Abstract
The study focuses on providers outside the university system, such as corporate universities (CU) and research associations (RA). The first section defines the organisational types of CU and discusses the question if CHE is provided by CU. It ends with an overview of the co-operation activities in the area of CHE. The second section deals with research associations and discusses the question if they provide CHE. Analogue to the first section it ends with and overview of co-operation activities in the field of CHE.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Of these 19 companies, 14 completed the questionnaire and five explicitly stated that they did not wish to participate in the survey.
- 2.
A good overview of the various models can be found in Andresen (2003).
- 3.
Representatives of such strategies are the Lufthansa School of Business and Deutsche Bank University, whose programmes are open to all employees (Schwertfeger, 2004, p. 31).
- 4.
The investigation covered 1000 large companies with more than 2000 employees. Small and medium-sized enterprises were not taken into consideration, since it was hypothesised that it was above all companies with large numbers of employees that had a CU as an organisational unit. A total of 326 companies took part in the survey, 47 of which stated that they operated their own CU; another 18 stated that they had access to a CU at holding-company level; a further 26 said that establishment of a CU was still at the planning stage – the remaining companies replied that they were neither operating a CU nor planning to do so in the near future.
- 5.
The interview was carried out in June 2006. Meanwhile Dr. Peter F. Tropschuh became Director of AutoUni.
- 6.
This classification is based on the European Commission’s Recommendation concerning the definition of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, which came into effect on 1 January 2005.
- 7.
The course-based accreditations for the two courses already in place are issued by the cooperating German universities.
- 8.
Companies were asked to comment freely on this question.
- 9.
Multiple mentions could be made throughout the co-operation matrix. All fields in which the company concerned maintained co-operative relationships were to be marked with a cross.
- 10.
The average was calculated by totalling the percentages and dividing them by the number of companies responding.
- 11.
The majority of the “others” are from training companies.
- 12.
The study was conducted between April and June 2006. A total of 231 enterprises from Germany, Austria, Norway and Poland took part. The largest percentage of enterprises responding was in the service sector, followed by industry and commerce.
- 13.
Multiple responses were possible.
- 14.
Unless otherwise indicated, the information was taken from the association’s website, http://www.mpg.de.
- 15.
As at 1 January 2006.
- 16.
Unless otherwise indicated, the information was taken from the association’s website, http://www.fraunhofer.de.
- 17.
This figure ensues from an analysis of the annual reports for 2001–2005, which can be found on MPG’s website at http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/jahresbericht/index.html.
- 18.
The turnover rate for scientific staff in contract research is approximately 10% (FhG, 2004, p. 16).
- 19.
These Master’s programmes are an Executive MBA for technology managers, a Master of Environmental Sciences and a Master in Logistic Engineering, which are offered by FhTA (http://www.technology-academy.de).
- 20.
Here, “larger-scale” means greater volume of finance and/or greater numbers of participants.
- 21.
In addition to FhG’s “information and communication technology” alliance, these industrial summits are co-organised by the National Association of German Industry (BDI) and the National Association of the German Information Technology Industry, Telecommunications and New Media (BITKOM) (http://www.iuk.fraunhofer.de/index2.html?Dok_ID=111&Sp=1).
- 22.
Current Contents Connect®, Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia, USA. This database is available at http://www.isinet.com.
- 23.
This database is available at http://ovid.gwdg.de/ovid-bin/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&ID=max&; PASSWORD=planck&MODE=ovid&NEWS=N&PAGE=main&D=MPRR.
- 24.
This database is available at http://publica.fraunhofer.de/starweb/publica/indx.htm.
References
Andresen, M. (2003). Corporate Universities als Instrument des strategischen Managements von Person, Gruppe und Organisation. Frankfurt a.M.
AutoUni. (2004). Volkswagen AutoUni: Jahresbericht 2004. Wolfsburg.
Bielig, A., Dauner, J., False, J., & Haase, H. (2006). Weiterbildung in kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen: Eine europäische Studie im Rahmen des Projekts “ManageSME” (Research Papers in Economics and Law, No. 5). Illmenau: Technische Universität
BMBF. (1989). Wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung in sieben westlichen Industrieländern – Auftrag, Methode, Ergebnisse. In BMBF (Ed.), Final Report (pp. VII–XXIV). Bonn.
CUX (Corporate University Exchange). (2002). Corporate University Xchange Fifth Annual Benchmarking Report. New York.
Deiser, R. (1998). Corporate Universities – Modeerscheinung oder strategischer Erfolgsfaktor? Organisationsentwicklung 1998 (1), 36–49.
Domsch, M., & Andresen, M. (2001a). Corporate Universities – ein neues altes Konzept? Uniforschung, 11, 48–57.
Domsch, M., & Andresen, M. (2001b). Corporate Universities – eine bildungshistorische Standortbestimmung. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik 97 (4), 523–539.
Eglau, H., Kluge, J., Meffert, J., & Stein, L. (2000). Durchstarten zur Spitze. Frankfurt a.M.
FhG (Fraunhofer Gesellschaft). (2004). Karriere mit Fraunhofer. Retrieved 2006/07/03, from http://www.fraunhofer.de/fhg/Images/karriere_mitFhG_tcm5-9590.pdf.
FhG (Fraunhofer Gesellschaft). (2005). Jahresbericht der Fraunhofer Gesellschaft 2005. Retrieved 2006/06/13, from http://www.fraunhofer.de/fhg/Images/FhG-JB-komplett_tcm5-63602.pdf.
Glotz, P., & Seufert, S. (2002) (Hrsg.). Corporate University: Wie Unternehmen ihre Mitarbeiter mit E-Learning erfolgreich weiter bilden. Frauenfeld et al: Verlag Huber.
Götter, R. (2006). Eine neue Innovationskultur gestalten. InnoVisions 2007 (2), 86–88.
Heuser, M. (1999). Corporate University – Nucleus für individuelle und organisatorische Wissensprozesse. In T. Sattelberger (Ed.), Wissenskapitalisten oder Söldner? (pp. 221–246). Wiesbaden.
Knust, M. (2006). Geschäftsmodelle der wissenschaftlichen Weiterbildung – Eine Analyse unter Berücksichtigung empirischer Ergebnisse. Lohmar.
Lederbogen, U. (2004). When Science goes public on the web: An analysis of the online PR strategies of German Universities and Research Organizations. In B. Bonmatí (Ed.), Scientific Knowledge and Cultural Diversity (pp. 267–275). Proceedings of PCST-8, Retrieved 2006-06-10, from http://www.pcst2004.org/esp/pdf/pcst_book.pdf.
Meister, J. (1998). Corporate Universities – Lessons in Building a World-Class Work Force New York: McGraw Hill.
Mergel, I. (2000). Corporate Universities – Stand der Umsetzung von firmeneigenen Akademien (Arbeitsbericht des IWI3). St. Gallen: Universität St. Gallen.
MPG (Max Planck Gesellschaft). (2001). Jahresbericht der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 2001. Retrieved 2006/05/08, from http://www.mpg.de/pdf/jahresbericht2001/jahresbericht2001.pdf.
MPG (Max Planck Gesellschaft). (2004). Jahresbericht der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 2004. Retrieved 2006/06/13, from http://www.mpg.de/pdf/jahresbericht2004/jahresbericht2004.pdf.
MPG (Max Planck Gesellschaft). (2005). Jahresbericht der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 2005. Retrieved 2006/06/13, from http://www.mpg.de/pdf/jahresbericht2005/jahresbericht2005.pdf.
Münch, J. (2003). Status und Rolle der Corporate University zwischen betrieblicher Bildungsabteilung und öffentlicher Hochschule. In U. Backes-Gellner & C. Schmidtke (Eds.), Hochschulökonomie – Analysen interner Steuerungsprobleme und gesamtwirtschaftlicher Effekte (pp. 63–104). Berlin.
No author. (2006). Action Learning. Retrieved 2006/07/03, from http://www.business-wissen.de/de/baustein/bs21/.
Schwertfeger, B. (2004). Schwerpunkt Personalentwicklung - Campus für die Strategie. Personalwirtschaft (2), 30–33.
Stauss, B. (1999). Die Rolle deutscher Universitäten im Rahmen einer Corporate University. In R. Neumann & J. Vollath (Eds.), Corporate Universities: Strategische Unternehmensentwicklung durch maßgeschneidertes Lernen (pp. 121–155). Zurich.
Themen und Trends. (2005). Zwischen Stagnation und Reorganisation. Personalführung 2005 (12), 8–9.
Todd, S. (2006). The Corporate University: Alive and Well. Corporate University Journal (1), 1–10.
Wechselwirkungen. (2000). Zusammenarbeit der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft mit den Universitäten. Retrieved 2006-06-07, from http://www.mpg.de/pdf/wechselwirkungen.pdf, as of March 2000.
Wimmer, R., Emmerich, A., & Nicolai, A. (2002). Corporate Universities in Deutschland – Eine empirische Untersuchung zu ihrer Verbreitung und strategischen Bedeutung. Retrieved 2006/03/15, from http://www.bmbf.de/publikationen/2707.php, as of 2002.
Useful Websites
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Knust, M., Hanft, A. (2009). Corporate Universities and Research Associations as Players in Continuing Higher Education. In: Knust, M., Hanft, A. (eds) Continuing Higher Education and Lifelong Learning. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9676-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9676-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9675-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9676-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)