The research register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this
archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
Journal of
Management
Development
21,10
794
Received January 2002
Accepted January 2002
Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 21 No. 10, 2002, pp. 794-811.
q MCB UP Limited, 0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/02621710210448057
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
Corporate universities – an
analytical framework
Christopher Prince and Jim Stewart
Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University,
Nottingham, UK
Keywords Organizational learning, Knowledge workers, Corporate strategy
Abstract The purpose of this article is to offer a contribution to enabling an understanding of the
concept of the corporate university to be developed. This contribution is in the form of a conceptual
framework, drawing on the significant concepts of knowledge management, organisational
learning and learning organisation. The resulting framework – corporate university wheel –
represents what might be termed an “ideal type”, in the Weberian sense, of a corporate university
based human resource development strategy. Though the framework is offered as a descriptive
and analytical device rather than as a prescriptive model, it highlights four core processes which, it
is argued, represent the key functions that an ideal type corporate university should perform. The
paper suggests that the success of corporate universities of the future could hinge on their ability to
manage and harness the complex interaction of organisational learning subsystems and less on
their ability to manage training and education programmes.
Introduction
The notion of the “corporate university” is relatively new in the lexicon of
management and employee development. Given that starting point, it is
unsurprising that there are differences and difficulties in defining the concept
(Walton, 1999; Lester, 1999). Some writers on the topic even make the
interesting claim that the majority of corporate universities do not have the
word “university” in their title (Meister, 1998). Since the alternatives include
terms such as “institute of learning” and “learning academy”, it is perhaps
understandable that Meister (1998) chooses to include those in the definition of
corporate university adopted for her survey. The claim made by Meister (1998)
also suggests that there is more to the phenomenon than the use of labels. The
suggestion is supported by examining the definition itself:
The strategic umbrella for developing and educating employees, customers and suppliers in
order to meet an organisation’s business strategies (Meister, 1998, p. 29).
This definition encompasses the idea of “non-employee” development (Walton,
1996). It also argues a view of corporate universities as not so much physical
entities but as a concept concerned with particular approaches to organising
and managing learning, within organisations. Such a view of corporate
universities being concerned with organizational processes, as opposed to
organisational entities, is supported by the work of Bachler (1997). Since the
processes of interest are learning processes, the notion of corporate universities
can be said to reside within the field of human resource development (HRD),
(see Stewart and McGoldrick, 1996; Walton, 1999). With that connection Corporate
accepted, it might be argued that the concept represents a particular approach universities
to, or strategy for HRD. That position is supported by the analysis and
arguments of Walton (1999). It does though also raise questions and issues for
educational providers seeking to support and respond to organisational-based
demands for management learning and development (see Prince and Stewart,
2000). But, with little understanding of the nature, purpose and role of corporate 795
universities as a HRD strategy, it will be difficult for both organisation decision
makers and educational providers to evaluate their responses to what is clearly
a growing phenomenon (Walton, 1999; Lester, 1999).
The purpose of this article is to offer a contribution to enabling an
understanding of the concept. This contribution is in the form of a conceptual
framework, which seeks to identify the most significant concepts, and their
connections and relationships, which are drawn upon in the debates surrounding
corporate universities. The resulting framework represents what might be
termed an “ideal type”, in the Weberian sense (Weber, 1947), of a corporate
university-based HRD strategy. That being the case, the framework is offered as
a descriptive and analytical device rather than as a prescriptive model.

A processual analysis
As a starting point in building the framework, a processual perspective has
been adopted. This perspective is not associated with postmodern analyses
such as those offered by Cooper and Law (1995) in relation to continuous and
unfinished processes or, as Chia (1996, 1997) puts it, an assumption of
“becoming” rather than “being”. The meaning of processual adopted here is
that associated with the work of Simon (1960) and that of Cyert and March
(1963) on the “bounded rationality” of human decision making. Coupling this
with the work of Pettigrew (1973, 1985) on the micro-politics of organisations,
more recent writers such as Whittington (1993) and Dawson (1994) have argued
that the cognitive limits and political exigencies operating in organisations
mean that strategies are the result of emergent processes, rather than the
planned intent of senior decision makers. It is this sense of processual that
informs the conceptional framework.

The significant concepts

Work on corporate universities, especially in the UK, has gone beyond the
re-badging of established HRD departments and functions (Donkin, 1999).
Research and writing in a number of separate but related areas have been
drawn upon. The conceptual framework developed in the rest of this article
suggests that three areas are of particular importance. These are knowledge
management, organisational learning and the learning organisation. A brief
review of each of these concepts is provided in the following sections to support
their contribution to the framework.
Journal of Knowledge and knowledge management
Management It is useful to begin a review of the concept of knowledge management by first
Development considering the notion of knowledge itself. In doing this, it is also useful and
constructive to acknowledge the various and varying perspectives which can
21,10 be and are brought to bear in examining the nature and status of knowledge,
including the postmodern analyses referred to earlier. Such analyses have more
796 or less influence on what might be considered the knowledge management
literature (see, for example, Scarborough et al., 1999; Davenport and Prusak,
1998). While modernist and postmodernist protagonists may seek to emphasise
their differences, it is possible to argue some common ground. Two examples
can illustrate and support this argument. First, both perspectives would argue
the social and contextual construction of knowledge as distinct from an
independent and neutral existence; this is evident from the following quotations:
Postmodernism stresses the relatively, instability and indeterminacy of meaning; it abandons
all attempts to grasp totalities or construct grand theory, in favour of more modest, specific,
local and fragmented analysis (Best, 1991, p. 188).

Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and expert
insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and
information (Davenport and Prusak, 1998, p. 5).
Second, a significant focus of postmodern analyses is the relation of knowledge
to power and its exercise in institutional settings (Foucault, 1977, 1980). The
processual perspective adopted here also emphasises the power relations and
political processes involved in organisation decision making, and the role of
legitimised knowledge in those processes (Whittington, 1993). Thus, while not
accepting postmodern analyses, the position adopted here views knowledge as
being contextual, socially constructed and significant in the power relations
operating in organisations (see also Gibbons et al., 1994, on modes of
knowledge production).
Accepting the arguments of Earle (1994), implicitly at least, in the
distinctions between data, information and knowledge, Davenport and Prusak
(1998) argue that humans have to do the work if information is to be
transformed into knowledge. According to those authors, this happens through
a number of processes:
.
comparison: how information compares to other situations;
.
consequences: the implications for decisions and actions;
.
connections: how the information relates to other information; and
.
conversation: exploring the views of others on the information.
These processes clearly suggest that knowledge creation takes place within
individuals and within their interactions with other individuals. The impact
and influence of local contextual factors is also clearly evident since, for
example, consequences cannot be assessed in any absolute or neutral sense.
Thus, if corporate universities are to connect with knowledge management, Corporate
some impact on knowledge creation processes will be a necessary component of universities
that role.
That a connection with knowledge management will be an imperative for
the notion of corporate universities is clear from the work of a number of
writers. The work of Starbuck (1992) suggests a growth of what are termed
“knowledge intensive firms”. Hamel and Prahalad (1990), Drucker (1993) and 797
Blackler (1993) all argue a similar point that knowledge is a major source of
competitive advantage and therefore that knowledge is now central to wealth
creation. More recent work suggests that this is the case for organisations
outside of those traditionally defined as “knowledge intensive” (Stewart, 1997;
Davenport and Prusak, 1998). As Prusak (1997, p. xi) notes:
Firms describing themselves as “in the knowledge business” range from BP, which drills for
oil to Senco, which makes nails.
These developments in the nature of knowledge production (see Castells, 1996;
Gibbons et al., 1994) have implications for and impact on organisation
structures and work design across industries (Prusak, 1997; Stewart, 1997;
Coulson-Thomas, 1997; Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Scarborough et al. (1999)
point out that these changes create new problems for learning and the
development of expertise, including opportunities for the casual sharing of
knowledge. Together with the claimed growing importance of “knowledge
workers” (Drucker, 1993; Hanson et al., 1999), Lester (1999) argues that these
developments lead to a strategic role for corporate universities. Such a role is
likely to be connected with various processes of what is now termed
“knowledge management”. Central to these processes are understandings of
different types and forms of knowledge. One useful categorisation for the
purposes of knowledge management is that provided by Blackler (1995).
Blackler’s (1995) framework distinguishes between embedded, embodied,
encultured and embrained forms of knowledge. The usefulness of these
categories arises from highlighting a focus on both individual and collective
knowledge, and a purpose or relevance for knowledge to both familiar and
unfamiliar problems. This leads Blackler (1995) to suggest that organisations
can be broadly categorised as one of four types:
(1) knowledge routinised;
(2) communication intensive;
(3) symbolic analyst; or
(4) expert dependent.
Scarborough et al. (1999) suggest that the value of this analysis lies in pointing
out the crucial requirement of analyzing the organisational context of
knowledge in order to understand which forms of knowledge are of most
importance in particular circumstances. They also argue that the key insight of
Journal of Blackler’s (1995) work is in highlighting the lack of attention to the social,
Management technological and organisational processes through which knowledge is
created and combined.
Development The work of Blackler (1995), and the commentary on it provided by
21,10 Scarborough et al. (1999), point the analysis of knowledge in the direction
of Daft and Weick’s (1984) notion of “sensemaking”. Here, organisations are
798 conceptualised as systems of interpretation. In a later work, Weick (1995)
argues that sensemaking concerns, inter alia, the placement of items into
frameworks, constructing meaning, patterning and the pursuit of mutual
understanding. Weick’s (1995) conclusion from his application of these
ideas, that organisations are socially constructed systems of shared
meaning, is supported by the systemic analyses of, for example,
Granovetter (1985). It is further supported by the elaboration provided by
Smircich and Stubbart (1985) who argue that the task of management is
the creation and maintenance of shared meanings that facilitate organised
action; a notion similar to the arguments in “strategic exchange” advanced
by Watson (1994). Thus, it can be sensibly argued that a key task for
corporate universities is to provide a vehicle for constructing shared
meaning through influencing, and perhaps controlling, processes of learning
and knowledge creation. The last of these can be characterised as the
domain of knowledge management.
While Bell (1973) first pointed to the importance of knowledge in the
post-industrial era, it is only in the past ten years that knowledge management
had emerged as a critical competence for the management of organisations
(Ruggles, 1998; Walton, 1999). Scarborough et al. (1999, p. 1) define knowledge
management as:
. . . any process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using knowledge,
wherever it resides, to enhance learning and performance in organisations.
This is a rather all-embracing definition which makes it difficult to imagine
what might not be knowledge management. This view is acknowledged to
some extent by Skyrme and Amidon (1997), who point out that most
organisations will find that they have been managing knowledge for the
corporate good for many years. They do though go on to argue that there are
three new developments:
(1) making knowledge and knowledge processes more explicit;
(2) the development of strategic frameworks to guide the exploitation of
knowledge; and
(3) the introduction of more systematic methods for knowledge
management (Skyrme and Amidon, 1997).
These developments suggest attempts to “bureaucratise” and explicitly
manage previously informal and unstructured behaviour. From a Weickian
perspective, it could be argued that the developments support managerial
control of the social process of “enactment” (Weick, 1995). This argument is Corporate
supported by the analysis of the dominant discourse of knowledge universities
management provided by Dash (1998), who identifies a primary concern
with identifying and codifying knowledge assets so that they can be both fully
exploited and fully protected as a source of competitive advantage. Much of the
focus of this codification is “tacit knowledge” which, as Scarborough et al.
(1999) point out, is an additional dominant component of the knowledge 799
management discourse. Using Blackler’s (1993, 1995) terminology, tacit
knowledge can be embrained in the conceptual and analytical understanding of
individuals (know what), or embodied in their practical skills and expertise
(know how). As Nonaka (1994) argues, knowledge management is much
concerned with the interplay between tacit and explicit knowledge.
Nonaka (1994), with his “knowledge spiral” is one of a number of authors
who have attempted to produce models of knowledge management (see also
Earle, 1994; Skyrme and Amidon, 1997). Some of these, for example that
produced by Earle (1994), are limited by an over emphasis on the role of
information technology and systems (see Scarborough et al., 1999). Drawing on
the work of Scarborough et al. (1999), it is possible to summarise the
orientations of the various arguments, analyses and models as follows:
(1) Theoretical orientation:
.
practice-driven;
.
resource-based view of the firm;
.
emphasis on information systems management and systems design;
and
. emphasis on changing tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
(2) Management orientation:
.
IS/IT managers and chief knowledge officers responsible for change;
.
tangible performance improvements; and
.
planned IT change strategy.
(3) Epistemological and ontological orientation:
.
independent of context (“best practice”);
. emphasis on “externalisation” and “combination”;
.
knowledge as cognition and raw material (resources); and
.
intra and inter-organisational knowledge emphasised.
However, one model in particular is argued here to be particularly relevant to
attempts to link the ideas of knowledge management and those of corporate
universities. This is the model adapted from Skyrme and Amidon (1997).
Skyrme and Amidon (1997) while writing from a practitioner perspective
Journal of continually emphasise the importance of human interaction and networking in
Management their work. They also identify a range of factors which they argue act as
Development “enablers”, “levers” and “foundations” of knowledge management. These factors
21,10 reflect the emphasis on and importance of human interaction. Given the earlier
arguments of this paper, it seems reasonable to argue here that a corporate
800 university can play a significant role in knowledge management by acting
through and on Skyrme and Amidon’s (1997) enablers, levers and foundations.
This argument is supported by the work of Wiig (1997) who suggests that the
role of a corporate university is part of an organisation’s knowledge
infrastructure. The result of this argument is a refinement of the model
provided by Skyrme and Amidon (1997). This refined model is given in Figure 1.
The foundations of knowledge management suggested in Figure 1, and
indeed the lever of “core processes” and the enabler of “culture”, suggest the
importance of the second and third significant concepts identified earlier;
organisational learning and the learning organisation. These concepts are
briefly reviewed together in the next section.

Figure 1.
Levers of value and
change
Organisational learning and the learning organisation Corporate
While these two concepts are often conflated, there are important distinctions universities
(Easterby-Smith and Araujo, 1999). These distinctions are reflected in the
definitions of organisational learning offered, for example, by Huber (1991) and
by Prange (1999), and the definitions of a learning organisation provided for
example by Garvin (1993) and by Pedler et al. (1996). As the definitions cited 801
would suggest, the key distinction is that between a process (organisational
learning) and an outcome or product (learning organisation) (see Schwandt and
Marquardt, 1999). In addition, and as Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999) point
out, the literature on the two concepts has developed in different ways and for
different purposes. They also argue that while work on organisational learning
has informed the work on learning organisations to some extent, the reverse is
less true. Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999) also argue a distinction based on a
theory building versus action orientation.
Easterby-Smith and Araujo (1999) also point out a useful distinction within
the literature on organisational learning. This is between those who adopt a
technical view of learning and those who view learning as a social process. The
work of, for example, Argyris and Schon (1978), Zuboff (1988) and Huber (1991)
can be associated with the former position. All of these writers are relevant to
thinking about the role of corporate universities. Zuboff (1988) for example
argues the power of “informating” for liberating individual and organisational
potential. Huber’s (1991) work on the importance of four constructs for
organisational learning: knowledge acquisition; information distribution;
information interpretation; and organisational memory has obvious
connections with and implications for the model of knowledge management
given in the previous section. This “technical” conception of organisational
learning therefore is not discounted. However, the “social” view of learning as
socially constructed, as a political process and as implicated in the creation and
maintenance of organisational culture, is more directly relevant to the
processual analysis of corporate universities being applied here.
Orr (1990) argues that much learning inside organisations occurs through
informal exchanges and through the use of, for example, anecdotes and “war
stories”. Hence, much organisational knowledge exists not on paper, and not in
individual heads, but rather within the community as a whole. Thus learning
occurs as the community changes through individuals leaving and joining,
and through new behaviours being adopted. As Nicolini and Meznar (1995,
pp. 740-1) argue:
Organisations, through the actions of those in charge, construe their identity by transforming
change, past choices, past experiments, inventions and so on, into rational accounts of
knowledge. In such a way, they symbolically shape the organisation, transforming
knowledge into a web of experiential constraints that members perceive as the objective
aspect of the organisation (that is, the constitutive order which transcends the individual
power to act).
Journal of There is then, as suggested earlier, a potential for corporate universities to
Management adopt a role in shaping, symbolically, the organisation. Such a role though
Development cannot be neutral. As Coopey (1994) argues, it would be naive, idealistic and
unrealistic to believe that organisational politics can be eliminated. If
21,10 knowledge is socially constructed then particular constructions and
interpretations will inevitably serve some interests more than others.
802 Similarly, organisational learning is embedded in cultural processes. It both
occurs through and is manifest in the ways individuals interact and behave.
Hedlund and Nonaka (1993) go so far as to suggest links with national cultures
in contrasting modes of knowledge and learning. This analysis will have
obvious implications for corporate universities within multi-national
corporations.
A useful model which incorporates both the technical and social
perspectives on organisational learning is that offered by Schwandt and
Marquardt (1999). This is known as the organisation learning systems (OLS)
model and it is grounded in Parsons’ (1951) theory of social interaction.
Schwandt and Marquardt (1999) argue that their model focuses on
organisations as learning social systems which utilise learning to continue to
survive. They go on to argue:
If we consider organisations as collective representations which are characterised by
mutually dependent actions, then we can best describe their functioning through the concept
of interrelated systems of actions emanating from the individual, group and organisational
levels. The use of a sociological paradigm as a basis for defining organisational learning not
only allows us to classify the construct as a social phenomenon, but also provides us with the
potential to explain the dynamic nature of the process using foundational sociological theory
(Schwandt and Marquardt, 1999, p. 43).
Their model, shown in Figure 2, incorporates Parsons’ (1951) four “prerequisite
functions” of adaptation, goal attainment, integration and pattern maintenance.
Applying these functions to organisational learning, Schwandt and Marquardt
(1999) identify four organisational learning subsystems which they label
environmental interface, action reflection, dissemination and diffusion, and
meaning and memory. The detailed descriptions of these subsystems have
congruence with and for both the technical and social perspectives of
organisational learning, and the knowledge management processes examined
earlier. It seems reasonable to argue therefore that corporate universities will
have impact on the four subsystems, and will in turn be influenced by them.

Learning organisation
It is possible to discern three categories of writing on the concept of the
learning organisation (Dibella and Nevis, 1998). These are normative,
developmental and capability perspectives. The first of these argues that
organisational effectiveness will be enhanced if certain characteristics are
adopted or achieved. Examples include the work of Senge (1990) in the USA
 Corporate
universities

803

Figure 2.
Organisational learning
subsystems

and that of Pedler et al. (1996) in the UK. Developmental perspectives suggest
the learning organisation as a particular phase in either an organisation’s
evolution or in a specific body of knowledge. They are elements of the former in
the model proposed by Pedler et al. (1996) (see also Proctor, 1995). The latter is
represented by Walton (1999), who argues that the learning organisation is the
final stage on a HRD journey of discovery, and by Stewart (1996) who suggests
that the concept is the ultimate articulation of organisation development (OD).
According to Dibella and Nevis (1998), the capability perspective is premised
on the view that intrinsic learning capabilities exist in all organisations. How
these operate and to what effect will vary, and the key purpose therefore is to
surface and understand the processes before designing and applying
context-specific interventions. Thus, in this perspective, universal models are
neither possible or appropriate.
In their review of the literature, Scarborough et al. (1999) argue that the
dominant view which emerges is the design of organisations and organisation
systems. For them, learning organisation ideas are concerned with creating the
conditions which facilitate individual and collective creativity. Those
conditions are the result of organisational features which have impact on
attitudes and beliefs. This is supported to some extent by Dovey (1997), who
argues that attempts to become a learning organisation necessarily invoke
cultural change, with an emphasis on management leadership style and
empowerment for employees. In this view, building learning organisations
requires basic shifts in how people think and act.
There is not a need here to describe all of the models so far offered on
learning organisations. It is though important to note that they do tend to be
very generalised (Walton, 1999). There is also something of a tension, as
Walton (1999) argues, between the dynamism suggested in the more abstract
Journal of models and the “recipe” nature of the more pragmatic and applicable models.
Management One piece of work which attempts to draw together material on both
Development organisational learning and learning organisations is that of Marquardt and
Reynolds (1994). This suggests 13 action steps to build and improve
21,10 organisational learning capacity. The action steps have resonance for
establishing a role for corporate universities in managing and developing
804 processes to facilitate individual and organisational learning, and so they are
provided below:
(1) transform the individual and organisational image of learning;
(2) create knowledge-based partnerships;
(3) develop and expand team-learning activities;
(4) change the role of managers;
(5) encourage experiments and risk taking;
(6) create structures, systems and time to extract learning;
(7) build opportunities and mechanisms to disseminate learning;
(8) empower people;
(9) push information throughout the organisation and to external associates
(customers, vendors, suppliers);
(10) develop the discipline of systems thinking;
(11) develop a culture of continuous improvement;
(12) develop a powerful vision for organisational excellence and individual
fulfilment; and
(13) root out bureaucracy (Marquardt and Reynolds, 1994).

Corporate universities: a conceptual model

The paper so far has established that the significant concepts of knowledge
management, organisational learning and the learning organisation are
complex and multi-faceted (see also Easterby-Smith, 1997). Given that, it will be
useful to summarise the arguments before presenting the conceptual model.
This is that corporate universities can be viewed as a focus for facilitating the
social, technological and organisational practices that support knowledge
creation and organisational learning. Drawing on the OLS model of Schwandt
and Marquardt (1999) (see Figure 2), it is argued that the idea of a corporate
university is concerned with shaping the way individuals make sense of, and
thereby learn through, their experiences of work. A number of additional
theoretical models can be used to support the argument and to inform the
resulting conceptual framework. The models provided by Earle (1994), Huber
(1991) and Blackler (1995) from the knowledge management literature have
particular relevance. Incorporating these with the organisational learning focus Corporate
of Schwandt and Marquardt (1999) strengthens the framework since, as universities
Scarborough et al. (1999) argue, the latter tends to be more theory driven, with a
focus on the individual-organisation interaction. It also adopts a systems
perspective. The result of this conceptual framework building is an “ideal type”
corporate university model that can be described as a “corporate university
wheel” set out in Figure 3. 805
An examination of the “corporate university wheel” identifies four core
processes that together constitute the main elements of the corporate
university’s learning subsystem. It can be argued that these four core processes
exist in some form or other in all organisations. What tends to be lacking is the
central integration and co-ordination of these four processes. The argument
that is being developed here is that it is these core processes which require
co-ordinating and nurturing, if the corporate university is to fulfil its role as the

Figure 3.
The corporate university
wheel
Journal of facilitator of the organisation’s learning. Each of these processes will be
Management discussed in turn.
Development Knowledge systems and processes
21,10 This recognises that computer hardware and software are revolutionising the
organisation’s ability to capture experience through databases, expert systems,
806 and decision-making software. However, one must recognise that ultimately all
knowledge systems rely on people (knowledge workers) to retrieve and take
action on the basis of these systems. Thus the “ideal type” corporate university
is likely to be involved in the development and ongoing support and
exploitation of leading-edge learning technology, for example, intranets, and
knowledge management databases. (See Hanson et al. (1999) for case studies on
how the major consultancy firms’ corporate universities are using technology
to create and capture their consultants’ knowledge and experience.)

Network and partnership processes

The second subsystem refers not just to wired internal and external
communities, but to the processes that control how individuals interact. This
can be through electronic means but can also be related networks of personal
and business contacts and relationships. In the context of the corporate
university, facilitating the development of networks and partnerships with
world-class learning partners in order to deliver learning interventions within
the organisation are crucial. Indeed, the importance of network and partnership
building processes is likely to increase as the trend by organisations to
outsource training and development activities continues, and the concept of the
virtual corporate university and e-learning takes hold.

People processes
This refers to the processes that build and reinforce shared meaning, and
facilitate and support learning within an organisation. This not only relates to
the skill levels and abilities of workers to utilise the technology, but also ways
in which the organisation can build mechanisms and processes to create shared
and understood culture. Primarily, it is argued that these people processes are
driven through state of the art HRD practices (see Stewart, 1999; Walton 1999).

Learning processes
In Earle’ s (1994) model, this dimension represents the organisation’ s attempt
to create a learning organisation based upon creating a “learning” culture
which is supported and underpinned by education and training. This paper has
discussed the factors that facilitate and support individual and organisational
learning. It is the visible education and training programmes which one
suspects people associate with the corporate university concept. However, as
highlighted earlier, they are but the tip of the iceberg in terms of creating a
culture of learning within an organisation.
 Having examined each of the four core processes in turn, it is important to Corporate
explore the relationships between these processes. Figure 4 is developed and universities
adapted from the work of Schwandt and Marquardt (1999).
Figure 4 is useful in that it highlights the relationship between the four key
corporate university processes, and thereby gives a good indication of the
“learning interchange media” which exist between the core processes and
which help to explain actions in terms of their organisational learning
807
contributions. Thus the media (output) of network and partnership processes is
claimed to be new information. The output of learning processes is claimed to
be sensemaking. The output of people processes is structuring, that is for
example, the design of organisational roles, rules and procedures, and
leadership. The output of knowledge systems processes is goal reference
knowledge.
One could argue that those charged with designing and managing corporate
universities would do well to understand these relationships and interactions,
as they are likely to influence the chances of success any corporate university
might have in creating a learning organisation. Indeed, one could also argue
that the traditional emphasis of corporate universities on courses and training

Figure 4.
Corporate university
processes and learning
interchange media
Journal of perhaps takes their attention away from the underlying processes and media
Management through which learning (and development) take place. Hence rather than
concentrate on the development of courses and learning interventions, one
Development could argue that the role of a corporate university should be to facilitate and
21,10 manage the core corporate university processes and their output – the learning
interchange media – as these are the true building blocks of a learning and
808 knowledge creating organisation.
Returning to Figure 3, the “corporate university wheel”, one can see at its
centre, lie a number of important competencies required by a corporate
university if it is to function effectively. These include, raising staff
expectations about the importance of learning and training within the business
as a means of creating shared meaning within the context of the organisation.
Developing information and knowledge-sharing techniques and practices,
creating enabling organisation structures, and supportive HR/HRD policies,
creating networks and partnerships and the development and co-ordination of
metrics to demonstrate the importance of learning within the organisation.
In essence the “corporate university wheel” highlights the changing and
emerging role that corporate universities can and will play in the development
of leading-edge organisations. Today most corporate universities are simply
viewed as the home of a number of education and training programmes. The
wheel suggests that successful organisational learning and development
requires the co-ordination and facilitation of a number of diverse activities and
processes. This paper has developed the argument that a corporate university
charged with leading the organisation’s knowledge and learning initiatives will
need to be much more proactive and inclusive, and it will need to be at the
centre of the organisation and its decision making. For as Stewart (1999) and
Walton (1999) argue, the failure of companies to deliver organisational learning
in any meaningful sense has been due in part to their inability to integrate and
co-ordinate a diverse range of functions, activities and processes. (This in part
they argue can be put down to the lack of clear accountability and ownership
for learning within the organisation.) The argument put forward here is that
the corporate university – as described above – could provide the organisation
with an effective vehicle to co-ordinate, facilitate and nurture the processes that
support and develop a culture of learning within the organisation.

Conclusion
This paper has set out to build a conceptual framework that seeks to describe
the functions and processes of a corporate university. It has been predicated on
a number of propositions. First, that the concept of the corporate university is
aligned with the concepts of knowledge management and organisational
learning, and second, that it should be viewed as a focus for the communication
and facilitation of social, technological and organisational practices that
support the organisation’s learning and knowledge creating processes.
 The paper has culminated in the development of Figure 3, the “corporate Corporate
university wheel”, which has identified four core processes which, it is argued, universities
represent the key functions that an ideal type corporate university should
perform. The paper has argued that evidence to date would suggest that while
many of today’s corporate universities may not be carrying out all of these
functions, the need to develop knowledge creating organisations is likely to
lead to more ambitious corporate universities that are likely to be much more 809
involved and central to the organisations’ operational and strategic decision
making. The paper suggests that their success could hinge on their ability to
manage and harness the complex interaction of organisational learning
subsystems and less on their ability to manage training and education
programmes.

References
Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bachler, C.J. (1997), “Corporate universities are catching on”, Workforce, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 96-7.
Bell, D. (1973), The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Penguin, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Best, S. (1991), “Chaos and entropy metaphors in postmodern science and social theory”, Science
as Culture, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 189-226.
Blackler, F. (1993), “Knowledge and the theory of organisations – organisations as activity
systems and the re-framing of management”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 863-84.
Blackler, F. (1995), “Knowledge, knowledge work and organisations: an overview and
interpretation”, Organisation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1021-46.
Castells, M. (1996), The Rise of the Networked Society, Blackwell, Oxford.
Chia, R. (1996), Organisational Analysis as Deconstructive Practice, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Chia, R. (1997), “Process philosophy and management learning: cultivating foresight in
management”, in Burgoyne, J. and Reynolds, M. (Eds), Management Learning, Sage
Publications, London.
Cooper, R. and Law, J. (1995), “Organisation: distal and proximal views”, in Bacharach, S. (Ed.),
Research in the Sociology of Organisations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Coopey, J. (1994), “Power politics and ideology”, in Burgoyne, J.,, Pedler, M. and Boydell, T. (Eds),
Toward the Learning Company: Concepts and Practices, McGraw-Hill, London.
Coulson-Thomas, C.J. (1997), “The future of the organisation”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-26.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), “Toward a model of organisations as interpretation systems”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 284-95.
Dash, J. (1998), “Turning Technology into TechKnowledgey”, Software Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 64-73.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Dawson, P. (1994), Organisation Change – A Processual Approach, Chapman, London.
Journal of Dibella, A.J. and Nevis, E.C. (1998), How Organisations Learn – An Integrated Strategy for
Building Learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Management Donkin, R. (1999), “Universities: learning curves for companies”, Financial Times, 2 August.
Development Dovey, K. (1997), “The learning organisation and the organisation of learning: power,
21,10 transformation and the search for form in learning organisations”, Management Learning,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 331-49.
810 Drucker, P.F. (1993), Post-Capitalist Society, HarperCollins, London.
Earle, M.J. (1994), “Knowledge as strategy: reflections on Skandia International and Shorko
Films”, in Ciborra, C. and Jelassi, T. (Eds), Strategic Information Systems, John Wiley &
Sons, London.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997), “Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques”,
Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 375-94.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999), “Organisational learning: current debates and
opportunities”, in Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, B. and Araujo, L. (Eds), Organisational
Learning and the Learning Organisation, Sage, London.
Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punishment, Allen Lane, London.
Foucault, M. (1980), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, Harvester,
Brighton.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organisation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 78-91.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The New
Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary
Societies, Sage, London.
Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 77-91.
Hanson, T., Nohria, N. and Tiemey, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.
Hedlund, G. and Nonaka, I. (1993), “Models of knowledge management in the West and Japan”, in
Lorange, P. (Ed.), Implementing Strategic Processes, Blackwell, Oxford.
Huber, G. (1991), “Organisational learning: the contributing processes and the literature”,
Organisational Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Lester, T. (1999), “Degree couture”, Human Resources, March, pp. 74-8.
Marquardt, M. and Reynolds, A. (1994), The Global Learning Organisation, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Meister, J.C. (1998), Corporate Universities: Lessons in Building a World-class Workforce,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nicolini, D. and Meznar, M.B. (1995), “Social construction of organisational learning: conceptual
and practical issues”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 727-46.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Orr, J.E. (1990), “Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: community memory in a service
culture”, in Middleton, D. and Edwards, D. (Eds), Collective Remembering, Sage, London.
Parsons, T. (1951), The Social System, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Pedler, M., Boydell, T. and Burgoyne, J. (1996), The Learning Company, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill,
London.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1973), The Politics of Organisational Decision-Making, Tavistock, London. Corporate
Pettigrew, A.M. (1985), The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in ICI, Blackwell, Oxford. universities
Prange, C. (1999), “Organisational learning – desperately seeking theory”, in Easterby-Smith, M.,
Burgoyne, B. and Araujo, L. (Eds), Organisational Learning and the Learning
Organisation, Sage, London.
Prince, C. and Stewart, J. (2000), “The dynamics of the corporate education market and the role of
business schools”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 190-206. 811
Proctor, J.D. (1995), “Getting teams off the ground”, People Management, 4 May.
Prusak, L. (Ed.) (1997), Knowledge in Organisations, Butterworth-Heinemann, New York, NY.
Ruggles, R. (1998), “The state of the notion: knowledge management practice”, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 80-9.
Scarborough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1999), Knowledge Management: A Literature Review,
IPD, London.
Schwandt, D.R. and Marquardt, M.J. (1999), Organizational Learning, St Lucie Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation,
Century Books, London.
Simon, H.A. (1960), The New Science of Management Decision, Harper & Row, London.
Skyrme, D. and Amidon, D. (1997), “The knowledge agenda”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-37.
Smircich, L. and Stubbart, C. (1985), “Strategic management in an enacted world”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 724-36.
Starbuck, W. (1992), “Learning by knowledge-intensive firms”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 713-40.
Stewart, J. (1996), Managing Change Through Training and Development, 2nd ed., Kogan Page,
London.
Stewart, J. (1999), Employee Development, Pitman, London.
Stewart, J. and McGoldrick, J. (1996), Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies, and
Practice, Pitman, London.
Stewart, T.A. (1997), Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisations, Doubleday,
New York, NY.
Walton, J. (1996), “The provision of learning support for non-employees”, in Stewart, J. and
McGolderick, J. (Eds), Human Resource Development: Perspectives, Strategies, and
Practice, Pitman, London.
Walton, J. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Development, Pitman, London.
Watson, T.J. (1994), In Search of Management, Routledge, London.
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organisations, The Free Press, New York.
Weick, K.M. (1995), Sensemaking in Organisations: Foundations for Organizational Science,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Whittington, R. (1993), What is Strategy and Does It Matter?, Routledge, London.
Wiig, K.M. (1997), “Knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 6-14.
Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Heinemann,
London.