Corporate universities can be a driving force in an organization. They can add value, drive change and contribute to the growth and development of the overall enterprise, but only if the corporate university is connected to the business, relevant, managed in a productive, efficient manner and valuable to the organization. The success factors identified in this article are review points to judge the success of the corporate university and provide the impetus for sustained improvement, change and growth.

1. Making The Move to
A Corporate University
Seta A. Wicaksana
Founder and CEO www.humanikaconsulting.com and hipotest.co.id

2. Seta A. Wicaksana
0811 19 53 43
wicaksana@humanikaconsulting.com
• Business Psychologist
• Pendiri dan Direktur Humanika Consulting dan hipotest.com
• Anggota Komite Nominasi dan Remunerasi Dewan Komisaris PT Askrindo
• Sekretaris Prodi MM Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Pancasila
• Dosen Tetap dan Peneliti di Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Pancasila
• Pembina Yayasan Humanika Edukasi Indonesia
• Wakil Ketua Asosiasi Psikologi Forensik Indonesia wilayah DKI
• Penulis Buku: Sobat Way (2016), Industri dan Organisasi: Pendekatan Integratif dalam
menghadapi Perubahan (2020), Human Faktor Engineering: Integratif Desain Manusia
dan Lingkungan Kerja (2021), Psikologi Industri dan Organisasi (2021), Psikologi Umum
(2021), Manajemen Pengembangan Talenta (2021), PIODiagnostik: Pengukuran Psikologi
di Lingkungan Kerja (2021), Transformasi Digital: Perspektif Organisasi, Talenta dan
Budaya Organisasi (2021), Psikologi Pelayanan (2021) dan Psikologi Konsumen (2021).
• Dosen Tidak Tetap di: Program Pasca Sarjana Ekonomi di Univ. Pancasila, STP TRISAKTI,
Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Mercu Buana, STIKOM IMA
• Certified of Assessor Talent Management
• Certified of Human Resources as a Business Partner
• Certified of Risk Professional
• Certified of HR Audit
• Ilmu Ekonomi dan Manajemen (MSDM) S3 Universitas Pancasila
• Fakultas Psikologi S1 dan S2 Universitas Indonesia
• Sekolah ikatan dinas Akademi Sandi Negara

3. History
• Corporate university phenomenon is not new; General Motors began the GM institute in 1927.
• After that corporate university grew quickly until 1900s when the number of corporate universities increased to 1800.
• The first modern corporate university (“CU”)was established by General Electric at Crotonville in the 1950s. McDonald’s
launched the creatively titled “Hamburger University” in 1961 with Disney and Motorola following suit with universities in
the 1970s. The concept saw explosive adoption and growth in the latter part of the 20th century.
• Today, it is reported that there are 2400 corporate universities.
• Some 40% of Fortune 500 companies already have a corporate university.
• Corporate University is a name given to the virtual engine that acts as an umbrella, bringing together all the existing
training and development units within the corporation to ensure the effective and efficient deployment of all
organizational learning initiatives as a strategic and operational enabler.
• Corporate University should link learning to organization performance.
• Currently, the role and development of the Corporate University (CU) received increased attention both from academia,
government, and corporate. CU concept has been developed in Europe and become a significant aspect as a center for
training and development of human resources.

4. History
• in 2012, The first corporate
university in Indonesia is
Telkom Corporate University,
but Pertamina is the first
company in Indonesia to rank
122 on Fortune.
• Pertamina implemented
Pertamina Learning Center
(PLC) before its
transformation into corporate
university.

5. “Companies don’t
fail to innovate; they
fail to learn.”
-Josh Bersin, Founder & Principal,
Bersin by Deloitte

6. Why General Learning Center Is
Transformed Into A Corporate
University
• The absence of alignment between what is learned in training and
what is needed by business in companies. Common learning in
training, training center, or learning center is apart from the most
pressing business problems to be solved.
• Training programs and development often do not have significant
business impact since they are not directly aligned with corporate
business issues; the impact of the training results towards business
performance is insignificant.
• generally, the participation of trainees is very low. One possible
cause is because generally The participants feel that they do not get
meaningful appreciation after attending the training. For example,
achievement in training does not increase their salary or their career
path even if the employee joined the training, possibly with no full
commitment

7. Corporate Universities Are
Growing For A Number Of Reasons
• Some businesses want to systemize training functions or maximize the
investment in education.
• Other corporations want to develop the employment of workforce and remain
competitive in the marketplace.
• Corporate universities typically are established to provide education at a lower
cost, relative to programs offered by traditional universities
• CU is more superior compared to trainings and development in ensuring the
knowledge, skills and attitude that can be applied in the company. It also has
a strong linkage and significant impact towards the company's business
performance.
• Dasenbrock (2002) sees the corporate university as an opportunity to focus on
the practical aspects of the industry, since at the moment the main problem
and disadvantage of traditional education is that students entering traditional
universities do not receive education, but a certificate, and the universities
themselves are guided by the problem of attracting applicants.

8. Reasons SHOULD Consider A
Corporate University
• Teaching Organization Specific Skills - Core
• Keeping the Organization, and Its People, Competitive
• Promoting and Retaining A Common Culture, and
Leadership Philosophy
• To offer training to your external audiences

9. What
• Meister (1998) menyebutkan bahwa Corpu merupakan
alat strategis terpusat untuk pendidikan dan
pengembangan pegawai, alat utama untuk
menyebarluaskan budaya organisasi dan membina
pengembangan.
• Mark Allen (2002) dalam buku The Corporate
University Handbook, mendefinisikan Corporate
University adalah entitas pendidikan yang merupakan
alat strategis yang didesain untuk membantu organisasi
induknya dalam mencapai misinya, dengan
menjalankan aktivitas peningkatan pengetahuan atau
wisdom individu/ organisasi tersebut.
• Walton (2005) emphasized that the main goal of the
corporate university is to inspire the student with an
original idea, as exemplified by the experience of the
Walt Disney Corporation. In 1963,Walt Disney created
Disney University in Anaheim, California, so that all
new hires would understand and deliver the services
he conceived.

10. The Main Concept Of
Corporate University
1. Functional approach focuses on the CU training
issues; CU has evolved in many organizations to become
a strategic umbrella to educate not only the employees
but also stakeholders who play a role in the
development of the organization such as customers and
suppliers.
• Key elements drawn from this approach is to focus
on the basic skills and the need to develop a
consistent and uniform knowledge, skills and
abilities throughout the organization, and a network
of customers and suppliers, to ensure consistent
quality of the products and/or services.

11. The Main Concept Of Corporate
University
2. The strategic approach associated with long-term
development of the human resources organization.
• the definition of CU is the idea of a corporate
university for learning and knowledge creation of
formal and processes within an organization.
• The definition emphasizes the strategic focus on
knowledge creation and management across the
organization.
• The two major concepts are focused on training
and development; and investing continuously to
improve the human capital of the organization.

12. Corporate
University
and Human
Capital
• which connects investments as key assets of the organization,
employees, improved productivity, and sustainable competitive
advantage
• This strategy focused on the management and development
of human resources can be associated with the promotion of
CU as a catalyst for the strategic development of human
resources. Organizations take a strategic step for the long
term and a different approach to managing and investing in
human resources, to ensure that appropriate trainings and
development are available to all employees.
• Strategic approach emphasizes the enhancement of
corporate resources by linking skills development with the
retention of employees through incentives such as career
advancement, improved security and higher remuneration.
• Learning and knowledge management within the
organization in an environment that is more complex and
competitive reflect the strategic role of CU in the creation of
competitive advantage. In a dynamic environment, CU
strategy must develop diverse and adaptive approaches, to
ensure that every element in the organization has accesses to
appropriate trainings and developments to meet the diverse
organizational goals.

13. Main
processes
Identified
Corporate
University
• There are four main processes identified as a
core element of corporate universities:
• Systems and process of knowledge;
• networking and process of partnership;
• learning process;
• and people process.
• Their framework on the idea is that a
corporate university should not only be
aligned with knowledge management and
organizational learning, but it is also
important in social practices, technologies
and organizations that support learning and
knowledge creating organizational
processes.

14. Corpu is
A Corporate University is an enterprise
function, department,
or program that is closely aligned with
the business strategies of
the organization and which provides
leadership in the support
of people and processes through
continuous, strategic, and
aligned learning to provide long term
positive impact on the
bottom line.

15. Learning Center
and Corporate
University
(Grenzer, 2006)
Aspects Learning Center Corporate university
Access Limited access (in certain classrooms and times) Accessible from anywhere and
anytime
Participant Limited to certain participants Flexible for all members
Content Improve skills with classical classes Improving competency with a broad scope via e-
learning
Delivery Conducted by the teacher and test
synchronously
The learning process and tests can
asynchronously
Registration Openly with manual processes Based on curriculum needs
online via Learning Management System (LMS)
Focus Usually reactive Most proactively
Frequency Based on the schedule of the learning process in a
certain time
Continuous learning process
could be anytime
Operation Normally carried out by staff Performed by a separate unit
outcomes To upgrade or
develop skills
Increase performance substantially
whole
Scope Tactical Strategic alignment with units
business

16. Learning
Center and
Corporate
University
Learning Center Corporate university
Class Learning Class Learning
E-Learning E-Learning
Blended Learning Blended Learning
Coaching/mentoring
Culture change
Knowledge Management system
On the Job training
Sharing knowledge
Knowledge management in group
Community of practices

17. Phases of
Corporate
University
(R. Deiser, 1998)
Features Operational
Phase
Tactical Phase Strategic Phase
Type of CU “Advanced
training
department”
“Knowledge
backbone”
“Knowledge
factory”
Goal Efficiency In line with
organizational
goals
Surpass
competition
Relation
with strategy
Indirect and
reactive
Direct and reactive Direct and
proactive
Main
activity
Centralizing
training
activities within
the company
Building courses
based on
organizational
strategy
Development of
strategy by
training and
research

18. Typology
Corporate
University
(Assen, 2010)
Scholar Contribution Typology
Fresina (1997) Depending on the purpose of the corporate university
three prototypes can be distinguished. Depending on
their strategy and environment organisations should
choose the right prototype
• Prototype I – To reinforce and
perpetuate
• Prototype II – To manage change
• Prototype III – To drive and sharp
Deiser (1998) Describes corporate university models along the
dimensions or core function, business rationale, role of
top management and case studies.
• Profit Center
• Qualification Center
• Standardisation Engine
• Strategic Change Enabler
Walton (1999) Describes the evolution of corporate universities on the
dimensions of time and breadth of coverage. Also
describes generations in terms of strategic alignment and
physical versus virtual presence.
• Training School
• Staff/Management College
• Academy of Learning/
Corporate University
Rademakers
(2005)
Describes the maturity of corporate universities in terms
of the strategic impact (pro-active) and contribution to
innovation (knowledge production).
• School
• College
• Academy

19. Four Main
Roles of
Corporate
University

20. CU Functions

21. CU Functions

22. CU Functions

23. CU Elements

24. Six key benefits of
corporate University
(Betof, 2014)
• it helps to achieve results;
• stimulates the development of
leaders and like-minded people;
• improves the leadership skills of
those who teach;
• strengthens organizational
culture and communication;
• fosters positive organizational
change and (f) reduces costs by
attracting the best talent.

25. Corporate University
Assessment (J. Barney, 1991)
• CU assessment criteria include seven main aspects, namely: Alignment,
Alliances, Branding, Launching, Leadership, Learning Technology, and
Measurement.
• Alignment assessment is the extent to which the effort of learning and
development is aligned with corporate objectives.
• Alliance measures how qualified the use of external service providers are.
• Branding measures the success of the development and implementation
of communication strategies and innovative brand development.
• Launching is an initiative to measure the success of the launch of new
CUs.
• Leadership is measured by the implementation of major impacts of
leadership programs for managers, high-potential employees, and senior
executives.
• Learning Technology is measured by the extent to which CU can create
learning environments by using technology.
• Measurement assesses the ability of CU in creating tools and techniques
for measuring investment in learning.

26. A CU’s
Training
value Chain

27. Corporate
University
Conceptual
Model
(Wicaksana,
20022)
Corporate Strategy
Product
development
Operation
Sales and
marketing
HRD
Learning strategy and Focus
Talent Management/ Leadership Development Program
Learning Infrastructure:
1. Governance and
structure
2. Partnership and
alliances
3. Assessment Center
4. Learning and
research Center
Academic system
Equip team to achieve
Organization's Goals
Learning and
assessment
Learning Levels:
1. Foundation
2. Competency
3. Mastery
Core content
and Research
Div
Organizational Values
Learning Management System/IT System
Best
Practices
to
solve
Problem
Creating
Knowledge
Governance

28. Key Success
factors
Engage the CEO
Connect the Company Strategy
Stay Close to the business
Provide high-caliber Offering
Create links with employee development process
Measure The Value
Market Internally and Externally

29. Strategic
Building
Blocks of a
successful CU

30. “A good corporate
university knows how
to listen and identify
problems, come up
with solutions, and
respond to the
changing environment
of the business in which
it operates-- whether
that’s with traditional
classes or not.”
-Daniel Gandarilla, VP, Chief
Learning Officer at Texas Health
Resources

31. House of Kemenkeu Corporate University
Sumber: Kementerian Keuangan (2016)

32. Framework Corporate University
Sumber: Kemenkeu (2016)

41. HOW to Build
Corporate University
• Implementation Phase (Peris-Ortiz,
et al, 2018)
• Need analysis/Diagnostics
• Developing Training Program
• Formation of Corporate
University Processes and
Structures
• Development and
Implementation of Learning
Management System (LMS)
• Knowledge and Release

42. 1. Need analysis/Diagnostics
• At this stage, the basis of the project
is to implement a Corporate
University, with a thorough
formulation and analysis,
accompanied by the collection of
the necessary data, to understand
and assimilate the most basic
organizational fundamentals.
• Strategic units, strategic assets,
hidden, current situation in terms of
work processes, training methods
and tools, learning methods, testing
and establishing consensus on the
expectations of internal customers
and other public organizations
interested in getting something
good out of this program.

43. The Three Prototypes
• Prototype I: Reinforcing and Perpetuating
Behavior
• Corporate Universities tasked with this role
are primarily concerned with promoting and
reinforcing the values and mission of the
organization.
• Companies like Disney, which have a strategic
differentiator based in large part on the
behavior of its people utilize a CU to instill the
values mindset in their teams.

44. The Three Prototypes
• Prototype II: Managing Change
• When the primary purpose of the CU is to assist with
the management of change, the curriculum skews
heavily towards the examination and elimination of the
obsolete behaviors and beliefs followed by the
introduction of new insights and behaviors.
• The universities, in the parlance of the Kurt Lewan
model of change management, are designed to
“unfreeze” embedded behaviors, change or shift to the
new behaviors, then “refreeze” those new behaviors in
the organization.

45. The Three
Prototypes
• Prototype III: Driving and Shaping the
Organization
• Rather than being driven by
strategic changes, these Corporate
Universities aim to be active
participants in driving the strategic
direction.
• By forcing disparate groups of
managers and other employees to
think about the company from a
strategic standpoint, these
universities empower individuals
with the skills necessary to lead
the organization into the future.

46. Developing
Competencies
• After completing the needs analysis
and determining the prototype in
which your ideal corporate
university would fall, the
organization should develop
competencies for each level and/or
position within the organization.
• These competencies state the
minimum levels of knowledge or
understanding one needs to
possess to achieve that level in the
organization.

47. Leadership
Competency

48. XII GM Business Vision
XI GM
XI DGM Business Strategic
XI AGM
X AGM Business Operations
X M
IX M Sources Management
IX AM
VIII AM Interpersonal Skill
VIII SPV
VII SPV Technical Knowledge
(Systems & Procedures, Terms)
VII
VI Maintain Quality &
Cost Control
V
IV Maintain Quality
III Daily Job
NEW EMPLOYEE
T
P
M
Seminar
Toyota
Characteristics
,
CS
Culture,
5S,
QCC,
Idea
Suggestion
Defined
by
each
division
TPM
Planned
Maintenance
OHS
Management
TPM
Autonomous
Maintenance
Occupational
Health
&
Safety
Interpersonal
&
Communication
Skill,
Presentation
Skill,
Computer
Literacy,
Language
Computer
Literacy
GROUP
L
I
N
E
DEPARTMENT
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
CORE COMPETENCE
CLASS
LEVEL
CULTU-
RE
VOLUN-
TARY
NON-PLANT
FUNC-
TIONAL
TRAINING PROGRAM
COMPULSORY
PLANT
The Executive Program on Corporate Management
The Program for Global Enterprises Management
( Economic, New Technology, Social & Politic issues )
HRM for Non-HR Manager
Finance for Non-Finance Manager
Strategic Planning
Supply Chain Management
Negotiation Skill
Targeted Selection
Middle Mgmt. Program (PWPK DpH)
Kaizen Advisor / Project Management
Supervisory Management Program (PWPK S/H) ,
Basic Management Program
TPS for Supervisor
Statistical Quality Control
Practical Problem Solving
PWPK G/H
Toyota Job Instruction , Circle Leader Training
TPS Basic
Induction
Office Administration
Basic Skill Training
Toyota Basic Training Program
Completed Staff Work
Circle Facilitator Tr, TPS : Standardization and Kaizen
PWPK L/H
Interaction Management
Business Seminar
Man Management
Business Simulation
General Mgmt. Program (PWPK D/H)
Competency Matrix

49. 2. Developing Training
Program
• At this stage, the
development of an
educational program is
carried out, in which the
necessary procedures
must be defined to
identify, channel and
formalize all training and
information needs for
each function, family and
sub-family position, and
existing roles within the
organization.

50. An ideal CU
curriculum and
delivery
infrastructure by
organizational level
according to BCG
research

51. Shows Examples Of
Corporate University
Branding From
Zappos And
Mcdonald’s
Hamburger
University

52. 3. Formation of Corporate
University Processes and
Structures
• At this stage, it is called the initial
formation of CU by developing processes
and structures that function to enhance
the framework that will occur in the
development of CU as a new process in
the organization.
• Designed in line with the information
obtained in the first phase and in an
effort to build a governance structure for
CU starting with drawing appropriate
process mapping, developing regulations,
documents and procedures needed to
operate efficiently.
• Establish the basis for the division of
training areas and different training
Institutions or areas that will be part of
the new CU that will run.

53. 4. Development and
Implementation of Learning
Management System (LMS)
• This tool is an important
technology in development so
that CU can function properly,
interact and be managed
properly.
• To do this, decision makers
should be very careful with
respect to the various
offerings that are in the
market regarding convenience
and ancillary services offered
by suppliers and providers
before finally choosing the
proposal that best suits the
needs of CUs in the
organization.

54. 5. Knowledge and Release
• In the fifth stage, the project
will be released and all
internal (and external,
depending on the scope of
the project) audience will be
informed, given an overview,
and provided information
about the features that exist
and are involved in it.

55. How
• Preparation Phase
• Kick-off
• Benchmarking
• Corporate University Assessment
• Corporate university
• Blueprint Corporate University
Kementerian Keuangan, Badan Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Keuangan, (2016). Kemenkeu Corporate University:
Belajar Tanpa Batas, Kinerja Berkualitas, 1–43, https://bppk.kemenkeu.go.id/kemenkeu-corpu

56. Content Life
Cycle Mandiri
Corporate
University
Sumber: Paparan Mandiri
Corporate University, 29
April 2019

57. All business organizations need to
have a structure in place that provides
systematic processes to advance their
organization through growing the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes of
their employees— whatever they call
that”
- Kathleen Gallo, SVP and Chief Learning Officer, Northwell Health

58. Example of
CU

59. CU Trends

60. Challenges
• To create a system based on the strategic plan it is essential to comply
with items such as engagement of senior management, and strategic
alignment model of people management with business strategies.
• The investment required for the operation of a corporate university.
• The intangible assets necessary to model the learning process,
through the absorption of knowledge for learning to learn, are the
methodological guidance in the preparation of courses, the sensitivity
of teachers and tutors to make the process a learning activity to be
extended out the organization, as an exercise in life.
• To develop a creative environment, propitious to sharing experiences
among those involved in the process. With the objective, of building
learning communities, involving academic theories and practice of the
corporate world.

61. Challenges
There are other challenges in substantial changes on internal structures of the
development of people with the proposal of Corporate Universities such as:
• Empowering people to compete in a globalized economy;
• The development of mental models and behavior toward continuous learning
and adaptation to environments subjected the frequent change;
• Training to lead organizations in international contexts, with strong cultural
diversity present in everyday business and the people who work there;
• Preparation for constant acquisitions and merger,
• The reconciliation of people and the prospects of the company,
• so as to reach both the interests at stake in the educational process and those
that are fundamental to the success of its implementation;
• And finally, the encouragement of self-development of employees, which
implies strong changes in the company’s culture of learning

62. Challenges
Corporate university is no longer responsible just for training oriented
courses available for employees. Instead, corpu is embracing a more
powerful role in which it reshapes capabilities and organizational culture.
There are 3 transformation areas:
• 1. Transforming organizations’ learning goals, shifting the focus from
the development of skills to the development of mindsets and
capabilities that will help workers perform well now and adapt
smoothly in the future.
• 2. Transforming organizations’ learning methods, making them more
experiential and immediate, and atomizing content for delivery when
and where it’s needed.
• 3. Transforming organizations’ learning departments, making them
leaner, more agile, and more strategic.

63. Result
• The remarks of Jack Welch – Former CEO GE—are very apt in the context of training and learning. Jack Welch states that any
organization that is capable to learn, and transfer its learning into results has a competitive advantage (Gloeckler,2014). Peter
Drucker also stated the maxim: “Education can no longer be confined to schools. Every employing institution has to become a
teacher” (Drucker,1987) Drucker was thus hinting at the need and importance of continuous learning or lifelong learning, which
every organization must adopt in order to remain competitive.
• Learning is thus becoming an outcome of training in the workplace. A few organizations have even developed an inbuilt learning
mechanism in the form of a learning institute, a kind of a corporate university wherein employees attend customized courses and
excel in their areas of expertise. Such organizations have now started talking about learnability as a unique skill of their employees
and prefer to call themselves a Learning Organization.
• Training in these organizations is thus redefined and restructured as organizational learning. What was earlier considered as
administrative function or a necessary tool to ensure that employees possessed necessary skills to carry out the assigned job was
transformed into a kind of organizational learning. Such organizations have started calling their employees as intellectual assets or
intellectual capital or knowledge workers who now collectively work for achieving organizational goals and objectives.
• Such organizations are thus people’s organizations where intangible (intellectual) assets are more important than the tangible
ones. If such a workforce is to be available to a nation, the corporate university model is the only potential method to built this
workforce.

64. Impacts
• Corpu provides learning opportunities for employees, suppliers and customers of the parent organization (Paton et al, 2005) and
the community (Meister, 1998), Corpu also helps organizations achieve their mission, strengthens work culture and business
innovation (Mark Allen, 2011), as well as support organizational strategy, and change management initiatives (Kiely, 2017)
continuous improvement and competitive advantage (Walton, 2015), compared to university functions in general which are
associated with scientific, teaching and research activities with academic degrees (D1-D2-D3-S1 -S2-S3) (Krisna Wijaya, 2019)
because in the corpu each division or department can focus more on improving technical and managerial capabilities to improve
the ability of their daily tasks and tiered education or promotion requirements, in addition to being tactical or operational, to
improve the implementation of work activities and activities better.
• Corpu is designed to strengthen organizational culture, develop top leadership, support change management initiatives,
encourage business innovation, relevant and focused research and operate like a business unit (Krisna Wijaya, 2019). Corpu also
has a goal of involving senior management as a key initiative, ensuring learning outcomes are consistent with better company
activities, supporting the transfer of learning content into the company's daily business, bringing new knowledge for company
progress and cultivating critical thinking for company progress.
• With the existence of a corpu, the company can focus more on developing employees, so that increasing employee competency
will help employees improve performance and cumulatively, the good performance shown by all employees will help improve
company performance.

65. Final Thoughts
• Corporate universities can be a driving force in an
organization. They can add value, drive change and
contribute to the growth and development of the
overall enterprise, but only if the corporate university
is connected to the business, relevant, managed in a
productive, efficient manner and valuable to the
organization.
• The success factors identified in this article are review
points to judge the success of the corporate university
and provide the impetus for sustained improvement,
change and growth.

66. References
• Allen, M (2002). The Corporate University Handbook: Designing, Managing, and Growing a Successful Program. AMACOM Div
American Mgmt Assn.
• Assen, Daan. (2010). Corporate Universities: Making A Strategic Contribution By Enhancing Absorptive Capacity. Working paper.
Atrivision, Amersfoort, the Netherlands. Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands. P.O.
Box 217 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands d.t.assen@utwente.nl
• Ayuningtyas, H. G., Anggadwita, A.N. G., Putri, M. K (2015) The Corporate University Landscape in Indonesia. 3rd International
Seminar and Conference on Learning Organization (ISCLO 2015): Atlantis Press
• Betof, E. Leaders as Teachers: Unlock the Teaching Potential of Your Company’s Best and Brightest; Data Reproductions
Corporation
• (ASTD): Auburn Hills, MI, USA, 2014.
• Chusminah (2015). Analisis Implementasi Konsep Corporate University Dalam Meningktakan Kinerja Karyawan, StudiKasus: PT
PLN Persero, Jakarta. Jurnal Widya Cipta, (VII;5), 86-94.
• Dasenbrock, R.W. One and a half cheers for the corporate university. ADE Bull. 2002, 130, 42–49. [CrossRef]
• Grenzer, Jeffrey W (2006) Developing and Implementing a Corporate University. HRD Press Inc. USA.
• J. Barney, “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, 1991, pp. 99-120.
• Kementerian Keuangan, Badan Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Keuangan, (2016). Kemenkeu Corporate University: Belajar Tanpa
Batas, Kinerja Berkualitas, 1–43, https://bppk.kemenkeu.go.id/kemenkeu-corpu
• Meister, Jeanne C (1998). Corporate Universities-Lessons in Building a World Class Workforce. McGraw Hill New York USA
• Peris-Ortiz, M., Gomez, J.A., Marquez, P., 2018. Corporate Universities as a New Paradigm and Source of Social Innovation,
Sustainability, Technology and Education in the XXI Century, in: Strategies and Best Practices in Social Innovation: An Institutional
Perspective. 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89857-5
• R. Deiser, “Corporate universities – Modeerscheinung oder strategischer Erfolgsfaktor?”, Organisation sentwicklung, Vol. 17 No.
1, 1998, pp. 36-49
• Rademakers, M. (2005). Corporate Universities: Driving Force of Knowledge Innovation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17 (1/2),
130-136.
• Walton, J.Would the real corporate university please stand up? J. Eur. Ind. Train. 2005, 29, 7–20. [CrossRef]

67. Learning and
Giving for Better
Indonesia
www.humanikaconsulting.com