Corporate U's Blues

A corporate university sounds like a swell idea at first, and at Training,we think establishing one is great since it usually indicates an enhanced investment in workforce development. But, thinking back on an article I wrote this summer on the subject, building a corporate university is not without its share of unforeseen blues.

You have to remember that a university connotes consistency. So, you risk losing the flexibility your instructors and coursework have always enjoyed. If you're offering classes on how to sell to customers before they realize you've tricked them, for instance, all those Trick-Faster-Than-They-Can-Tell (and Sell) courses will have to conform to the same standards. Or, at least I'm told that's the pressure you'll feel. You'll feel obligated to stipulate that each series of classes include a minimum number of role play exercises, a certain amount of computer-based simulations and gaming, and, just maybe, a grueling test at the end to make sure they've gained Ultimate Lucrative Trickster Proficiency.

Consistency and dependability of instruction is a good thing, and pretty impressive when applying for prestigious industry awards, like our Training Top 125. But, that means a lot of your coursework isn't going to meet the new standards you've set. And, what's worse (and far more awkward and sad), many of your current instructors won't either. Of course as long as you're setting up standards, codes, bylaws, etc. for your instruction, you might as well set standards, and even certifications, for the trainers you're using, right?

Corporate universities aren't as common as you might think in our industry, and there may be a reason for it: Sometimes wishy washy is good. The burden of defining coursework and instructor competency, and setting it all down on paper is enough to cause internal dissension and even, ironically, the dissolution of classes and trainers that worked but defied easy categorization. You don't know where they'd fit in your new structured, formalized university, so they're left out altogether, or lose funding from the "official" training budget.

How have you made a corporate university flexible enough to work? Or, were you never able to, and so, scrapped the project altogether?

I envision an overly structured corporate university as a straight jacket. Sadly in that scenario, the mental patients strapped inside are you and your squeezed learners.

Comments

[Meir Navon]

1. There's no contradiction between having flexible courses and even "wishy washy" training and a corporate university
2. On the contrary - having a well established methodology and clear processes helps the participants to "test the boundaries". The instructional designers know that they are walking in unmapped paths and make the most out of it.
3. I've helped establish a few corporate universities and always found that at the end of the process- the learning/knowledge level in the organization increased.
4. Sometimes the term "corporate university" is used only as a PR play or a way to get more budget – this is where the problems you mention begin...

[margery weinstein]

Hi Meir,

It's good to hear there's a way to create corporate universities that are efficient as well as painless.

From your comments, it sounds like they're a definite plus!

Thanks,

Margery

[Bryant Nielson]

I am surprised that this article has so few comments. It sets forth an argument of creating 'consistent training' as the objective, and then allows for it to be undermined by corporate politics. If the value is there in creating a corporate university, then the article should have set forth a plan to overcome the standard objections. The reference to the Training Top 125 should have been ‘exhibit a’ for any Chief Learning Officer.

As for designing, developing and implementing a Corporate University, I have done this a number of times. With the result ALWAYS positive result. Company politics aside, it is worth the time, effort and cajoling to elevate a company’s staff, skill and profitability.