Challenges of Corporate University Implementation and Management
Tamara ALMEIDA
Universidade Federal Fluminense
Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
[email protected]
Ariel LEVY
Universidade Federal Fluminense
Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study rise up the implementation process of a corporate
university and uses the concepts of competency system,
knowledge management, knowledge retention and strategy to
structure possible models and tendencies related to
organizational development based on internal knowledge
creation. Establishes the connection between academic and
private research and how they can act cooperatively.
Keywords: corporate university, knowledge management,
competency, strategy
1.
INTRODUCTION
The concept and application of a corporate university presents
the relevance and challenges showed in the implementation
scenario to obtain a better dynamism based on goals strategically
addressed, differing from regular training to competency
development training. Also, it shows how can the knowledge be
shared and which tools can support this process. Companies
through their objectives are actually more aligned on creating
and obtaining internal knowledge and that’s why they have been
giving special attentions to people management and
organizational development.
This study discusses the concept and application of a corporate
university, for which it presents the origins and concepts, as well
as, the relevance and challenges of the implementation scenario.
It also addresses the goals and the utilization of people
management techniques in modern organizations. The analysis is
extended to the practical development of training, and
management resource allocation systems. In the professional
field, the study contributes to the analysis of the trajectory of
developments in human resource management aiming on talent
development.
capital to the collaborators; i.e. as a strategic way to add value to
the business [9].
In the social field, we observe that the reality of a corporate
university is not inherent in everyday life of most employees of
organizations. Research shows that while the processes of
attraction and retention by raising the compensation are
considered easier, the development is where the greatest
dissatisfaction, which gives a fair motivation for continuous
learning necessary for the evolution of organizations [9].
Regarding methodology, the study is defined as descriptive and
explanatory. Descriptive, since there are exposed features and
definitions of Corporate University as well as concepts that
support this practice. Explanatory, by demystifying the subject
while exploiting its advantages and disadvantages and the
processes that compose it [35].
2.
CORPORATE UNIVERSITY - STRATEGIC
RATIONALE, ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION
Despite the early approach to the concept of competence in the
United States in 1970, was from the 90’s that it expanded
rapidly to support evaluation processes and guide actions on
professional development. This begins an better understanding
of the relationship between organization, people and
competences and the ability to use those concepts as a parameter
for the construction of new management tools [21]. As each
individual that presents their own competences, which can be
exploited to further broaden potential demand for competences,
but not only those already identified in the required scope of the
function as in figure 1 (below), as illustrated by Retour [27]
Thus, the idea of position or function was replaced by the
individual..
Figure 1 – The four levels of individual competences
A quick analysis of the competitive environment on the labor
market, could give the idea that companies would be
comfortable about the prospects of training in personnel
selection. The professionals, though qualified, normally do not
conform to the demands skills in organizations [24]. Also, the
turnover presented on management level impact on routine
business. Companies facing this context seek and manage their
intellectual assets in order to achieve sustainable competitive
advantages, as well as retain its intellectual property [26]. This
leads to the scenario, where companies need to invest in the
workforce, aiming to meet their demands of current and future
human resources [19].
The corporate university emerges as a path under the hypothesis
that by following a superior dynamism on academic
development, which complements the education obtained on
regular institutions [26], inclusive as a way to recognize and
drive recognition of the pertaining abilities and the intellectual
Souce: [27]
According to Retour [27], the required competences are those
demanded by the office. However, the individual can mobilize
more expertise than the demand. Some required competences are
not applied by the individual for not having yet the preparation
or suitability for any reason.
Thus, the competences detained are those owned by individuals
but not yet explored, because of the lack of an opportunity or a
propitious environment. And finally, the potential competences
are those that the individual can acquire, by being trained or
prepared, and can detain them.
The concept of competence is revealed as a set of human
capacities (knowledge, skills and attitudes) that justify a high
performance, believing that the best performances are based on
intelligence and personality [14]. This can be translated as a
"stock of resources ", equivalent to the capacity detained, which
increases the potential capacity in the context presented in
Figure 1.
Strategic Rationale
The competence, to be transmitted through the practice is
impossible or difficult to copy, its creation is unique by
individuals with training and practice which determine the
addition and expansion of their competences. Borges [4] follows
Sveiby [33] and highlight, the role of expertise within
organizations, as a link between knowledge and strategy, as the
ability to act with respect to other organizations. In successful
organizations, values, ideas and practices that contributed to
success became part of the institution. A learning organization is
characterized by strong organizational culture, incentive for
change and adaptation. As part of the organizational learning
process many companies try to emphasize equality, cultural
values, seize opportunities and adaptability to meet crises and
still remain competitive in a volatile environment. To illustrate
this relationship between individual skills transformed into
organizational competencies through learning and further
developed to meet corporate strategies, is exhibited in Figure 2
(below) the cycle of transformation and coexistence of these
factors in the learning process organizational alignment of the
strategies and competences [15].
Figure 2 – The cycle of transformation and coexistence
Source: [15]
The development of core competencies to the business, the
presence of unrestricted educational services to employees, and
partnerships with institutions of higher education and degree
granting independent are the characteristics that support the
definition of Corporate University [3]. This proposal for
corporate universities not only favors the formation of strategic
development of core competencies to the business. But also, and
concomitantly, the observation of two fundamental
characteristics: Openness to the outside public in general, which
favors the discovery and recruitment of talent, and partnerships
with institutions of higher education, especially for the
validation of credit courses and the possibility of degree
granting, jointly or independently.
Origins and Evolution
The definition of Corporate University is directly linked to its
application, and varies from organization to organization. Its
format is set by the guidelines and requirements of each
organization, although there are no models, parameter sets, or
patterns that must be followed. One of the proposed definitions
is that the Corporate Universities present themselves as
responsible for the development process of people aligned with
business strategies and core competencies of the organization
[2]. They can also be understood as a direct evolution of the
function or process of training and development [26].
It is important while defining Corporate Universities, to raise
their differences to training and development departments.
While training and development departments tend to follow a
demand for qualifications, and identified an immediate
requirement is attended by the departments of Training and
Development (T & D), in response to requests that are submitted
by users. A Corporate University's principle is the advance
preparation of skills and competencies that will become
necessary to meet future business strategies of the company.
They differ from the usual training and development centers for
its agility and proactive adjustment to the business environment
in which they are embedded. The focus is primarily on strategic
development of core competences, and envisions transforming
the education of employees who hold the corporate knowledge
into competitive advantage [2]. Therefore, the departments of
training and development are intended for more technical skills
directly related to the immediate requirement for a certain task,
unlike the Corporate Universities that incorporate into their
programs and involvement in the culture, values, mission and
goals of the sponsoring organizations, tied to the position of the
market and business vision [19] [3].
The Corporate University has its first appearance in the mold of
today with the creation of Crotonville Management
Development Institute of General Electric in 1955. However, it
was in 1980 that the concept has spread by large U.S. companies
[26]. In the U.S. they increased significantly, ranging from hightech industries to financial services [10]. Their format has
changed considerably today, no longer as a physical location for
classes, as in the recent past, but as a process concerning the
strategic management of knowledge [19] [26].
The current format of the Corporate University lost the
definition of physical place to become a strategic management
process and, therefore, through the widespread use of systems
for distance learning, their design is no longer in shape to
student / teacher ratio in classrooms, especially in the virtual
environment [19]. This evolutionary transformation starts from a
choice of environments and systems for managing distance
learning internet courses that are available on the market for
those responsible for training interested in inserting a solution of
distance education in their organizations. While these options
may be differentiated by particular details, the solutions have
converged to the same technology, the Internet. With the
backdrop of virtual learning environments, which provide
flexibility of time, place, content and form of instruction have
not yet seen. The Internet also enables for students potentially
qualified for the learning of what they need, when and where
they determine as well as the format and pace most appropriate
[16]. Distance learning and e-learning in Corporate Universities
have an important role in providing the opportunity in order to
accelerate learning [19]. By using technological tools, learning
became not restricted to the model "classroom-teacher-student"
and offer different learning systems as case studies, business
valuation, benchmarking functions, supplementary readings, and
virtual communities. What draws more attention to this method
is the short term, low cost, developing competitive advantages in
improving skills. [18].
The increase in courses offered by distance learning via the
Internet is pushed by the difficulty created by factors such as
high cost of traditional education, dynamic change in course
content, temporal order constraints such as time zones and
different working hours, geographic limitations, motor
restlessness of students most distant and development of
interactive communication technologies[16].
3.
THE CHALLENGES OF CORPORATE
UNIVERSITIES
By setting the intention to develop a Corporate University or a
Corporate Education System is important to identify the steps in
this process and challenges encountered, identifying them in a
descriptive and comparative way. To create a system based on
the strategic plan it is essential to comply with items such as
engagement of senior management, and strategic alignment
model of people management with business strategies.
Another factor is the investment required for the operation of a
corporate university. The institution of the process, facilitation
of intellectual and material resources necessary for its
development are quite significant and difficult to measure
results, which may explain why they are most easily found in
large organizations, with a more solid financial structure and
more analysis tools for investments [3].
Among the intangible assets necessary to model the learning
process, through the absorption of knowledge for learning to
learn, are the methodological guidance in the preparation of
courses, the sensitivity of teachers and tutors to make the
process a learning activity to be extended out the organization,
as an exercise in life. For this purpose, it is necessary to develop
a creative environment, propitious to sharing experiences among
those involved in the process. With the objective, of building
learning communities, involving academic theories and practice
of the corporate world [18].
There are other challenges in substantial changes on internal
structures of the development of people with the proposal of
Corporate Universities such as: Empowering people to compete
in a globalized economy; The development of mental models
and behavior toward continuous learning and adaptation to
environments subjected the frequent change; Training to lead
organizations in international contexts, with strong cultural
diversity present in everyday business and the people who work
there; Preparation for constant acquisitions and merger, the
reconciliation of people and the prospects of the company, so as
to reach both the interests at stake in the educational process and
those that are fundamental to the success of its implementation;
And finally, the encouragement of self-development of
employees, which implies strong changes in the company's
culture of learning [9].
In a study of best practices for implementation and growth of
Corporate Universities [10], were found six critical factors for
the creation and growth of such an initiative. The first is the
commitment of the governing body of the company, appointed
previously as crucial for the success of the project, engagement
of senior managers of hierarchical levels. The second is to have
well defined its purview, i.e.: What is the scope? For what it will
be responsible? The third is to define which the targets
audiences are, and what are the range of products and services
that will be offered to them. The next factor is determining your
educational partnerships and technology to be implemented. The
following factor would be the development of appropriate tools
of metrics on possible economic advantages offered by the
corporate university. Finally the sixth factor was identified as the
creation of a marketing strategy and communications for the
university.
4.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Analyzing the evolution of strategic thinking, there is a
transition through different phases and semantic contexts. Since
its ancient origins, the word strategy has taken different
meanings, without however losing its semantic root. Today in
organizational and business context, a strategic plan represents
an important instrument of adaptation to a turbulent and
competitive market, which requires the preparation of the
organization to compete. Thus, the organization must provide
itself with the unique competences that result in competitive
advantage. One way to achieve this is through training of
internal resources in a systematic and objective way.
The suitability of the most dynamic models, knowledgeoriented, based on adaptation and response, is needed to achieve
the capacity to innovate and plan this new context [6].
Universities have to build the link homogenization of values,
cultures among customers, suppliers, shareholders and society as
a competitive and is using the approach of potential
competencies in corporate education, exploratory purposes with
the skills to be developed, which is based the structure of a
Corporate University [4].
By setting goals with strategies for developing a detailed action
program that allows to reach them, the company should
therefore seek leadership in this case the insertion of a corporate
university and corporate education [17].
When choosing a model that could represent the inclusion of a
corporate university in a dynamic context, the McKinsey 7-S
seems appropriate. The model assumes that an organization is
not just a single structure but consists of seven elements:
Structure, System, Style, Staff, Skills, Strategies, all interacting
and converging to the element Shared Values depicted in Figure
3[8].
Figure 3- McKinsey 7-S structure
Source: [8]
The seven elements are classified as being "hard" and "soft ",
where "hard" are those defined as foundation of success
involving structures, systems and strategy of an organization,
shown in the figure above, in lighter color . Since the elements
of "soft", are presented as complementary elements of success
for Style, Staff, Skills and Shared Values, highlighted in color
stronger [8][17].
The "hard" elements can be found in statements of strategy
plans, organizational charts and other similar types of
documentation and registration. But "soft" are not so perceived,
and are difficult to describe since capabilities, values and
elements of organizational culture are in constant evolution. In
fact, the "soft" elements are largely determined by individuals
working in the organization.
Thus, it is much more difficult to plan and influence the "soft"
elements, although such elements have a major impact on "hard"
elements of an organization, reaffirming the centrality of the
human factor in strategic development of business.
Corporate Universities have as their main objective the creation
of sustainable competitive advantage for the companies, and that
its development behind a new approach to knowledge
management and, therefore, a new path for organizations to
manage their intangible assets. It is further understood as an
evolution not only direct but also consistent to training and
development function.
A major difference between the corporate education and
traditional education is provided by the focus on the
development of values and culture in alignment with
organizational strategies as a competitive advantage for the
organization. It is mainly through the management of knowledge
that the democratization process of tacit knowledge takes place,
transforming it into explicit knowledge, which was also
observed the reverse process to finalize the link in the
knowledge spiral, as shown in figure 4 below [22].
organizations with more resources available for allocation in the
development of corporate education [3].
Nevertheless the difficulties that covers issues of cost allocation,
availability and orientation, there are also challenges in the
management of intangible assets in this process, points that need
to be closely watched in the decision of implementation and in
the posterior moments when raising framework issues of
individual participants of corporate education, and management
purpose of creating a Corporate University [16]. Just as
important as the involvement of the management, are the
decisions about the timing and how to insert this structure into
the organization. In part, this difficulty arises from the challenge
of measuring the results and use of subjective concepts of
learning in a company, which reaffirm the need for involvement
of top management in order to develop the structure of learning
in the organization. As well as indicating the tangibles and
intangibles to be listed in the evaluation, which again raises the
uniqueness of the presence of the Corporate University and
formats for each organization.
There are still many opportunities to continue in related
research. For example the opportunities are: A research on the
utilization of tangible and intangible people inserted in a
program of organizational development: or a research on the
occupation and relocation of individuals professionally trained
in a corporate university; or a research to formalize ownership of
business results, such as influence program, or even a research
related to the development of metrics on specific topic of
Corporate Education.
Figure 5 – Challenges of research on implementation of a
Corporate University
Figure 4 - Knowledge Spiral
Source: The authors
Source: [22]
As a strong trend in this process is the presence of distance
learning, oriented to the use of tools like the Internet and
information systems in their viability. This trend contributes to
the vision of a corporate university as a process and not as a
place or learning moment [19].
Not less important is the cost problem of adapting the company
to the reality of a company that generates knowledge, and as a
result of this difficulty we identify a greater presence of large
These studies consist of projections of models and theories
related to the theme that provide the practical adoption within
organizations that face the challenges found in the
implementation and management of a corporate university as
illustrated above in Figure 5.
Finally, by presenting clearly the objectives and outline the main
challenges in the implementation and management of Corporate
Universities, which excel for guidance in developing specific
competences, this study contributes to a multi-pronged approach
that recognizes the complexity and heterogeneity of human
social practices, organizational and business.
5.
REFERENCES
[1] ABREU, A.; GONÇALVES, Caio Márcio; PAGNOZZI,
Leila, “Tecnologia da Informação e Educação Corporativa:
contribuições e desafios da modalidade de ensino-aprendizagem
a distância no desenvolvimento de pessoas”,Rev. PEC, Curitiba,
v.3, n.1, p.47-58, jul. 2002-jul. 2003.
[2] ALPERSTEDT, C., “Universidades corporativas: discussão
e proposta de uma definição.” Revista de Administração
Contemporânea - RAC, Curitiba - PR, v. 5, n. 3, p. 149-165,
2001.
[3] ALPERSTEDT, C. “Universidades corporativas: definição
proposta.” Portal Universia, 27 mar. 2003.
[4] BORGES, Maria Elisa Siqueira. “Trabalho e gestão de si:
para além dos recursos humanos”. Cad. psicol. soc. trab., dez.
2004, vol.7, p.41-49. ISSN 1516-3717.
[5 ] BRANDÃO, G. R. “Gestão de Pessoas e as Universidades
Corporativas: dois lados da mesma moeda?”. RAE. Revista de
Administração de Empresas, v. 46, p. 22-33, 2006.
[6] DAFT, R. Organizações, Teoria e Projetos, São Paulo, ed.
Pioneira Thompson Learning, 2002.
[7] DAVENPORT, T.; PRUSAK, L. Working Knowledge,
How Organizations Manage What They Know, Boston
Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
[8] DUTRA, A. ‘Metodologias para Avaliar o Desempenho
Organizacional: Revisão e Proposta de uma Abordagem
Multicritério” Revista Contemporânea de Contabilidade
(UFSC), v. V. 1, n. n. 3, p. 25-56, 2005.
[9] EBOLI, Marisa. P. “Gestão do Conhecimento como
Vantagem Competitiva: O Surgimento das Universidades
Corporativas”. In: Marisa Eboli. (Org.). Universidades
Corporativas: Educação para as Empresas do Século XXI.
1a ed. São Paulo: Schmukler Editores Ltda., 1999, v. , p. 106121.
[10] EBOLI, Marisa P. Educação Corporativa no Brasil Mitos e Verdades. Brasília: Ed. Gente, 2004.
[11] EBOLI, Marisa. P. “O papel das lideranças no êxito de um
Sistema de Educação Corporativa.” RAE. Revista de
Administração de Empresas, São Paulo, v. 45, n. 4, p. 118122, 2005.
[12] FLEURY, Afonso,“Aprende-se Com As Empresas
Japonesas? Estudo Comparativo Entre Empresas Brasileiras e
Mexicanas.” Revista de Administração ContemporâneaRAC, v. 2, n. 1, p. 7-21, 1998.
[13] FLEURY, A.; FLEURY, M. T. L. Estratégias
empresariais e formação de competências: um quebracabeças caleidoscópico da indústria brasileira.São Paulo:
Atlas, 2000.
[14] FLEURY, M. T. L.; FLEURY, A. C. C. “Construindo o
Conceito de Competência.” Revista de Administração
Contemporânea- RAC, 2001.
[15]FLEURY, Afonso ; FLEURY, Maria Tereza Leme.
“Alinhando Estratégias e Competências’’. Rae Revista de
Administração de Empresas, v. 44, p. 44-57, 2004.
[16] GHEDINE, T.; TESTA, Maurício Gregianin; FREITAS,
Henrique, “Educação a Distância Via Internet em Grandes
Empresas Brasileiras”. RAE. Revista de Administração de
Empresas, v. 48, p. 2-10, 2008.
[17] KOTLER, Philip. Administração de marketing: análise,
planejamento, implementação e controle; trad. Ailton Bomfim
Brandão; rev. técnica José Antonio Gullo.- 2 ed. - São Paulo:
Atlas,1991. p.89
[18] MAIA, Marta de Campos. “Educação a Distância”. GV
Executivo. Getúlio Vargas Executivo, v. 6, p. 56-60, 2007.
[19] MEISTER, Jeanne. Educação Corporativa: A gestão do
capital intelectual através das universidades corporativas.
São Paulo: Makron, 1999.
[20] MONTEIRO, N. A.; FALSARELLA, O.M. ‘ Um Modelo
de Gestão da Informação para Aprendizagem Organizacional em
Projetos Empresariais”. Perspectivas em Ciência da
Informação, v. 12, p. 81-97, 2007.
[21]NAKATA, L. E.; SOUSA, Edileusa Godói,”O conceito de
competências e sua aplicação na gestão estratégica das empresas
atuantes no Brasil”. In: XII Semead - Seminários em
Administração, 2009, São Paulo. Anais do Semead Seminários em Administração, 2009.
[22] NONAKA, Ikujiro,”The Knowledge-Creating Company”.
Harvard Business Review, Florianópolis, July - August p. 162171, 2007. http://hbr.org, avaiable on 05/03/2010.
[23]PADOVEZE, Clovis Luis; Controladoria Estratégica e
Operacional: conceitos, estrutura, aplicação. São Paulo:
Pioneira Thomsom Learning, 2005.
[24] PAZETO, Antônio E.”Universidade, Formação e Mundo do
Trabalho: superando a visão corporativa”. Ensaio. Avaliação e
Políticas Públicas em Educação, Rio de Janeiro, v. 13, n. 49, p.
487-496, 2005
[25] PEREIRA BARTNIK, F. M.; PRIMI, R.; COBERO, C.
“Validade de testes utilizados em seleção de pessoal segundo
recrutadores”. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa (UnB. Impresso),
São Paulo, v. 5, n. 2, p. 83-98, 2003.
[26] RAMOS, H. C.; OLIVEIRA, R. T. Q.; SANTOS, J. A. N.;
ZOTES, L. P. “Transição de T&D para Universidade
Corporativa”. In: IV Congresso Nacional de Excelência em
Gestão, 2008, Niterói. Anais do IV CNEG. Rio de Janeiro:
ABEPRO, 2008. v. 1. p. 1-15.
[27] RETOUR, D.; THÉVENET, M. et al.
Seminário
Internacional “Gestão por Competências: Que Alternativas
para a Gestão de Recursos Humanos? Uma Reflexão
Internacional – Brasil – França”. São Paulo: FIA, Progep,
2005.
[28] RUTHES, S.; CERETTA, P. S. “Abordagem sistêmica
numa organização com produção do tipo job-shop
personalizada: um estudo de caso”. Revista Eletrônica Sistema
& Gestão, http://www.latec.uff.br/sg/are, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-15,
2006.
[29]TOFFLER, Alvin. A Terceira Onda. Rio de Janeiro:
Editora Record. 1980, P. 18
[30] SALERNO, Mario Sergio. Da rotinização à flexibilização:
ensaio sobre o pensamento crítico brasileiro de organização
do trabalho. Gest. Prod., São Carlos, v. 11, n. 1, Apr. 2004.
Available
from<http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S
0104-530X2004000100003&lng=en&nrm=iso>. access on 03
June 2010. doi: 10.1590/S0104-530X2004000100003.
[31] SANTOS, A. R. dos; PACHECO, F. F.; PEREIRA, H. J.;
BASTOS JUNIOR, P. . “Gestão do conhecimento como modelo
empresarial”. In: Antônio Raimundo dos Santos; Fernando
Flávio Pacheco; Heitor José Pereira; Paulo Bastos Junior. (Org.).
Gestão do conhecimento: uma experiência para o sucesso
empresarial. 1a. ed. Curitiba: Paraná, 2001, v. 01, p. 11-48.
[32] SILVA, Marco W.; BALZAN, Newton. C. “Universidade
Corporativa: (Pré-) tendência do Ensino Superior ou ameaça?”.
Avaliação (Campinas) , v. 12, p. 233-256, 2007.
[33] SVEIBY, K.E. (1997) The New Organizational Wealth:
Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based Assets, Berrett
Koehler, San Francisco, CA. The chapter on measuring
intangibles
is
available
on-line:
http://www.sveiby.com/articles/MeasureIntangibleAssets.html
[34] VALENTIM, M. L. P. “Inteligência competitiva em
organizações:
dado,
informação
e
conhecimento”.
Datagramazero (Rio de Janeiro), Rio de Janeiro, v. 3, n. 4, p. 113, 2002.
[35]VERGARA, Sylvia Constant. Projetos e Relatórios de
Pesquisa em Administração. São Paulo: Atlas, 2003.