Abstract: The paper will discuss the processes and issues encountered at a corporate university located within a securities firm. Prudential Securities Incorporated (PSI), a subsidiary of The Prudential Insurance Company of America, is composed of four divisions: Private Client Group, Capital Markets, Futures, and Investments. The Private Client Group, the largest of the four divisions, delivers training to its sales employees located in 43 states and 17 foreign countries via Prudential Securities University (PSU). Recently, PSU underwent a transformation to embrace blended learning to increase training effectiveness and the productivity of its branch personnel. Some of the topics discussed are: structure of a corporate e-learning administration, the implementation of a learning management system, the use of competency models to map employee development and learning paths, the creation of learning modules via learning objects, and the goal of blended learning.
1. Introduction to Corporate Universities
Corporate universities have been apart of corporate institutions since the 1950s. Led by companies with major technological investments and large R&D budgets, they were viewed primarily as a way to upgrade the skills and knowledge of their professional employees. The goal was to keep these elite workers abreast of new developments in the field. This was achieved by offering a wide array of classroom training courses (often times with a technical focus), and managerial certificate programs, in the belief that the workers would become more productive, and committed, to the company. As the concept of high-performing worker teams took hold, the universities expanded their focus to include training across the workforce, and not just the managerial class. By the mid 1980抯, there were over 400 businesses with some kind of 搖niversity, institute, or education center” in place.(1)
Approximately 1,600 corporate universities currently exist, and over 2,000 are expected by 2003. (2) The rise of corporate universities has become a major development in the e-learning industry. By 2010, if current trends continue, they will exceed the number of traditional U.S. universities. (3)
A major contributing factor to this phenomenal growth is the new information age fueled by the knowledge economy. The U.S. economy has undergone a fundamental transformation from manufacturing based to service and technology based industries. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, since 1950, manufacturing sector employment has fallen from 40% to fewer than 18%. Conversely, the service sector has grown over 20% in this 40 year span. This new knowledge-service economy has created an increasing demand for employees with higher skills and education. Wages for graduate or professional degrees rose to $58,837 in 1989 while high school graduates earned $20,504 per year. (4) Recent trends suggest this education gap is increasing with ever more demand for employe
es with professional skills.
As more high tech jobs demand increasing skills, labor markets for these professional employees will become tighter. Corporations are responding by viewing their training centers as a competitive advantage with implications for continued growth and profitability. Training is no longer seen as a one-time classroom event for individual development but rather 揳 continuous learning culture where employees learn from each other and share innovations and best practices with any eye toward solving real business issues.” (5)
A corporate university is defined as 搕he strategic umbrella for developing and educating employees, customers, and suppliers in order to meet an organization抯 business strategies,” according to Corporate University Exchange, a leading U.S. corporate education consulting firm. (6) Traditionally, training departments were viewed as a cost center with a peripheral link to the companies bottom line. Today, however, corporate universities are now an asset, a knowledge asset with investments into the key human capital components, corporate employees, that increase the value of the modern corporation. This shift indicates a more targeted approach to employee development aligned to business objectives.
While training is normally seen as building skills, learning in the corporate sense is associated with those performances that solve business problems within business situations. Job performances are not a generic inventory of components that make up job roles, rather they are based on job audits, highly detailed descriptions of a job competencies. Corporate universities focus on these performance within the context of the employee抯 work environment. For this reason, learning events can be both formal training opportunities and informal performance support materials (e.g. job aides) given just-in-time on a requested basis. This combination of foundation knowledge with on-the-job performance is the hallmark of a successful corporate university programs.
Finally, the university抯 role as a strategic link to business outcomes is further strengthened by links to upper level management with the rise of the Chief Learning Officer (CLO). The CLO has primarily four roles: business partner, systems thinker, senior education officer, and alliance builder. Being a business partner involves understanding the issues facing the corporation and recommending the learning solutions that will achieve the company抯 strategic objectives. A systems thinker is having the ability to match specific learning solutions together to create a blended learning approach to deliver a unified approach to end-user training. The senior education officer must look beyond the immediate needs of employees training to create increased productivity across the value chain. The recent rise of education commerce points to the borderless transaction of what heretofore was viewed as internal training to external clients and even competitors. Lastl
[1] [2] 下一页
设为首页
加入收藏
联系我们
减小字体
增大字体
站内广告
相关论文