliance"?

    I don't feel pressure, perhaps in part because MIT is already a pretty good global brand. We are active in several regions outside the U.S., doing a variety of things with a variety of partners. These arrangements have been good for our partners and for us, and we are always interested in arrangements of that sort. But we're not interested in the sort of exclusivity that the term "alliance" generally suggests, and we're not in any rush to partner for the sake of partnering.
    Haas School of Business - Jay Stowsky

    1. How do you evaluate the need for such "global" executive education programmes?

    We are always paying close attention to what other leading business schools are doing and we have taken steps to learn all we can about these kinds of programs. Haas/Berkeley has always attracted applicants from other countries (roughly 31% of our MBA class is typically non-US); we offered one of the first part-time MBA programs for working professionals (our evening MBA program), and we are now actively engaged in the process of assessing whether to add Executive MBA programs to serve that growing market, both domestically and internationally. As we look at existing programs at other universities in the US and in Asia with whom we might want to partner, we are trying to assess their academic quality and the quality of the applicant pool, as well as the overall market demand. We are of course also looking at the fees they are charging and the revenues they are generating and are comparing them to the costs and the personnel (both faculty and administrative) that would be required to run a quality program. As a public institution, Haas/Berkeley needs to seek new ways to extend our reach while also significantly improving our resource base, and these programs look to fit that strategy very well.

    2. Do such alliances as those between Insead and Wharton, LBS and Columbia or HEC and NYU put pressure on Haas to follow the trend and to look for a "global alliance"?

    We have been participating in these discussions with some of these same institutions (and several others) for some time now; so we are already part of this trend and not, in that sense, "following" the others. We are being careful to choose the right partners so that we can leverage our particular strengths without diluting our unique identity as a full-service business school with extraordinary ties to Silicon Valley and the New Economy. We agree that these types of alliances are an effective way to serve the growing demand and to amplify the Haas/Berkeley brand.
    Bocconi University School of Management - Elio Borgonovi (Dean SDA Bocconi)

    1. How do you evaluate the need for such "global" executive education programmes?

    I think that we must distinguish between the need for "global" Executive Education Programmes and the tendency towards alliances of different Schools to play on the global market. My opinion is that if "global" Programmes mean uniform, standardised Programmes to be delivered on a large scale in as many countries as possible with very little adjustments, this is not the right answer. Education, and particularly Executive Education, is a learning process that must be built up on different historical, cultural and institutional characteristics of people. Management Education should be a process to "give value" to differences and not a process to standardise cultures and attitudes. On the contrary I do think that there is a strong need and pressure to create "alliances" between first row Schools of Management to be more effective in attracting high quality researchers and professors, to establish more and more qualified research teams, to improve the international approach to management and to management education. Schools of Management are in competition for the best graduates, Ph.D., Masters and form their prestige on them.

    2. Do such alliances as those between Insead and Wharton, LBS and Columbia, or HEC and NYU put pressure on the SDA Bocconi School to follow the trend and to look for a "global alliance?"

    We have been aware of the need for alliances for some time, but we think that the worse way to react to pressure is to follow the first solution. So we are implementing our own strategy that is based on the following elements:
    1. to develop alliances for different Executive Education Programmes with Schools that we consider very strong in different field (for example business, corporate finance, public management, healthcare management, change management, etc.);
    2. to "merge" the culture of our research teams doing specific research work on well defined topics;
    3. to sign agreements with first class local institutions in different countries or regional areas to better understand the real needs and to design programmes tailored on the country / region culture.

    We have now more or less 20 of such agreements and we hope to be able to announce soon that those agreements have become alliances.
  • Dieser Artikel ist erschienen am 11.04.2001