The training efforts often include organizing and staffing corporate
universities.
DEVELOPING SUPER KEEPERS,
KEEPERS, AND SOLID
CITIZENS : MEASUREMENT
MAKES A DIFFERENCE
CORPORATE UNIVERSITY
CUs are set up for a variety of reasons, but most of the
organization have the same basic need:
✔ Organize training
✔ Start and support change in the organization.
✔ Get the most out of the investment in education.
✔ Bring a common culture, loyalty and belonging to a
company.
✔ Remain competitive in today’s economy.
✔ Retain employees.
WHY A SCORECARD?
A scorecard approach to reporting results provides
critical information to the client group, including top
executives. However, it also provides useful measures
for the corporate university staff. Multiple customer
demands are at the core of the development of the
scorecard.
Although there are many stakeholders, two broad groups
of customers are served by the corporate university: the
consumers and the clients. The consumers are the
participants involved in the process. The clients are those
who fund, support, request, or approve programs.
These corporate universities can make a substantial difference in
preparing Super keepers and other employees for future challenges.
A score-card can provide a quantitative and qualitative measurement
of the contribution of a corporate university to the training and
development of each employee group described above.
The concept of the corporate university has been around for decades.
In the 1930s the IBM Schoolhouse at Endicott, New York was
launched. With the IBM mantra, THINK, placed above the entrance,
field, factory, and office workers would arrive to do just that—think
and learn
ACTIVITY VERSUS RESULTS
From the inception of the corporate university concept to the
present, a shift to results-based processes has been evolving.
A critical change is the way in which corporate universities
report results. In comparison with traditional reporting of
input measures (number of participants, number of programs,
etc.), today organizations are developing output
data—participant reaction, amount of learning, change in job
performance, level of actual application of skills and
knowledge, change in business measures, ROI, and intangible
benefits
Reporting these data in a scorecard format provides evidence
of overall program success from the participant, organization,
and financial perspective.
CONSUMERS
The corporate university staff needs immediate
information from the consumers in the form of feedback
about the processes and programs.
Improvements are often identified to enhance future
results. Thus, process improvement is a key focus of the
data needed by the corporate university staff.
 CLIENTS
In addition, the corporate university staff needs data on The client group is interested in application, impact, and
application, impact, and ROI in order to: ROI. This group is interested in obtaining significant
behavior change from employees as they interact with
1. Enhance the perception of the corporate university so that customers, suppliers, and team members.
the key employee groups have positive impressions about
the contribution and usefulness of corporate university They are also interested in the actual linkage to business
programs. impact, to have assurance that the programs are helping
2. Build credibility for the corporate university process with the operating units achieve their goals.
all stakeholders.
3. Justify future expenditures.
4. Enhance management support.
5. Provide information for benchmarking with other corporate
universities so that best practice comparisons are possible.

DEVELOPING THE SCORECARD DATA

There are six major concerns about the accountability of corporate
universities. These translate into specific types of information needed by
senior managers.
1. The impact of the university at the macro level, reflecting the results of
all programs, rather than the micro level, reflecting the results of an
individual program.
2. Brief progress reports rather than detailed impact studies, at least for the
majority of programs.
3. The connection to business objectives and assurance that the university
is making a contribution and driving certain business improvement
measures.
4. The overall contribution of the corporate university, but not necessarily
the ROI for the entire university. Executives.
5. Different types of data, both tangible and intangible, taken at different
time frames from different sources.
6. The alignment of the corporate university programs, strategic
objectives, and operating goals.

BUILDING THE SCORECARD
Corporate universities use a variety of training and
performance improvement statistics, such as number of
hours of involvement in programs, number of people
involved, number of programs, number of multiple
enrolments , investment per associate, etc.
The challenge is to first determine how many programs
will be evaluated at the various levels. The ideal situation
is to measure as many programs as possible at the
highest level (ROI) and integrate the data in a
meaningful way with data from other programs to show
the overall contribution of the corporate university.
CORPORATE UNIVERSITY SCORECARD
0. Indicators
1. Number of Employees Involved
2. Total Hours of Involvement
3. Hours per Employee
4. Training Investment as a Percent of Payroll
5. Cost per Participant
I. Reaction and Planned Action
1. Percent of Programs Evaluated at This Level
2. Ratings on 7 Items vs.Target
3. Percent with Action Plans
4. Percent with ROI Forecast
IV. Business Impact
1. Percent of Programs Evaluated at This Level
2. Linkage with Measures (List of Top 10)
3. Types of Measurement Techniques
4. Types of Methods to Isolate the Effects of Programs
5. Investment Perception
V. ROI
1. Percent of Programs Evaluated at This Level
2. ROI Summary for Each Study
3.Methods of Converting Data to Monetary Values
4. Fully Loaded Cost per Participant
VI. Intangibles
1. List of Intangibles (Top 10)
2. How Intangibles Were Captured
REACTION, SATISFACTION, AND PLANNED ACTION
(LEVEL 1)
The first level in the five-level evaluation framework—reaction,
satisfaction, and planned action—represents an important area of
measurement, primarily for the corporate university staff.
To compare one program with another, it is necessary to capture
input on several specific Level 1 items. While specific items can
vary with the corporate university, eight items are suggested:
•Relevance to job
• Usefulness of program
• Amount of new information
• Recommendation to others
• Importance of information
• Intention to use skills/knowledge
• Effectiveness of facilitator
• Effectiveness of delivery system
II. Learning
1. Percent of Programs Evaluated at This Level
2. Types of Measurements
3. Self-Assessment Ratings on 3 Items vs.Targets
4. Pre/Post Average Differences
III. Application
1. Percent of Programs Evaluated at This Level
2. Ratings on 3 Items vs.Targets
3. Percent of Action Plans Complete
4. Barriers (List of Top 10)
5. Enablers (List of Top 10)
6. Management Support Profile
CHALLENGES
The first challenge is to allocate additional resources for
measurement and evaluation.
The second challenge is to approach the task in a disciplined,
methodical manner.
The third important challenge is the actual use of the data.
Not only does this reporting reveal success in terms of the
contribution, but it provides process improvement data that
enable the corporate university staff to make adjustments
throughout the learning cycle.
The good news is that developing a scorecard of program
success based on outcomes provides evidence that
developmental opportunities for the Super keepers are
working within the organization.