Epic Think Tank
Corporate Universities
Part 1 - Why corporate universities?
To British ears, there is surely no word in the whole lexicon of
learning more tainted by elitism than 'university'. So at a time
when everybody seems to want to open out learning and make it more
accessible, why do we latch onto this particular word?
There is a real danger, when importing terminology from traditional
models, that we end up importing not only words but concepts; not
to mention whole organisational structures. Many corporate universities
now have 'faculties' and schools: what next - tenure?
Equally, if the term is used merely to confer a spurious credibility
on what is really no more than the existing training function under
a new name, the initiative will lack all credibility. And given
that classically, the function of a university is research and the
pursuit of learning for its own sake, can this inherently academic
model really translate to the pressured corporate environment without
something fairly vital being lost in the translation?
Is the very term 'corporate university', in fact, an oxymoron -
a contradiction in terms?
A delegate from a large telco related that his company had chosen
specifically not to go down the corporate university route
because it 'upped the ante' too much. There was enough of a challenge,
given the pressures on the business, in finding adequate time for
routine skills-based training - let alone widening the agenda to
learner self-development in a way implied by the use of the word
'university'.
Another delegate raised the example of the MacDonalds Hamburger
University. The Hamburger University is certainly not about
research, or learning for it's own sake, so in what sense it is
it a university? In this delegate's view, at least, here was a clear
example of the term being used purely for its 'glamorous' associations
- to give an honorific value to what was essentially a conventional
training process.
However a powerful counter to this negative perception came from
a delegate who drew attention to the different attitudes to higher
education on the other side of the Atlantic (the concept of corporate
universities comes, after all, from the US).
In the United States, 'almost everybody goes to university'. The
range of what can be studied at universities is far wider and often
more vocational in character than in this country (e.g. degrees
in Golf Course Management). Granted, there are pockets of elitism
- the Ivy League - however generally the idea of what a university
is and whose needs it can serve is seen to be broader. Excellence
is there in the system, but it is not necessarily seen as something
that has to be rationed. Everyone can aspire to excellence at their
own level. (Contrast this with the situation in the UK, where university
entrance has only fairly recently been broadened to embrace a significant
swathe of the population and which consistently undervalues 'practically-focused'
subjects such as engineering.)
Following on from this, a distinction was made between the elitist
and the aspirational, with the use of the term 'corporate university'
promoting an approach that embraces the diverse aspirations of individuals
within a common system very much in the US mould. Seen from this
viewpoint, perhaps the idea of a corporate university makes more
sense: widely inclusive, yet not lacking in an emphasis on excellence.
A corporate university that truly embraces this ideal can in theory
be a very powerful force within an organisation, signalling by its
very existence a greater value given to the individual aspirations
of its workforce - and by extension, to learning in general. Traditionally,
training has suffered from its low status within organisations,
and a concomitantly poor level of expectation.
Centralising learning and giving it an enterprise-wide, strategic
focus allows it to address top-level issues within the organisation
like, for instance, employee retention. Learning becomes a tool
for cultural change - in a way it can never be as long as budgets
remain locked within departments, serving departmental objectives.
And along with its cultural, strategic significance, the greater
centralisation which is almost implied by having a corporate university
brings significant potential costs benefits.
There is the obvious advantage of eliminating duplication. 'How
many times is the wheel being reinvented on a daily basis,' cried
one delegate, almost in desperation. Less obviously, perhaps, where
outsourced training is purchased in many different places throughout
the organisation there tends to be a lack of negotiating power with
suppliers. If knowledge really is the raw material on which modern
businesses run, let it be 'bulk purchased'.
Effective management of knowledge is a widespread concern within
many of today's organisations. There is an increasing recognition
that while a great deal of the value of an organisation resides
in its internal SME knowledge, this knowledge is rarely effectively
shared, but tends to stay 'locked up inside someone's head'. The
outcome of this is that organisations spend considerable amounts
of money with external suppliers 'reacquiring' knowledge that already
exists within the organisation.
Integrating knowledge management with learning - and giving both
a strategic level focus - is a convergence that according to one
delegate 'has to happen'. Unfortunately, Knowledge Management is
seen in many quarters solely as an IT issue. In order for this convergence
to happen it has to 'bust out of the silo'. The corporate university
can provide both a stimulus and a locus for this to happen.
Clearly, more is at stake here than just calling the training function
by a different name. But changing the name is important. The founding
of a corporate university is symbolic of a new era, and helps to
spread a different perception of what the learning is for, and the
value it can have not just for the organisation but for the individual.
Having subjected the concept of corporate universities to fairly
intense scrutiny, our delegates moved to considering what the
nature of the learning experience should be within these institutions.
Next>>
Introduction
Background
Part 2 The crucible of experience
Part 3 The role of technology
|
