Motorola University and higher education: the exception that proves the rule?

Part of the so-called e-education bubble and wider dotcom enthusiasm, the boom i n corporate universities in the 1990s prompted speculation that this appropriation of higher education nomenclature might spark some form of competition between corporate and conventi onal universities. As it turned out, the vast majority of corporate universities have remained exclusively focused on the development of in-house staff, that is, very much sti cking to the remit of the historical company training department prior to this latest round of re-b randing. That said, a recent announcement from a corporate university pioneer, Motorola University, is a reminder that not every corporate university has conformed to this pattern. Motorola cont inues to pursue greater ambitions as an outward-facing training provider, and has enlisted conve ntional universities as partners in this process. What is Motorola University in 2003, a nd how does it relate to the higher education sector? Motorola University (MU) is the education and training arm of Motorola Inc., the US telecommunications giant. Its origins may be traced back as far as 1981 when the Motorola Training and Education Centre was founded. At this stage the centre was intended to serve the in-house training needs of the corporation. Motorola expanded its training opera tions with the opening of the Galvin Centre for Continuing Education (Schaumburg, Illinois) in 1986 and the Singapore Training Design Centre in 1989. Motorola's intentions were to build a company-wide quality culture that would promote high internal standards and develop employee skills, translating into overall increased profitability. In 1986 the Six Sigma system w as created by a Motorola engineer, and soon became the company-mandated system of performance evaluation and improvement. Some argue that in-house adoption of the system (by re-focusing the business and emphasising quality improvement) saved the company from its pre dicament of rapid loss of market share to Japan during the 1980s. The Six Sigma system has g rown from an in-house tool to an internationally marketed brand available to all interested c ompanies. Now MU claims to serve 100 companies in 24 countries, ranging from Brazil and Mexico to China and Singapore. Some of the advertised companies practising the Six Sigma system are giants such as General Electric, Bombardier, and Lockheed Martin. Six Sigma programs are typically short (two days to four weeks) and company tail ored, offering both certificate and non-certificate options. Programs offered include 'Leadersh

ip Jumpstart' (two days for senior executives to bring the Six Sigma theory into practice in t heir business), 'Champion Training' (two days for the Six Sigma review representative at the com pany), 'Onsite Black and Green Belt Training' (20 and 5 day certification and training in basic to advanced theory of Six Sigma), and 'Expert Project Coaching and Mentoring' (designed for meeting short term campaign objectives within the Six Sigma system). Most recently MU has deve loped an online 'E-foundations Training' course (2-4 hours) that allows more flexibility in time and delivery of the Six Sigma curriculum. Completion of the Black Belt is a prerequisite to b ecoming a trainer of MU's Six Sigma. On an international scale MU is particularly well positioned to expand in Asia. Aside from the claimed core benefits of increased efficiency and profit, another advantage appe ars to be the longer-term value of MU certification. In an increasingly competitive business e nvironment, for both local and foreign firms, the MU brand has become a form of quality assuranc e adopted in the expectation that it may inspire confidence in investors. Some proponents of the MU product have likened it to the ISO's quality assurance system in this respect. MU's Asia n clients include banks such as HSBC, Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation, Scope International, a nd Deutsche Bank and government organisations such as Nanjing Education Committee a nd the National Productivity Council.

While MU includes "educational institutions" among its clients, it does not publ ish any details. However, there are known instances of conventional universities partnering with MU to market the Six Sigma system. One example is Kent State University, the second-largest p ublic university in Ohio, USA. The Stark Campus Office of Corporate and Community Serv ices is advertised as providing the "Resources of a major university coupled with expert ise in organizational and professional training and development." As an official MU Bus iness Partner, the staff in this office of the university will now be authorised to train and c ertify Six Sigma. Kent State has been actively involved in training, professional development, and prov iding research services to the Ohio business community over the past 15 years, and views the pa rtnership with MU as a useful extension of this. The partnership with MU is focused on Ohio and neighbouring states (MU headquarters are in nearby Chicago, Illinois), but is intriguing inso far as it involves a conventional university offering provision from a corporate university. (Motorol a itself has a range of research and development partnerships with universities worldwide). The potential for expansion of MU is particularly evident in China. MU China was established in 1993, with the goal of training both internal staff and the greater Chinese busi ness community. Having forged partnerships with 21 Chinese higher education institutions (includ ing well-known Beijing University, Tsinghua University, and Nankai University), MU China now of fer 130 courses and can call on over 200 instructors (including Motorola China's senior management). Motorola's expansion of strategic alliances in government, industry, and academi a is facilitated by their corporate university marketing. Motorola Senior Vice President and Dire ctor of Motorola University Sandy Ogg states that Motorola wants to "change from a pure corporate university which previously we called a training center, to a strategic partner of our cust omers, suppliers, partners in China and the rest of the Asia Pacific region." With China's recent accession to the WTO, Motorola has taken advantage of the desire of Chinese companies to prove an d distinguish themselves in an increasingly competitive and globalised environment . The corporate university in this case becomes another product to offer, separate fro m but to the benefit of the core business. Another interesting higher education partnership i nvolves MU operating as Chinese partner for University of Buffalo's EMBA programme. To this extent, Motorola University is clearly more than in-house training. Rath er it is an attempt to turn a distinctive approach to business into a brand that can be packaged and sold to the benefit of the company's credibility, partnering scope, and end profit. The prim

ary customer base and all cited success stories are from large corporations. Whether the prin ciples involved in the Six Sigma system would work for a smaller company remains to be seen. Sma ller businesses have not joined in to date due in large part to the costs of training and slow return on investment. GE spent US$200 million on Six Sigma in 1996 and posted savings o f only US$170 million. By the next year it saved US$700 million by spending US$380 mill ion, but the early losses are something that smaller companies cannot afford to risk. MU's pa rtnerships with what are essentially peer firms is also a matter of the company being able to re fer to itself as an appropriate model of successful development. That said, operating through establ ished partners (which tend to have extensive supplier and partner bases) does open up new marke ts for MU that would otherwise involve considerable marketing and set-up costs. Obviously to some extent just another business fashion, like re-engineering and TQM before it, corporate universities nonetheless remain a prominent feature of the landscape. Given longstanding criticism of graduate employability among some sectors of the busin ess community, some speculated that corporate universities might challenge their con ventional forebears, if not for the core business of undergraduate teaching, then at least the lucrative area of corporate development so central to business schools. While there is little e vidence of this to date, continued use of university title will ensure that higher education pays t he phenomenon more attention than it perhaps deserves. Most large firms have maintained a stro ng track record of partnering with conventional universities as a core element of any corporate university, and very few have got to the point where an outward-facing operation makes sense. Wh ile many companies could claim expertise in general good business practice that others mi ght find useful, few regard this as a useful addition to the core business. England's proposals t o open up degree-awarding powers and 'official' university title to private companies may generate new possibilities for the corporate university, but any dramatic interest is unlikel y. Overall, Motorola University is something of an exception and is likely to remain so. Nonetheless, its partnerships with conventional universities involve intriguing role-reversals, and arguably a mount to a healthy knowledge partnership between company and university.