THE FUTURE ROLE OF

CORPORATE UNIVERSITIES IN
DEVELOPING AND EMBEDDING
BUSINESS STRATEGY

A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of EU Business School
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
The Degree:
MBA with Major in Human Resources Management

By: Zaira Pedron

September 2018

1
2
 Declaration form

I hereby undersign that the work submitted is my own effort. I certify that all material in this

Dissertation, which is not my own work, has been identified and acknowledged. No

materials are included for which a degree has been previously conferred upon me.

Zaira Pedron

Signed

3
 Foreword

During my 13 years in the Human Resources field, I have recognized the importance of
innovation and continuous learning as prerequisites for competitiveness and success of an
organization on the market.
This is even truer today, in the era of digitalization and the fourth industrial revolution.
Adopting flexibility as part of our approach, being open-minded, allowing rigid models to be
challenged and leaving room for alternative ways of thinking and doing are considered
essential values and mindsets nowadays.
The topic of “Corporate Universities” and their potential future roles within a business have
fascinated me for the potential, perhaps hidden, that they enclose. Corporate Universities
can become the driving force behind this change of mentality and culture, necessary more
than ever for the survival of their organizations. More empowered Corporate Universities
can, therefore, bring their companies to the next level and support them in uncovering their
transient advantage over and over again.
I’m glad this dissertation has allowed me to expand my knowledge surrounding this topic
with a vision towards the future and to become more acquainted with Textron University,
the Corporate University of my present organization. I’m sure the empirical research will
bring an added value for its forthcoming developments. Moreover, the acquired knowledge
will be very valuable for me in my present role as HR Manager: it will allow me to look at
my role with greater awareness of the present and future trends in corporate learning and
strategic business.
This thesis, written as completion to my MBA program, closes a journey.
If I look back, I cannot forget the challenges my classmates and I went through during the
program. This achievement represents for me one of the lessons learned in life that
demonstrate the value of persistence, interior strength, and teamwork. The best results
are, in fact, those earned with constant commitment.
Thank you to my classmates all over the world and to the Staff of the EU Business School
for being part of this amazing journey. I’m grateful for all of the knowledge imparted by and
discussions had with my professors, who have instilled in me the curiosity to continue
learning even after this program.
A special thanks goes to Professor Jan Kingsley who, as a mentor, guided me through this
dissertation with great dedication and trust in my ability to take “my way”.
Finally, I would like to thank the participants and contributors to this work: Martin Moehrle
(EFMD), the business leaders of my company, and the Textron University colleagues who
made themselves available to be interviewed.
Last but not least, thank you to the people in my private life who encouraged me every day
to overcome myself and showed patience and understanding.

Zaira Pedron, August 24th, 2018

4
 Executive Summary

The accelerated pace of change of the world economy alongside the fierce global
competition represent factors of concern for managers, organizations and nations.
Strategy, competitive advantage, competences and abilities that make a business good at
what it does at present are no guarantee of future success, or even future existence.

To survive and successfully operate in the scenario of the fourth industrial revolution
companies need to re-think their approach to the external environment, their mindset,
streamline their internal organizational structure and become agile in adapting to a volatile
and uncertain global arena. Constant adaption requires, more than ever, learning and up-
to-date skill sets. Learning and knowledge sharing has, therefore, become crucial.

This dissertation explores the evolution of corporate learning and the constellation in which
the ‘corporate university’ as a concept has grown and developed in the last one hundred
years. The traditional as well as the most recent trends and strategic roles of corporate
universities, besides their potential future evolutions, are presented.

After outlining the best practices in this field, the dissertation provides an empirical
analysis of Textron University - an established corporate university within my current
organization. As a result of this analysis, best practices and opportunities for improvement
are defined.

The document is structured in three parts.

The first part examines the international literature outlining the different stages of corporate
universities’ development , their dimensions, the evolving learning process, the impact of
digital trends, the new concept of collaboration with other industries and higher education
institutions as best practice and, ultimately, the future emerging trends impacting corporate
learning.

The second part offers insights into the best practices of corporate learning through an
analysis of the quality standards of CLIP accreditation, an award that certifies quality and
excellences in this field. This practical investigation is carried out through an interview with
the Associate Director of EFMD – an organization based on a network of member
business schools, professionals and corporate universities - which developed CLIP.

5
The third part investigates Textron University, its aims and roles played across the
company, its governance and services. This research is complemented by a qualitative
exploration of opinions of a panel of Textron international company leaders in which data
are gathered through interviews. The thesis explores whether the Textron Corporate
University is providing substantial sustainable value to the organization from the
perspective of its managers and comments on further potential developments.

The dissertation concludes with a final analysis which outlines best practices as well as
recommendations aimed at maximizing the Textron University’s added-value for the whole
corporate value-chain.

Recommendations for Textron Universities include the extension of the actual activities
into more strategic scopes and the engagement in a network of other corporate
universities which would allow benchmarking and a greater awareness of its points of
excellence and areas for improvement.

6
 Table of contents

Foreword.............................................................................................................................. 4
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 5
List of tables......................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 10
1 Chapter 1: Understanding the evolution and the future of Corporate Universities ....... 12
1.1 Defining and Contextualizing Corporate Universities ..................................................... 12
1.2 The dimensions of corporate universities ........................................................................... 21
1.2.1 Ambition and Objectives .................................................................................................. 22
1.2.2 Activity Scope ...................................................................................................................... 23
1.2.3 Target Audience and Content ........................................................................................ 25
1.2.4 Delivery Model .................................................................................................................... 27
1.2.5 Governance and Structure .............................................................................................. 28
1.2.6 Branding and Alliances..................................................................................................... 31
1.3 The knowledge-productive corporate university ............................................................... 32
1.4 Corporate Universities are becoming learning laboratories: the role of technology
and digitalization ..................................................................................................................................... 35
1.5 Corporate Universities engage in partnerships: why can't we be friends? ............... 38
1.5.1 Partnering with other industries ..................................................................................... 39
1.5.2 Partnering with higher educational institutions.......................................................... 41
1.6 Corporate Universities: opportunity or threat to higher education institutions? ...... 45
1.7 The new generation of Corporate Universities: what’s next? ....................................... 48
1.7.1 The critical success factors of present and future corporate universities ......... 52
2 Chapter 2: EFMD strives for best practice in corporate learning ................................. 60
2.1 What is EFMD?........................................................................................................................... 60
2.2 The EFMD CLIP accreditation ............................................................................................... 61
2.3 The CLIP standards and criteria ............................................................................................ 65
2.4 The EFMD quality framework: an in-depth analysis of its subject areas .................. 67
2.4.1 Strategic View ..................................................................................................................... 67
2.4.2 Innovation View .................................................................................................................. 67
2.4.3 Client View ........................................................................................................................... 67
2.4.4 Process View ....................................................................................................................... 68
7
 2.5 A critical analysis of the CLIP Quality Framework ........................................................... 68
2.6 The enhanced role of corporate universities ..................................................................... 70
2.7 Conclusions arising from the CLIP Analysis ...................................................................... 72
3 Chapter 3: Textron University: empirical evidences from business leaders and future
endeavors .......................................................................................................................... 73
3.1 Aim of the primary research and methodology ................................................................. 73
3.2 Introduction to the Textron University .................................................................................. 74
3.3 A conceptual framework for talent management: the “Talent Pipeline” .................... 76
3.4 An analysis of Textron University based on the EFMD’s Quality Framework ......... 78
3.4.1 Subject Area 1: Strategic view ....................................................................................... 78
3.4.2 Subject Area 2: Innovation view .................................................................................... 80
3.4.3 Subject area 3: Client view.............................................................................................. 81
3.4.4 Subject area 4: Process view ......................................................................................... 82
3.5 Insights from Interviews with Textron Leaders.................................................................. 83
3.6 A final critical analysis of Textron University from the perspective of the CLIP
model: best practices and development opportunities ............................................................... 87
3.7 Constraints on the primary research .................................................................................... 88
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 90
4 Annex .......................................................................................................................... 92
4.1 Interviews with Business Leaders ......................................................................................... 92
4.2 Interview questions .................................................................................................................... 93
Glossary............................................................................................................................. 94
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 95

8
 List of tables

Figure 1.............................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 2.............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 3.............................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 4.............................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 5.............................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 6.............................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 7.............................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 8.............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 9.............................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 10............................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 11............................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 12............................................................................................................................ 65
Figure 13............................................................................................................................ 66
Figure 14............................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 15............................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 16............................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 17............................................................................................................................ 71
Figure 18............................................................................................................................ 74
Figure 19............................................................................................................................ 75
Figure 20............................................................................................................................ 76
Figure 21............................................................................................................................ 77
Figure 22............................................................................................................................ 87

9
 Introduction

My interest in the corporate university phenomenon arose from the observation of the
growing importance of the concept of learning within the current panorama characterizing
the knowledge-information-based economy. Skills - technical and human - have become
the new wealth and competitive advantage of people, businesses and nations, replacing
tangible assets. In this scenario, corporate learning - and the whole education system - is
called into question.

The increasing competition in a growing globalized world, technological advances, new

stakeholder demands, changes in corporate strategies and organizational developments,
issues of budgetary and time constraints, and the necessity of immediate action are
incessantly changing and challenging businesses as well as the whole education arena.
After all, continuous adaptation to a volatile, uncertain and ambiguous global environment
without learning is impossible.

In the scenario of the fourth industrial revolution, companies’ assets are represented by an
established internal culture of learning and the set of skills of their workforce and leaders.
Employees and middle managers are required to take on more responsibilities in their
daily activities due to the fact that corporate hierarchies are flattening and decision-making
is decentralizing to respond to external demands quickly. Competitive advantage is shifting
to transient advantage which underlines even more the impact of shorter time frames and
increased volatility.

In the current historical moment, exploring how the new generation of corporate
universities as well as the entire learning system will evolve in the future is, in my view,
extremely exciting.

Current business literature considers future corporate universities a new trend in the
Human Resources and Business field. Corporate universities are seen as a core strategic
unit within companies that have decided to put knowledge as a priority. Organizations
expect their corporate universities to be the key of their successes in the market place by
giving employees greater access to knowledge and skills.

10
We are witnessing an era of skills volatility across all job categories and business
segments. The shelf life of employees´ skills is dramatically shortening and companies
need to act quickly and effectively to promote skill conversion, that is, to up-skill and re-
skill their employees.

The dissertation identifies other future potential roles of corporate universities as well as
best practices within the corporate learning community. Indeed, corporate universities are
making a step forward expanding their scope beyond learning. Corporate universities will
play a role in the organizational and job transformation and will support their organizations
in dealing with other matters such as the war for talent and the skills shortage and,
ultimately, in facing the changes in the workplace, demographic and job design. For sure,
in my role as HR Manager this know-how represented an advantage and allowed me to
build greater awareness of the field of corporate learning.

After the analysis of the literature I was driven by the interest of applying the acquired
knowledge to Textron University, the corporate university of my present organization. In
particular, I was interested in getting to know my corporate university more closely,
understanding its organization, its role in the company and the opinion of our leaders
about its work. The final aim was to identify best practices and development opportunities
of Textron University which represent a starting point for future discussions with its
leaders. This first assessment will enable Textron University to start to re-think, re-invent
and re-imagine itself, its role within the company and, most importantly, its impact within
the organization.

11
 1 Chapter 1: Understanding the evolution and the future of
Corporate Universities

1.1 Defining and Contextualizing Corporate Universities

Many definitions of “corporate university” (CU) are provided by the literature. I will report
the following one which I find particularly extensive and explicative:

the “corporate university” is a strategic educational function of a company designed

to support its parent organization in attaining its mission, strategy and mid-long term
goals by promoting activities aligned toward integrating the development of people,
promoting knowledge and cultivating individual and organizational learning.
(Grenzer, J.W. 2006, Allen M. 2010)

Generally speaking, the corporate university is tied-up to the firm’s business strategy and
structured to drive success in an effort to attain corporate excellence through enhanced
workforce performance and company culture where innovation thrives. Furthermore, by
creating value from its intellectual assets, the corporate university helps firms to recognize,
retain and develop talented employees, as well as to provide the whole workforce with
relevant learning and career development opportunities.

The corporate university is also known as academy, institute, learning center, center of
excellence or school. From now on I will use the common term of ‘corporate university’ to
refer to any organizational unit whose primary function is to develop the organization’s
human knowledge assets.

The term “corporate university” is far from being new. In fact, it takes its origins in the
1950s when US organizations like McDonalds, General Electric - and afterwards Walt
Disney and Motorola in the 1970’s - coined it to define their internal learning centers.
(Meister J.C, 1998; Müller-Hofvenschiöld A, 2012; CUE, 2016)

However, the emphasis on corporate training began much earlier in the 20th century as a
consequence of the second industrial revolution, and the need to train and instruct the
workforce in performing new jobs. Indeed, in this period of time, which took place in the
final third of the 19th century up to the start of the World War I, firms went through a rapid
massive industrialization especially in the manufacturing area.
12
In 1909, Frederick Winslow Taylor -the father of the “scientific management” school of
thought- presented “the one-best way” theory according to which by optimizing,
standardizing and simplifying jobs the productivity would increase. Workers had to be
scientifically selected and then trained and developed in order to perform the routine jobs
at their best. In this arrangement, training became extremely important: workers and their
managers had to be instructed and taught to follow rules to comply with this idea of
efficiency.

For instance, firms like General Motors (GM), General Electric (GE) and other large
manufacturing firms have been predecessors in the employees learning movement
establishing Corporation Schools. Indeed, “as early at 1914, companies like GE and GM
developed internal training functions to provide workers with the skills necessary to
perform routine jobs”. These Corporation Schools continued their activities throughout the
mid-point of the twentieth century. (CUE, 2016)

Despite the activities carried out by these Corporation Schools focusing on internal training
and development, the literature establishes the first generation of the corporate
universities in the late 1950's. (Millar M,2012)

In the following years, the emphasis on workplace training continued to develop while the
world economy went through a significant change.

Thus, departing from the 1950s the focus shifted from an industrial-based society to a
knowledge-information-based economy: the developments in technology, the rise of
globalization and the intensification of worldwide competition lead to a turnaround into
companies’ organization and functioning. The concept of corporate training shifted as well
to a more strategic view of learning and knowledge. (CUE, 2016)

In 1956 GE inaugurated GE’s Crotonville, the oldest corporate university while in 1961
McDonalds launched the Hamburger University (Hamburger U).

In the mid-1950s Ralph J. Cordiner - the emeritus president of GE- decided that its
executive managers needed to be involved in development and leadership programs in
order to be ready to face the firm’s future challenges and deliver value to GE’s global
expansion. The company bought a parcel of green land located in Ossining, about an
hour north of New York City: there GE’s Crotonville management training center began to
take shape. The first general management courses Crotonville delivered - which lasted up

13
to 13 weeks- were directed to high-potential employees expected to climb the GE’s
corporate ladder becoming CEOs with a direct impact on the company’s success.
(Stevenson F, 2014)

With the creatively named Hamburger U (HU) McDonald’s became the first restaurant firm
in the world to develop a global training center. HU was founded in 1961 by Fred Turner-
the first grill man for McDonald's- and was located in the basement of a McDonald’s facility
in Elk Grove Village, Illinois. Mr. Turner advanced in his career until his was promoted as
a CEO. Since its foundation, more than 275,000 persons have attended the Hamburger
University and many graduates have hoped to start their McDonald’s careers by taking on
a leadership role within the firm. Statistics show that more than 40% of McDonald's senior
leaders studied at the HU which employs nineteen full-time professors and which has
received college credit recommendations from the American Council on Education (ACE).
(Walters N, 2015)

In the following years the corporate university movement developed gradually in the US
and gained its momentum in the 1980s when the pioneering companies started to share
their competitive advantages resulting from having implemented a more strategic concept
of learning. (CUE, 2016)

While the first generation of corporate university of the 1950s and 1960s tended to follow
the traditional university model in terms of learning methodology (i.e. teacher-centric,
regimented with large classrooms), the second generation of corporate university – which
indeed began in the late 1980s – reflected another change in the market world. Corporate
universities evolved into “a strategic umbrella for managing an organization’s employee
learning and development”. (Meister J.C, 1998, preface)

While the first generation of corporate universities had a more traditional approach to
training - which is seen as an event, reactionary and focused on transferring specifics
knowledge in classrooms- the second generation “takes a more proactive approach, where
learning is aligned with the corporate business strategy”. (Global Association of Corporate
Universities & Academies - GACUA)

In the late 80's and the early 90's the adoption of corporate universities grew exponentially
as a consequence of the changes in the external market: economies became more and
more reliant on services and knowledge businesses while organizations perceived that
greater investments in more dedicated training functions were vital.
14
In those years the concept of “strategic learning initiative” is developed. (Paton R. at all,
2005) The new corporate universities focused on innovation, encouraged more informal
learning, facilitating the shift from centrally managed knowledge to user-generated
knowledge. Moreover, their ambition was to support a new organizational model based on
distributed decision-making and cross-functional collaboration.

One can argue that traditional training functions offer courses aiming at upgrading
technical or business skills same as corporate universities do. So, what is the
differentiator?

In reality, the differences between the two are significant and are illustrated in the Figure 1
below.

Traditional Training Function Corporate University

Macro-Learning Type of learning Macro as well as Micro-
Learning

Limited to a specific internal Audience Accessible from within the

audience organisation as well as to its
clients and business partners

Formal training- generally in a Accessibility & Place On Demand Learning. Formal

classroom; access is limited and as well as informal training
time-specific accessible anywhere, anytime,
e-learning

One-time Learning Event Frequency Continuous Learning Process

Related to present instructional Participation Tied to Jobs, Curriculums

needs, no training curriculums or needs and Development Plan.
development needs Online via LMS available
Learn by Listening Methodology Action Learning

On-site (synchronous) Delivery and content On-site (synchronous) as well

as via LMS or mobile
(asynchronous)

Re-active Timing Pro-active

Cover a specific skills Aim Increase the overall

performance on the Job and
solve Real Business Issues

15
 Limited due to the space and time Business Impact Large due to the great
restrictions availability and accessibility

Seen as a cost center for the Outcomes Able to improve the company's
company KPIs and revenues; perceived
as success facilitator

Normally associated as a stuff Operations Operates as a separate

function/overhead business unit, with greater
ability to generate revenues

Little change of revenue generation Revenues Greater change of revenue

due to limited audiences generation due to online
availability
Figure 1

Grenzer, J.W. 2006, pg..6; Meister J.C, 1998, pg..23

The greatest difference between the two approaches is that the corporate university
promises to bring a tangible competitive advantage to the company and wants to be seen
as a valuable business partner -not a cost center as the traditional training function is
perceived. In fact, whereas the corporate university generally operates as a separate
business unit at a C-Suite level, the training function is a sub-department of Human
Resources that does not receive the same executive exposure.

“An organization can use its corporate university to restructure its approach to learning”
and to target specific business units in order to anticipate their learning needs and
implement strategic measures accordingly”. (Grenzer, J.W, 2006, pg. 6)

Corporate universities strive to balance the need of the company to reduce its costs and
the necessity to keep their employees’ competences relevant while building the necessary
upcoming ones. Modern corporate universities rely on technology to optimize learning
costs and enhance participation, for instance, by using and updating their Learning
Management Systems (LMSs).

While traditional training is more “task-oriented” and focuses on present performance

gaps, corporate universities aim to improve core aspects of a current or potential future
leader ‘s behavior to stretch skills-sets and prepare to cope with the fast changing
business environment. The development plan is in line with the company’s strategy and
future developments.

16
In the 1980s “U.S. companies began to recognize that a commitment to lifelong learning
with practices in systems thinking and cross-functionality […] was a way to keep up with
technological advancement and global competition. Becoming a learning organization
became the desired status throughout Corporate America”. (CUE, 2016)

In 1999, Philip J. Harkins, an internationally known expert in the field of organizational

development, author of several books, executive director of the Corporate Education
Center at Boston University and CEO of Linhage Inc., a Boston-based consulting firms,
writes:

“The international business world is being led by managers who are committed to
increasing productivity and quality through advanced educational processes and methods.
The result: the best-trained workforce will gain the long-term competitive advantage. No
longer are we locked in a cold war. Today, the battle is for economic survival and
dominance – and the most powerful weapons on this new global business battlefield are
the education and training of our workforce”. (Harkins P, 1999, p. 26)

Jack Welch, former General Electric CEO affirms that “an organization's ability to learn,
and translate that learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage”.

The world is changing. As are Corporations.

The shift from an industrial to a knowledge-information based economy with increased

competition has massively influenced the way and the pace with which organizations work,
act and react.

The figure 2 below offers an overview of the evolution of the three main economic sectors
in a temporal framework. The chart illustrates the output produced among agriculture,
industry and services between 1840 and 2010.

Initially, agriculture counted as primary sector until the first industrial revolution which
represented a “change from an agrarian and handicraft economy to one dominated by
industry and machine manufacturing”. (Encyclopaedia Britannica) Since then the share of
agriculture kept declining. “Industrial production kept pace until 1910, but after that
services pulled ahead and never looked back. Since 1950, the share of output produced in

17
industry has steadily declined, falling from about 40 percent of output to about 25 percent
today”. (Johnston L.D, 2012)

The consequences of these evolutions are explained by Boston Consulting: “the engines
of economic growth are shifting from financial to human capital. In the past, capital-
intensive physical assets drove competitive advantage in many sectors of the
industrialized world. Today the sources of advantage are changing quickly from plants and
machines to the people who make businesses work”. (Kolo P. at all, 2013, pg 3). Human
capital and its knowledge acquired more importance.

Figure 2

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts

The Figure 3 below illustrates the major changes corporations faced when transitioning
from the old to new model of the 21st century.

18
 The Corporation in Transition

Old Model 21st Century Prototype

Hierarchy Organization Network of Partnerships &
Alliances
Support Today's Way of Doing Mission Create Value-Added Change
Business
Autocratic Leadership Inspirational
Domestc Markets Global
Cost Advantage Time
Tools to Support the mind Technology Tools to Support Collaboration
Homogeneous Work Force Diverse
Separate Work Functions Work Process Cross-Functional Work Teams
Security Workers expectations Personal development
Figure 3

Corporate University Exchange 1997

What does this shift mean for corporate learning?

“With the end of the cold war and the relaxing of global trade barriers, globalization
became a dominant factor in corporate learning. What started as an American practice
became a global phenomenon”. Corporate universities proliferated around the world. The
corporate university ceased to be “a movement” and became a business practice. (CUE,
2016)

As business, economy, technology and their whole external environment shifted toward
more complex and fast-paced concept of knowledge, learning moved more and more from
being a one-time specific event enabling employees to perform in their present jobs
successfully to an endless process. This new concept of learning required employees to
acquire new knowledge rapidly and continuously in order to keep up with technological
innovations in a growing globalized and fast changing arena.

As a result of these shift, training had to establish a more strategic link with business and a
strong connection to organizational missions and objectives. That means that training

19
measures had to anticipate the company’s needs instead of represent isolated series of
events directed to filling knowledge gaps.

“Changing industry and technology factors as well as new thinking about workplace
learning catalyzed the corporate university concept”. (CUE, 2016)

The establishment of a corporate university as an educational function, indeed,

represented a response of several organizations towards their perceived low degree of
relevancy and inapplicability of many theoretical learning models promoted by traditional
institutions and academies.

“Many companies witnessed a radically shortened shelf-life of knowledge, and began to

determine that they could no longer rely on institutions of higher education to re-tool their
work force”. (Meister J.C, 1998, preface) Actually, “the use of the term corporatized
university is indicative of continuing concern over the role of business within the
educational sector”. (Taylor S. at all. 2002, pg. 5)

Companies designed and strengthened their own training and development departments
strategically in order to provide their workforce with the skills and competences needed to
perform their jobs successfully. Being real-world oriented, employees were able to apply
them immediately.

Between the 1990s and the beginning of the millennium the number of corporate
universities grew “from 400 to over 1000” (Meister J.C, 1998, preface) and continued to do
so in the following years. According to the “Corporate University Xchange” (2011) - the
leading consultancy company in this field - in the United States alone corporate
universities doubled between 1997 and 2007 from 1000 to 2000.

Even though precise numbers are difficult to come by, “there can be little doubt that
corporate university initiatives are increasingly numerous around the globe”. (Taylor at all,
2002, pg. 5). For decades, after their unprecedented diffusion, corporate universities within
multinational corporations continued to expand. In 2013 the Boston Consulting Group
estimated formal corporate universities to be more than 4,000 (Kolo P. at all, 2013, pg. 4).

The Figure 4 below offers an overview of the corporate university history and its evolution
from the establishment of the first corporation schools and training functions to the present
corporate universities.
20
Figure 4

Corporate University Enterprise, 2016

At present, corporate universities are becoming more and more visible in the media: global
symposiums around this topic take place regularly, corporate university best-in-class
certifications -such as CLIP, GlobalCCU, CUBIC, CLO's Learning Elite and Corporate
University Xchange Award - are multiplying. Furthermore, consultancy firms like
PriceWaterhouse Coopers offer their services to companies that are considering setting up
a corporate university; or expand its existing role within the organization.

Companies firmly believe that corporate universities could be the key of their successes
and competitive advantage in the market place by giving employees greater access to
knowledge and skills. In the following paragraphs we will see what corporate universities
look like nowadays and how they may evolve in the next years.

1.2 The dimensions of corporate universities

The aim of this paragraph is to present the different dimensions of corporate universities.
Boston Consulting identified following ones:

 Ambition and Objectives

 Activity Scope
21
  Target Audience and Content
 Delivery Model
 Governance and Structure
 Branding and Alliances

These dimensions are based upon a recent study of Boston Consulting on existing
corporate universities which encompasses in-depth interviews with human-resource
directors at 23 organizations of a wide variety of industrial sectors and sizes - from 8,000
to 300,000 employees. Faculty leaders belonging to major academic institutions have
been consulted as well in order to gain insights from other perspectives. (Kolo P. at all
2013)

It is important to keep in mind that every single corporate university can be very different
depending on “variations in its age, priorities, size and shape and the nature of its
competitive position in time” – affirms Richard Dealtry, Chief Executive of the Global
Association of Corporate Universities and Academies UK. (Dealtry R, 2017, Introduction)
Hence, the introduction of the corporate universities’ dimensions does not aim to classify
all corporate universities into a rigid framework.
Current corporate universities have achieved different stages of maturity; they have a core
common set of “traditional” activities whereas some more advanced ones have a
secondary set of roles moving from core training and development into research-based
knowledge centers.

1.2.1 Ambition and Objectives

Although ambitions and goals between corporate university can vary, we can generalize
by affirming that, originally, corporate universities concentrated upon designing and
delivering customized trainings across their companies. The present generation of
corporate universities, however, is taking on a wider and more strategical role aiming at
supporting their businesses.

Even though corporate universities use different definitions to describe themselves, the
study carried out by Boston Consulting found that their common ambition is to serve as
centers for strategy development and execution in the near future. That includes active
22
and constant support to the development and deployment of the strategy and culture.
Further, they aim to become “dedicated units acting as partners with senior leadership to
develop strategic skills and capabilities”. (Kolo P. at all 2013)

The more innovative corporate universities already achieved this goal and are about to
consolidate it, whereas others still need to work to accomplish it.
For instance, says Christine Scheffler - Head of Bertelsmann University: “our corporate
university is designed to be a bracket over our strong divisions and hold them together
across all borders”.

1.2.2 Activity Scope

Existing corporate universities – depending on their current stage of development - tend to

concentrate on one (or more) of the following main roles identified by Boston Consulting.
Some of them are more traditional, other more innovative and strategic.

 Training Center
 Leadership Accelerator
 Strategy Platform
 Learning Network

Training Center
The training Center role can be considered a traditional one within the activities of a
corporate university. The focus of this role is to deliver trainings to firms’ high potentials
and managers as well as to the whole workforce. The learning measures aim to align
employees’ competences to the most crucial company’s practices starting from the on-
boarding.

Leadership Accelerator
The “leadership accelerator” role is about promoting a common leadership culture within
the company and represent a more innovative activity for current corporate universities.
Generally, the “leadership accelerator programs” are addressed to the present and future
C-Suite: emerging leaders get mentored and coached by senior leaders, get together,

23
connect and create networks. The goal is to support the realization of their full potential
assuring the next generation of a talented leader pipeline and driving the present war for
talent.

For instance, UniManagement - UniCredit’s corporate university - developed a program

called ”the branch of the future”. Groups of high potential future leaders meet and work on
mutual projects together. These common tasks and collaborations foster teamwork and
expose them to new business thinking creating strategy developments. (Kolo P. at all
2013)

“Airbus University is transforming the way in which it approaches corporate education”-

says Louise Kyhl Triolo, Head of Airbus Leadership University North America. “Prepare
current and future leaders to succeed in global leadership positions in a world of fast-
paced digitalization and innovation” is strategic. (Kyhl Triolo L, 2017).

Strategic Platforms
Another “non-traditional” scope of corporate universities is the so-called “strategic
platforms”.
According to Boston Consulting, some of present corporate universities took on this role
and are playing a strategic role in developing programs aiming at aligning firm’s senior
executives to the business strategy. In this framework the corporate university becomes a
catalyst in fostering the company’s strategy and in contributing to unfold its capability.
These programs want to accelerate change and leadership, encourage strategy execution
and tie talent development to the firm’s challenges. Learning contents are lined up with the
strategy development.

For instance, the corporate university of Lufthansa is establishing its strategic role by
continuously revising its learning curricula. These revisions allow professional
development to align with the new strategic directions.

“By tightly integrating curricula with the challenges at hand, the corporate university also
assumes the role of strategy mouthpiece, turning company leaders into strategy
messengers. A close link to strategy is a critical success factor“- affirms Ulrike Schlosser,
Head of Lufthansa’s School of Business. (Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 9)

24
Other “more traditional” corporate universities are still working on building these platforms
aiming at aligning executives’ mindsets to business strategy.

Learning Network
Another activity scope of present corporate universities is to create a culture of life-long
learning across the whole organization which goes beyond the traditional classrooms and
embeds continual learning opportunities. The learning programs can be provided in the
form of e-learning initiatives –i.e. through Learning Management Systems (LMS)-, on and
off-the job trainings, and bubble assignments.

The corporate university promotes learning through global networks, cross-company

partnerships and collaborations with educational institutions. In some cases, the corporate
university fosters the creation of “functional academies” specialized in creating knowledge
and building competences in one specific professional area i.e. project management or
shop floor. (Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 9)

Even in this case, Boston Consulting observed differences in terms of development stages
across established corporate universities in promoting a tangible culture of continuous
learning.

1.2.3 Target Audience and Content

Targeting the right audience and developing relevant learning contents is crucial for
current corporate universities. Thus, revising talent development curricula assuring that
they are in sync with business objectives, needs and audience is vital.
In doing so, corporate universities should involve middle managers and business leaders.

in this process, says Carol Anderson, principal at Anderson Performance Partners and
Human Resources Transformation Champion. “They [business leaders] can also help
them [employees] connect the dots between a newly learned skill, and the increased
success of the team”. (Anderson C, 2018).

Further, given the raising globalization of business markets and workforce, and the
advancement of the digital era, development strategy and learning curricula have to
25
consider intercultural differences and assure culture fit. (Big Think Edge, 2018; Kolo P. at
all 2013)

According to the interviews performed by Boston Consulting, another challenge of present

corporate universities is about addressing the aging population factor by up-skilling and re-
skilling the generation X of their employees. (Kruger S, 2016)

In addition, at present, dealing with emerging markets seems particularly challenging.

In fact, the war for talent in Asia is, above all, intense and the attrition rate higher than
other continents.

More details concerning the issue of talent shortages in the Asia Pacific region come from
a recent survey on workforce agility reported by Peter Hamilton -Vice President and
Regional Director APAC- and conducted on “210 C-Suite level executives across
Singapore, Australia, India and Malaysia”. (Hamilton P, 2017)

According to Hamilton’s article, “half of the respondents report that there is already a lack
of available talent currently, while 61 per cent expect talent shortages to negatively impact
their business in the next three years. Among Singaporean respondents, this figure was
even higher at 75 per cent.[..] Ensuring the right talent is in place now and for the future
has never been more critical. Yet, I was surprised to learn that 58 per cent have a talent
plan covering only the next three years or less, leaving their long-term workforce
requirements in limbo”. (Hamilton P, 2017)

Therefore, attracting and retaining talented employees with valuable skills is a must for
firms seeking to remain competitive in the long-run, driving innovation and reducing risk.
Hamilton believes that this framework represents for HR departments -in order words
corporate universities- “an unprecedented opportunity to step up and play a role in aligning
talent with business strategy through strategic workforce planning”. (Hamilton P, 2017)

Another challenge of emerging markets is that young talents aren’t always immediately
employable because of the misalignment in terms of knowledge and skills between the
national educational systems and real business needs. Companies’ tailored learning
programs are, therefore, decisive in preparing potentials for their future global endeavors -

26
which raises the expectations toward corporate universities. Developing future executives
as well as middle managers with global leadership and critical thinking, mental agility and
reactiveness, and last but not least, strong adaptive competences represents the strategic
differentiator in successful multinational companies. (OECD, 2018; Kolo P. at all 2013)

Given these challenges, in which stage of development are, at present, corporate

universities?

According to Boston Consulting “most corporate universities focus on leadership or

strategy development - 95 percent of the executives we interviewed cited leadership
development as the focus of their curricula. Developing a common company culture was
important to 70 percent. Only 33 percent reported that their corporate university
concentrates on content for the broader employee base”. (Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 10)

Besides the differences within the corporate universities’ community, these data reveal
that present corporate universities have room for improvement and are now starting to
focus on more advanced activities alongside the traditional ones.

1.2.4 Delivery Model

The delivery model describes the corporate university’s training value chain. As shown in
the Figure 5 below it embeds the spectrum from training needs assessment to the training
evaluation in terms of knowledge creation and return of investment.

The observations and the interviews performed during the Boston Consulting global study
revealed that only 14% of firms perform a real systematic assessment in the first stage. In
many cases, therefore, analysis regarding the workforce demographics, the factors that
drives attrition, retention and employability is lacking, although it is central to importance
and impact. Indeed, having a clear overview of the state of the art is key to developing
further relevant learning measures addressing a specific audience.

John Peterson, director of talent development and strategy states: ”workforce analytics are
crucial to identify programs targeted to retain specific group of employees and calibrating
pre- and post-evaluation results for managers”. (Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 11)

27
The same study shows that the strategic deficit is visible in the last step of the process as
well. Hence, 78% of the companies involved contemplate only the participants’ training
satisfaction, which is comprised of the learning contents, the facility, the trainer and the
delivery. Unfortunately, in many cases the impact on the business - i.e. KPIs, ROI - and on
knowledge generation or change in behavior, aren’t considered.

Figure 5

Corporate University Training Value-Chain (Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 12)

1.2.5 Governance and Structure

Governance and structure are decisive in determining if the corporate university will gain
the acceptance within the whole organization. (Borensztejn H, 2017; Grenzer J.W, 2006,
Phillips J.J, 2004).

“Reporting lines play a significant role, and CEO involvement is one of the most critical
success factors”. (Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 14)

In fact, the position of the corporate university within the organizational chart shows its
level of impact on top management and in which measure it determines and influences the
strategical practices.

28
37% of the companies involved in the study state that their corporate universities report to
the top level of HR while only 32% reports to the board or CEO. In other cases the
corporate universities - contemplated as a staff function or support activity- report to other
HR units.

With regards to the financial aspects of corporate universities the study of Boston
Consulting reveals that:
- 9% are completely financed and dispose of their own budget,
- 54% charge its services back to the business as it would be an external provider,
- 38% adopt a blended model assuming the costs of the program developments and
allocating the delivering cost to the business.

In terms of structure, because of the increasing internationalization and expansion of many

organizations, existing corporate universities tend to decentralize - instead of having only
one main centralized facility to ensure culture fit activities.
The new leitmotiv is “a localized global strategy” which “could lead to a better allocation of
resources, higher efficiencies, consistent marketing, and higher profits”. (Singh N.)

The tendency toward localization means time and travel cost reduction for the business.
The study shows that “in 2000, 45% of corporate universities maintained a major campus
or facility. By 2012, the number had dropped to 22%”. (Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 15).

It seems that centralized facilities are not the aspiration of multinational organizations
anymore and some physical locations have been replaced by digital ones with the raising
of e-learning.

Nevertheless, an exception is represented by Asia where having a physical learning facility

remains significant.

For instance, Unilever Asia is building a major location in Singapore with a capacity double
its historical facility sited in London. This decision confirms the company’s interest in the
Asian market and “the importance of a leadership pipeline to power its emerging market
consumer business” (Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 16). Novartis opened a new learning facility in
Shanghai in 2015 while Axa maintained its campus in Asia and closed the one in France.

The Figure 6 below offers some examples of corporate university campus structures.

29
Figure 6

Corporate University Training Value-Chain (Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 15)

And what role does a firm’s size play when founding a corporate university?

According to Allen, the size of the company wouldn’t be a determinant for establishing a
corporate university: “there is no critical mass or specific headcount that qualifies an
organization for being appropriate for having a corporate university”. (Allen, 2010)

“Corporate universities are no longer just a big-company phenomenon. Small companies

can use in-house training programs to improve recruitment, increase revenues, and
reduce turnover”- writes Donna Fenn in her article published on Inc. and titled “Corporate
Universities for Small Companies”. (Fenn D, 1999)

And what about the ideal size of a corporate university?

Analysis of the company’s and corporate university’s size conducted by Boston Consulting
show that, on average, for every 10.000 full time personnel (FTEs) a corporate university
employs about 3 employees.

In some cases, corporate universities have their own staff of administrators, specialists,
trainers and officers in charge of programs development and delivery. Sometimes, training
deliveries are outsourced to external partners, which reduce fix costs and raises the
flexibility by scaling up and down the personnel easily. This trend of present corporate
30
universities is confirmed by the findings of Boston Consulting: “in economic downturns, the
use of third-party facilitators, even developers, can be reduced to meet financial
circumstances without cutting core administrative and leadership resources”. (Kolo P. at all
2013, pg. 16)

Hence, the determining factor for establishing a corporate university is related to the core
of the company’s business, not to its size.

The idea of installing a corporate university applies best to those companies that, because
of their products or services, rely very much on intellectual capital, on the knowledge and
skills of their workforce.

“Certainly, very small organizations and those more reliant on automated technology than
human labor might not be appropriate candidates for a corporate university. While having
a corporate university would not make sense for an organization of three or four
employees, I have seen some relatively small organizations (with only a few hundred
employees) successfully apply the concept” (Allen, 2010).

1.2.6 Branding and Alliances

Corporate universities are evolving, as well as their offering.

In general, learning initiatives tend to be more personalized to the company’s needs,
individually designed and directed to a specific audience. In some cases, learning curricula
are developed in partnerships with external consultants or faculty network that work
closely with the internal staff and possess certain knowledge about the company’s culture
and organization.

At times, current corporate universities establish internal brands and deliver certifications.
These internal branding initiatives contribute to the perception of learning programs with a
“common touch and feel” strengthening the link between corporate university and
business.

Unilever is designing its curricula together with selected partners. These partnerships
embrace the whole firm’s value-chain and can include suppliers as well as customers,
educational institutions and NGOs. An example is the “Women Leadership Program”

31
developed together with INSEAD and the collaboration with the University of Cambridge in
designing other curricula.

External collaborations avoid the risk of building company contents reality. Moreover, they
bring inside “the best from outside” preserving a certain level of customization. The results
are perfectly balanced contents and innovative learning experiences. (Finch & Beak
Consulting, 2015; Kolo P. at all 2013, pg. 16))

The Airbus University is partnering with the University of Stanford to develop learning
programs for its employees. For instance, the University of Stanford “helped to develop a
leadership virtual reality platform”. Moreover, the Airbus University created its own
leadership portfolio programs which gained the accreditation from Stanford. (Kyhl Triolo L,
2017)

Furthermore, “it often makes sense for a corporate university to provide education to its
[business] partners: the organization’s goals can better be met if its partners are well-
educated. Often, this evolves to the point where the corporate university’s offerings are so
much in demand that many outsiders, even those with no relationship to the organization,
request to attend” (Allen, 2010).

Indeed, some corporate universities boost the participation of outsiders with marketing
campaigns aiming at selling their programs “aggressively”. An example is represented by
Disney University which encourages external parties willing to pay to use its services.
Saturn University “uses the revenue from outside participants to support its primary
mission of educating Saturn associates” (Allen, 2010).

In summary, data show that present corporate universities differ in many ways and across
several dimensions in terms of size, structure, aims and current stage of maturity.

How will they further develop?

1.3 The knowledge-productive corporate university

Establishing a corporate university is certainly costly for a company, nevertheless, it

potentially generates several benefits.

32
At present, the role of corporate universities is getting broader as well as their potential
scopes. The advantages in building a corporate university are related to their potential and
future new areas and aims which go beyond their traditional core of activities.

Having a corporate university can represent the deciding factor that enables firms to build
their competitive edge by achieving their business goals and bringing value on the market.
This has its roots in the belief that “intellectual capital and other intangibles are critical
assets of modern corporations”. (Taylor S, Paton R, 2002, pg. 10)

Whereas more mature corporate universities already took on the “knowledge-

management” and the “knowledge-production” role, more traditional ones still have to
explore their potential to act as a vehicle in creating, distributing and managing knowledge.

“In a world where a competitive advantage often evaporates in less than a year,
companies can’t afford to spend months at a time crafting a single long-term strategy. To
stay ahead, they need to constantly start new strategic initiatives, building and exploiting
many transient competitive advantages at once”. (McGrath G.R, 2013)

This endless need of innovation in the present digital age highlights how crucial it is for
companies who want to survive in the market to keep re-skilling and up-skilling their
employees.

According to a study of McKinsey (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017), by 2030 3% to 14% of

the global workforce will have to move to another occupational area since some jobs will
become redundant because of new technological progresses. Even jobs that remain will
be affected by this wave of change. (Z. Pedron, 2018)

Within this complex framework the “knowledge-management” and a “knowledge-

production” role - which involves managing, creating, processing, and sharing tailored
corporate programs and relevant competences across the whole company’s value-chain-
boost innovation allowing the company to continuously reinvent itself.

On one side, knowledge management is a “systematic management of an organization's

knowledge assets for the purpose of creating value and meeting tactical & strategic
requirements; it consists of the initiatives, processes, strategies, and systems that sustain
and enhance the storage, assessment, sharing, refinement, and creation of knowledge”.
(Frost, 2012) Knowledge assets provide competitive advantage in many organizations.

33
Knowledge management as a practice creates value for the company. Indeed,
“organizations that efficiently capture and share internal knowledge and information are
consistently reporting improved company success over competitors who don’t. With that in
mind, it’s easy to understand why companies are implementing knowledge management
initiatives to gain a competitive advantage in their industries”. (Mankin, 2018)

On the other side, the “knowledge productivity” represents “the ability of an organization to
track down relevant information, to create new knowledge with this information and to
apply this knowledge in improving and renewing working processes, products and
services”. (Kessels, 2001).

Knowledge is, therefore, key but not enough. To stay ahead companies “need to
constantly start new strategic initiatives, building and exploiting many transient competitive
advantages at once. Though individually temporary, these advantages, as a portfolio, can
keep companies in the lead over the long run”. (McGrath G. M, 2013) Hence, timing and
business agility becomes indispensable.

The current (or potential) duty of a corporate university is to analyze the existing
knowledge, capturing and codifying practices- the ones needed in the future, establishing
how to support a culture that encourages learning, and knowledge sharing and creation. A
further step is to define “how to make the right knowledge available to the right people at
the right time” (Frost, 2012).

In terms of knowledge-production the corporate university can define which and in what
way new relevant knowledge can be generated or acquired, its value and application, how
it can be stored. Finally, a corporate university can decide to whom and when the new
knowledge will be made available.

Of course, the relevance of the new knowledge and its alignment with the firm’s goals and
external environment has to be constantly assessed.

Part of the “knowledge production” role is the analysis of the context (external
environment) in which the firm operates. This goal can be achieved by conducting a
P.E.S.T.L.E analysis - an acronym that stands for: P for Political, E for Economic, S for
Social, T for Technological, L for Legal and E for Environmental.

Why are these external factors so significant? Today’s environment changes faster than
ever before and brings constant challenges with it: organizations are part of it and have to
34
measure themselves with its dynamics. This is why a firm’s business and knowledge
strategy has to take into consideration the present and future trends of its external
environment.

The purpose of a corporate university is not, therefore, merely improving employees'

knowledge. The final goal is building and developing a flexible and dynamic learning
organization by establishing an effective knowledge management, installing and cultivating
a culture of learning for the sake of supporting the company to move forward successfully.
Indeed, a corporate strategy-driven learning culture seems associated with business
success.

“Corporate Universities bridge the gap between the disciplines of strategic management
and corporate learning, combining general strategy with the concept of corporate
universities” (Rademakers M, 2014, pg. 1).

1.4 Corporate Universities are becoming learning laboratories: the role

of technology and digitalization

“Advances in technology, shifts in demographics, and the constant competitive necessity

to upgrade workforce skills are disrupting corporate learning. These forces are pushing
companies to develop new ways to put employees in charge of the learning experience
and foster a culture of learning throughout the organization. This year, the big change is a
shift beyond internal programs aimed at developing people [toward] innovative platforms
that enable people to develop themselves”.

-Deloitte, 2016 Global Human Capital Trends

The amplified temporal and spatial flexibility that new technologies continue to bring to
training and education are empowering further developments in open and distance
learning, which represents a great opportunity for present corporate university initiatives.

“Technology is the key driver and enabler. [..] Technology is providing organizations with
opportunities to do things better, cheaper and faster, as well as to develop new
technology-enabled products and services”. (Kineo, 2015)

35
Lieutenant General Jay Kelly commander from Air University affirmed: “advances in
information technology will allow for the creation of a learning environment that is
continuous, less costly, made available to the entire force and characterized by personal
networking”.

Corporate universities are becoming learning laboratories relying on Learning

Management Systems (LMS) and creating new Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs).

As technology is the protagonist of the learning evolution, corporate universities have the
chance to augment their learning opportunities by introducing new learning approaches.

As illustrated in the Figure 7, the new digital age empowers a multitude of alternative,
informal, innovative, on-demand and cost-effective learning environments.

Figure 7

Moehrle M, 2018/3

Technology will allow corporate universities to disseminate information instantly and boost
continuous learning within large global companies while classroom-based corporate
trainings will become a smaller part. “Teams composed of employees from multiple
countries across several time zones are no longer unusual, which makes face-to-face
training logistically difficult and expensive”. (Meister J, 2010)

36
Corporate universities already put in place professionals specialized in Instructional
Design in order to create high quality and personalized digital learning resources.
Instructional Designers work with traditional learning materials as well as with e-learning
technologies and multimedia aiming at creating effective learning experiences. Since
“learning strategies are not equally effective, [..] “we’re going to need to move from
designing courses to designing authentic experiences”. (Dickens B, 2018)

In 2010 Jeanne Meister wrote: “with increased capabilities of real time search on all mobile
devices, learning will truly be just in time. Ask a question, get an answer. Our world will
turn into three-minute learning vignettes”. (Meister J, 2010) Now, this constellation is a
reality.

Microlearning is developing quickly thanks to the fast-growing employment of digital

learning contents. It offers “short, high impact bursts of learning often referred to as
‘nuggets’” and immediate, on-demand content that supports performance. (Kineo, 2015,
pg. 6)

While satellite-based learning - i.e. webinars- allows training of a large group of employees
maintaining their flexibility (being synchronous as well as asynchronous), multimedia-
based learning is embedded in the daily job, offering access “on demand” and a
personalized learning experience by using learning augmented reality apps. Multimedia-
based learning trainings – as well as other e-learning tools as MOOCs, mobile learning
apps and video-based learning- are mainly intended for autonomous learners. (OECD,
2016; Moehrle, 2018))

Blended on-site and online training curricula became day-to-day tools for lifelong learning.

Collaborative learning technologies foster collective learning and interaction. In this case,
conversations represent “management and leadership tools”. Conversing with other
employees means “sharing knowledge, uncovering best practices, and, in the process,
creating new knowledge”. [..] The growing interest in developing collaborative learning
technologies that illustrate an organization’s business strategies and direction provide an
opportunity to engage in a dialogue that focuses on the organization’s future”. (Meister
J.C, 1998, pg. 145)

Furthermore, simulation and gamification represent remote or virtual online laboratories

that offer cost- efficient and on-demand access to experiential learning.

37
Hence, learning management systems (LMSs) have an “increasing wealth of tools and
approaches to choose from – i.e. digital learning, MOOCs, social and mobile learning,
virtual classrooms, immersive learning, gamification and more”. (Kineo, 2015).

The deployment of different learning methods will depend on the training goals and
contents delivered. Simulations and games boost interactivity, a technical course can be
delivered virtually instead of in expensive workrooms, and symposiums could convert into
networking events.

No matter which learning tool(s) is employed, most importantly is that learners become
encouraged to move to the next level. In this way, they become autonomous, empowered
and responsible of their own learning. “Increasingly our learners are having a more self-
motivated approach to taking ownership for their career and development”. (Kineo, 2015)

1.5 Corporate Universities engage in partnerships: why can't we be

friends?

Presenting the three main imperatives for future corporate universities, I mentioned the
importance of building partnerships with different bodies.

Even though some existing corporate universities are already networking with external
parties, this trend will get bigger and bigger. “The benefits of collaboration are clear, so too
is the reality that many organizations still have a long way to go in making collaboration the
priority it needs to be”. (Kiron D, 2017)

Longer-term collaborations with clients, suppliers, governments, private and public higher
educational institutes, external training centers and other industries will allow future
corporate universities to maximize their effectiveness and costs and provide their
organizations with world-class curricula and learning opportunities.

Through collaborations corporate universities will be able to carry out their activities with a
greater impact. Collaborations will lead to innovative excellence.

In the forthcoming years partnering with external stakeholders will be central to creating
business value, driving innovation and establishing a competitive advantage. Indeed,
offering the workforce the chance to reinvent, learn, evolve and change will be vital for
38
organizations in order to drive performance, motivation, brand awareness and
engagement.

I will focus on two types of collaborations:

- Partnerships with other industries

- Partnerships with higher education institutions

1.5.1 Partnering with other industries

For companies and CUs, “building business collaborations within industries, as well as
leveraging multi-sector partnerships” seems to be key in the near future. (Z. Pedron, 2018)

Dealing with the innovations of the 4IR means a change in mindset and new leadership
patterns for the society as a whole.

We already saw that for industries -and their corporate universities- to remain relevant,
they will need to engage in competence building, reskilling and upskilling their workforce
strategically. This is a must to be successful in developing and launching new innovative
products and services whose creation already involves trained employees and a
sustainable vision of the future.

Knowledge and best practice exchange will allow partners to build this needed pool of
skilled employees as well as to facilitate them in facing the ongoing disruption of the global
market. (Allen M, 2010) In addition, sharing knowledge across industries and sectors leads
to added-value to the firm’s products or services.

Even though the concept of corporate universities is not -and doesn’t have to be- limited to
big organizations, in reality its applicability is restricted to multinationals, which dispose of
larger budgets and can count on a stable and solid learning infrastructure. In contrast, for
Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) -considered the pillar of many healthy communities-
change response is more demanding.

“Networking, agreements, partnerships, and cooperation initiatives between corporate

universities of these large corporations and small businesses, suppliers, and other actors
are welcome as a way to generate common and integrating strategies across their value
chains”. (Alonso-Gonzalez at all, 2017, Abstract).

39
Thus, the paradigm of “value-chain” will shift to the so-called “value network”.

Corporate universities have the opportunity to lead this turnaround and foster a mutual and
integrated approach - in terms of i.e. processes, knowledges, practices- between their
organizations and SMEs, providers, NGOs, among other bodies. This common framework
will represent a win-win for all partners and, finally, will be redirected towards meeting the
goals of the corporate universities (and those of its company) improving efficiency in the
value network in a holistic perspective.

Stories of companies that have successfully experienced the outcomes of these

collaborations are encouraging.

Apple brought the iPhone onto the market. However, this innovative high-tech product is
the result of a highly collaborative process. “In reality, that phone in your pocket would not
have gotten there were it not for dozens, if not hundreds, of collaborations between the
tech giant and its partners around the world”. (Davis J.P,2014)

Turiera and Cros (2013) presented a book titled “Co-Business: 50 examples of business
collaboration”.

The authors explain that many of these partnerships arose by chance while others have
been the outcome of systematic exchanges between firms – eventually encouraged by
their corporate universities.

These collaborations – many them across different industrial sectors - resulted in being
extremely beneficial for the partners involved multiplying their know how and
revolutionizing their business model i.e. in their approach to customers, in the final product
or service, or in their mindset.

“Even the startups had to collaborate with each other, and also with well-established
companies, because the collaboration between two good ideas multiplies the result, and
because of the possibility of sharing resources and expertise enhances the product.
Because the combination of technologies, applications or services in-crease a solution’s
value”. (Turiera and Cros, 2013)

Some examples are collaborations between Mercedes-Benz and Facebook aiming at

empowering new frontiers in social driving; Repsol and Burger King targeting an increase

40
in revenue at gas stations; Fiat and Lavazza pursuing a different driving experience; Coca-
Cola and ECO-Plastics producing recycled plastic containers.

1.5.2 Partnering with higher educational institutions

In the coming years we will witness a greater degree of collaboration between higher
educational institutions - like Business Schools and public universities - and corporate
universities.

In particular, consortia within industries and educational institutions - meaning to build a

pool of skilled employees and develop future leaders for key positions- will become vital.
(Z. Pedron, 2018)

For instance, the purpose of the 2017 Business and Education Summit organized by the
British Chambers of Commerce was to create networks between governmental leaders
together with industries and educational bodies. One of its aims was to boost
collaborations in identifying solutions targeted at bridging the gap between schools and
workplaces. The goal is to prepare young generations for the future of work. (Z. Pedron,
2018)

In the official website of the Summit we can read: “we think it is vital to increase
collaboration between the business community and education providers to improve young
people’s transition from schools, colleges and universities into the workplace” (Business
and Education Summit. British Chambers of Commerce).

Phil Parker - Chaired Professor of Management Science at INSEAD - foresees a future

where higher education institutions and corporate universities, supported by the
technological development, will be working together “to expand their combined reach as
never before”. (Kessler B, 2017)

The school system reacts to changes much slower than private businesses showing a lack
of agility in responding to external events.

In his article titled “Universities with the Biggest Corporate Links”, John Morgan provides
some great examples of Asian universities that built strong relationships with industrial
partners and their corporate universities. (Morgan J, 2017)

41
In particular, he focuses on collaborations within South Korea: “there are clear
explanations as to why South Korea – a poor, agriculture-based economy until the early
1960s that has undergone an industrial miracle since – is so strong in university-industry
collaboration”. (Morgan J, 2017)

Martin Hemmert, professor of international business at Korea University Business School

says: ”Korea has one of the highest Research & Development intensities in the world and
a focus on high-tech industries”.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the proportion
of South Korean GDP invested on Research & Development (R&D) rose from 1.74 % in
1991 to 4.23% in 2015.

In this rank, considering the members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), South Korea was second only after Israel. Professor Martin
Hemmert states: “however, coming from a catch-up position, many companies did not
have strong competencies in basic research, hence they try to strengthen and augment
them via research collaborations with universities”.

Examples of these partnerships are many. For instance, Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology (KAIST) and Samsung Group - South Korea’s largest
corporation- partnered more than 20 years ago. The collaboration focuses on shipbuilding
and ocean technology research.

A student of KAIST’s School Electrical Engineering says: “most of our projects with the
company are about developing new technology closely linked to future product lines. [..]
For example, we are researching original technologies for next-generation mobile phones.
These technologies are innovative and groundbreaking in nature because they have never
existed before in the world”.

Samsung partnered in 1996 with Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU) as well, a private

historical research university centered in Seoul. The collaboration is “a broad alliance that
goes far beyond research and education”, affirms Pieter E Stek, former External Relations
Manager at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul. (Stek P.S.)

These examples show how leading universities create alliances with strategic business
partners for reciprocal benefit. Indeed, the mentioned alliances look to be part of a global

42
trend that will continue to grow alongside increasing necessity of new skills and focus on
innovation.

The main benefits for CUs and their industries are:

- access to a unique width of knowledge, expertise and researcher

- use of laboratories and equipment
- admission in a hub of other multi-organization research consortia
- contact with a pool of young graduates to employ in the company

The aim of these collaborations is, at times, to enhance R&D and, at others, to strengthen
the competencies of the company’s human capital.

CEMS is a global consortia of academic and corporate institutions focus on developing

future generations to become the leaders of tomorrow. Its idea is to build a connection
between the academic and the corporate worlds. The more than 70 organization
members of CEMS - like Airbus, McKinsey, Facebook and Dropbox- partner with
academia to create innovative and business relevant academic programs. The aim is to
share best practices across CUs, knowledge within the learning field and contribute to link
business’s and academia’s needs. Furthermore, CU partners have access to business-
ready engineering graduates directly from academia’s members.

EFMD is another global organization of business schools and corporate universities with
about 900 members from academia, businesses, and consultancy of around different 90
countries. The focus of this consortium is sharing best practices in management
development. This network allows its associates to share knowledge, research, and
engage in discussions and projects around innovation within corporate education. EFMD’s
mission is to “act as a catalyst to enhance excellence in management education and
development globally”. (https://www.efmd.org ; Z. Pedron, 2018)

In other cases, some corporate universities partner with educational institutions and
manage to provide official accreditations to their employees. In fact, some corporate
universities already offer courses that give academic credits, which can be transferred and
used to pursue academic degrees.

“Because of the stringent and bureaucratic requirements for receiving accreditation, few
corporate universities are entering the business of offering transferable credit. Those that
wish to offer their employees courses for credit typically do so in partnership with
43
traditional accredited universities. In these cases, the course credit comes from the partner
institution, not the corporate university”. (Allen M. Introduction).

Partnering with a higher educational institution allows corporate universities to offer more
dedicated or tailored curricula.

Hamburger University, corporate university of McDonald’s Corporation, delivers classes in

business and restaurant management. The courses are recognized and eligible for college
credit. (Connell C, 2013)

A growing number of Fortune 500 corporations, like Starbucks, do not wait for educational
institutions to prepare the skilled employees they need anymore. Instead, they develop
their own courses – like the Starbucks' Barista Basics and the Jiffy Lube's finance
fundamentals - which count as university credit hours. (ibid.)

In doing so, corporate universities generate a competitive advantage providing just-in-time

learning opportunities that allows an employee to acquire the necessary skills when
needed. "What traditional universities do to a large extent is just-in-case learning." (ibid.)

Walmart's courses “have been offered since 2010, teach its associates about time
management, effective phone skills, and managing diversity. The training gives workers
the skills they need to get ahead and offers the added allure of college credit for those who
may never have set foot in a college classroom before. In addition, many of these
businesses arrange with local colleges and universities for employees to get tuition
discounts”. (ibid.)

The Vice President and Managing Director at EU Business School, Luc Craen, affirms that
these collaborations can benefit learners as well as be fruitful in terms of knowledge
sharing. “Through partnerships, people will be able to take courses at a variety of
institutions and that will lead to one degree,” he says. (Klecha R. 2017)

Alliances between corporate universities and educational instructions represent a mutual

win-win for both parties. This assemblage is the ideal environment for learning and
development that gains the greater attention it deserves and, is a good opportunity for a
company to launch or strength its corporate university’s relevancy.

44
1.6 Corporate Universities: opportunity or threat to higher education
institutions?

“In an era of life-long learning, universities in the industrialized world will be marginalized
unless they are efficient and flexible enough to meet today’s myriad educational and
training needs”

-Sir John Daniel, vice chancellor, Open University

The whole education system won’t be exempt from the current wave of change and so it
has started to deal with an unstable and ambiguous global marketplace already.

Corporate universities entered the educational business by (partially) replacing colleges

and universities. They can now be leaders in “creating a culture of continuous learning,
embracing a new collaborative mindset and encouraging the transition to new skills” within
their organizations. Upskilling and reskilling their employees will be vital for their
companies and the whole society. Other than working longer into their 70s and 80s,
workers will have multiple jobs and careers during their life. Hence, individuals will have to
reinvent themselves regularly and continuous learning will be a must. (Z. Pedron, 2018).

Are Corporate universities becoming the new educators? How will Learning Institutions
and Business Schools be impacted?

Luc Craen, Vice President and Managing Director at EU Business School affirms that
“technological innovation, political shifts, and developing economies are all impacting how
and where business is done. In this environment, business schools need to adapt to stay
relevant. [..] Automation and innovation are changing the workforce [..] new jobs are
emerging all the time. [..] Reshaping and rethinking business education is extremely
important. We need to prepare for jobs that don’t exist yet. [..] The best way to prepare
students for an unknown tomorrow is by focusing on soft skills. The people skills will never
be replaced. Robots will be robots. Emotional decisions are still important, otherwise every
company will end up being the same.”

Indeed, public and private Learning Institutions must adapt quickly to the undergoing
change by offering industry-relevant curricula, flexible programs (considering that work and
education are overlapping more and more) and by continuously updating their contents

45
(the shelf life of an individual’s skills is reducing drastically, remaining adequate for a short
period of time).

Last but not least, partnering with industries, attending symposiums and being a member
of global alliances of academic and corporate institutions will be critical. Networks and
alliances will keep education institutions in continuous relationships with business needs
and trends. Moreover, these types of alliances will help to earn credibility across the
academic panorama. Students and alumni will be able to shift easily from their academic
programs to their professional careers and continue learning through their corporate
universities partnered with Business School.

Lastly, as Luc Craen affirms, schools are preparing students for jobs that do not even exist
at present. Education won’t be about teaching how to perform a job, but instead, to move
from one job to the other several times and successfully.

Jeanne Meister (Meister J, 1998, pg. 12-19) identified new core workplace competences
on which higher educational institutions – together with corporate universities- should
focus on. Thus, they will soon represent the competitive edge of those individuals who will
be able to carry them out:

- learning to learn
- communication and collaboration
- creative thinking and problem-solving
- technological literacy
- leadership development
- career self-management

The report of OECD - Centre for Educational Research and Innovation - titled “Innovating
Education and Educating for Innovation” highlights the importance of building partnerships
to support transformation.

“Innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum but requires openness and interactions between
systems and their environments. This is also very much the case for education. Schools
cannot be left alone to make the difficult process of transformation, but need support not
only through policies, but also from other actors and stakeholders”. (OECD, 2016,
foreword)

46
Indeed, “the ability to cooperate is one crucial area that ensures innovation and
prosperity”. (Z. Pedron, 2018). For instance, the Global Education Industry Summit -
which last took place in Luxembourg in 2017 - brings together governments and bodies
from the international education industry. The goal is to encourage the dialogue aiming at
pinpointing best practices for innovation.

The impact of technology on the level of knowledge availability and knowledge

accessibility is immense: “with the growth of Google, You Tube, MOOCs and the like,
people have access to a wealth of knowledge. ‘It’s much more about now. I want to learn
this and I want to learn it now’”. Last but not least, the social media have “a huge influence
on how we share knowledge and understanding across global networks”. (Kineo, 2015)

Jeanne Meister writes: “for human resource executives, this means corporate universities
— in-house corporate learning departments now in place at many Fortune 1000 firms —
must be re-invented to meet the needs of a demographic segment that has no patience or
interest in classroom training”. (Meister J, 2007)

Having said that, this era of massive change is placing lot of pressure for transformation of
the role of educational institutions. Corporate universities aren’t exempt. Both have to
reflect upon their identity in providing added value to learners and redesign a new value
proposition – for academic as well as for corporate learning.

One LMS professional affirmed: “our role very much switches from creator to curator; we
use our expertise to put the learning out there, get people engaged and on board with
using it as a tool to support them. [..] As learners are used to seeking out information and
learning for themselves so organisations are looking to provide tools and frameworks to
support them in doing so, in a way that reflects the needs of both the individual and the
organisation. [..] What I’d like to be able to see is not that we’re necessarily delivering
formal learning to learners but that we are able to provide solutions that mean that learners
can find it themselves - they’re learning without realising they are”. (Kineo, 2015).

To stay relevant public and private high educational institutions have to reinvent
themselves in order to win the battle with the knowledge digital economy and remain
relevant.

According to Kirstie Greany (Greany K, 2016), the role played by corporate universities “is
probably in flux and going through a bit of a re-brand in many cases”.

47
In her article published by Kineo and titled “how to meet the growing pressure to
modernise learning”, Kirstie Greany reports the insights collected into the audience of a
webinar when asked about the future role of a modern corporate university. She identified
following roles:

- Enabler of learning
- Facilitator
- Curator
- Advisor
- Change agents
- Supporting the 70 and 20 not just the 10 (according to the Model for Learning and
Development)
- To connect the dots

This suggests that the added value of corporate universities and higher educational
institutions could be working together in “helping to filter and focus the mountains of
potential content – curated and created”.

“Change won't stop nor wait; it's time to re-calibrate”. (Z. Pedron, 2018).

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It
is the one that is most adaptable to change"

-Charles Darwin

1.7 The new generation of Corporate Universities: what’s next?

“A time of turbulence is a dangerous time but its greatest danger is the temptation to deny
reality”

-Peter Drucker

Undoubtedly, at present, the workplace is undergoing a sea change at an accelerating

phenomenal rate.

48
Where and how we live, learn, work, and connect is changing due to the extraordinary
economic and social new forces and technological advancements: the 4th industrial
revolution.

The world of work is constantly under experimentation and innovation, the magnitude and
the speed of the expected disruption will involve all industries and geographies and will be
enormous. Consequently, “existing jobs will change in nature; others will disappear” and
will be replaced by collaborative robots and intelligent machines; moreover, occupations
that don't even exist today could become conventional tomorrow. (Z. Pedron, 2018)

A study on automation conducted by McKinsey (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017) found

that “about half the activities people are paid to do globally could theoretically be
automated using currently demonstrated technologies”. Gray wrote in 2016: "five years
from now, over one-third of skills (35%) that are considered important in today's workforce
will have changed". (Gray, 2016)

Josh Bersin, Principal and Founder at Bersin by Deloitte - a leading provider of research-
based information, benchmarking, and advisory consulting services for strategic HR-
states in his recent article published on the Chief Learning Officer Magazine that “careers
are changing faster than ever. Oxford University predicts that nearly 50 percent of all jobs
will be transformed in the next 20 years. I believe it’s happening far faster” (Bersin,
12/2017).

In addition, the 2017 Human Capital Trends Report of Deloitte reveals that 41% of
enterprises are focusing on artificial intelligence and robotics, which will change the nature
of many jobs. Further, 66% of companies consider that the employment of gig workers will
grow in the upcoming years. (2017 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends, pg. 9)

No matter what, given that all jobs will develop alongside the increasing robotization, the
whole labor market will be affected and employees will have to adapt.

A shift to duties with a higher level of cognitive complexity is expected and will call for
higher educational level, new skill-sets as, for example, social and emotional intelligence,
creativity and mental agility. Individuals will need to possess a broad portfolio of skills to
perform in this fast-changing context and have the opportunity to be brought together and
collaborate in an open inspirational setting.

49
Unquestionably, the booming knowledge economy is powered by ideas, and ideas are
driven by collaboration, which makes human capital a critical player. A precondition of a
successful business is a talented workforce with up-to-date skills. Thus, companies that
want to remain relevant on the market must promote skill conversion quickly to prepare
workers to shift to the jobs of the future.

At present, the trend point is “the new focus on lifetime employability rather than lifetime
employment” together with a significant evolution of the global education marketplace
(Meister J.C, 1998, Preface).

Last but not least, companies willing to stay competitive on the marketplace must adapt
very quickly in automating jobs, redesigning their structures and developing new digital
business models across their globalized markets.

All these changes will radically impact the whole notion of career and, consequently, the
learning and development business arena. Thus, if technology is disrupting the business
world, the world of business education isn’t exempt.

“These disruptions will cause significant change in every industry. In response, the C-Suite
is turning to the chief human resources officer for direction” - this means corporate
universities. (Sclanders M, 2018)

Meanwhile, “technology’s pace of change and the emergence of digital learning

aggregators have brought the effectiveness of the traditional corporate university model
into question” (Rio, 2018). In Borensztejn’s opinion, corporate universities could not “keep
pace” with the changes ongoing in the market. Their evolution wasn’t, therefore, reactive
enough.

Corporate Universities have to overcome these multi-faceted organizational challenges

and address the present disruption developing new innovative ways of learning while
remaining profitable and competitive.

The paradigm of corporate university has already evolved since it was created more than
60 years ago. The corporate university continued to develop and to adapt to its internal
and external environment. Organizations expanded across international boundaries and
changes in economies and technologies have already affected the evolution of corporate
universities as well as the concept of corporate training.

50
Kevin Wheeler, strategic advisor, consultant, futurist, and entrepreneur affirms: “a true
corporate university has moved beyond training and education and into the daily challenge
of getting results. It provides leadership in supporting people and processes to achieve
bottom-line success for the organization”. (Rio, 2018) Therefore, a corporate university can
be considered a “dynamic and flexible entity that is constantly changing in line with
management and company needs”. (Dealtry R, 2017)

At present, as a consequence of the 4IR, present corporate universities need to evolve

alongside their own organizations’ driving force. Adapt or die.

Will corporate universities be able to adapt again? Which is the right direction?

Sabine Lochmann Beaujour, president of the supervisory board at BPI Group – a global
consulting firm specialized in leadership, talent, and career transition - writes: “an evolution
is taking place in corporate training and learning today. Models for corporate universities
and talent development must adapt to the challenges faced by companies and employees
in an environment of constant transformation”. (Lochmann Beaujour, 2016)

BPI Group surveyed 37 corporate university executives about their standpoint in relation to
the huge changes currently undergoing in the business world: “84% of corporate
universities claim that their model will radically change by 2020!”. (Lochmann Beaujour,
2016)

The leitmotiv of future corporate universities activities concentrates more and more on
increasing the value of their organizations. Their success depends on gaining the
commitment of the top management: corporate universities need to “draw their legitimacy
from the CEO and senior management from the organization to which they report, playing
a strategic role inside and outside the organization and dealing confidently with the effects
of progress“. (Renaud-Coulon, 2017)

In addition, corporate university’s added-value results from developing people capabilities

and investing in their intellectual growth. Unfold talents’ potential, build opportunities and
promote greater engagement in the business is key.

This shift has to be quick enough to meet the urgent business needs.

“Companies that truly understand these changes see time as an inescapable component
of value” – writes Borensztejn in his recent article. Today many corporate universities “are

51
missing the mark, and corporations are wasting billions of dollars on programs that don’t
align with their long-term strategy”.

Thomas Sattelberger, founder of the Lufthansa School of Business in 1997 as the first
corporate university in the German-speaking world- affirms that “corporate universities
must evolve from being socialization and knowledge transfer machines to helping their
parent companies undertake effective transformation”. (Sattelberger T, 2014)

The concept of “sustainable competitive advantage “ shifted to “transient corporate

advantage” which underlines even more the undergoing nonstop changing environment.

Cathy Olofson - chief marketing officer at Innosight - states in her article:

“The Holy Grail of strategy for many years has been defined as sustainable competitive
advantage: you find an opportunity, you throw up entry barriers like crazy and then you get
to enjoy it for a long period of time. But increasingly, this no longer works well or even
makes sense, thanks to globalization, digital disruptions, and so on. So in response to this
shift, organizations need to build up temporary or transient advantages where they seize
opportunities, exploit them, and then move on quickly when they’ve exhausted the
opportunity. To do this effectively, we need to think differently about strategy. [..]And
leaders need to create a culture that encourages people to seek out and share evidence
that things are changing, that there may be trouble ahead—even when things seem to be
going well”. (Olofson C, 2013)

In the future, CUs’ priorities will definitely be the alignment between corporate learning and
business strategy. The training content should necessarily match the ever-evolving
company’s competence needs, values, and business models.

1.7.1 The critical success factors of present and future corporate universities

The literature pinpoints critical success factors that seem to be especially relevant in
making present and future corporate universities successful in the long run.

These success factors, represented in the Figure 8, can be clustered in the Borensztejn’s
three imperatives for corporate universities: organization, scope, metrics. According to
Borensztejn, corporate universities need to work on these factors to raise their future value
proposition.
52
With this regard, I complement Borensztejn’s model introducing the outcomes of extra
sources which are based on different studies of corporate universities and benchmark data
arising from recent literature.

Figure 8

Adapted from Borensztejn H, 2017

a) Organization

As already highlighted in paragraph 8.2.5 above and confirmed from several studies, “if a
corporate university is to play a central role in advancing long-term strategy, it cannot be
isolated from the rest of the organization”. (Borensztejn H, 2017).

Ideally, considering the strategic nature of future corporate universities, the “Chief
Learning Officer should report directly to your CEO or another C-Suite executive other
than the Chief Human Resources Officer. This will strengthen the connection to
organisational strategic objectives and ensure continuous re-alignment in the face of
changing organisational needs and priorities”. (Rutstein N, 2018)

Future successful corporate universities will have to work closely with the firm’s centers of
power, take part in discussions, access information and attend strategic executive
meetings.

53
The C-suite support and buy-in becomes crucial in order to gain acceptance at all
organizational levels. Top Management should sponsor some initiatives and work closely
with the corporate university staff. (Kolo P, 2013)

These relationships, collaborations and pieces of information are very valuable for future
corporate universities since they allow them to set priorities, action plans and curriculums
accordingly. In doing so, corporate universities will be able to act on company decisions
and display their reactiveness by translating strategic business priorities into future
competencies (and effective training methods) or new models for job design.

Being part of the C-Suite is, therefore, crucial for corporate universities in order to be
effective and relevant. For instance, when a decision is made corporate universities are
equipped to take appropriate measures - for instance, by forecasting the time required to
develop future leaders with relevant skills and demonstrated capabilities. Learning
curricula will be linked to corporate strategic needs and will be revised regularly to
guarantee consistency with senior managers’ agendas. Moreover, this connection should
be made visible and communicated at all levels within the company.

“Develop a high added-value offer that does not exist anywhere else in the service of
learning and development, bringing together collective intelligence to solve real
organizational problems” will be key as well. (Renaud-Coulon A, 2017)

Phil Parker, professor at INSEAD, brings another subject matter to the discussion: he
introduces the concept of “value chain education” which points out that “corporate
universities are under increasing pressure to prove their profitability”. (Kessler B, 2017)

Involving other value chain players - “both upstream (suppliers, dealers, etc.) and
downstream (retailers and distributors)”- in developing and joining learning initiatives can
have an impact.

Phil Parker envisions a future of learning where curricula will be co-created by partners
within the value chain and the economies of scale will bring their advantages thanks to the
online education platforms (LMS).

Finally, Borensztejn suggests, “deans of corporate universities should go on to senior

positions, such as heads of human resources, strategy, innovation, or digital strategy”.
(Borensztejn H, 2017) That will help future corporate universities to build strong

54
partnerships with a wide group of stakeholders as providers, associates, customers and
local communities easily.

b) Scope

Promoting and supporting a culture of learning will be another core activity of forthcoming
corporate universities. Indeed, future corporate universities will be in charge of driving the
vision for the future and will need to work patiently to encourage the shift into a new way of
work and learning. (Meister J, 2010)

Since executives are constantly challenged in aligning their companies to a quickly

changing world, in the present knowledge economy the ability to learn is crucial.

The author of the article published by the Center for Strategy and Leadership (C4SL) and
titled “Why Winning Organizations have Corporate Universities“ states:

“winning companies have the capability to learn not only faster but also smarter than the
competition. They are not only able to keep up with the strategic developments in their
environment, but also to stir up the competitive landscape themselves”. (Harkins P, 1999)

One of the scopes of future corporate universities is to take over the “knowledge
production” role developing new competences in employees, teams and business units
across different regions. Likewise, the next generation of corporate universities will work
on current learning needs as well as on those that will arise in the short – medium and
long term.

An example is creating programs aimed at building knowledge in acquisitions and merging

strategies – if the firm intends to expand into new markets - strengthening abilities in risk
management or developing skills like dealing with volatility and ambiguity. An analysis of
the organizational goals and its critical topics along with an investigation of the external
environment (PESTLE) will, moreover, enable awareness.

It is critical that management, technical and business departments are involved in

designing and delivering world-class programs contents to guarantee relevancy and
acceptance. (Kolo P, 2013)

55
Natanya Rutstein -in her article concerning the “latest trends dominating the corporate
university”- affirms that “the involvement of management should extend to the
development of your programmes as well as participation in programme facilitation as
subject-matter experts”. (Rutstein N, 2018)

An example of management participation is offered by Jack J. Phillips, a consultant of

FranklinCovey: “Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, is a classic role model for
this level of involvement. For years, he devoted several days each month to work at GE’s
management institute. This effort not only enriched the programs, but also provided the
impetus for other executives to become involved. The key point is to get executives and
managers involved without consuming much of their time”. (Jack J. P, 2014)

The final goal is to provide high-quality and relevant offerings assuring translation of
business needs into employee capability.

“Content should always be delivered locally, with products and services that are relevant to
the participants’ and the organization’s needs. Programmes can be centrally developed
but should then be adapted to align with local norms and demands”. (Rutstein N, 2018)
Thus, “programs need to be unique and customized, using ‘just in time’, ‘just enough’ and
‘just for me’ as a guide”. (Jack J. P, 2014)
For instance, at present, successful corporate universities will be focusing on building skills
addressing the skills shortages and the employability gap. (Ramsay D, 2017)

Designing programs for career development purposes and defining which of them are
required before moving up the corporate ladder is another key point. “Career paths
through the organization also augment the link between learning and strategy”.
(Borensztejn H, 2017)

Leadership programs for high-potentials should encourage and contribute to develop new
strategic models. “Companies often use their corporate universities to grow their
employees’ leadership skills and groom people for management positions”. (Ramsay D,
2017)

56
Developing a culture of open collaborative learning where formal curricula are
complemented by informal experiences like, for instance, a “peer-to-peer coaching” will be
strategic. Indeed, training will represent a learning experience for the employee who will be
asked to participate actively in open conversations with other peers around real firms’
challenges, explore different scenarios, and bring new ideas.

A culture model based on inclusion and exchange will empower skills and behaviors
development. In Borensztejn’s view, “building trust and a team spirit among participants
and senior managers by maintaining relations with alumni and monitoring and supporting
their progress” could be a differentiator.

In effect, building networks between talented employees, bringing people and teams
together on-site - above all around learning initiatives - and virtually - through digital tools
and online formats - will create an added-value. Future corporate universities can drive the
development of an “holistic approach to business education where the human and the
digital can support each other”. (Renaud-Coulon A, 2017)

“From a broader organizational standpoint, corporate universities that teach next-

generation managers to face new challenges and pursue opportunities can help a
company retain its best talent and minimize the need to recruit externally. Retained talent
returns greater value from the investment a company has made in its training efforts,
builds loyalty, and helps maintain a valuable institutional memory”. (Borensztejn H, 2017)

Furthermore, corporate universities could be more involved in the succession planning,

supporting their Human Resources departments in identifying high-potentials and
establishing a talent pipeline for key positions within the company.

Lastly, driving long-term organizational culture change is part of successful corporate

universities that foster the alignment between culture and strategy; this means that
corporate universities should introduce leadership and climate surveys, employ personality
assessment data, boost innovation and change of mindset when the context requires it.

“Facilitate and encourage cross-pollination and knowledge exchange” relates to talent

development and is considered another success factor of world-class corporate
universities. Ramsay explains that “in an organization with hundreds to thousands of
employees, knowledge sharing can be quite limited. There are often silos within
organizations preventing the exchange of ideas and cross-pollination that can come when
57
different functional groups come together. By blending student cohorts at corporate
universities, companies can help generate some of this valuable interchange of ideas, plus
increase employee bonds across even the largest of companies. This all spells more
cooperation and innovation in the future”. (Ramsay D, 2017)

c) Metrics

In order to justify the investment and costs of structure and personnel, future corporate
universities will have to demonstrate their added-value and impact on the business with
data.

Once business needs are linked to learning curricula, the performance and value of these
initiatives has to be measured and translated into numbers that represent returns for the
company. This is important for the corporate university to keep its credibility. (Kolo P,
2013)

In fact, “top executives are asking corporate universities to thoroughly demonstrate their
value to the organization”. Jack J. Phillips proposes the introduction of a corporate
university scorecard which is able to show the value delivered by all programs employing
qualitative as well as quantitative data. (Jack J. P, 2014)

Interestingly, as Borensztejn explains, “common metrics, such as hours of instruction or

number of students, measure effort rather than impact”. At present, many corporate
universities are measured by the number of participants each year. Clearly, this metric is
misleading and does not suggest a real measure of the corporate university’s impact.

Borensztejn presents an insightful example of how wrong metrics lead to wrong: “one IT
company in the United States assessed its corporate university solely on the number of
attendees each year. In response, the university expanded its scope to induction and
health and safety programs, essentially ensuring that everyone in the company passed
through its classrooms at least once a year. Its performance metrics were outstanding —
on paper — but its real impact on corporate strategy was minimal”. (Borensztejn H, 2017)

Jonathan Masannat - from Cornell University - in his work titled “how should we measure
the effectiveness of our corporate university programs?” mentions a study which found that
“39% of organizations spend less than 1% their training budget on measurement and

58
94,3% of firms spend less than 5%, although measurement is crucial to improving the
success of a corporate university. [..] Measuring the effectiveness of a corporate university
is an integral part of its success, for it establishes credibility and identifies areas of
improvement”. (Masannat J, 2014, Abstract)

To measure impact, Jonathan Masannat suggests employing the Kirkpatrick Model, the
Allen’s Mode or the Phillip’s ROI Measure.

Last but not least, “managing the corporate university as a business” is key, says Jack J.
Phillips in his article published by CLO.

“Operating within the budget, delivering programs efficiently, managing vendor

relationships productively and ensuring that the function provides excellent customer
service to all parties is an important aspect of running the corporate university. This also
includes allocating the appropriate resources to analysis, design, development,
implementation and evaluation, and streamlining the ‘make versus buy’ decision”. (Jack J.
P, 2014)

In conclusion, the huge challenge of future corporate universities is, first of all, gaining
respect and trust from C-Suite-level leaders demonstrating their understanding of the
business and interest in delivering a tangible competitive advantage in the short and long
run. In doing so, corporate universities will have to deal with limited corporate resources
and meanwhile make their contribution visible through a smart employment of metrics.

The greatest corporate universities reproduce the fundamental linkage between talent
development and strategy, focus on upcoming needs, and put efforts into building a proper
organization, outlining new relevant scopes, and redefining their metrics. In doing so
corporate universities safeguard their future existence. Their final goal is to be in pole
position in driving the company’s long-term success.

59
2 Chapter 2: EFMD strives for best practice in corporate
learning

The second chapter aims at presenting the “European Foundation for Management
Development” (EFMD), its scopes and activities within the corporate learning arena, its
quality standards, the best practices of its accredited members and the future trends in this
field. Data and information are gathered from a variety of EFMD sources as well as from
the interview with Dr. Martin Moehrle, its Associate Director.

2.1 What is EFMD?

EFMD is a global, not-for-profit, membership organization based in Brussel, Belgium. It

counts around 900 members from public and private academia, business and corporate
universities, public service and consultancy in 87 countries and “is funded in part by
membership fees, with additional funds coming from projects, fee-based services,
accreditation and events”. (EFMD website)

EFMD represents an international forum for information, research, networking and debate
on innovation and best practice in management development. This forum allows its
members to engage in benchmarking and networking within corporate education.

For instance, the “EFMD Excellence in Practice (EiP) Awards” represent an opportunity for
companies and higher educational institutions to team up and showcase “outstanding and
impactful client-supplier partnerships in the domains of Leadership, Professional, Talent
and Organizational Development”. Hence, EFMD’s mission is to “act as a catalyst to
enhance excellence in management education and development globally”. (EFMD
website)

Being “recognized globally as an accreditation body of quality in management education

with established accreditation services for business schools and business school
programs, corporate universities and technology-enhanced learning programs”, EFMD is
able to offer benchmarks for a wide range of bodies within the learning and education
area. The Figure 9 below offers on overview of the accreditations and their areas of
application.

60
Says EFMD in its website: “an accreditation from EFMD is one of the best and most
complete ways to certify the actual quality of a business school or a corporate university.
The accreditation processes lead to improvement through the necessity for organizations
to meet internationally agreed quality standards. The quality is assessed by Peer Review,
which is a form of international benchmarking”.

Figure 9

EFMD International Accreditations and Certification. (EFMD Website)

For the purpose of this dissertation, I will focus on the “Corporate Learning Improvement
Process” (CLIP) accreditation, a strategic development tool for corporate learning
functions – said corporate universities.

2.2 The EFMD CLIP accreditation

The CLIP accreditation, service for EFMD members, represents a tool for corporation to
achieve excellence in learning and talent development.

Organizations see the emerging need to improve and enhance their learning and people
development processes and give them a clear purpose.

According to EFMD (official website), at present, the critical topics companies need to deal
with strategically are:
61
 - attract and retain the best leaders,
- develop future's leaders
- align competencies and behaviors with corporate strategy,
- disseminate knowledge and expertise all over the firm,
- create a link between the learning function and conventional HR practices like
management development, talent management, succession planning,
- bring training to the next level: learning
- enhance performance

In order to face these challenges, “the learning and training function in many firms has
been enhanced to give it a central strategic role in the form of Corporate Universities,
Corporate Business Schools, Academies, Management Institutes, among others. [..]Most
of these bodies [..] are beginning to reach a stage of maturity in which there is a need for
more sophisticated means of assessment in order to measure their effectiveness and
justify the investments made”, says EFMD in its official website.

The CLIP process offers this assessment.

As the below figure shows (figure 10), the value preposition of this award for its corporate
members embodies key factors that determine quality in the design and functioning of
corporate learning organizations and the ability to disseminate and create new knowledge.

Indeed, the CLIP process allows companies to benchmark the quality of their learning
processes, network and learn from other members and become aware of other corporate
universities’ excellences. All members are encouraged to share insights and best
practices.

62
Figure 10

EFMD Value Preposition to Corporate Members. (Moehrle M, 2018/4)

The CLIP award is supervised by a Steering Committee of experts in the learning field –
which include Chief Learning Officers from major organizations as well as education
specialists from distinguished International Business Schools.

The accreditation process comprises several steps (see Figure 11 below).

63
Figure 11

CLIP Accreditation Process. (Moehrle M, 2018/4)

The initial step after the application is the eligibility (based on 6 basic criteria) which
represents the very first hurdle for applicants. The goal is to make sure that the aspirants
have the prerequisites beforehand.

After the eligibility, the CLIP candidates engage in a self-assessment – which can be seen
as a critical reflection of their own practices. The self-assessment is complemented by an
employee survey and a SWOT analysis.

After reviewing the gathered data, spending 3 days on companies’ site and engaging in
interviews addressed to significant stakeholders, the EFMD Steering Committee analyzes
the data and prepares a report containing strengths, points of excellence, areas of
development, and considerations for the future.

Every 3 to 5 years after the award, companies need to go through a re-accreditation

process.

The accreditation provides organizations with three main benefits: internal, external and
strategic which are explained in the figure below (Figure 12).

64
Figure 12

The potential benefits of CLIP process and accreditation (Moehrle M, 2018/4)

2.3 The CLIP standards and criteria

The overall assessment of the company’s corporate university is based on the criteria and
standards of the EFMD Quality Improvement Scheme.

The EFMD Quality Improvement Scheme is based on 35 standards which have been
clustered into 8 thematic chapters and grouped in 4 main subject areas. The first two
areas focus externally whereas the last two internally:

 strategic view
 innovation view
 client view
 process view

The figures 13 below offers on overview of the overall criteria that are contemplated during
the accreditation process.

65
Figure 13

Overview of the CLIP standard criteria (Moehrle M, 2018/4)

The CLIP standards are not to be seen as a “set of norms to comply with’.

“It is not about conformity to a pre-defined model. No two Corporate Learning

Organizations are structured in the same way. There is no single ‘right’ way to
design and operate a learning function. [..] The essential criteria for judgment can
be summed up in words like ‘effectiveness, ‘coherence’, alignment’, ‘fitness for
purpose’, ‘adequacy’, ‘integration’ and ‘linkage’ ”. (EFMD, CLIP)

The EFMD’s Associate Director Martin Moehle affirmed during our interview that without a
proper assessment of the criteria positioned on the left side, it wouldn’t be possible for a
company to create real value.

66
2.4 The EFMD quality framework: an in-depth analysis of its subject
areas

This paragraph aims at describing contents and scopes of the EFMD quality framework’s
four subject areas. (see Figure 13)
The following subject areas represent the criteria based on which corporate universities
are assessed by EFMD’s CLIP Program.

2.4.1 Strategic View

 Governance system
 Alignment with company strategy
 Positioning in the organization
 Mission, sense of purpose
 Scope of activities
 Interface with business units
 Management of the client base interface with HR and talent management

2.4.2 Innovation View

 Capacity for Innovation, role as standard setter for creativity in the company
 Interface with the academic and consultancy world, environmental scanning
capacity to anticipate future needs and trends
 Global perspective, facilitating the company’s navigation of a globalized business
context
 Linkage to knowledge management, transition to virtual and digital age-learning

2.4.3 Client View

 Portfolio of offerings/activities
 Alignment of the portfolio with:
o the mission
o the target markets
o the target audiences
 Coherence of the portfolio
 Managing the learning value chain
 Client coverage
 Andragogy/pedagogy/methodologies of learner engagement and transfer

67
2.4.4 Process View

 Internal resources
o deployment of CU staff in program facilitation
o mobilization of the line managers and experts from within the business
 Organizational design of the LO
 External resources
o criteria for outsourcing and selection
o management of external providers
 Management systems within the LO
 Founding model
 Physical facilities and online presence

2.5 A critical analysis of the CLIP Quality Framework

The CLIP Quality Framework embodies several dimensions of corporate universities.

Interviews with the CLIP organizations’ learning leaders revealed that the CLIP criteria are
perceived as comprehensive, well-balanced, fit for purposes and adding clear value.

Since organizations change and their corporate universities change with them, the CLIP
Quality Framework is continuously refreshed in order to stay relevant in the present
disruption era. (Moehrle M, 2018/04)

Figure 14 below matches the dimensions of corporate universities introduced in chapter 1,

paragraph 2 with the CLIP Framework.

Matching Corporate Universities' Dimensions with CLIP Quality

Framework
Dimensions CLIP Standards
Ambition and Objectives Strategic view
Activity Scope Strategic view /Client view
Target Audience and Content Client view
Delivery Model Process view
Governance and Structure Process view /Strategic view
Branding and Alliances Process view
Figure 14

Dimensions of Corporate Universities and CLIP Quality Framework

68
Nonetheless, a critical analysis the CLIP model highlighted some of its limits. In fact, there
are some CUs’ features emphasized in the literature that the CLIP standards seem not to
take into consideration.

As already mentioned, CLIP does not assess the level of conformity to a pre-defined
model, but instead values criteria such as, for instance, coherence, alignment and fitness
for purpose. Having said that, the risk is to miss the opportunity to assess other insightful
features.

The subject area “Client view” assesses the alignment and the coherence between the
learning portfolio and the organization’s strategy without exploring contents’ relevance,
momentousness, applicability and quality. Are contents continuously updated? Are they
aligned with the reality or, instead, are building the “company reality”?

Moreover, the level of alignment of a corporate university with its company’s strategy does
not necessarily describe its activity scope and stage of maturity.

The literature review highlights that the stage of development of a corporate university
counts and links to its activity scope. Indeed, depending on their present stage of
development, corporate universities’ main activities relate to more traditional scopes or,
instead, promote more innovative and strategic ones. Is the corporate university operating
mainly as a Training Center or does its portfolio include more strategic purposes such as a
Leadership Accelerator aiming to promote a common leadership culture? To what extent is
the corporate university developing the leaders of tomorrow and enabling change agility?

In addition, the alignment of the CU’s portfolio with the target audience alone seems not to
contemplate if and how the generational differences in the workplace, the aging population
factor and the war for talent (mentioned in chapter 1, paragraph 1.2.3) are managed.

Further, the “Process View” seems missing a trait of the “Governance and Structure”
dimension: physical facilities and online presence are assessed; however, the level of
technology employed in corporate e-learning is not mentioned. In fact, at present,
corporate universities are distinguished for having put in place innovative learning methods
(see chapter, paragraph 4) aiming at maximizing learning efficiency and effectiveness.
This aspect should definitely be included within the CLIP quality framework.

Finally, the knowledge production role of a corporate university seems not to be

contemplated by the CLIP framework. The dimension “Ambition and Objectives” presents
69
different ambitions of CUs. The ultimate scope of innovative CUs is to serve as centers for
strategy development and execution in the near future and, with their research and
investigations, to create and manage knowledge within the company.

In conclusion, the CLIP model appears to assume that the corporate university has to align
with their organization’s mission and goals, nonetheless, it does not consider whether
corporate universities play a pro-active instead of a re-active role in driving the company’s
future success.

2.6 The enhanced role of corporate universities

Corporate universities are changing together with their organizations.

The interview with Mr. Martin Moehrle, Associate Director of EFMD, highlighted the
changing and enhanced roles of corporate universities within the present business
disruption.

Martin Moehrle illustrates the core roles of the future corporate university with the following
square. (Figure 15)

Figure 15

The core focus of corporate universities. The magic square of managing human capital. (Moehrle M,
2018/03)

70
The traditional roles (Figure 16) focus on stability - i.e. maintaining and strengthening the
organization’s culture and values – as well as on reacting towards the present company’s
needs (deliver now).

Figure 16

The traditional focus of corporate universities. (Moehrle M, 2018/03)

The emerging roles of corporate universities have a more enhanced vision toward the
future. Future corporate universities will necessarily work closely with their C-Suite and
Strategic Department Heads aiming at driving and enabling change and preparing the
company for tomorrow. (Figure 17)

Figure 17

The emerging focus of corporate universities. (Moehrle M, 2018/03)

71
2.7 Conclusions arising from the CLIP Analysis

After exploring the EFMD’s CLIP certification and conducting the interview with its
Associate Director I can draw following conclusions:

- there isn’t an ideal corporate university. Each CU is unique and reflects its
company’s history, values and purposes,
- CUs can be assessed based on common criteria. What determines excellence is,
however, the effectiveness, coherence, alignment, fitness for purpose, adequacy,
integration and linkage between the identified criteria,
- the role of corporate universities is evolving together with the changing needs of
their corporations and the volatile external environment they operate in,
- in the following years informal learning will become more and more important.
Society is shifting from a “formal and high control” learning formula, to an “informal
and low control” one,
- due to the growing digitalization of knowledge, traditional institutions have lost their
knowledge monopoly. At present, the added value is not about providing knowledge
anymore, but instead, enabling knowledge sharing through collaboration, promoting
continuous learning, tailoring it to each learner’s needs aiming at creating an
inspiring learning experience,
- the successful corporate university of the future will necessarily play a strategic role
and allow the company to evolve and take its business to the next level.

72
3 Chapter 3: Textron University: empirical evidences from
business leaders and future endeavors

3.1 Aim of the primary research and methodology

After the investigation of the literature, the interview with the Director of EFMD, and the
analysis of CLIP - as an official certification as well as a development tool for corporate
universities - I was driven by the interest of applying this knowledge to the corporate
university of my present organization, Textron University (TU), and so I decided to engage
in empirical research.

Particularly, the final goal of this primary research is to bring a tangible added value to
Textron University through a first benchmarking analysis of the literature and quality
standards of CLIP which, as a result, outlines best practices and development
opportunities. The outcome of this primary research can represent a starting point for
future discussions with its leaders, which can in turn lead to additional potential scopes of
TU in the future.

As research method to gather my data I used semi-structured interviews. The goal was to
gain a deeper understanding of TU and company leaders’ perception. I had the opportunity
to interview three TU colleagues (the TU Leader, the Director of Leadership and
Organizational Development and the Training Specialist) and five business leaders.

The discussions with the TU personnel (and the provided materials) allowed me to get to
know TU from the inside, becoming aware of its structure, its strategy, and its purpose
within the organization.

Further, I chose to interview business unit directors and middle managers operating in
different countries and departments (for more details see the Annex). The purpose of
these executive interviews was to get insights into the external perception of TU from a
customer point of view. Is TU perceived as a company’s unit able to support the business
departments in achieving results? Which are its points of excellences and which are the
areas for improvement from a business perspective?

The next paragraphs will drive you through an introduction of TU, explore its offering
based on Drotter & Charan’s Leadership Pipeline framework and analyze the CU

73
according to the CLIP quality standards. The chapter continues with the major insights
derived from the executive interviews and ends with a final wrap-up of the results,
showcases suggestions for future developments and, ultimately, identifies the limitations of
this empirical research.

3.2 Introduction to the Textron University

Textron University is the Corporate University of Textron Inc, a multi-industry company

employing 35,000 employees worldwide and headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island
(US). (Textron Website)

The Textron University - which was founded about 13 year ago - is not a physical location,
but rather a collection of face-to-face training programs, e-learning courses and additional
online resources that facilitate the sharing of knowledge and experiences throughout the
organizations’ businesses. (Interview with Jessica Bickoff, Lead of TU)

Textron University is a key element of Textron’s business strategy, delivering high-quality

learning programs that help employees at all levels develop skills and abilities to enhance
their career. In support
of its workforce
professional
development, Textron
offers a variety of
learning options ranging
from online resources to
classroom-based
training programs.

The figure 18 offers on

overview of the Textron
University’s learning
offer Onsite.

Figure 18
74
Textron Intranet site (2018)
Moreover, Textron University’s offer of online courses is very varied and covers a wide
range of learning initiatives. (Figure 19)

Figure 19

Textron Intranet site (2018)

75
3.3 A conceptual framework for talent management: the “Talent
Pipeline”

The Leadership Programs of Textron University are based on the Drotter & Charan
Leadership Pipeline Model illustrated in the figure 20.

Figure 20

Drotter & Charan Leadership Pipeline Model

Drotter & Charan’s view of leadership pipeline identifies five key components of
leadership: Vision, Action, Impact, Connection and Drive. Each of these elements are
“brought to life in specific behaviors while the context in which a business operates is the
defining factor in how these behaviors emerge”. (Hudson, 2018) With this in mind, “the
step from accepting a leadership position to becoming a successful leader takes more
than merely providing better leadership skills. It calls for a fundamental adjustment in work
values, time application and skills for each leadership level”.(LPI Website)

Drotter & Charan redefined “the concept of where leadership occurs, from leading the self
to leading the organization”. [..] “too often, organizations focus only on the minority who

76
lead the organization or divisions, while neglecting those with a much greater day-to-day
impact on driving business outcomes”. (Hudson, 2018)

Figure 21 below shows how Drotter & Charan’s framework applies to the Leadership
Development training programs designed and offered by Textron University.

The concept behind is that each stage of leadership requires particular emphasis on
different key elements of leadership.

Drotter & Charan’s view of Leadership Pipeline applied to

Textron's Leadership Programs

Leadership Textron Leadership

Development Trainings Training audience Moving up the

This program is designed to further enhance the

Leading the Senior Executive knowledge and capabilities of senior managers
Organization Leadership Program identified for advancement to senior positions.
(SELP) Participants develop leadership capabilities
focusing on Growth and Innovation, Risk Taking
and Change Management, Leadership and Talent
Development, Decision Making.

Moving up the Corporate Ladder

This program offers senior leaders the
Leading Divisions Executive Leadership opportunity to build their general business
Program (ELP) management knowledge. Emphasis is placed on
Strategic Thinking, Decision Making, Executing
Global Strategy through Others.

This program provides Textron mid-level leaders

Leading Managers Developing Leadership with the knowledge, skills, and insights they
Excellence (DLE) need to lead at the level of complexity that
comes with managing those who manage others.

Leading Others Textron Leadership This program is designed for first-level leaders
Essentials (TLE) transitioning from an individual contributor to
one who manages others

Figure 21

The Drotter & Charan’s view of leadership pipeline applied to Textron's Leadership Programs

77
3.4 An analysis of Textron University based on the EFMD’s Quality
Framework

The EFMD Quality Framework’s subject areas (see chapter 2, paragraph 2.4) will be
employed to explore and perform a first analysis of Textron University.

The data and information collected about Textron University are the result of the
consultation of several internal materials and sources - such as presentations, program
guides, the current learning management system (LMS), the TU’s website and the intranet.
Moreover, other information has been gathered through one to one interviews conducted
with the Director of Leadership and Organizational Development at Textron as well as with
the Head and a Training Specialist of Textron University. Last but not least, five interviews
with Textron Business Leaders have been conducted to gain insights into their perception
of quality of the learning offer, their expectations and satisfaction toward the TU, and
considerations for the future.

3.4.1 Subject Area 1: Strategic view

Governance

The Textron University employs three full-time personnel: its Leader, a Learning and
Development Facilitator, and a Learning and Development Specialist. The team is
supported by external facilitators who assist in the delivery in the TU programs.

The Leader of TU reports directly to the Director of Leadership and Organizational

Development who, in turn, reports to HR Vice President of Textron.

Mission and scope of activities

The scope of TU is to enhance the competences of its employees and leaders and support
them in their career progressions by developing and delivering high-quality learning
programs.

78
The offered programs aim at developing the leaders of tomorrow (Leadership and
Professional Programs) and the needed competences to thrive change and innovation
(Functional and Continuous Improvement).

Textron University focuses primarily on training and development. Other than that, TU
delivers courses and webinars to all employees aiming at supporting internal global
processes such as performance management and feedback conversations. These
trainings provide employees and leaders with information, suggestions and practical cases
of how, for instance, face critical feedback conversations.

Alignment with company strategy

The learning initiatives and its contents are aligned with the company’s strategy and
supported by the C-Suite. Training subjects are built to support and promote the
company’s standards, ethic principles, leadership values.

The company’s C-Suite supports these initiatives even with the active intervention of top
managers during the course. More details are given in the section 3 (Client View).

Interface with HR and Talent Management / Interface with Business Units

As already mentioned, Textron University is part of the HR department. TU’s employees

are based on the same location of central HR and interact on a daily basis with Talent
Management. An example is the collaboration between TU and other HR units in
supporting through interactive webinars global HR processes.

Textron University’s offer is open to all its subsidiaries and business units. On-site courses
take normally place in the US - where the company is headquartered. The leaders
interviewed agree that these initiatives go beyond a simple training course: they represent
a great opportunity for the participants to get in contact with other employees and growth
their network. If a Business Unit wants to deliver a training on-site, the program can take
place locally and in local language.

79
3.4.2 Subject Area 2: Innovation view

Interface with the academic and consultancy world, environmental scanning

capacity to anticipate future needs and trends

Textron University built numerous collaborations with external partners such as well-known
higher education institutions (i.e. the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern
University, the Duke University, The Ohio State University, UNC Kenan-Flagler Business
School) and pioneering in best-practice training services consultants (i.e. VitalSmarts,
Franklin Covey, Prism International, Twenty Eighty Adaptive Strategic Execution).

Further, the corporate university supports the initiative of Textron Aviation in offering
continuous improvement (CI) programs that can be facilitated by the Textron Business
Units. Rosetta Stone is the foreign language training partner.

Jessica Bickoff, Head of Textron University, explains that partnerships represent a win-win
situation for both parties. On one side, the external partner has a business advantage in
working with TU and gains lots of insights into tangible business situations and real needs
of a company (i.e. information that can be employed for internal business cases). On the
other side, collaborating with an external partner allows TU to save “brain power” and
benefit from their know-how, research and facilities.

Capacity of innovation, role as standard setter for creativity in the company/

Global perspective, facilitating the company’s navigation of a globalized business
context

The Textron University’s offer is global and, therefore, contributes to the diffusion of the
corporate culture and know-know and to the promotion of common values and leadership
principles across all Business Units worldwide.

According to one company leader, with training contents developed in the US, they might
be culturally biased. A propos, he said: “sometimes you cannot help it. They give you a
great global exposure, though. [..] Nevertheless, when we delivered our Leadership
Program locally in Shanghai we did it in the local language. The trainer was Chinese and
we had the opportunity to reflect on culture differences across Business Units –what
makes us stronger and what can represents a drawback-. The goal was to become aware
80
of these dynamics, maximize the benefits of being global and local at the same time, i.e.:
‘glocal‘ .

In terms of innovation, Textron University sustains the company strategy in thriving change
and taking the business to the next level by enhancing know-how and knowledge. This is
particularly crucial in this moment since the company is focused on developing and
bringing new pioneering products on the market.

Linkage to knowledge management, transition to virtual and digital age-learning

As the figure 17 shows, the online and digital learning offer of Textron University is already
quite broad (wikis, books, videos, webinars, live trainings, blended courses).

At present, the corporate university has a LMS called TEDS. Due to the common
dissatisfaction related to its functioning and effectiveness, a brand new LMS provided by a
new supplier called Cornerstone is actually being implemented. Cornerstone will provide
an even broader offer, a higher quality customer service, a more efficient learning process
and world-class analytics aiming at evaluating the satisfaction, the effectiveness and the
ROI of the whole process.

3.4.3 Subject area 3: Client view

Portfolio of offerings/activities / Alignment of the portfolio with the mission, the

target markets, the target audiences / Coherence of the portfolio

Textron University’s activities focus on developing and delivering training and development
learning initiatives in different areas.

Due to the fact that the corporation is a multi-industry company and embodies business
units belonging to different industrial sectors, the emphasis of its initiatives is on
developing a collective leadership and set of values, a shared vision of the future and
common work standards (e.g.: the Material Excellence Program).

Aims and contents delivered are aligned with the organization’s vision and actively
supported by the CEO.

81
Managing the learning value chain / Client coverage
Andragogy/pedagogy/methodologies of learner engagement and transfer

As already mentioned in the exploration of the subject area 2 “Innovation View”, the
management of the whole learning value chain will be enhanced with the introduction of
Cornerstone, the new LMS.

In terms of learning methodology, several approaches and practices are employed:

learning on site, team work, role playing, in-baskets, blended learning, mentoring, bubble
assignments, experiential learning, on-the-job training.

3.4.4 Subject area 4: Process view

Internal resources /deployment of CU staff in program facilitation /mobilization of

the line managers and experts from within the business

The CEO, as well as the HR VP and other top managers, visit the participants of the
Leadership Programs during the training sessions, converse with them and take part of
discussions. “This is very much appreciated by the participants; It’s the confirmation that
the higher levels of our organizations actively support and believe in our initiatives”, says
Jacqueline Sweeney, Director of Leadership and Organizational Development at Textron.

A propos, Michael Reynolds, Director of Project Management affirms: “our CEO engages
in open conversations with participants during the on-site courses and discussions are
aligned with program’s contents. He is aware of the contents that are delivered. [..] He
feels accountable for its people, for their development and career”.

External resources: criteria for outsourcing and selection / management of external

providers

As mentioned in the “Innovation View” analysis above, the TU works with several partners.
Jessica Bickoff, Lead of Textron University, states about partners’ selection: “we select our
partners based on area, level of expertise and innovation. Each of them is specialized in a

82
particular subject matter: They are selected based on their know-how and alignment with
our organizational culture”.

The programs take place on the partners’ facility.

Management systems within the LO / Physical facilities and online presence

As mentioned, the TU does not have a dedicated physical facility. Trainings take place by
the partners’ facilities.

The company is implementing a new LMS (Cornerstone) that will augment the whole
learning process.

Founding model

The Textron University is a not-for-profit unit that adopt a blended founding model for the
on-site courses - assuming the costs of the program developments and allocating the
delivering cost to the business.

The online offer is free of charge of all employees.

3.5 Insights from Interviews with Textron Leaders

As already mentioned, five interviews with Textron Leaders have been conducted. The
leaders were international directors as well as middle managers operating in different
business areas (IT and Technology, Quality, Continuous Improvement, Project
Management and Material Management).

Further details about the population interviewed and the interview questions can be found
on the annex.

The Textron University was already known by all leaders. The general perception of the
CU was positive, and all leaders interviewed already had a direct experience with Textron
University.

I identified five elements emerged during the interviews.

83
Delivering real value through learning

The managers interviewed consider corporate learning a crucial tool in order to keep
competences up-to-date and acquire new skills at all levels. They find necessary having a
corporate training center as TU within the company that provides on-site and online
trainings.

The leaders have a good opinion of the TU’s program. All of them explained that, in their
opinion, the key of success is to align learning to a clear development plan and need
analysis. Since the on-site training programs are nomination based (employees are
nominated by their supervisors), leaders can make sure that participants’ needs aligns with
program aims and contents.

Three of the five leaders interviewed reported their direct experience at Textron University
as participants of an on-site course. The trainings took part in one of the partner’s facilities
while the participation was allowed only for Textron staff. The three leaders all agreed
about the training effectiveness, quality and relevancy of the contents with the
organization’s culture and goals.

In particular, they highlighted the intervention during the course of some company’s Vice
Presidents and CEO and the open discussions that resulted from that. “It really reinforces
the message. It was clear that our CEO was aware of the contents transferred during the
training!” – said the IT & Technology Director.

All agreed that TU’s on-site programs are a unique opportunity to network with other
organization’s leaders globally belonging to different business sectors. it represents an
advantage in future business situations.

Drive corporate culture and business strategy alignment

All leaders mentioned the importance of the alignment between curricula and company’s
mission. “The on-site programs are designed for Textron” – said the Project Management
Director. “They are coherent with our strategy and encourage a common understanding of
business concepts, leadership qualities, values, globally”.

TU does not contribute to develop the company’s strategy: Its role is to offer training
initiatives coherent with the strategy and support its diffusion globally. Textron University,
84
said their leaders, plays a “more traditional” role within the organizations. It focuses on
good training and supports other HR global processes. Other than that, TU has built
partnerships with several institutions and is now improving its e-learning portfolio by
introducing a new LMS and a larger online training catalog.

The quality leader stated that Textron University has the potential to become more visible
within the company and to enlarge its scope, for instance, encouraging a more intense
collaboration across business units belonging to different industrial sectors. According to
him, that would push competence transfer and potentially become a competitive
advantage.

The interview with the Textron Leadership and Development Director highlighted the
possibility for TU to take on a more active role in preparing the organization, its leaders
and employees to deal with the technical and digital disruption.

Dealing with cultural biases and becoming “glocal”

Two leaders mentioned that some TU’s programs revealed cultural biases.

Although these training initiatives provide participants with a global exposure, contents are
designed in from TU in the US together with American partners.

“You cannot help it” – said the Project Management Director. “Being American I perceived
only some of them. I now live in Europe and I worked several years in Shanghai. That is
why I’m aware of it”. He mentioned the experience at his former company. “We had a
similar Leadership Program which was delivered one week in Paris, one in Chicago and
one in Tokyo. The program was more balanced and allowed participants to become more
aware of the differences across cultures, between us”.

The challenge of Textron University is to become “glocal”, both global and local. A global
corporation such as Textron needs to standardize processes and encourage a common
culture. Nevertheless, it needs to deliver trainings across the company that also
encompass the needs of local Business Units and their cultures.

85
Extending the technical/functional portfolio through external partnerships

To the question” Do you/your staff use external providers for learning purposes” all leaders
answered “yes, our staff took part at technical specific trainings by external suppliers”.
They expressed the potential of Textron University to extend its portfolio especially in the
quality management and IT field by building partnerships with other specialized providers
allowing employees a continuous access to the new know-how (which would encourage
micro and informal learning as well).

Managing skills in a time of disruption and adopting new work models

The leaders interviewed mentioned that driving skills disruption and supporting the
company in designing and adopting new work models could definitely be a potential future
scope of Textron University.

The CU already offers both online and blended trainings aimed at developing the new soft
skills of the fourth industrial revolution such as “Dealing with ambiguity”, “Dealing with
Change”.

Nevertheless, other more specific programs could prepare leaders and employees in
working with robots, humanoids and intelligent machines in the near future. Jacqueline
Sweeney, Director of Leadership and Organizational Development sees this as a future
challenge of TU. To the question “will the role of TU change alongside the undergoing
workplace disruption?” she affirmed that one of the roles of Team Leaders in the Textron
facilities will include managing robots, automation and Artificial Intelligence, collaborating
with humanoids, alongside diverse teams from around the world. New skills-sets will
include the ability to link human with technology solutions, and to continuously switch from
managing high-tech technology to inspiring people in the factory floor.

Last but not least, another potential role that Textron University does not cover right now -
which emerged from the interviews - is to take on the leadership in driving the shift to new
working models and to design the workplaces of tomorrow. This new scope would allow
TU to have a bigger impact on the whole organization in the future and bring workplaces
and skills to the next level.

86
3.6 A final critical analysis of Textron University from the perspective
of the CLIP model: best practices and development opportunities

Textron University seems eligible to move to the second step of the CLIP process (see
Figure 11) since it shows a global scope at corporate level and a broad portfolio that
encompasses not only functional but also leadership and development trainings aimed at
building new competences and the firm’s future talent pipeline.

With reference to the suitability (or not) of Textron University to gain the CLIP certification,
based on the analysis of the recent literature (chapter 1), the examination of the EFMD’s
quality framework (chapter 2) and the information about Textron University - gathered
through internal materials’ examination and eight interviews (three with TU’s personnel
and five with Textron business leaders) – the following conclusions can be drawn.

Figure 22 below summarizes best practices and development opportunities of Textron

University.

Best practices Development opportunities

TU reports to the HR Dep. Ideally, the CU should be indipendent and

Support and participation of the C-Suite on TU's report to the board or CEO. That would allow the CU to have a
initiatives higher level of impact in inspiring (not only supporting) the top
management and in influencing the company's strategical practices.

TU supports the strategy implementation with Enhancing a wider learning offer within the technical and functional
its initiatives that boost knowledge, innovation area by entering platforms as Coursera, Lynda, LinkedIn Learning, or
and help driving corporate culture globally MOOCs, perhaps offering official certifications and college credits

Upgrading learning for the digital age with augumented reality and AI,
Global learning opportunities for personal and
gamification, simulation tools, mobile learning, barcamps,
professional development
hackathon, micro learning..etc.
Training syllabus are based on a solid model of
leadership (Drotter & Charan) which drives Encouraging follow-up after learning programs i.e. in form of a e-
sustainability and aligment with present or coaching and e-tutoring to assure continuity
potential stage of career

Implementation of a new LMS to enhamce

Seeking to reduce the cultural biases and make sure curricula allow
digitalization, e-learning opportunities and
a truly global learning experience
analytics

Starting preparing leaders and employees in working with enhanced

Network of Partnerships & Alliances with technology i.e. introduction of learning machines, collaboration with
external providers robots and humanoids to improve adaptation, avoid change
resistance and enhance productivity
Figure 22

Conclusions: Best practices and Development Opportunities of Textron University .

87
Can we affirm that TU meets the standard for CLIP certification?

As the figure 22 shows, the analysis highlighted excellences but even shadows of Textron
University which has the potential to operate more widely, extending its activities to other
more strategic areas. By matching the CLIP standards (see Chapter 2, paragraph 2.4) with
the Figure 22 it is clear that some standards are met, others still need to be strengthened.

As CLIP is meant to be an evaluation and a development tool that helps CUs to highlight
current best practices and opportunities for development through benchmarking and an in-
deep internal assessment, it could represent a valuable tool for Textron University.

The results of this analysis suggest that Textron University should engage in an
international certification such as CLIP and become part of a network with other CUs.

Currently, Textron University seems to have no relationship with other CUs, only with its
external partners. This investigation reveals that Textron University need to know other
realities, exchange ideas and best practices with them. Through the benchmark with other
CUs Textron University would raise awareness of its current state of development and this
could be a stepping stone to explore other activities and broaden its horizons.

3.7 Constraints on the primary research

The outlined outcomes of this primary research have the following limitations.

Firstly, the business population interviewed, despite its diversity, is small: five leaders
might not be representative of the company’s managers. The reason is that I decided to
favor fewer and more detailed interviews rather than reaching a greater group of
interviewees.

Secondly, the research did not involve any interview with external providers of Textron
University aimed at gaining their perspective nor members of the Textron C-Suite.

Thirdly, the study did not include a survey across a wider range of participants i.e. the
company’s employees. For organizational and compliance reasons the employment of a
questionnaire for research purposes on a large scale was not allowed nor was contacting
an external supplier.

88
Even though the C-Suite could have offered great insights into the future of TU, it wasn’t
involved: my interest was to gain awareness of the perception of TU at a customer/user
(not a top management) level.

Considering these constraints, I suggest further research action be taken by the CU, such
as a survey on a larger scale, distributed to all managers, and some interviews conducted
at a Textron board level.

Building a more comprehensive approach to measurement would allow corroborating the

outcomes of the primary research and, as a result, uncover additional strategical scopes
that would elevate the CU at a higher-level.

This internal assessment can be executed with the support of associations like EFMD that
provide development tools such as CLIP and benchmarking data which would allow TU to
measure itself with its external environment as well.

89
 Conclusions

This research investigated the origin and evolution of corporate universities from the
establishment of the first corporation schools to the current corporate learning
organizations. Further, it analyzed present trends and future potential developments of
corporate universities, identified the reasons behind the growing interest in corporate
learning activity, outlined best practices in this field and, based on them, pinpointed
excellences and recommendations for Textron University - an established corporate
university within my current organization.

The exploration of the existing and most recent literature showed that corporate
universities differ one from the other in many ways and across several dimensions in terms
of scope, size, structure, aims and stage of maturity. Moreover, the research highlighted
that corporate universities are dynamic and flexible bodies that continue to develop and to
adapt alongside shifts in their internal and external environment. In fact, corporate
universities evolve together with their organizations which, in turn, adapt to the changes
underway in the economics.

At the present time, our globalized world is undergoing a revolution where economies,
businesses and workplaces are strongly affected. Skills are the new assets so that the
education system as well as corporate training are called into question.

The literature discussed whether corporate universities may or may not represent a threat
for the educational business: to some extent, corporate training has already replaced
colleges and universities. In fact, this era of great change is placing lot of pressure for
transformation of the role of educational institutions. This dissertation argues that, in any
case, this does not need to become a battle since higher educational institutions and
corporate universities are, actually, partnering successfully with each other. Neither is
exempt from this wave of change and it is critical to understand that the best way to deal
with it is to engage in mutual collaboration. Both private and public education institutions
as well as corporate universities are called to reflect on their identity and value proposition
regarding their added value to learners and society.

The thesis advised that corporate universities can lead this transformation process in
reshaping the higher education system, bringing higher education and businesses closer
90
together through a reconsideration of the concept of knowledge, learning and
employability, supported by a widespread use of technology.

After that, the dissertation investigated EFMD - the international association of higher
educational instructions and corporate universities - and the quality standards of its CLIP
certification, identifying its best practices and limits. The existence of organizations like
EFMD and awards such as CLIP – aimed at helping corporations in attaining excellences
in learning and talent development - demonstrate the growing importance and the interest
of public opinion towards corporate universities and, in general, towards corporate
learning.

The CLIP framework applied to Textron University and the empirical study conducted
through leaders’ interviews allowed the author to perform an analysis of the corporate
university outlining excellences and development opportunities. Textron University is now
playing a traditional role within its organization by providing its workforce with learning
opportunities. One of Textron University’s excellences is represented by its wide
partnerships with specialized institutions, business schools and colleges as well as by the
involvement of its top management in these initiatives. The investigation outlined that, in
the future, Textron University can and should take on additional roles within the
organization extending its activities to other more strategic areas. Engaging in an
international certification such as CLIP would raise its awareness about its current stage of
development, enable benchmarking with other corporate universities and, as a result,
would allow the exploration of other activities with broader horizons which could have a
greater and a more visible impact on the organization.

As a final point, the dissertation suggests that the current trend of corporate universities in
taking the leadership in corporate knowledge generation and dissemination and finding a
new more strategic scope within their companies is positive and essential for their
existence at a time when organizations need concrete support and guidance in coping with
an uncertain future full of opportunities to catch.

91
 4 Annex

4.1 Interviews with Business Leaders

The Textron’s business leaders I conducted interviews with are international directors, as
well as department heads operating in different business areas and countries.

Following is the list of their positions and years of experience within the company.

M.L. IT and Technology Director

8 years of experience within the company.
Based in Germany

M. R. Project Management Director

7 years of experience within the company in several continents.
At present, based in Germany

T. M. Global Quality Director

15 years of experience within the company.
Based in US

H. K. Material Manager
20 years of experience within the company
Based in Germany

J. H. Continuous Improvement Manager

20 years of experience within the company
Based in Germany

92
4.2 Interview questions

Corporate Learning:
 How would you define “corporate learning”?
 What role does corporate learning play within the business, in your opinion?
 Who do you think should be in charge of corporate learning within the company?
(learning function within HR, CU, managers,)
 In your opinion, is the shift from industrial to knowledge-based economy influencing
corporate learning? How?
 Do you think companies should invest in promoting a culture of learning? Who has
the ownership of learning, in your opinion? (Companies, educational institutions,
individuals)
 In your opinion, what will the future of learning in the digital era look like?
 In your opinion, will the role of the learning function/CU change alongside the
undergoing workplace disruption? (learning provider to learning enabler)

Textron University:
 Do you know Textron University?
 Do you think Textron University is strategically enabling the company to change?
(i.e. supporting Textron as a Group to face the challenges of the disruptive
technological era)?
 To what extent do you / your staff use/benefit from the company’s CU?
 What impact does the company CU have on the performance of your unit, if any?
 Do you / your staff use external providers for learning purposes? Why (not)?
 If so, how effective are external providers?
 Does Textron University meet your expectations? Please explain (strengths and
weaknesses)
 In your opinion, will the role of TU change alongside the undergoing workplace
disruption?
 What do you suggest for improvements?

93
 Glossary

ACE: American Council on Education

AI: Artificial Intelligence
BCG: The Boston Consulting Group
C4SL: Center for Strategy and Leadership
CLIP: Corporate Learning Improvement Process
CLO: Chief Learning Officer
CU: Corporate University
EFMD: European Foundation for Management Development
GE: General Electric
Hamburger U: Hamburger University
L&D: Learning and Development
LMS: Learning Management Systems
MOOCs: Massive Open Online Courses
NGO: Non-Profit Organization
SME: Small Medium Enterprise
TU: Textron University
VLE: Virtual Learning Environment
4IR: Fourth Industrial Revolution

94
 Bibliography

Books

Grenzer, J.W. (2006) Developing and Implementing a Corporate University. HRD Press,
Inc.

Meister J.C. (1998) Corporate Universities: Lessons in Building a World-Class Work Force.
McGraw Hill.

Paton R, Peters G, Storey J, Taylor S. (2005) Handbook of Corporate University

Development. Gower.

Rademakers, M. (2014). Corporate Universities: Drivers of the Learning Organization. New

York: Routledge.

Schmitt C. A. (2012) Corporate Universities: an historical perspective with an analysis and

comparison of development models in the literature and practice. Department of
Educational Technology, Research and Assessment Northern Illinois University.

Articles and reports

Allen M. Introduction: What is a Corporate University and Why Should an Organization.

Have One? Available at: http://www.globalccu.com/images2010/globalccu-ebooks/The-
Corporate-University-Handbook.pdf

Allen M. (2010) Corporate Universities 2010: Globalization and Greater Sophistication.

The Journal of International Management Studies. (Vol. 5, Number 1, 2010)

Alonso-Gonzalez A, Peris-Ortiz M, Peris-Ortiz, Mauri-Castello J. (2017) Cooperative and

Networking Strategies in Small Business: Collaborative Networks Between Corporate
Universities, Customers, and SMEs: Integrating Strategy Towards Value Creation.
Springer International.
95
Anderson C. (2018) 5 Ways Managers Can Guide the Talent Development Process.
Rework. Available at: https://www.cornerstoneondemand.com/rework/5-ways-managers-
can-guide-talent-development-process

Bersin J. (12/2017) Catch the Wave: Give people opportunities to evolve and change to
prepare for the future. Chief Learning Officer Magazine. Available at: www.CLOmedia.com

Bersin J. (11/2017) The HR Technology Market Disruption: 10 Top Trends for 2018.
LinkedIn. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hr-technology-market-disruptions-
10-top-trends-2018-josh-bersin/

Big Think Edge (2018) How to Find a Learning Program That Fits Your Company Culture.
Big Think Edge. Available at: https://www.bigthinkedge.com/blog/how-to-find-a-learning-
program-that-fits-your-company-culture

Borensztejn H. (2017) Three imperatives for corporate universities. Heidrick & Struggles.
Available at: http://www.heidrick.com/Knowledge-Center/Publication/Three-imperatives-
for-corporate-universities

British Chambers of Commerce. Business and Education Summit. BCC. Available at:
http://openr.co/fIV#http://www.bccbusinesseducation.com/business-education-
summit/business-education-summit-programme/

Connell C. (2013) Starbucks, Wal-Mart offering classes for college credit. CNN. Available
at: http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/15/pf/college/corporate-classes/index.html
CUE. (2016) Corporate University History. Corporate University Enterprise (CUE).
Available at: http://www.cuenterprise.com/777about/cuhistory.php/

Davis J.P. (2014) How Innovative Companies Collaborate. Forbes. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2014/01/08/how-innovative-companies-
collaborate/#2d7b91f56e78

96
Dealtry R. (2017) The Future of Corporate Universities. How Your Company Can Benefit
from Value and Performance-Driven Organizational Development. Emerald Insights.
Available at: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/preview-pdf/10.1108/9781787433458

Deloitte. (2017) Rewriting the rules for the digital age. Deloitte Global Human Capital
Trends. Available at:
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/central-
europe/ce-global-human-capital-trends.pdf

Dickens B. (2018) The Future of Instructional Design: Experience Design. Training

Industry. Available at: https://trainingindustry.com/articles/content-development/the-future-
of-instructional-design-experience-design/

EFMD. Corporate Learning Improvement Process. The EFMD Accreditation for Corporate
Learning Organisations & Universities. EFMD. Available at:
https://www.efmd.org/images/stories/efmd/CLIP/CLIP_Standards_and_Criteria_Guidelines
.pdf

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Industrial Revolution. Available at:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Industrial-Revolution (accessed on 07.07.18)

Fenn D. (1999) Corporate Universities for Small Companies. Inc. Available at:
https://www.inc.com/magazine/19990201/730.html

Finch & Beak Consulting (2015) INSEAD Singapore presents 'Leading the Business of
Sustainability'
Co-hosted by INSEAD and Unilever. Finch & Beak. Available at:
https://www.finchandbeak.com/1136/insead-singapore-presents-leading-the.htm

Frost A. (2012) Knowledge Management Definition. Knowledge Management Tools (KMT).

Available at: https://www.knowledge-management-tools.net/knowledge-management-
definition.html

97
Gray A. (2016) The 10 skills you need to thrive in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. World
Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-10-skills-
you-need-to-thrive-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution

Greany K. (2016) How to meet the growing pressure to modernize learning. Kineo.
Available at: http://www.kineo.com/blog/events/how-to-meet-the-growing-pressure-to-
modernise-learning/

Gunther McGrath M. (2013) Transient Advantage. Harvard Business Review. Available at:
https://hbr.org/2013/06/transient-advantage

Hamilton P. (2017) The War for Talent Continues in Asia Pacific. LinkedIn. Available at:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/war-talent-continues-asia-pacific-peter-hamilton/

Harkins P. (1999) Powerful Conversations : How High Impact Leaders Communicate.

Center of strategy and Leadership. Why Winning Organizations have Corporate
Universities. Available at: https://www.c4sl.eu/why-winning-organizations-have-corporate-
universities

Jack J. P. (2014) Twelve Success Factors for Corporate Universities. CLO. Available at:
http://www.clomedia.com/2004/02/02/twelve-success-factors-for-corporate-universities/

Johnston L.D. (2012) History lessons: Understanding the decline in manufacturing.

Minnpost. Available at: https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-
minnesota/2012/02/history-lessons-understanding-decline-manufacturing

Kessels, J.W.M. (2001) Learning in organizations: a corporate curriculum for the

knowledge economy. Futures 33. Available at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.530.4426&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Kessler B. (2017) The Future of the Corporate University. Insead knowledge. Available at:
https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/the-future-of-the-corporate-
university-5121

Kineo. (2015) Learning Insights Report. Finding true North in a Digital Blizzard. Kineo.
98
Kineo. The Micro Manual: Getting micro-learning, resources and performance support
right. Kineo. Available at: http://comms.kineo.com/

Kiron D. (2017) Why Your Company Needs More Collaboration. MIT. Available at:
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-your-company-needs-more-
collaboration/?use_credit=d689653dce7bb32245a5a9587ece86a2

Klecha R. (2017) 5 Ways The MBA Will Change In 2018. And In The Future. EU Business
School’s managing director on the future of the MBA. Available at:
https://www.businessbecause.com/news/full-time-mba/4872/5-ways-mba-change-2018-
future

Kolo P, Strack R, Cavat P, Torres R, Bhalla V. (2013). Corporate Universities: an Engine

for Human Capital. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG)

Kruger S. (2016) The misunderstood generation: Generation X. Accenture. Available at:

https://talentorganizationblog.accenture.com/financialservices/the-misunderstood-
generation-x

Lochmann Beaujour S. (2016) Reimagining the corporate university. LinkedIn. Available

at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sabinelochmann/

Mankin L. (2018) The Competitive Advantage of the Right Knowledge Management

Solution. Bloomfire. Available at: https://bloomfire.com/blog/competitive-advantage-right-
knowledge-management-solution/

Masannat J. (2014) How Should We Measure the Effectiveness of our Corporate

University Programs? Cornell University ILR School. Available at:
https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/
&httpsredir=1&article=1052&context=student

McGrath G.R. (2013) Transient Advantage. Harward Business Review. Available at:
https://hbr.org/2013/06/transient-advantage

99
McKinsey Global Institute. (2017) Jobs lost, jobs gained: workforce transitions in a time of
automation. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Global%20Themes/Future%20of%20Organi
zations/What%20the%20future%20of%20work%20will%20mean%20for%20jobs%20skills
%20and%20wages/MGI-Jobs-Lost-Jobs-Gained-Report-December-6-2017.ashx

Meister J. (2010) Looking Ahead at Social Learning: 10 Predictions. Association for Talent
development (ATD). Available at: https://www.td.org/Publications/Newsletters/Learning-
Circuits/Learning-Circuits-Archives/2010/09/Looking-Ahead-at-Social-Learning-10-
Predictions

Meister J. (2007) The Net Generation is changing the way companies are tackling the
challenge of institutional learning in the 21st century. Human Resource Executive Online.
Available at: http://newlearningplaybook.com/blog/the-net-generation-is-changing/

Millar M. (2012) The Evolution of Corporate Universities: Not a focus on training but on
creating ‘employability’. IEDP. Available at: https://www.iedp.com/articles/the-evolution-of-
corporate-universities/

Moehrle M. (2018/4) Striving for Best Practice in Corporate Learning: the EFMD Corporate
Learning Improvement Process. EFMD.

Moehrle M. (2018/03) Learning Disruptions in Corporate Universities. EFMD.

Morgan J. (2017) Universities with the biggest corporate links. Times Higher Education.
Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/universities-with-biggest-
corporate-links

Müller-Hofvenschiöld A. (2012) The Strategic Tool for Evaluating Educational Returns:

Investigating the Value of Customised Executive Education with a Focus on Strategy
Process Capability. Springer Science & Business Media.

Nitish S. A. (2018) Localized Global Marketing Strategy. Brand Quarterly. Available at:
http://www.brandquarterly.com/localized-global-marketing-strategy

100
OECD. (2016) Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital
Technologies and Skills. OECD. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/GEIS2016-Background-document.pdf

OECD. (2018) The Future of Education and Skills Education 2030. Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf

Olofson C. (2013) Making the Shift from Sustainable to Transient Advantage. Innosight.
Available at: https://www.innosight.com/insight/making-the-shift-from-sustainable-to-
transient-advantage/

Pedron Z. (2018) The skills revolution of the 21st century: it’s time to re-calibrate. (EU
Business School Periodic Review)

Phillips J.J. (2004) Twelve Success Factors For Corporate Universities. ROI Institute.
Available at: https://roiinstitute.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Twelve-Success-Factors-
for-Corporate-Universities.pdf

Ramsay D. (2017) The Rise of Corporate Universities. Adventure Associates. Available at:
https://www.adventureassoc.com/the-rise-of-corporate-universities/

Renaud-Coulon A. (2017) Take a Good Look at the Future of Corporate Universities. Chief
Learning Officer. Available at: http://www.clomedia.com/2017/02/02/take-good-look-future-
corporate-universities/

Rio A. (2018) The Future of the Corporate University. Chief Learning Officer. Available at:
http://www.clomedia.com/2018/05/03/future-corporate-university/

Sattelberger T. (2014) Rethinking corporate universities. EFMD Global Focus: Volume 08

Issue 01. Available at: http://globalfocusmagazine.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/Issue__1_2014_tsattelberger_rcu.pdf

101
Schwab K. (2016) The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond. World
Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-
industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/

Sclanders M. (2018) Future of Work: Preparing your organization for the future of work.
Heidrick & Struggles. Available
at:http://www.heidrick.com/KnowledgeCenter/Article/Preparing_your_organization_for_the
_future_of_work

Stek P.S. The strategic alliance between Sungkyunkwan University and the Samsung
Group: south korean exceptionalism or new global model? TripleHelix. Available at:
https://www.triplehelixassociation.org/helice/volume-4-2015/helice-issue-12/the-strategic-
alliance-between-sungkyunkwan-university-and-the-samsung-group-south-korean-
exceptionalism-or-new-global-model/ (accessed on 07.07.18)

Stevenson F. (2014) How Do You Make Better Managers? The strange power of corporate
jargon. Slate. Available at:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/psychology_of_management/2014/06/ge_s_crotonv
ille_management_campus_where_future_company_leaders_are_trained.html

Strack R, Caye J.M, von der Linden C, Quirós H, Haen P. (2012) Realizing the Value of
People Management: From Capability to Profitability. BCG Perspective. Available at:
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/people_management_human_resources
_leadership_from_capability_to_profitability/

Taylor S, Paton R. (2002) Corporate Universities Historical Development, Conceptual

Analysis & Relations with Public-sector Higher Education. The Observatory on borderless
higher education. Available at: www.obhe.ac.uk/

Tyler K. (2012) What a Corporate University Is and Is Not. SHRM. Available at:
https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/0412tyler2.aspx

Turiera T, Cros S. (2013) Co-Business. 50 examples of business collaboration. Co-society.

Available at: http://www.co-society.com/wp-content/uploads/CO_business_2013.pdf

102
Walters N. (2015) McDonald's Hamburger University can be harder to get into than
Harvard and is even cooler than you'd imagine. Business Insider. Available at:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-hamburger-university-2333?IR=T/#during-one-
training-exercise-fake-customers-test-the-students-service-skills-by-asking-for-
progressively-longer-and-more-complicated-orders-10

Websites

Bersin J. Official Website. Insights on Work, Talent, Learning, Leadership, and HR

Technology. Available at: https://joshbersin.com/ Accessed on 15/02/2018

Corporate University XChange Official Website. Available at: http://www.corpu.com/

Accessed on 15/11/2017

Docebo Official Website. Available at: https://www.docebo.com/saas-lms-cloud-e-

learning-startup/ Accessed on 15.06.2018

EdCast Official Website. Available at: https://www.edcast.com/ Accessed on 15.06.2018

EFMD. Official Website. Available at: https://www.efmd.org Accessed on 07.07.2018

Global Association of Corporate Universities & Academies. Official Website. Available at:
https://www.corporateuniversity.org.uk Accessed on 05.06.18

Global Council of Corporate Universities Official Website. Available at:

http://www.globalccu.com/ Accessed on 27/11/2017

Leadership Pipeline Institute. (LPI) Available at:

https://www.leadershippipelineinstitute.com/ Accessed on 29/18/2018

LinkedIn Learning Page Official Website. Available at: https://learning.linkedin.com/for-

entire-companies Accessed on 20/11/2017

103
The Hudson Leadership Model. Hudson. Available at: https://au.hudson.com/talent-
management/hudson-leadership-model Accessed on 29/07/2018

Textron Intranet site - Section Training and Development, Textron University. Accessed on
July 2018

Textron Official Website. Available at: https://www.textron.com. Accessed on July 2018

Webinars and Videos

Bowness A, Bigsby C. (2017) Are You Ready to Embrace Informal Learning? CLO
Webinars. Available at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed
on 06/12/2017)

Cook. I. Datafication of Learning & Development: Analytical Insights to Drive Success.

CLO Media. Available at: https://webinar.clomedia.com/datafication-of-learning-
development-analytical-insights-to-drive-
success?utm_campaign=OE_CLO_WB_013018&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=e
mail&utm_content=59896209&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--5d0uW-
Vf7evagyJWviNgpJ2XhgvUdMYZBcCZfqA10ORK4lodPilac9OCWP8661go3EkMJX4tNk7z
AK-LoQWi-hZwcUQ&_hsmi=59896209 (live on 30.01.18)

Dillon JD. (2017) Modernizing L&D: Part 2 — Level up your learning ecosystem. Practical
how-dos for making this happen. CLO Webinars. Available at:
https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on 11/10/2017)

Erisman M. Create Digital Relationships with Your Current and Future Employees.
Workforce. Available at: http://webinar.workforce.com/create-digital-relationships-with-
your-current-and-future-
employees?utm_campaign=ED_CLO_CLO%20Today_Q4_2017&utm_source=hs_email&
utm_medium=email&utm_content=58438826&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--
_vB13jUfQVrsMbtZV2tue4-_JsuCxhxkGFw5FvEKWm6-
ACzxdkB2wY0heX2bkhKC2ZRp5jGEDgPQjqiteNGcZRZkP5A&_hsmi=58438432 (live on
16.11. 17)

104
Ford M. (2017) How we'll earn money in a future without jobs. Video recording. TED Talks.
Available at:
https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_ford_how_we_ll_earn_money_in_a_future_without_jobs
?utm_campaign=social&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_content=ta
lk&utm_term=business (Viewed on 20/11/2017)

Gupta N. E-Learning in the Age of Distraction: Adaptability, Productivity & Measurement.

CLO Media. Available at: https://webinar.clomedia.com/e-learning-in-the-age-of-
distraction-adaptability-productivity-
measurement?portalId=2327834&hsFormKey=7d9266f6a0db08dc4c1fa4d8960e8226&su
bmissionGuid=ced4b997-70d4-48a3-921c-e12caa899e4e#module_13885068285937553
(live on 25.01.18)

Hathaway J. (2017) More Than Just Content: Why Deep Skills Development Requires a
Learning Ecosystem. CLO Webinars. Available at:
https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on 07/11/2017)

Jagannathan S. (2017) Harnessing the Global Revolution in Learning. CLO Webinars.

Available at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on
25/10/2017)

Kyhl-Triolo L. Using Digitalization to Transform Corporate Learning. CLO Video Library.

http://videos.clomedia.com/watch/Xfj5nhMngCx8WqsQ8ptdyK (accessed on 20.01.18)

Leaman C. (2017) Modernizing L&D: Part 3 - The real case studies: Organizations that are
seeing huge returns from modernizing corporate learning. Available at:
https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on 02/11/2017)

Niles-Hofman L. (2017) Getting started using learning data to improve design. CLO
Webinars. Available at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed
on 05/12/2017)

105
Orem S. (2017) Developing leaders in your organization - starting them off right. CLO
Webinars. Available at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed
on 14/11/2017)

Pichee D. Building a Learner-Centric Strategy with OnDemand Training. CLO Media.

Available at: https://webinar.clomedia.com/building-a-learner-centric-strategy-with-
ondemand-
training?utm_campaign=OE_CLO_WB_012318&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=em
ail&utm_content=59883864&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9-
fcaQpnhK3XkPf0nLMXvvMjkkBjSoS7aXqIZltTmxH-
DVkHFnJfH9ogzx5Cn4mNYrETJORerrj2gcKI89io9VvVRs2Q&_hsmi=59883864 (live on
23.01.18)

Posner Z. (2017) Adaptive learning: drive ROI and unlock performance. CLO Webinars.
Available at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on
27/06/2017)

Prokopeak M. at all. (2018) Digital Fluency in the Workplace. CLO Webinars. Available at:
https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on 01/02/2018)

Robie C. at all. (2017) Gamified Behavior Change: How to Make Learning Experiences
Fun and Measurable. CLO Webinars. Available at:
https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on 01/11/2017)

Saboe B. (2017) Boosting: High performance learning strategy. CLO Webinars. Available
at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on 26/10/2017)

Saavedra J. at all. (2017) Build a Learning Culture for Competitive Advantage from the
Inside Out. CLO Webinars. Available at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-
webinar/ (Viewed on 07/03/2017)

Shaw D, Spake J. Skill inventories: a strategy for balancing talent needs. CLO Media.
Available at: http://webinar.clomedia.com (live on 13.12. 17)

106
Stover D. (2017) “Leadership transition coaching: a strategy to foster a positive workplace
culture”. CLO Webinars. Available at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-
webinar/ (Viewed on 26/06/2017)

Vincent E. (2017) Learning Delivery Across the Employee Life Cycle. CLO Webinars.
Available at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on
29/11/2017)

Wentworth D. (2017) Putting an Invisible Fence Around Informal Learning. CLO Webinars.
Available at: https://www.clomedia.com/events/category/clo-webinar/ (Viewed on
22/08/2017)

Wimmer R, Emmerich A, Nicolai A.T. (2002) Corporate Universities in Deutschland. Eine

empirische Untersuchung zu ihrer Verbreitung und strategischen Bedeutung.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Available at:
https://www.wiwi.unisiegen.de/bwlmewi/links/studien/corporate_universities_bmbf-
studie.pdf

You Tube. Reimagining Learning and Talent at Mattel. Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbmncbaxlto (accessed on 15.12.17)

107