Proposed model of Corporate University

(*)Manuel Alfonso Garzón Castrillon

(*)Grupo de Investigación FIDEE
Fundación para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo Empresarial
Barranquilla, Colombia, Sur América
manuelalfonsogarzon@fidee.org

Reception Date: 06/06/2018 - Approval Date: 08/15/2018

ABSTRACT

In this review article, we first address the antecedents, trying to identify which were the first corporate universities, then an approach to the definition of the concept of corporate university is proposed and the definition that will orient the document, result of the revision a proposal for a model of Corporate University shows the relationship between four processes of the key corporate university, the direction and commitment of top management; knowledge management and organizational learning; human management; and technologies for knowledge management, and their variables show the relationship between four key processes of the corporate university: the direction and commitment of senior management; knowledge management and organizational learning; human management; and technologies for the management of knowledge, finely Elaborate conclusions, among which it is emphasized that Corporate universities must face new missions; such as the elaboration of programs with internal clients, individual and team accompaniment, advice and project coaching and accompaniment of the change, or also the process management of innovation with the clients.

KEYWORDS: Corporate Universities; Knowledge Management; Organizational Learning; Human Management.

INTRODUCTION

The review of the literature reveals the lack of empirical evidence on how a Corporate University (CU) must conceptualize its operation as an effectively corporate function to support the objectives of the organization. Most of the publications related to CU focus on one or two aspects of the operation of CU, some researchers focus on learning strategies and the government of CU as trademakers, 2005; Rivera and Paradise, 2006,  while others discussed the methods of evaluation, as Allen, 2002; Bober & Bartlett, 2004 and others include the development of managers and leaders such as Storey, (2004) or the sources of funding  and technology implementation, Anderson, 2003; Macpherson, Homan and Wilkinson, 2005, and alliances with other functions, internal or external of the firm, Blass, 2005; Thompson, 2000. There is a limited number of comprehensive studies of operations of UC and most use either one or a few case studies, for example, Baldwin, Danielson and Wiggenhorn, 1997; El-Tannir, 2002; Holland & Pyman, 2006; Jansink, Kwakman, & Streumer, 2005; Shaw, 2005; On the other hand, Allen, 2002, Meister, 1998 claim that CU practices consist of a limited number of case studies or best practices and often lack of theoretical or conceptual foundation. 
In this review article, it is addressed in the first place the background, seeking to approach to identify the first corporate universities, then an approach to the definition of the concept of Corporate University, and proposes the definition that the document will guide; the next item is the proposal for a model of Corporate University and its variables, which shows the relationship between four key processes of the Corporate University: Management and commitment of senior management; knowledge management and organizational learning; human management; and the technologies for knowledge management. Finally, conclusions are drawn up.

DEVELOPMENT

Background
According to Young, C.; Tuttle, R. (1969), the notion of Corporate University appears for the first time before the second world war in General Motors in Flint, Michigan, in the United States in 1919. The idea of the leaders of General Motors was to structure at the same time the manufacturing processes of the company and make this knowledge transmissible but also to build a reputation for excellence around the know-how of the company, therefore, the General Motors Institute became a Corporate University.
Thus, according to Anderson, (2000) the Corporate University (CU) is an emerging model of continuous training in the corporate world and continuous learning for employees. The first pioneering corporate university was the General Electric in 1950 and, more recently, that model for employee training has been adopted by a large number of corporations around the world. According to updated statistics, there were 400 Corporate Universities in the United States in the early 1990s 1990 and that number had grown to almost 1800 at the end of 2000. 
According to Nell Eurich (1985) in 1985, the United States had eighteen corporate colleges or Corporate Universities, this is the first exhaustive study in that country and with the passage of time the number increases considerably reaching 3700 for the year 2010. In this way, most of the large business groups, in Europe, in Asia or in the United States, have their own Corporate University. Although one of the most important is that of Accenture with Saint-Charles (state of Indiana) with an immense campus (2000 rooms, 700 people full-time) and its 60000 annual participants, the most reputed is that of General Electric. 
In 1961, says Rees, G.; and Smith (2014 is the fast food giant, McDonald, who has used the term Corporate college in the creation of Hamburger University, therefore, a long ago the Americans have chosen the term university to talk about their own internal educational structures, the corporate universities. For the year 2018, there are approximately 4000 universities around the world.  
In 1972, according to Garbellini (2013), Fiat, as forerunner figure in Europe, created its Corporate University: ISVOR (organizational SViluppo institute). The ISVOR has counted in its core with approximately 150 full-time professors.  
I Table N°1, shows a non-exhaustive relationship of the beginning of work of some Corporate Universities:

Table N° 1. Beginning of work of corporate universities 

Source: Self-elaboration based on the aforementioned authors (2018)

It is important to highlight the growing sophistication of corporate universities that, according to Walton (1999) suggests, a development model of corporate universities of first, second and third generation that should focus on both the purpose and in the learning strategy. Walton uses the University of Disney as a typical example of a first-generation type, with a narrow focus on adopting the culture and values of the organization and mainly classroom-based activities. Citing Motorola as an example of a second-generation university, Walton (1999) suggests that they generally offer a wider range of activities, a range of levels within the organization and can be organized in curricular areas to address functional skills, cultural problems and corrective learning. 
This type of institution is often characterized by partnerships with other employers, educational institutions and the wider community. The third-generation corporate universities, argues Walton (1999), are those that seek to make best use of the new technology for learning, and are characterized by the process instead of the place, adopting the structure of a virtual organization. Phillips (1999) developed later than American institutions and are better positioned to take advantage of technology breakthroughs. The Corporate University of third generation is seen as the engine of the Organization, developing the human capital of all employees with a focus on the development of creativity and innovation and promoting strategic change.
Although the rhetoric of the corporate university is based on the agendas of learning and strategy, it is also worth noting that some commentators have suggested that the development of corporate universities is also an attempt to redesign the processes business to get the best value. As a result, they represent not only a renewed corporate appreciation for education, but also "the desire to centralize resources to reduce the costs" (Arnone, 1998, p. 200). One of the key objectives of the process is the profitability and "the most important customer of a successful university is the head of a business unit, not the participants" (Arnone, 1998, p. 200). The goal of the training should be to ensure that the training not only add value to the human resource, but value added is also beneficial to the employer, who pays the training invoices. 
In fact, authors such as Meister, (1997); Peak, (1997); Arnone, (1998); and Stumpf, (1998) agree that this should be a key objective, and losing it would undermine the relationship between business and training. This impulse to profitability is often where new technology and learning become a key role. It is cost-effective to offer learners the tools and technology to continue the learning process in their work and in their social environment. As Arkin says (2000, p. 43): "The impact of technology, which is reducing the cost of providing some types of training, is one of the driving forces behind the growing interest in corporate universities". Although the e-learning presents a route to achieve this, the potential of technological systems is mediated by the way in which they are shaped in the use, as well as by the abilities and features of technology (Dawson et al., 2003). 
Therefore, the impact of e-learning will depend on how technology is adopted and used within organizational contexts and how well the technology supports the objectives, strategies and values of learning within the framework of the Corporate University. Corporate Universities aim to promote learning and knowledge-rich culture at all levels within the organization, while placing learning firmly within the context and organizational needs (Prince and Stewart, 2002). The use of learning and communication technologies in the creation of local, national or global learning communities is part of the emerging panorama of the Corporate University.
Although at the end of the 1990s Business Schools considered corporate universities as competitors (Lorange, P., 2002), they now understand that it is worth thinking in terms of cooperation and collaboration rather than competition, and they cooperate, frequently, with the elaboration and development of the programs of these universities. The IMD document, International Institute for Management Development (Strebel, P., 2005), which is a reference on the possible contributions of the Business Schools to corporate universities, explains why the former understand so clearly the needs of their colleagues.  
Therefore, following Dealtry (2005), the raison d'être of the corporate university arose after a long period of identity crisis, essentially as animator and systemic change agent, introducing and helping in the evolution and management of new ways of thought and in the creation of many processes of continuous adaptation, which are necessary for the competitive organization to thrive and survive to the dynamics of the environment in real time. 
Beyond the learning gate of the management, raises Dealtry (2005) that there is possibly a third educational model manifesting itself, which may contain elements of the model 1, the traditional educational model, and the model 2, the traditional educational model of training and development of the company. (See Figure N° 1). 

The aim is to establish a new perspective on the model 3. Would it be very similar to the models 1 and 2, or alternatively, would it be very different? There are many questions to be addressed on the roles of models 1 and 2 in the context of corporate university intervention, so it is important to increase our level of understanding of possible connections and synergies between them before moving through from the learning gate of the management. 

Figure 1: Emergence of the Corporate university model 
Source: Dealtry, R. (2005)

Approximation to the definition of the Corporate University concept
Until the mid-1990s 1990, for most organizations, corporate universities were perceived as a particularly American phenomenon. They were considered as distinctive training departments, even with skepticism, by both the HRM as specialists by the academics alike (Walton 1999). Although this position may have been true in the past, today the situation has changed drastically, because more and more organizations are making serious attempts to create corporate universities that handle a variety of individual needs of learning and organizational development requirements.
Researchers like Lester (1999) have highlighted the difficulties in defining the Corporate University and referring to the Oxford Dictionary defines the term University as: "An educational institution designed for instruction, examination, or both, of students in many branches of advanced learning, granting degrees in various faculties and, often, incorporating universities and similar institutions". (45). Therefore, a search was carried out, which is summarized in Table N° 2 of definitions proposed by different authors. (See Table No. 2).

Table N° 2. Definitions of Corporate University

Source: Self-elaboration based on the aforementioned authors (2018)

In the preceding table, we find that a common key characteristic in the definitions is the inclusion of some variant of the word strategy; organizational learning; to improve the work performance and management of human talent. The central difficulty in precisely defining the term for Meister (1998) comes from the fact that a diverse range of organizations use the nomenclature of the Corporate University as a general designation for their formal learning activities. The term adds legitimacy and weight, and suggests an atmosphere of considerate management of education and learning. The problem is exacerbated because several of the main examples of the concept do not use the term to describe their learning activities, a good example is the Bank of Montreal. A Meister survey (1998) found that 54% of the so-called Corporate Universities did not have the word university in their title. Designations as a Learning Institute or Learning Academy seem to be increasingly favored alternatives.
This reflects the ambiguous nature of the Corporate University concept and recognizes that such organizations exist in various forms, operate under a wide range of titles and carry out a wide spectrum of activities of education, training and development. In fact, as Lester (1999) points out, the term Corporate University appears to be interchangeable with a variety of alternatives such as: Virtual University (BAE Systems), Corporate Business School (Ernst & Young) and Learning Center (General Motors). It is argued, therefore, that what is important here is not the title given to these bodies, but the philosophical approach of the organization and its perception of them as crucial agents to facilitate the learning and development of employees.
Traditionally, El-Tannir (2002) raises, that the purpose of a Corporate University has been determined by the need to train employees and develop their general skills. It was just an alternative designation for basic training courses and to distribute such programs among the Organization employees, in the form of catalogs, of which the staff chose the courses and registered in the corresponding training activity. These courses were generally subcontracted from universities or other training providers.
This feature, however, has been aimed to incorporate greater relevance to imminent business needs. Several strategic directions were identified as drivers of the new role of corporate universities. Andresen and Irmer (1999) for being:
•  An Initiative-driven approach, where the CU services provide a broad corporate initiative or a business plan project, such as initiatives on Globalization, Productivity and process reengineering. Andresen and Irmer (1999)
•  A catalyst for change management that helps to shape and complete a transition process for the company, such as to undertake a new strategy or to carry out a merger or acquisition process. Andresen and Irmer (1999)
•  A leadership development agent to keep new managers with new tools for the leadership and the strengthening of internal corporate management.

• A business development instrument that explores and develops new business opportunities and motivates employees. Andresen and Irmer (1999)

• A tool for management of customer-supplier relationships that focuses on the integrating standards into the supply chain, as well as on the demonstration of employees with negotiation skills and relationship management. Andresen and Irmer (1999)

• A competition-based career development facility that focuses on the corporation´s strategic objectives and retaining employees through strategies that promote lifelong learning. Andresen and Irmer (1999)
As Walton argues (1999), it would be fair to say that none of the corporate universities would meet with the requirements set forth in this definition, nor what they would wish. As Thomas (1999) has held, in the context of the Corporate University, the term university is used more for its symbolic qualities and aspirations to position learning within an organization, than by any attempt to imitate the traditional university practices.
The root of the Corporate University phenomenon for Taylor and Phillips (2002) is that they see the Corporate University differently from what the training departments were, because they are part of the Organization's ability to change itself, and report directly to the Executive Director isntead of the Director of Human Resources, for reasons of status, credibility, culture and focus, looking for education and work as a group, for the mutual benefit of all. Meister (1998) defines a Corporate University as: the strategic umbrella to train and educate employees and their pictures in order to meet the aims (of the corporation).  
After its full implementation, the Corporate University will be the main vehicle for professional development of the organization employees. It will facilitate learning opportunities, both formal and informal, that encourage personal and professional growth of individuals in the corporation, in a respectful, supportive and positive organizational climate.
The analysis of the work of Fresina (1997), Densford (1998), Meister (1998) and the Robie (1999) suggests that a key feature of a Corporate University is the focus on the meeting organizational objectives and priorities instead of traditional training approaches and development, which are based on the satisfaction of individual needs. If this proposition is accepted, then a much broader definition of a modern Corporate University can be advanced, such as: a function or department that is strategically focus towards integrating the development of people as individuals in their performance as teams, and finally, as a complete organization, by linking with the suppliers, through the realization of extensive research, facilitating the delivery of content and leading the effort to build a team of high performance.
This interpretation allows to understand the Corporate University not as a physical entity, but as a concept used to denote organized learning for the benefit of the company. This leads to Meister (1998) and Bachler (1995) to consider such institutions more as facilitators of organizational processes, such as organizational entities.
Based on the OLS model of Schwandt and Marquardt (1999), corporate universities can be seen as a way to facilitate social, technological and organizational practices that support knowledge creation and organizational learning. It is argued that the idea of a corporate university relates to how people make sense in and for the organization and therefore learn through their work experiences.
Thus a Corporate University could provide the organization with an effective vehicle for sorting, facilitating and nurturing the processes that support and develop a culture of learning within the organization. It is responsible for leading the organization´s knowledge and learning initiatives, it must be much more proactive and inclusive, and it will be located in the center of the organization and its decision-making; as Stewart (1999) and Walton (1999) argue, the inability of companies to provide organizational learning in a meaningful sense is due to its inability to integrate and coordinate a wide range of functions, activities and processes.
In an alternative conceptualization of the Corporate University, Prince and Stewart (2002) focus on processes rather than results and structure. Paying attention to the context, they incorporate four learning sub-processes of the organizations, which are coordinated and integrated by the Corporate University to facilitate organizational learning. These threads are: knowledge systems and processes, networks and partnerships, learning processes and people processes. Here the focus is on providing "a descriptive and analytical device" (Prince and Stewart, 2002, p. 794) in place of an ideal type. The cited authors propose that the future of corporate universities depends on their ability to manage the interaction and complexity of learning subsystems. Although the e-learning is not specifically mentioned, you may be able to contribute to one of these learning sub-processes, but to all. 
Every company is a product of history and the circumstances of the creation of the Corporate University that change independently. According to Grenzer, J. (2006) it can be noted as a sine condition that the non-expressed will from the highest level; this determined will of intuition, of the future vision and of the challenges that the future reserves for the company.
On the other hand, the definition of Corporate University (CU) proposed by El-Tannir (2002) is: a function or department in the company that develops the skills of employees and integrates them into the strategic orientation of the organization with a strong emphasis on leadership and improved work related performance! The prospects of UC are increasingly clarified as the right choice for continuous employee development towards more specific training to improve staff performance and increase productivity in their work. 
For Steck (2003) the Corporate University is conceived as an institution characterized by processes, decision-making criteria, expectations, organizational culture and operational practices that are taken from, and have their origins in the modern commercial corporation. 
The center of the Corporate University will be, according to Dealtry (2005), largely the property and it will be based on a solid network of people located in different activities or functions throughout the organization; Everyone will have the opportunity to achieve effective skills in learning to learn online within the reality of the events of their departments or activities; there will be a voluntary stage of people providing support infrastructure for students (for example, project customers, mentors, coaches, classmates, etc.).
To Dealtry (2005), It will be supported in a distributed and efficient e-learning solution, with quality content. there will be an infrastructure based on new information and communication technologies accessible to all, with facilities to form and to carry out communities of learning and best practices around the main disciplines. 
As a complement Dealtry (2005) states that there will be a knowledge search database for lessons learned, based on best business communities and management practices; the activities of corporate universities will become an integral part of the professional development plan of each individual and it will be reviewed as a key element in the work and the assessment of performance; there will be Systems of accreditation Prior Experiential Learning (Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning, APEL) and appreciation of the professional career (Career Path Appreciation, CPA) through which proposes Dealtry  (2005) that each person can identify and plan their learning based on work; both formal and informal learning will be rewarded with professional credits that will count in wage and promotion reviews.
According to Grenzer (2006), He highlights some points that are the requirements at the time of creating a Corporate University. It is said that the development of the provision at the individual level, to migrate progressively towards a collective level and then organizational level. In addition, the Corporate University is created to disseminate the knowledge and develop competition (Coverage) in order to become an incentive for the deployment of business strategy (leverage). Finally, if the university is focused on its mission of developing individual skills such that, prescribed by the legislative environment, it is imprisoned in the training quadrant and does not extend its territory of intervention to the service of the organization. 
As Alfaro explains, (2012) before thinking about creating a Corporate University, he has realized several points: it was a very technical organization, with a great knowledge not shared, it was a dispersed organization at the geographical level, a bad structure of the organization from the point of view of knowledge management, etc., with the main objective of finding a strategic and sustainable project.
For Barrow, (2018) Corporate Universities are focused on the development of new business activities, the creation of new structures and organizational relationships. A central element of his argument is the premise that corporate bureaucracy resulting from these activities is in tension with the business activity and threaten the power structure and the logic of the Corporate University.
Based on these results, it should be clear that the activities of the Corporate University are not designed to undermine in any way the main functions and activities of organizations, but they are completely complementary. They are essentially facilitators and integrals, and formally bring the transferable real-time learning skills and knowledge economy, adding depth and quality to the work experience of an individual in the forefront of the business.
Finally, in this sense, and on the basis of Meister (1998),  Lorenzatti (2000); El-Tannir (2002); Prince and Stewart (2002); Allen, (2002); Prince and Stewart (2002); ANDRESEN (2003; Rubio (2012); Lytovchenko (2016); Barrow, (2018); the concept of Corporate University that we use in this research is aligned with the development of the strategy of the organization and with the concepts of knowledge management, which should be seen as a mean for communication and provide with social, technological and organizational practices that support individual learning and organizational learning through the human talent management and knowledge creation processes. Its success depends on the leader´s commitment and its ability to manage and take advantage of the complex interaction of organizational learning subsystems, aimed at improving job performance and embodying the identity, culture and the brand of the organization for all its interest groups. 

Corporate University model

Figure N° 2. Corporate University Model
Source: Produced by Garzón (2018) based on Prince and Stewart, 2002; Blackburn, C., y Tétreault, S. (2013); Equilbey, N. y Boyer, L. (2013); Cristol, y Mellet, (2013); Meier, O. (2012); Vincent. (2012); Labruffe, A. (2012); Abel, y Li, (2012) Soparnot, (2012); Cadin, (2012); Falek, H. (2010); Rothwell, W. (2010); Soparnot, R. (2010); Beaujolin, (2010.); Hosdey, A. y Rogister, J. (2009; Barmeyer y Waxin (2008); Wheeler, K. (2005); Shaw, (2005).; Walton (2005); Allen, M. (2002); Saussereau y Stepler (2002); Jarvis, P. (2001).; Durand, C., Fili, y Hénault, (2000); Finn, W. (1999); Finn, (1999); Fresina (1997); Barley, K. (1997)

The Figure N° 2 of the Corporate University model, shows the relationship between four key processes of the Corporate University: management and commitment of senior management; knowledge management and organizational learning; human management; and technologies for knowledge management.

It provides a good description of the learning exchange methods that exist between the core processes and that help to explain the actions in terms of their contributions to organizational learning. 
The evidence suggests that, while many of today´s corporate universities may not perform all of these functions, the need to develop knowledge-creating organizations leads to more ambitious corporate universities that are likely to be more involved in the organization's operational and strategic decision-making. Its success will depend on its ability to manage and take advantage of the complex interaction of organizational learning subsystems and less on its ability to manage training and education programs.

The Management

To the extent that the Corporate University responds to its purpose, it will be decisive for the company´s future, the active involvement of executives. According to Blackburn, C., and Tetreault, S. (2013), the involvement of the company directors is essential and the members of the steering committee shall require the definition of priorities and potential topics of internship programs. 
The programs of corporate universities, for Falek, H. (2010), should be defined with the active participation of executives and those responsible for the main functional areas of the company. Beyond conception, organization and motivation to participate in the planned programs, the functioning of the Corporate University implies other aspects. First, according to Rothwell, W. (2010), a close coordination with the management of human talent (recruitment, selection, hiring, development and promotions) for which it is fundamental step by CU, which constitutes a compulsory stage of the development of the career. It also requires close coordination with operational managers and follow-up, in the field of training action, that it is important. It is also significant to do a search and a reflection on the evolution of jobs and the means to improve the quality of the products and services that constitute the purpose of the company. 
Therefore, the commitment of the senior management, for Barmeyer and Waxin, (2008) requires that it has to be participant or animator, which depends on the attitude of the manager, as happened in General Electric, with Jack Welch (former president of the group) who gave an example of the involvement of the CEO (chief executive officer) at GE Corporate University, who regularly took part, observing with attention to the participants, which allowed him at the same time to ensure the dissemination of the strategy and to locate promising talents.  
As a result of this involvement of the President of the organization, Barmeyer y Waxin, (2008) say that GE has formed higher executives of companies that some of the most reputable Business Schools. Senior leaders can also pass in an informal way to feel the groups ‘morale and ensure that the messages of the management are properly received and applied, making it clear that it is not easy for those responsible of the Corporate University to find a good balance between the interventions of external experts and leaders. 

Knowledge management and Organizational Learning
Corporate Universities are connected with knowledge management and organizational learning, and impact on the knowledge creation processes as a necessary component of that function, this is an imperative for the notion of corporate universities, which  can be seen in Starbuck (1992) who proposes a growth of what is called intensive knowledge companies and Hamel and Prahalad (1990), Drucker (1993) and Blackler (1993) argue that knowledge is an important source of competitive advantage, therefore , that knowledge is central to the creation of wealth, which is described itself as the knowledge business, ranging from British Petroleum Co (BP), which drills in search of oil to Senco, which manufactures nails.
These developments in the nature of production have implications and impact on organizational structures, and the design of work in organizations, according to Prusak, (1997), Stewart (1997); Coulson-Thomas, (1997), Davenport and Prusak, (1998). Scarborough et al. (1999) point out that these changes create new problems for the learning and development of specialized knowledge, including opportunities for casual exchange of knowledge. 
Therefore, it could be sensibly argued that a key task for corporate universities is to provide a vehicle for building a shared meaning through influencing and controlling learning processes and knowledge creation. The last of these can be characterized as the domain of knowledge management. Although Bell (1973) already pointed out for the first time the importance of knowledge in the post-industrial era, as a critical competence for the management of organizations Ruggles, (1998); Walton, (1999). 
With regard to the knowledge management, Garzon (2006) and Scarborough et al. (1999) defines it as: any process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using knowledge, wherever it may be, to improve learning and performance in organizations. This is a rather broad definition, which makes it hard to imagine what knowledge management might not be. This point of view is recognized to some extent by Skyrme and Forman (1997), who point out that most organizations will realize that they have been managing the knowledge for good corporate for many years. However, they continue to argue that there are three new developments: (1) making the 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).
In Earle´s model (1994), this dimension represents the organization´s attempt to create a learning organization based on the creation of a learning culture supported by education and training. Until now, it has been established that meaningful concepts of knowledge management, organizational learning and organizing the knowledge are complex and versatile, so the corporate universities can be viewed as a focus for facilitating social, technological and organizational practices that support the creation of knowledge and organizational learning and it relates to the way in which people make sense and meaning, thus, they learn through their work experiences. 

Human Management
Corporate Universities, are conceived as a tool to help develop the human talent, preparing them for the challenges and opportunities that their organizations will have to face in the future, in this way, the management of the talent seeks the alignment of human resources with the future of the organizations, for which they must have the appropriate information bases necessary for the management of their activity with management indicators integrated in the databases of the business and supposed  a firm commitment to human capital and their abilities as a competitive advantage. 
In this context, corporate universities emerge in response to the specific needs of business training, not only technical training but also management, tailored to each business and clearly aiming to their strategies (Jarvis, 2006). In general, to find success, the Corporate University should be seen as a long-term investment and be positioned at the strategic level, which is generally the responsibility of the human talent, although there are more and more cases in which corporate universities report directly to the president of the organization. In this way the departments of human management, are a legitimate partner of the corporate university and should serve the strategic priorities of the company.
For Cadin, L. (2012), it is the responsibility of the human management to monitor the commitment, the attraction of the company in general and the programs in particular, the recruitment and the commitment of the potential talents, as well as of the university's contribution in the management of the succession plans. With the collaborative tools, human resources are also increasingly attentive to the sharing of good practices, to the emergence and to the animation of the internal networks so that the corporate university function must clearly apprehend the whole dimensions that constitute its mission: adult training, promotion of values and corporate culture.
For Abel, and Li (2012) Corporate Universities (CU) exist in all kinds of organizations and in all sizes and forms. At the same time, most of the CU´s remain initiatives driven by companies. The more the organization depends on the competitiveness of its human talent to compete in the global market, the more emphasis it must put on the development of its workers.
Finally, under this perspective, according to Allen, (2002) the human management must support its educational work in 3 essential functions: the academic performance as the foundation of human capital training, the role of research and development as a training support of intellectual capital and the role of extension and outreach based on positive partnerships and social responsibility. These three axes support the evaluation work presented in this document.

Technologies for the knowledge management in corporate universities 
Corporate Universities are enriched according to Kersley, (2010), with the use of different learning modalities: classroom, distance or virtual, and mixed. In the same way, it involves the use of information and communication technology (ICT) to support the training process through the use of electronic learning platforms (LMS or learning management systems), interaction and distance communication and the construction of electronic repositories of learning objects. This, with the purpose of supporting and reinforce individual development plans, strengthening according to different learning styles, diverse strategies and training resources. 
In this sense, it is important to emphasize that for Vives et al., (2015) hybrid models are being applied (combining on-site training with online training), with a lot of emphasis on training on job training (which seeks the application of concepts andunderstood practices), as well as much more training Experiential learning by doing, or, according to the English expression, learning-by-doing. 
In the same way Deloitte (2016) establishes the adoption of new technologies and new learning models such as the MOOCs (Massive Open Online Course) open online courses, as a learning opportunity and becomes one of the main drivers of the commitment of the co-workers, and generate a workplace with a strong culture.
Finally, it is important to consider that the disruptive and transformative power of the MOOC is located in the organization of learning activities that are open to the massive participation of students enrolled in these courses. Distance education could also support classroom teaching. It implies free access, collaboration, reuse, remix, redistribution, inclusion and adjustment (Cabero et al., 2014). However, this is not a simple process. Further scientific research is required to counteract criticism and overcome its limitations (Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013). In addition, it is necessary to analyze the benefits of educational practices using MOOC / SPOC to create spaces that are more interesting to learn. In these spaces, the real innovation could be encouraged by changing the way in which students and teachers interact (Chiappe-Laverde et al., 2015).

CONCLUSION

In a global society that is always constantly evolving, the leader of the Corporate University must take steps to deal effectively with the challenges that occur.  
Corporate Universities have to cope with new missions, such as the development of programs with internal clients, individual and team accompaniment, advice and coaching of projects and accompaniment of the change, as well as also the management of the innovation process with the clients.  
For the future, the Corporate University must first be oriented to the role of the organization it serves, it must offer free spaces of expression by creating the necessary confidence provisions for the collective learning, that is to put to managers’ willingness to make them find themselves and thus create a network effect in the organization. This dynamic of learning can allow to reduce the distance between the leaders and their partners and thus to improve the relations and the organizational communication.  
 In the same way, the Corporate University must cultivate open relationships towards the outside world to be up to date of the developments. It should focus on knowledge and understanding of the needs of the functions, also to create better articulation between learning and innovation, therefore, it must prepare the functions and the know-how of the future, create the conditions and give the necessary means to its partners to create.  
On the other hand, the Corporate University must adapt its action to the needs of the new generations. Indeed, the university must evolve in its own practices to correspond better to the expectations of new audiences. It must develop new ways of learning and evolve the role of the trainer in consequence. To address these new generations, the university needs to capitalize on the knowledge and know-how of yesterday and today to transmit a learning about the culture of the company, its history and the focus of its function. Also, in its role of detecting talents to create new communities of leaders. 
Finally, the proposed model of Corporate University shows the relationship between four processes of the Corporate University key, the management and  the commitment of the senior management; knowledge management and organizational learning; human management; and knowledge management technologies, which provide a good description of the means of learning   exchange of that exist between the core processes and that help to explain the actions in terms of their contributions to organizational learning.

Notes

Is the formal recognition (based on the professional evaluation) of the learning acquired in the previous experience, usually from the experience is not related to an academic context.

IThe APC (Assesment of professional career), based on the relationship matrix (Matrix of Working Relationships MWR), is a methodology of interview designated to identify the ability of an individual to work in default levels of complexity, both at the time of the interview as at specific times in the future.

REFERENCES

Please refer to articles in Spanish Bibliography.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Please refer to articles Spanish Biographical abstract.

1.Abel, L.;Li,J.(2012).Exploring the Corporate University Phenomenon:Development and Implementation of a Comprehensive Survey.Human resource development quarterly. Vol.23, N°1,Spring 2012 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.DOI:10.1002/hrdq.211          [ Links ]       
2. Aguirre, C.; Alvarez-Montefusco, C; Picerno, N. (2017). Las prácticas de la Universidad Corporativa, alineadas a la cultura organizacional.         [ Links ] Trabajo de grado de pregrado de la Universidad Argentina de la Empresa.  
3. Allen, M. (2002). The corporate university handbook: Designing, managing, and growing a successful program. New York, NY: AMACOM.         [ Links ] 
4. Anderson, L. (2000). Business Education Survey-Corporate universities. Financial Times, 23 de October.         [ Links ]      
5. Anderson, L. (2003, March 24). Collaboration, not rivalry, is best way ahead-corporate universities v. business schools. Financial Times.        
6. Andresen, M. (2003). Corporate Universities also Instrument des Strategies change Managements von Person, Gruppe und Organization. Frankfurt, 2003.         [ Links ]   
7. Andresen, M. and Irmer A. (1999). Corporate universities in Germany- first experiences, The new corporate University Review, november/december.         [ Links ]      
8. Andreu R. (2001). Caso Unión FENOSA, Cambio cultural y aprendizaje en las organizaciones, IESE, Barcelona, España.         [ Links ]     
9. Arkin, A. (2000). "Combined honours", People Management, October, pp. 42-4.         [ Links ] 
10. Arnone, M. (1998). Corporate universities: a viewpoint on the challenges and best practices, Career Development International, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 199-205.         [ Links ]          
11. Baldwin, T., Danielson, C., & Wiggenhorn, W. (1997). The evolution of learning strategies in organizations: From employee development to business redefinition. Academy of Management Executive, 11(4), 47-58.         [ Links ]        
12. Barmeyer, C. y Waxin, M. (2008). Gestion des Ressources Humaines Internationales- Problématique, Stratégies et Pratiques. Editions Liaisons. Beaujolin, F. (2001) Vers une organisation apprenante. Editions Liaisons.         [ Links ]        
13. Barrow C. (2018). The Entrepreneurial Intellectual in the Corporate University, Publisher Palgrave MacMillan ISBN 978-3-319-63052-6.         [ Links ]       
14. Bell, D. (1973). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Penguin, Penguin, Harmondsworth.         [ Links ]
15. Blackburn, C. y Tétreault, S. (2013). Le dirigeant et son équipe de managers - Managez mieux, Stressez moins. Gereso Edition   Boyer, L. y Equilbey, N. (2013) Evolution des organisations et du management : Rétrospective et prospective. EMS.         [ Links ] 
16. Blackler, F. (1993). "Knowledge and the theory of organizations -organizations as activity systems and there-framing of management", Journal of Management Studies, Vol.30 No.6, pp. 863-84.         [ Links ]
17. Bober, C., & Bartlett, K. (2004). The utilization of training program evaluation in corporate universities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(4), 363-388.         [ Links ]  
18. Cabero, J., Llorente, M. D. C., & Vázquez, A. I. (2014). Las tipologías de MOOC: Su diseño e implicaciones educativas. PRO, 18(1), 13-26 Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10481/31663.         [ Links ]
19. Cadin, L. (2012). Gestión des ressources humaines. Dunod.         [ Links ]
20. Chiappe-Laverde, A., Hine, N., & Martínez-Silva, J. (2015). Literature and practice: A critical review of MOOCs. Media Education Research Journal, 44(22), 9-17.  https://doi.org/10.3916/C44-2015-01.         [ Links ]
21. Coulson-Thomas, C.J. (1997). "The future of the organization", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-26.         [ Links ]     
22. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.         [ Links ]    
23. Dawson, P., Preece, D. and McLoughlin, I. (2003). "From Essex to cyberspace: virtual organizational reality and real organization virtuality", Labour and Industry, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 73-89.         [ Links ]
24. Dealtry, R.  (2005). Achieving integrated performance management with the corporate university, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17 Iss 1/2 pp. 65 - 78 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13665620510574469.         [ Links ]         
25. Densford, L.E.  (1998). Many Corporate Universities under Development: The Aim is to link Training to Business The Corporate University Review, Nov-Dec.         [ Links ]        
26. Drucker, P.F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society, HarperCollins, London.         [ Links ]      
27. 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.         [ Links ]
28. Eboli, M. (2004). Universidades setoriais unem empresas. Disponível em: http://www.fia.com.br/admpauta/152b/univ_setoriais.htm. Acesso em: 25 de setembro de 2017.         [ Links ]
29. El-Tannir A. (2002)- The corporate university mode for continuous learning, training and development, in Education and training, March 2002, volume 44, number 2, pp.76-81, DOI 10.1108/00400910210419973.         [ Links ]
30. Eurich, N.  (1985). Corporate Classrooms: The Learning Business .A Carnegie Foundation Special Report, Jossey-Bass; 1 edition (June 15, 1985).         [ Links ]        
31. Falek, H. (2010) Le guide de la formation professionnelle en entreprise. Gualino Editeur.         [ Links ]
32. Fresina, A.  (1997)- The Three Prototypes of Corporate Universities- The Corporate University Review, Jan/Feb.         [ Links ]
33. Garbellini L. (2013). Universidades Corporativas: funcionamiento dentro de la empresa, formación de los managers, dimensión internacional, y el impacto sobre el cambio organizacional, Facultad de ciencias económicas y empresariales, Universidad Pontifica de Comillas, Madrid.         [ Links ]
34. Garzón M. (2006). Aproximaciones a la gestión del conocimiento en empresas colombianas, Revista Universidad &. Empresa, Bogotá (Colombia) 5 (10): 232-256, junio de 2006.         [ Links ]
35. Gómez L. (2018). Universidades Corporativas UC, Avanza.         [ Links ]         
36. Grenzer, J. W. (2006). Developing and implementing a Corporate University. HRD Press.         [ Links ]
37. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1990). "The core competence of the corporation", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 77-91.         [ Links ]         
38. Holland, P., & Pyman, A. (2006). Corporate universities: A catalyst for strategic human resource development? Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(1), 19-31.         [ Links ]         
39. Jansink, F., Kwakman, K., & Streumer, J. (2005). The knowledge-productive corporate university. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(1), 40-57.         [ Links ]   
40. Jarvis, P. (2006). Universidades corporativas. Nuevos modelos de aprendizaje en la sociedad global. Madrid, España: Editorial Narcea S.A. De ediciones.         [ Links ] 
41. Kearsley, G. (2010). Andragogy (M.Knowles). The theory into practice database. Retrieved from http://tip.psychology.org          [ Links ]         
42. Klumpp, M. y Helmstädter H. (2005). Campus Sapiens Paper No. 3 Corporate University - Definitionen und Konzepte. Essen 2005.         [ Links ]           
43. Lester, T.  (1999). Degree Culture" Human Resources, March 74-78.         [ Links ]
44. Lipt, D. (2013). Disney U: How Disney University develops the world's most engaged, loyal, and customer-centric employees. New York: McGraw-Hill.         [ Links ]
45. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., and Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1455/2531          [ Links ]         
46. Lorenzatti, M. (2000) La Universidad Corporativa llegó para quedarse. Disponible en: http://www.americalearningmedia.com/edicion-006/72-analisis/320-launiversidad-corporativa-llego-para-quedarse [Consultado el 12 de mayo de 2018, Hora: 3:00pm]         [ Links ].           
47. Lytovchenko I.  (2016). Corporate university as a form of employee training and development in American companies, Advanced Education, 2016, Issue 5, 35-41 DOI: 10.20535/2410-8286.6228.         [ Links ]
48. Macpherson, A., Homan, G., & Wilkinson, K. (2005). The implementation and use of e-learning in the corporate university. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(1/2), 33-4.         [ Links ]    
49. Meister, J. (1997). Market audits of corporate universities, Corporate University Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 26-34.         [ Links ]        
50. Meister, J. (1998). Corporate universities: Lessons in building a world-class work force (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.         [ Links ]
51. Nash, Nancy S., & Hawthorne, Elizabeth M. (1987). Formal Recognition of Employee Sponsored Instruction: conflict and collegiality in postsecondary education. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1-3.         [ Links ] 
52. Peak, M. (1997). Go corporate Universities, Management Review (USA), Vol. 86No.2, pp.33-8.         [ Links ]
53. Phillips, J. (1999). Worldwide Solutions to Competition in a Global Economy, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX.         [ Links ]    
54. Plompen, M. (2005). Innovative corporate learning: excellent management development practice in Europe. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230288799.         [ Links ]     
55. Prince, Ch y Stewart, J.  (2002). Corporate universities an analytical framework, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 Iss 10 pp. 794 - 811 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710210448057.         [ Links ]           
56. Prusak, L. (Ed.) (1997). Knowledge in Organizations, Butterworth-Heinemann, New York, NY.         [ Links ]
57. Rademakers, M. (2005). Corporate universities: Driving force of knowledge innovation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(1/2), 130-136.         [ Links ]
58. Rees, G.; y Smith P. (2014). Strategic human resource management, Sage Publications Ltd, London.         [ Links ]
59. Ricardo, J. (2007). Gestão da educação corporativa. 1.ed. São Paulo: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.         [ Links ]
60. Rivera, R., & Paradise, A. (2006). State of the industry: Trends in workplace learning and performance. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.         [ Links ]  
61. Robie, B. D.  (1999). Corporate Universities: Building Competences for Corporate Success'.  Loma Resources.  http://www.loma.org/res URL last visited 01/03/02018.         [ Links ]         
62. Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: knowledge management practice, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 80-9.         [ Links ]
63. Scarborough, H., Swan, J. and Preston, J. (1999). Knowledge Management: A Literature Review, IPD, London.         [ Links ] 
64. Schwandt, D.R. and Marquardt, M.J. (1999). Organizational Learning, St Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL.         [ Links ]          
65. Scott, C. (2006). Challenging Google, Microsoft Unveils a Search Tool for Scholarly Articles. Chronicle of Higher Education. 52 (33): A43.         [ Links ]         
66. Shaw, S. (2005). The corporate university: Global or local phenomenon? Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(1), 21-39.         [ Links ]
67. Skyrme, D. and Amidon, D. (1997). "The knowledge agenda", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-37.         [ Links ]     
68. Starbuck, W. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 713-40.         [ Links ]       
69. Steck H. (2003). Corporatization of the University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity, ANNALS, AAPSS, 585, January 2003.         [ Links ]
70. Stewart, J. (1999), Employee Development London: FT Pitman.         [ Links ]  
71. Stewart, T.A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations, Doubleday, New York, NY.         [ Links ]         
72. Storey, J. (2004). Leadership development through corporate universities. Training and Management Development Methods, 18(4), 41-49.         [ Links ]
73. Stumpf, S. (1998). Corporate universities of the future, Career Development International, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 206-11.         [ Links ] 
74. Sycheva, S.M. (2008). Uslovija i faktory sozdanija korporativnogo universiteta Conditions and factors of creating a corporate university. Vestnik universiteta, 9(1), 31 - 37.         [ Links ] 
75. Taylor, S. y Phillips, T. (2002). The Corporate University Challenge: Corporate Competitiveness, Learning and Knowledge. Report of the EFMD Corporate University Learning Group, EFMD, Eindhoven/Open University, Milton Keynes.         [ Links ]      
76. Thomas, D.  (1999). Seminar on Corporate Business Schools. Henley Management College 28th October.         [ Links ]    
77. Thompson, G. (2000). Unfulfilled prophecy: The evolution of corporate colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 322-341.         [ Links ]
78. Viscaña P y Uri be E. (2014). Aportes de la universidad corporativa a la ventaja competitiva de las organizaciones en Colombia, Universidad de Medellín facultad ciencias económicas y administrativas especialización en gestión del talento humano y la productividad cohorte 33 Medellín Vives L;         [ Links ] Huges, J.; y LLie-Cardoza, C. (2015). Universidades corporativas Alineando Personas y 79. Estrategias, Harvard Deusto Business Review, España.     
80. Walton, J.  (1999). Strategic Human Resource Development, London: Pitman.         [ Links ]   
81. Walton, J. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Development, Pearson Education, HarlowYoung, C.; Tuttle, R. (1969). The years 1919-1969 a history of General Motors Institute, General Motors Institute, 1969.         [ Links ]