Impact of Massive Open Online Courses(MOOCs) on Employee Competencies

and Innovation

Blekinge Institute of TechnologySchool of Management

Master of Business Administration (MBA)

Authors:Stamatis Karnouskos

Martin Holmlund

Supervisor:Dr. Urban Ljungquist

May 2014

Abstract

Globalisation has redefined the rules of competition, and skilled labour is a deciding factor.Especially in fast-paced knowledge-based economies, there is greater dependence on knowl-edge, information and high skill levels, which also play a key role in innovation. It is thereforein the interest not only of corporations but also of individual persons to not only retain exist-ing knowledge, but continuously enhance it, by expanding it and utilizing it more efficiently – inother words to expand their competencies. Competent people are the key to future success andoffer organizations their only sustainable competitive advantage.

Among the plethora of available tools to enhance employee competencies, Massive OnlineOpen Courses (MOOCs) are an emerging phenomenon. They have taken the world by stormthe last years, and very recently they also started penetrating the corporate environments. AsMOOCs are still at a very early stage, mostly the last two years their models and impact are start-ing to be analysed in scientific articles. Our efforts in this work focus exactly on this white-spotarea i.e. the usage of MOOCs on modern enterprises within the scope of employee competencyenhancement. The purpose of this work is to understand the exact impact that MOOCs can haveon the workforce and especially to innovation which is a key competitive advantage for any cor-poration is of paramount importance in knowledge economies.

To achieve our goal, we initially discuss and provide evidence on the theoretical positive con-tribution of the key competencies via more traditional means and their link to innovation. Sub-sequently we formulate hypotheses which we then evaluate following a quantitative methodol-ogy. Via a survey we gather empirical data and analyse them via structural equation modelling.The result is the empirical validation of some of our initial hypotheses. More specifically all keyemployee MOOC-empowered competencies under the factors of Knowledge, Technology, Cost,Communication and Culture have a considerable impact on innovation. Although also Leader-ship, Strategy and People have a positive impact, it is not seen as being significant.

Our hope is that the results of this work will spark further and deeper investigations on therole that MOOCs can play for the employees in modern enterprises and how all stakeholders canbenefit.

Contents

1 Introduction 11.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Problem Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Problem Formulation and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 De-limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses 52.1 Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1.1 Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1.2 Employee Competency in Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2.1 Definition and Importance of Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2.2 Innovation and Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.3 MOOCs – Learning in the 21st Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.3.1 Distance Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.3.2 The MOOC Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.3.3 Key Aspects of MOOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.3.4 MOOC Considerations for the Corporate World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.4 Proposed Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.4.1 Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.4.2 Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.4.3 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.4.4 People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.4.5 Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.4.6 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.4.7 Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.4.8 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3 Methodology 213.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.2 Research Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.3 Survey and Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.4 Sampling Group and Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.5 Unit and Level of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.6 Validity and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4 Results 254.1 Data Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1.1 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.1.2 Normality of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.4 Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5 Analysis 355.1 Hypotheses Analysis and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

ii

5.2 Analysis Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6 Conclusions and Implications 38

7 Limitations and Future Research 39

Bibliography 40

Appendix 47

List of Figures

1.1 Employee investment dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Research focus and outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Proposed model linking MOOC empowered competencies and innovation . . . . 17

4.1 Demographics: overview of participants’ MOOC background . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.2 Demographics of the survey responders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.3 AMOS structural model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

List of Tables

2.1 Indicative view of key competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 Grouped competency factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3 Overview of example MOOC providers (Apr 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.1 Data descriptive statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.2 KMO and Bartlett’s test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.3 Total variance explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294.4 Pattern matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304.5 Factor correlation matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.6 Cronbach’s Alpha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.7 Relative Chi square (CMIN/DF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.8 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.9 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.10 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.11 Testing of hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

iii

1 Introduction

1.1 MotivationWithin a corporation there is always the dilemma on how much to invest in employee compe-tency development. This is anecdotally illustrated in Figure 1.1 via a hypothetical discussionamong the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO):

- CFO: What if we invest in developing our people and then they leave us?- CEO: What if we don’t and they stay?

A key question within an organization is how to optimally take advantage of its human resourceexpertise and empower them to excel. The recent introduction of Massive Open Online Course(MOOCs) may have a disruptive impact in the corporate world, especially when it comes toemployee competency development and innovation. This work explores exactly this angle ina hardly researched area.

Figure 1.1: Employee investment dilemma

MOOCs are a fairly new phenomenon that has taken the world by storm. Generally they arefree, open access and scalable online higher education courses, that use a variety of online re-sources (such as videos and message boards) and seek to capitalise on high volume studentclasses by encouraging peer learning networks in place of more conventional synchronous learn-ing and academic instruction (Universities UK, 2013). MOOCs challenge the traditional educa-tional model (Stepan, 2013). Differentiators include the wide-availability of taught areas, freeaccess over the Internet, and more importantly enable a self-pacing approach (Severance, 2013).Today there are several organizations with various setups and business models offer MOOCssuch as Coursera (www.coursera.org), edX (www.edx.org), Udacity (www.udacity.com) etc.

The MOOC revolution is not affecting only the academia but has the potential to disrupt alsothe corporate world. Increasingly large corporations are utilizing it as an employee training and

1

knowledge-enhancing tool (Meister, 2013). Typical utilization of MOOCs range from executiveeducation (Stine, 2013) to developer training, compliance training (De Coutere, 2014) etc. For in-stance the world business software leader SAP offers via MOOCs cutting edge technology train-ing of its products to developers both internally and externally (open.sap.com).

As MOOCs count only a handful years of existence, there is very limited research carried outon its utilization and a consensus on MOOC benefits is far from being reached (Fox, 2013). Mostof existing approaches build on previous concepts of e-Learning, to which MOOC is an evolu-tionary step, coupled with cutting edge technologies. Even then, most of the research focuseson the academic impact, while very scarce results are available when we focus on the corporateworld. As MOOCs are still at a very early stage, mostly the last two years their models and impactare starting to be analysed in scientific articles, while some more exist in popular press.

Our efforts focus exactly on this white-spot area i.e. the usage of MOOCs on modern enter-prises within the scope of employee competency enhancement. To this end, the theoreticalimportance is pivotal, as it may provide a better understanding of the MOOC impact on cor-porations via the further development of its employees’ competencies. Based on the theoreticalinvestigation we formulate hypotheses and propose a model that couples the key competenciesimpacted by MOOCs with the innovation.

Following up from the theoretical framework and the model we propose, an empirical assess-ment is conducted. Via data collected via a survey, our model is assessed with statistical meth-ods. To the best of our knowledge, no other similar survey(s) exist in the context we investigate,and the assessment may shed some more light on the applicability and benefits of MOOCs forthe modern enterprises.

1.2 Problem DiscussionCompetencies are the measurable or observable knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviours crit-ical to successful job performance (Washington State, 2012). Knowledge (the practical or theo-retical understanding of a subject), skills and abilities (natural or learned capacities to performacts ), and behaviour (a pattern of actions or conduct) as defined by Washington State (2012), canbe further developed by learning and affect the employee performance. In that line of thought,MOOCs constitute such a tool that may be used to enhance employee knowledge and skills (in-cluding abilities) which may be positively reflected in the overall performance of an organisation,especially when it comes to innovative and “out of the box” thinking and acting.

The importance of knowledge is underlined in the OECD/Eurostat (2005) report : “Firms withmore knowledge systematically outperform those with less. Individuals with more knowledge getbetter paid jobs. This strategic role of knowledge underlies increasing investments in researchand development, education and training, and other intangible investments . . . ”. It is thereforein the interest not only of corporations but also of individual persons to not only retain existingknowledge, but continuously enhance it, by expanding it and utilizing it more efficiently. Highereducation has already been linked to several benefits for the individuals and the society in gen-eral (Brennan et al., 2008), and since MOOCs constitute another form of (higher) education, theymight contribute towards increase of these benefits.

Globalisation has redefined the rules of competition, and skilled labour is a deciding factor(Hoke et al., 2013). Skills constitute a key driver of economic growth and prosperity (BIS, 2011),and long term strategies are laid out in several countries on how to achieve them (BIS, 2010;Brown et al., 2012; Hoke et al., 2013; OECD, 2013). Especially in fast-paced knowledge-basedeconomies, there is greater dependence on knowledge, information and high skill levels, whichalso play a key role in innovation (OECD/Eurostat, 2005). It has to be kept in mind that advancingskills is necessary if the same job is to be retained in the future, due to the hollowing out ofthe labour market (McIntosh, 2013), and of course a must if progress to a better paying job ispursued.

2

Impact of MOOCs to key employee competencies and innovation

Innovation

Employee Competencies es

MOOCs

Innovation

Competenc

Figure 1.2: Research focus and outcome

Skilled and knowledgeable employees, may come up with new innovations for the corpora-tion which may result in better performance. More importantly new skills and knowledge canbe acquired at low cost by the already available existing courses such as the MOOCs which aredelivered by key worldwide experts. In that sense there is timely coverage of an organization’semployee needs for further development, that can also be covered at minimal cost; a paradigmwhich is a huge step from existing costly and often too late offered internal tools and develop-ment approaches. This work focuses exactly on this white-space area in a funnel-like manneras illustrated in Figure 1.2. We investigate the impact of MOOCs in key employee competenciesand link them to innovation; and always within the area of modern corporations (who have themeans to follow also alternatives). To our knowledge there is no scientific research publishedthat tackles these aspects.

1.3 Problem Formulation and PurposeThe key research goal pertaining this work is:

What is the impact of MOOC to employee competencies and especially to innovation?

We approach this research question via three actions in a funnel manner (as illustrated inFigure 1.2). The purpose of this research is to identify the key competencies of the employeesthat can be developed by MOOCs and investigate their link to innovation. The research resultsmay enable this investigation to act as a lighthouse reference point, raise awareness, and pose astarting point for deeper investigations on the MOOC impact on individual aspects in corporateenvironments.

1.4 De-limitationsIn this work we identify several key factors that are empowered by MOOCs and that can havean impact on employee competencies, and additionally investigate their impact on innovation.The investigated space can be potentially huge; hence we are forced to draw some boundaries.We follow the funnel approach as illustrated in Figure 1.2, with innovation and most importantlyMOOCs in corporate environments to draw these boundaries.

3

While the competency and innovation can be impacted by several factors, we focus here onlyon a subset of them that can be impacted by MOOCs. Hence, approaches with wider focus suchas general training & development, performance management, consultations, coaching, men-toring, supervision etc. are not really considered.

Each of the factors investigated stays deliberately at high level, in order to provide a moreholistic picture and prove the benefits on MOOCs for the employee competencies. We are fullyaware that a deep-dive can be done in any of these factors, and that the details of each one ofthese would require investigations that can not be accommodated here due to the scope andtime constraints.

Although one could further explicitly investigate the key factors depending on various differ-entiators such as corporate size e.g. large corporations vs. small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs), corporate culture, geographic features, industry-specific considerations etc., we are ex-plicitly not considering such differentiators in this work. However we have to point out that weapproach this research with generalization in mind, and we consider that the results may begeneralized to cover other domains while also the process may be reproduced easily.

1.5 StructureThis thesis follows a waterfall-like process, where the reader is introduced gradually to the keyaspects pertaining this work. The aim is to enable easy understanding of concepts and the ap-proach followed, and make sure that each chapter builds on the previous ones. Hence, we startwith chapter 1 (Introduction) which introduces the area and the motivation. Subsequently inchapter 2 (Theoretical Background and Hypotheses) we focus on the theoretical backgroundupon which this work builds, and provide an literature overview, that leads to the formulationof several hypotheses. In chapter 3 (Methodology) we introduce the empirical approach under-taken and provide details on the survey, data collection, unit of analysis, as well as validity andreliability. The chapter 4 (Results) that follows, provides the assessment of the proposed modelfitness, as well as the assessment of the hypotheses via weight calculation among the links. Inchapter 5 (Analysis), we comment on the empirical results. In chapter 6 (Conclusions and Impli-cations) an overview of our conclusions is portrayed. Finally, chapter 7 (Limitations and FutureResearch) provides some considerations on limitations of this work that the reader has to keepin mind, and also already identified promising directions upon which follow-up research can bedone.

4

2 Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

The purpose of the theoretical part is to provide a more elaborative view on the key aspects dis-cussed by scholars that underpin the main issue of this research and construct a model thatis subsequently assessed empirically. The first step in our theoretical framework is to explainthe key concepts of MOOCs (section 2.3), key competencies (section 2.1) and innovation (sec-tion 2.2). The second step is to bring everything together into a single theoretical model (sec-tion 2.4) and formulate the hypotheses that are assessed in chapter 4 & chapter 5) according tothe methodology described in chapter 3.

2.1 Competencies2.1.1 DefinitionIn an ever-changing global business environment, rapid market, technology, competition andorganisation change frequently. However, what remains constant is the differentiation achiev-able through the skills and contributions of the employees of an organization (Alldredge andNilan, 2000). Therefore increasingly organisations seek to further develop their employees’ com-petencies in order for them to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to any business needs(Garavan and McGuire, 2001). With the prevalence of Internet and online capabilities, employ-ees can proactively also develop further their capabilities and enhance their skills.

Defining competencies is a challenging task and multiple definitions exist (Mitchelmore andRowley, 2010). Pickett (1998) defines them as “the sum of our experiences and the knowledge,skills, values and attitudes we have acquired during out lifetime”. Similarly Woodruffe (1993)considers competency as a “a set of behaviour patterns that the incumbent needs to bring to aposition in the order to perform its tasks and functions with competency”, and he also considersthat a number of individual competencies are needed to do so. The later is also clearly stated byKlemp and McClelland (1986) who clarify that “it should be remembered that competencies donot exist in isolation”.

Although there the precise definition of competency depends on the context (Klemp and Mc-Clelland, 1986), we can consider that generally competencies are ”a combination of attributessuch as knowledge, abilities, skills and attitudes which enable an individual to perform a set oftasks to an appropriate standard” (Dempsey et al., 2011). As the OECD (2005) report points out,competency involves “the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilising psy-chosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context”.

2.1.2 Employee Competency in CorporationsDanneels (2002) points out that generally corporations “must follow a certain trajectory or pathof competency development” which is tightly coupled with the product innovation. As compe-tency is the “how” of performance (Spencer and Spencer, 1993), it is clear that competent peopleare the key to future success and offer organizations their only sustainable competitive advan-tage (Pickett, 1998). Competencies are linked through improvement to the core competencies(Ljungquist, 2007) that play a pivotal role in organizations as they pose a competitive advantage.OECD (2005) points out that from a purely economic viewpoint, competencies of individuals areseen as important because they contribute to:

• boosting productivity and market competitiveness;

5

• minimizing unemployment through developing an adaptive and qualified labour force;and

• creating an environment for innovation in a world dominated by global competition.Development as well as assessment of professional competencies can be realized (Daniels,

2011). Developing skills can be done in various ways (United Nations, 2010) such as learning bydoing (job activities, job simulations and job aids), by training courses, by listening /watching(e.g. observing others, video-based development) and by reading (books, skill briefs). Generally,developing a competency is not seen as an one time event but rather as a process.

The analysis of the literature has revealed a plethora of competencies which contribute tothe overall employee competency enhancement. Global organizations have identified multi-ple competencies needed for the workforce (Ananiadou and Claro, 2009; OECD, 2005; UNICEF,2014; United Nations, 2010), while several other scholars and projects (ABET, 2011; ACER, 2001;Brewster et al., 2000; Cohan et al., 2012; Dempsey et al., 2011; IPMA, 2006; Maihemuti, 2011;Penchev and Salopaju, 2011) have identified similar competencies. An indicative overview ofsuch competencies found in the aforementioned organizations that could be enhanced system-atically is listed in Table 2.1 attests.

Table 2.1: Indicative view of key competenciesCompetency Key characteristicsAdaptivity /Flexibility

Adapts to changing circumstances including emergencies and othercrises; tolerates ambiguity; accepts new ideas and change initia-tives; adapts interpersonal style to suit different people and situa-tions; shows an interest in new experiences

Analysing Analyses numerical data and all other sources of information, tobreak them into component parts, patterns and relationships; probesfor further information or greater understanding of a problem; makesrational judgements from the available information and analysis;demonstrates an understanding of how one issue may be a part ofa much larger system

Commitment demonstrate commitment to company’s mission and demonstratesthe values of the company in daily activities and behaviours

Communication Speaks clearly, fluently and effectively; expresses opinions, infor-mation and key points of an argument knowledgeably and clearly;presents information with skill and confidence; responds quickly tothe needs of an audience and to their reactions and feedback; projectscredibility; structures information to meet the needs and under-standing of the intended audience; presents information in a well-structured and logical way; demonstrates openness in sharing infor-mation and keeping people informed

Creating andInnovating

Produces new ideas, approaches, or insights; creates innovative waysof designing projects or outputs in own work area; produces a rangeof solutions to problems; actively seeks to improve programmes orservices; offers new ways to solve or meet client needs; thinks outsidethe box; takes interest in new approaches and is not bound by currentthinking or traditional approaches

Diversity Respect Treats all people with dignity and respect; shows respect and sensitiv-ity towards gender, cultural and religious differences; challenges prej-udice, biases and intolerance in the workplace; encourages diversitywherever possible; examines own biases and behaviours to avoid ownstereotypical responses

continued . . .

6

Competency Key characteristicsEntrepreneurial

thinkingKeeps up to date with trends in own work area; identifies opportu-nities for advancing organization’s mission; maintains awareness ofdevelopments in the organizational structure and politics; demon-strates financial awareness and a concern for cost- effectiveness

Influencing Gains agreement and commitment from others by persuading, con-vincing and negotiating; makes effective use of political processes toinfluence and persuade others inside and outside the organization;promotes ideas on behalf of oneself or others; makes a strong per-sonal impact on others; takes care to manage one’s impression onothers

Integrity Maintains high ethical standards; takes clear ethical stands; keepspromises; immediately addresses untrustworthy or dishonest be-haviour; resists pressure in decision-making from internal and exter-nal sources; does not abuse power or authority; acts without consid-eration of personal gain

Leadership Provides others with a clear direction; motivates and empowers oth-ers; recruits staff of a high calibre; provides staff with developmentopportunities and coaching; sets appropriate standards of behaviour

Learning andResearching

Rapidly learns new tasks and commits information to memoryquickly; demonstrates an immediate understanding of newly pre-sented information; gathers comprehensive information to supportdecision making

Networking Easily establishes good relationships with external partners and staff;builds wide and effective networks within the organization and thepartner ecosystem; relates well to people at all levels; manages con-flict; uses humour appropriately to enhance relationships with others

Planning,Organizing,Executing

Sets clearly defined objectives; plans activities and projects well in ad-vance and takes account of possible changing circumstances; identi-fies and organizes resources needed to accomplish tasks effectively;monitors performance against deadlines and milestones; adjusts pri-orities as required; foresees risks and allows for contingencies; usestime effectively

Proactiveness Takes responsibility for actions, projects and people; takes initiativeand works under own direction; initiates and generates activity andintroduces changes into work processes; makes quick, clear decisionswhich may include tough choices or considered risks

Professionalism Demonstrates professional competence and mastery of subject mat-ter; persistence when faced with difficult problems or situations;Maintains a positive outlook at work; works productively in a pres-surized environment and in crisis situations; keeps emotions undercontrol during difficult situations; handles criticism well and learnsfrom it; balances the demands of a work life and a personal life

Reliability Takes ownership for all responsibilities and honours commitment;follows procedures and policies; keeps to schedules; complies withlegal obligations and safety requirements of the role

Results-driven Sets high standards for quality of work; monitors and maintains qual-ity of work; works in a systematic, methodical and orderly way; con-sistently achieves project goals; focuses on the needs and satisfac-tion of internal and external partners; accepts and tackles demandinggoals with enthusiasm

continued . . .

7

Competency Key characteristicsStrategic Thinking Produces new ideas, approaches, or insights; creates innovative ways

of designing projects or outputs in own work area; produces a rangeof solutions to problems

TechnicalExpertise

Applies specialist and detailed technical expertise; develops jobknowledge and expertise (theoretical and practical) through contin-ual professional development; demonstrates an understanding of dif-ferent organizational departments and functions; actively seeks to de-velop oneself professionally and personally; willingness to learn newtechnologies; understands applicability and limitations of technologyto to the work environment

Teamwork Places team agenda before personal agenda; builds consensus andsupports team decisions; shows respect for the views and contribu-tions of other team members; shows empathy; listens, supports andcares for others; consults others and shares information and exper-tise with them; builds team spirit and reconciles conflict; adapts tothe team and fits in well; shares credit for team accomplishments andaccepts joint responsibility for team shortcomings

The list of Table 2.1 is not exhaustive, and in the literature many more competencies can beidentified. However, their importance might be relevant to the specific task executed, domain,industry, country etc. There is though a general consensus that there are some key competencies(such as those listed in Table 2.1) that are more valuable as they have multiple areas of usefulnessand are needed by everyone (OECD, 2005). Constellations of such competencies enable individ-uals to act effectively in complex situations and combine them to achieve the best result. As suchthe employee competence is enhanced as a sum of such competencies.

A key factor to additionally consider is that of cost-effectiveness in the broader sense i.e. bothmonetarily and time-wise in order to acquire the wished competence. As we focus on corpo-rate environments, we consider that the corporations that further develop their employees fullycover the cost of such endeavours as well as the time which is considered to be part of the normalworking time (and covered under the Culture). However, as we investigate this from the individ-ual employee viewpoint who also strives towards enhancing its competencies by himself (andpotentially outside the corporate environment which however would also benefit), cost shouldalso be explicitly included.

8

Table 2.2: Grouped competency factors

Factor Competency

Culture CommitmentDiversity RespectIntegrityProfessionalism

Knowledge AnalysingCreating / InnovatingLearning & Researching

Leadership LeadershipEntrepreneurial ThinkingInfluencing

People Adaptivity / FlexibilityNetworkingPlanning, Organizing, ExecutingProactivenessReliabilityTeamwork

Strategy Strategic ThinkingResults Driven

Communication Communication

Technology Technical Expertise

Cost Cost effectiveness

In the scope of this research, it was decided that the main key competencies identified to begrouped as shown in Table 2.2. The motivation is that several of these are related and consolida-tion makes sense as sometimes they are also mentioned so in the bibliography. This approachwill also enable us to create a more lightweight survey and potentially have a high survey re-sponse rate.

2.2 Innovation2.2.1 Definition and Importance of InnovationFrankelius (2009) points out that “an innovation is something original, new, and important – inwhatever field – that breaks in to (or obtains a foothold in) a market or society”. In additionan OECD/Eurostat (2005) report points out that “An innovation is the implementation of a newor significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or anew organizational method in business practices, workplace organization or external relations”;more specifically:

• Product innovation: A good or service that is new or significantly improved. This includessignificant improvements in technical specifications, components and materials, softwarein the product, user friendliness or other functional characteristics.

• Process innovation: A new or significantly improved production or delivery method. Thisincludes significant changes in techniques, equipment and/or software.

• Marketing innovation: A new marketing method involving significant changes in productdesign or packaging, product placement, product promotion or pricing.

9

• Organisational innovation: A new organisational method in business practices, workplaceorganisation or external relations.

Apart from technical innovations, Frankelius (2009) points out that successful innovation canalso include strategic knowledge about business intelligence, funding, marketing and other non-technical areas.

Smith (2008) suggests that innovation can be practised in a disciplined, organized and directedmanner through the following steps:

• Experience and Observation: Someone notices something valuable, something new andunique or application of something that have been around for years.

• Observation-based Practices: Based on the observations, the value of the new is capturedthrough practices.

• Principles: When practising, rules that generalize the important aspects of it can be formed.• Models: As some history with the new practice has formed, a more detailed and maybe

even quantified model of the relationships and dynamics can be developed. The modelsare better than the principles at making predictions of the future, although not perfect.

• Theory: The theories are based on the experimentation and analysis and tries to form ob-jective truths that can then be used to build new ideas and experiments.

• Theory-based practices: In science, theory-based practice is the core foundation, but inrapidly changing fields theories may not be that useful. They take resources to form andmay soon be outdated. Of course theories are used in many settings, like the application ofthe theories of physics in many fields of technology. Management theories and practiceson the other hand have changed during the years due to changes in society on all levels.

2.2.2 Innovation and CompetenciesThe importance of innovation is paramount, especially for knowledge-driven economies. Oneof the most important goals for all companies is to achieve competitive advantage in order toenhance profits and long term survival chances and innovation is a key source of precisely thatcompetitive advantage (Urbancová, 2013).

Employee competencies constitute a key factor for innovation. Innovators and entrepreneursrequire skill sets for innovation such as technical skills, thinking and creativity skills, as well associal and behavioural skills (Hoidn and Kärkkäinen, 2014).

In highly innovative economies skilled labour in combination with sector specific knowledgeform the engine for service innovation and for quality manufacturing (European Commission,2014). The level of knowledge and type of skills constitute key factors for matching supply anddemand in the knowledge economy. From the investments in intangible assets, the skills andqualifications of employees are seen as the biggest beneficiaries (European Commission, 2013).

In a study on corporate innovation through competency factors by Lopez-Nicolas and Merono-Cerdan (2011) the type or knowledge transferred within organization is differentiated into twocategories, personalizedtacit (mainly based on peer-peer interactions) and codified formal (basedon other media than person-person interaction). Both these factors positively impact knowl-edgecompetency and in turn innovation (Lopez-Nicolas and Merono-Cerdan, 2011). As an ex-ample, knowledge competencies were investigated in knowledge workers in factories (Mehra-bani and Shajari, 2012) and the following competency factors were found to be strongly associ-ated with innovation capability: Knowledge creation, knowledge organization, knowledge dis-semination, knowledge application and manager support for these processes.

Two different types of innovation cultures / environments can also be identified according toBums and Stalker (1961); Smith (2008): Mechanistic or organic. The mechanic environmentsaims at creating best possible standard processes, rules and hierarchies for the improvement ofthe organization. Organic ones aims at stimulating the employees to use their unique skills andknowledge for solving new problems and to create new products. In this organization type em-ployees are required to use more of their own knowledge and judgement. Farrington et al. (2011)

10

point out that “Building an institutional capacity for breakthrough innovation requires cultivat-ing people with a talent for innovation and establishing structures to provide them appropriatetraining and enable them to share their knowledge”. Effective knowledge management is alsopositively linked to innovation also for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Karnouskos,2013).

The European Commission (2014) report points out that lifelong learning is gaining in impor-tance as the labour market is rapidly changing and the half-life of knowledge is decreasing. In ad-dition entrepreneurship skills may have a positive impact on developing competencies conduc-tive to innovation and employability. In the same report it is pointed out that cross-disciplinaryknowledge and skills although important are not easily acquired in traditional modes of instruc-tion or classical lab work.

2.3 MOOCs – Learning in the 21st Century2.3.1 Distance LearningThe acquisition or reinforcing of knowledge, behaviours, skills, values can be realised via learn-ing. It is a complex process and is heavily influenced also by the means available. Distance/Virtuallearning has always been of interest and dates back as early as 1728 when the Boston Gazetteprinted an advertisement from Caleb Phillips, a shorthand teacher, who offered to send weeklylessons to prospective students in the countryside (Bower and Hardy, 2004). A century later in1833 the Lund university in Sweden was offering the opportunity to study composition via thepost (Bååth, 1980).

In each era, key available technologies influenced distance education mediums, reach andmethods. Picture and sound were introduced in the television and radio era, which was a stepforward, but meant that the students were possible listeners. In an evolutionary step, the inter-action between phone, email , video conversations has further enhanced distance learning. Theprevalence of the Internet has extended the reach of the courses, while in parallel all of its as-pects can be now realised online e.g. watching videos or attending classes remotely, discussingin real-time with participants, collaboratively engage on activities in real-time, taking exams, ac-cessing globally huge electronic libraries with the latest of research etc. which basically removesany physical participation needs.

E-Learning focuses on the usage of electronic media and sophisticated information and com-munication technologies (ICT) and although it can be used with face-to-face teaching (blendedlearning), it is most suited for distance learning. There are different learning styles which aresatisfied by e-Learning (Kanninen, 2008). Today a variety of learning tools are available and areused to extend classroom teaching or development of skills, enabling self-paced learning, col-laborative learning, training, online assessment, etc.

The end of the 20th century saw an explosion on distance learning aspects and especially onopen educational resources (OER), open courseware (OCW), and most lately massive open on-line courses (MOOCs) available for self-directed learning pursuits (Sheu et al., 2013).

2.3.2 The MOOC PhenomenonMassive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) are among the newest additions to the field of distancelearning / e-learning (Universities UK, 2013).

• Massive means that they are generally open to large amounts of students (typically severalthousands per course),

• Online that they are available wherever a decent Internet connection is available (distancelearning)

• Open that most of them are free and open to anyone• Course implies generally a series of lectures or lessons in a particular subject

11

MOOCs are delivered online through a portal-like platform in which it is possible to browseseveral courses for students and for tutors to create and maintain courses for profit or non-profit.The dominating features of a typical MOOC-course are short pre-recorded video-lectures imme-diately followed by short quizzes and potentially larger assignments/homework, all of which aregraded either by software (auto-graders), engaged alumni, tutors or even peer-students. MOOCscan be completely free, yielding a type of electronic certificate provided through the tutor ortake a fee for tutor-student feedback and/or arranged proctored examinations followed by realuniversity credits.

The first MOOCs appearing aimed at achieving massiveness or scalability through connec-tivism, the idea that the personalized feedback and assessment, traditionally provided by tutors,was to be partially replaced by peer-to-peer interactions. In this early type of MOOCs, asyn-chronous learning was emphasized, allowing for students to complete the courses at their ownpace. Indeed, the completion time of a MOOC can be 2–3 times longer than the on campuscounterpart (Severance, 2013) but this may mainly be due to the fact that many students takethe course in spare time.

A typical MOOC participant is in its majority (80%) professionals who already hold a collegedegree or have graduate education (44%), usually aiming at expanding their knowledge in a flex-ible way and at low cost. 95% are over 25 years old and 45% say they are working and are prepar-ing for the next step in their careers (De Coutere, 2014). Others are “hobby” learners who seek tofurther educate themselves (Universities UK, 2013).

Many of the most popular MOOCs are provided by well funded Ivy League universities, al-lowing world renowned experts to make their insights available to a world-wide audience ratherthan to just their ordinary campus classes. Here, there is a divide, because most universities can’tafford holding MOOCs and even less so create their own platforms (Epelboin, 2013). MOOCs de-mand heavy initial investments and many competencies from the provider side. Star professorsand Ivy League university brands are shown to be important for student application and com-pletion rates (Adamopoulos, 2013).

2.3.3 Key Aspects of MOOCsMOOC Types

The MOOC concept is blurry (De Coutere, 2014) because there are many subtypes of MOOCsand different settings in which they are used.

• cMOOCs are the “original” type of MOOCs that started to appear around 2008. They arebased on the connectivism theory, i.e. the idea that peer-to-peer benefit can replace per-sonalized feedback from tutor. They tend to be populated by networks of advanced pro-fessional specialists with common interests and are set up using open source web plat-forms as independent initiatives by academics. In this type of courses the relation betweenthe course leader and the students is much more on equal standing than in xMOOCs andthere are mutual exchanges of both professional knowledge and creative perspectives. Thismeans cMOOCs are generally more suited for creative subjects or for advanced profession-als who want to share their best practices and take part in creative dialogue with their peers(Universities UK, 2013). Assessment is done through internal review and may not fit stan-dard models of quality control.

• xMOOCs sprung from campus learning systems, having video lectures, automated assess-ments, supporting message boards and other resources. The courses are typically struc-tured around the conventional course material. Multiple choice quizzes are used at theend of short video lectures as well as for final course assessments. The tutor-student rela-tionship is more hierarchical than in the cMOOC. The tutor is often a subject expert whoinstructs the relatively passive class. Although both cMOOCs and xMOOC started out asheavily dependent on peer-peer interactions, there is a trend of more personalized feed-back and synchronized learning opportunities with the course leader (Universities UK,

12

2013). The main xMOOC platforms retain quality control rights for the courses registeredon their portals. Courses that suffer from problems like bad material, peer-review exer-cises or plagiarism are quickly spotted and closed. Some universities accept these MOOCsas a replacement for some obligatory courses during a curricula, which allows for takinghigher level courses instead (Severance, 2013).

• SPOC stands for Small Private Online Course (Fox, 2013) and the term is used for MOOCsthat complement rather than completely replace the classroom experience. By letting theonline platform provide lectures and other digitally replicable materials as well as auto-assessment by auto-graders, tutors may have more time that can come to better use inclassroom activities like labs, discussions and more face-to-face interactions. This hasgenerated higher average grades in some settings and may be one of the most promisingbenefits of MOOCs for universities (EvoLLLution NewsWire, 2014a; Fox, 2013).

• TORC/SOOC or Tiny Online Restricted Course (Epelboin, 2013) is private type of MOOCfor internal use only. They are usually provided through the university portal but utilizinga common MOOC platform like Udacity. They are commonly used for students who failedto pass their examinations or who are entering the university and need additional prereq-uisites. SOOC or Small Open Online Course (Epelboin, 2013) is a TORC less the restriction.The content is however still only relevant for a smaller audience, for the same reasons asthe TORC.

Dominant MOOC Platforms

There are a number of MOOC-platforms such as edX, Coursera and others,which are open source,so that people can contribute to their functionality. Pearson, Blackboard, Google, Moodle andSakai are other examples of open source platforms / learning management systems that can beused for free (Universities UK, 2013). An indicative example of MOOC platforms is listed in Ta-ble 2.3. Each platform has it own course-creating templates that the tutor can use to create andmaintain the course content.

Table 2.3: Overview of example MOOC providers (Apr 2014)

Provider Launched Users Courses OfferingCoursera Apr 2012 ≈ 6.5M 620 Free courses & selectively paid examination

edX May 2012 ≈ 1.6M 146 Free and paid coursesUdacity Feb 2012 ≈ 1.6M 36 Free and paid courses

openSAP May 2013 ≈ 100K 11 Free courses for developers related to SAPproducts & technologies

Iversity Oct 2013 ≈ 500K 28 Free university-level courses; ECTS creditsfor three courses

Coursera, launched in April 2012, was founded by two Stanford computer science professors(Universities UK, 2013).Courses are provided via more than 108 partners, which are mainly uni-versities including many of the so called Ivy League ones such as Stanford, Princeton, CalTechetc. Coursera is for profit and takes between 6–15% of the revenue generated for the universitythrough their platform. Partnering institutions can use their course management for internalcourses for no charge. Upon course completion, the student is awared a certificate of comple-tion on Coursera or they can take proctored exams provided in partnership with Pearson VUE(Pearson VUE, 2014).

EdX, launched in January 2012, with founding members MIT and Harvard, and similarly toCoursera features several high ranking universities. It uses a centralized quality review processand partner institutions operate sub platforms with shared “X” suffix and one option of puttinga course on the edX platform requires an initial cash payment of $250,000 followed by at least70% of gross revenue. EdX is non-profit and certificates of attendance are given, while proctored

13

exams are given in Pearson VUE assessment centres (as is also the case for Coursera). The plat-form is open source, and therefore contributions of more experimental course designs, whichare presented in edX portal under the label “Edge” exist (Universities UK, 2013).

Udacity has an innovative course interface with blended interaction between video and ex-ercises and focuses on a smaller range of technology courses. It is a for-profit enterprise andcertificates of completion are given as well as proctored exams in partnership with Pearson VUEassessment centres.

OpenSAP is a MOOC platform provided by the business software giant SAP (www.sap.com)and hosted at the Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI) in Potsdam, Germany. While all other MOOCplatforms stem from academia, this is the first of its kind being used exclusively by a corporation– although the technology behind stems from a similar platform in HPI. SAP uses this platformfor business-related training purposes by providing free courses related to SAP products andtechnologies to developers.

Iversity is the latest addition to MOOC providers launched as recent as in October 2013 inBernau bei Berlin, Germany. In the recent lifetime of six months it has reached approx. 500kusers and its courses are available in several languages. Although several elite Universities delivercourses in Iversity, its philosophy differs from the US MOOC platforms as it does not focus onelite universities as such but rather the field of study, subject and qualifications of each teamand professor. Iversity is the first MOOC provider that offers courses (currently three of them)whose completion leads to the grant of ECTS (European Commission, 2009) credit points.

Credentials and Credits

Higher standards of validation and credit recognition are likely going to determine the finan-cial sustainability of MOOCs (Universities UK, 2013). Due to the massive scales supported byMOOCs, the fees do not have to be high but they might still be needed. Apart from the certificatesor digital “badges” awarded on completion online or from proctored exams, another way for thestudents to get value from the course work is via career services offered to the students and em-ployers based on the performance on these courses. There has also been some experimentationof making the electronic badges incorporated in the social career network www.LinkedIn.com.

A few courses on Coursera are recognised as credit worthy by American Council for Education(ACE) through the CREDIT scheme and can be used when applying to institutions that are partof the CREDIT network (Coursera, 2014). Here is summary the models of credit recognition usedtoday:

• Recognition of prior learning: MOOCs can contribute to the assessment of a prospectivestudent’s application.

• Articulation and credit recognition: MOOCs can partly or fully replace foremost introduc-tory courses.

• Licensing: An institution purchases a MOOC from a third party as a formal part of its cur-riculum. Completion of the MOOC contributes the final award.

• Reciprocal arrangements: Online MOOCs at a partner institutions, count directly as aca-demic credit.

As already mentioned, Iversity is the only currently known MOOC provider, which in cooper-ation with a University grants for selected courses European Credit Transfer and AccumulationSystem (ECTS) credit points (European Commission, 2009). ECTS credits are a key element ofthe Bologna Framework for Qualifications (www.bologna2009benelux.org), compatible withthe European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (EQF). Wider-spread granting ofECTS points opens potentially the blending between traditional University courses and MOOCs;the latter that might complementary contribute towards European degree acquisition.

Credible recognition of efforts spent to acquire new competencies via MOOC participation areseen as a potential enabler that could further empower the MOOC adoption, as now employeescan have an attestation of their acquired knowledge in a similar way that traditional face-to-face

14

courses have worked so far.

Impact of MOOC Technology

The digitally based form and massiveness of MOOCs opens up new ground the field of learningtechnologies (Universities UK, 2013). Experimentation and research on how to best teach a par-ticular subject can be done on large groups of students by measuring learning outcomes in thedigital platform. These technologies are expected to develop further in the future:

• Analytics: Most platforms today provide data collecting tools of for example volume ofengagement with an online resource. These techniques can be driven further and are ex-pected to improve the feedback to students and help structure their learning.

• Adaptive learning. By developing a model of the students’ learning, personalized path-ways to learning objectives can be generated as well as detailed feedback on the learningprogress.

• Discourse analytics: A way of better assessing the quality of the contributions and connec-tions that a student may make during their time on a course.

• Semantic web technologies: By linking materials on the platform with the external webthrough labels and tags, the system can aid the student in finding the relevant materialquicker and thereby support the formation of knowledge.

• Virtual problem-based learning: By applying techniques used in computer games andother simulation programmes, students and tutors can come together from multiple lo-cations and use the virtual environment to improve problem solving and the learning ofprocedurals skill.

2.3.4 MOOC Considerations for the Corporate WorldEmployee competency development is pursued by several organizations that strive towards in-novation and keeping their competitive advantage. In-line with the corporation’s needs, also theemployees themselves strive towards advancing their competencies. The latter is done in or-der to improve their performance, gain additional expertise and visibility within the company,establish leadership in new domains, get promotions etc. Many employees also dealing withinnovation are keen on acquiring new knowledge and skills professionally or personally (Sheuet al., 2013). While up to now such endeavours had been costly and time-consuming, the preva-lence of MOOCs may result that such goals are now significantly easier to reach at zero or verylow cost. The latter has the potential to reshape the workforce, which is of key importance inknowledge-based economies.

One of the major benefits of MOOCs available via universities is the current low cost. In or-der to increase the value of holding a MOOC certificate, proctored exams such as those given byPearson VUE (www.pearsonvue.com) for the computer science course CS101 at Colorado StateUniversity, made available by Udacity, can cost as low as $89 (EvoLLLution NewsWire, 2014b).The credits can then be included in a bachelor’s degree at the same university. For some courses,the student can obtain a certificate of completion for a small fee. For corporations who can findrelevant material in MOOCs these costs are clearly negligible compared to in house education.MOOCs are also flexible time wise, which may be an advantage to those who work while tak-ing the course. With respect to quality, there are examples of MOOCs having similar quality astraditional classroom teaching (De Coutere, 2014).

However, beyond the benefits, there are also several limitations that have to be taken intoconsideration. One of the major problems of MOOCs are the credibility of electronic certificatesto employers. Much of the future success of MOOCs (especially in corporate environments) islikely to depend on the balance between valid certification and value of the knowledge obtainedvia the course (Universities UK, 2013) and the cost for student in the form of fees or costs of theinstitution providing the course.

15

Due to the massiveness sought, assessment is a problem and there are ways of cheating likeobtaining answers and solutions from peers (Meyer and Zhu, 2013). However, some institutionsprovide proctored exams at physical facilities for a relatively small fee (e.g. www.pearsonvue.com), which may constitute one way of solving the problems of assessment . Furthermore de-velopments and application of Item Response Theory (IRT), might help solve the problem byexpanding the set of questions and take into account variations in the groups taking the exami-nation (Chenhall et al., 2011). Another option is the type of remote validation services that havebeen attempted by Coursera aiming at identifying the typing style of students, thereby filteringout potential cheaters (Universities UK, 2013).

Another common problem that MOOCs are facing are the difficulties students in general havewith distance learning (Kay et al., 2013). Many students drop out of the courses and the completion-rates also for students that keep up the work for an initial period are low. There are many reasonsfor this: Some register just because they are curious; some just go in and get the parts they needand leave the rest (Universities UK, 2013). Also, there is no financial downside of not complet-ing a course that doesn’t require up-front fee. In that sense one could say that MOOCs can beextremely self-selecting, where only the most interested and disciplined students succeed. Be-cause of that some argue that MOOCs are not suitable for compliance training or any form ofmandatory training (De Coutere, 2014) in the corporate environment.

MOOCs require a different way of thinking and traditional criteria of assessing its relevanceand impact may need to be modified. For instance, when corporations undertake training, theselection process of the participants is usually rigorous, because one wants the training to yield.But if the money used to select and perform the training in the traditional way instead wouldfinance the development of a MOOC that allows anyone interested to participate, self-selection(De Coutere, 2014) could partly replace the traditional selection process. Those completing theMOOC would probably still be highly motivated, but there would also be other students benefit-ing from the material, potentially many more than the ordinarily few selected.

A discussion is ongoing about the suitability of MOOCs as a complete replacement of tradi-tional university education, and to what degree this can be realized and also accepted by futureemployers. To this end, we have to point out that this work sees MOOCs not from this angle, butrather as a complementary tool that may enable employees (who may or may not have already auniversity degree) to further develop their competencies.

As a conclusion, MOOCs present an exciting new approach that is an evolutionary step overthe concepts of distance learning and e-learning we have seen the last decades. However theirspecial characteristics such as massiveness, low-cost, world-wide offerings etc. may indeed turnout to provide a key service in the corporate environments benefiting both employees and cor-porations.

2.4 Proposed ModelThe factors that constitute and affect the competency have already been listed; however the spe-cial interest is on the ones that can actually be impacted by MOOCs. We consider that all of theseconstitute key parts of the employee competency in a weighted manner. As already mentionedMOOCs count less than a handful years of life and supporting research results are scarce.

Several competencies seem to have an effect on innovation; as Vila et al. (2014) point out that“Competencies such as alertness to new opportunities, ability to present products,ideas or re-ports, ability to mobilize the capacities of others, ability to come-up with new ideas and solu-tions, and ability to use computers and the Internet appear to have stronger marginal effects onthe likelihood of innovating and, consequently, emerge as key competencies in explaining thepropensity of individuals to become innovators in their working environments”.

16

Figure 2.1: Proposed model linking MOOC empowered competencies and innovation

In subsection 2.1.2 we have referred to the key competencies, which we subsequently aggre-gated in groups which pose the factors of employee competency. As illustrated in Figure 2.1,these are:

• Culture• Knowledge• Leadership• People• Strategy• Communication• Technology• Cost

To what extent these factors impact innovation is part of the research carried out in this work.We investigate the impact of each individual factor (the collection of which corresponds to theoverall employee competence) to innovation and additionally the impact of Cost. The proposedmodel that is later assessed empirically via SEM, is illustrated in Figure 2.1. In the followingsections of this chapter we analyse each factor separately and build a hypothesis per relation,which we test and discuss in the rest of this work.

2.4.1 CultureMOOCs are massive with thousands of participants on all corners of the world. As such anyMOOC consists of a wide range of people with diverse backgrounds geographically, ethnically,culturally, work-wise etc. Within the scope of the courses people interact via the forums, oftenhelping each-other and interacting to share information. As such MOOCs provide a significantopportunity to enhance skills related to diversity respect i.e. show sensitivity on the various gen-der, cultural, religious differences etc. Also prejudice, biases and intolerance are immediatelyaddressed by other members. As such the participant may via the social aspect further enhanceits diversity understanding and management.

Although MOOCs are praised as self-paced, in order to get the most out of it commitment tothe process is required. Participants successfully finishing the course demonstrate commitment

17

to following through despite of difficulties, personal schedule etc., something that can also ben-efit their daily activities and work behaviours.

Participation in MOOCs exposes individuals also to integrity and ethical standards. As in anysystem although the possibility of “cheats” are there, people are geared towards keeping the“code of honour” and personally delivering the results as requested. There is also very little mo-tivation to deviate from this, as at least up to now most participants are willingly taking part andcompletions of courses are for personal satisfaction.

Professionalism may be enhanced not only with the new knowledge acquired, and the po-tential mastery of subject matter, but also with other factors. In a MOOC people are faced withdifficult problems and/or situations (due to the nature of the potentially selected courses), andlearning to overcome these and maintain a positive outlook can be advantageous in real-lifecrisis situations. The proof of capabilities that the participant undergoes e.g. via the course’sassessment weekly may result in learning how to handle criticism and learn from mistakes.

Finally, within the companies there has to be an environment that promotes a culture of con-tinuous development of employee’s capabilities and allocate the time for it. For instance in sev-eral corporations employees can devote a percentage of their time to projects they fancy e.g. 20%at Google (Mediratta, 2007) or even use part of their working day to develop these capabilitiesonline e.g. via traditional e-Learnings and more recently MOOCs.

Hypothesis #1 (H1):MOOC-empowered Culture competencies have a positive contribution to Innovation.

2.4.2 KnowledgeKnowledge is important for both corporations and individuals (OECD/Eurostat, 2005). MOOCsare the prime platform for delivering online new knowledge that may be used to develop oneselffurther. However modern MOOCs not only provide new knowledge in a purely academic fashion,but utilize a more vivid environment which is often coupled with (real-time) online tools thatblurs the boundaries between lecture and praxis. The result is a enhanced learning experienceand acquisition of new knowledge and skills.

Almost all of the MOOCs include exercises on the concepts taught, and many of them do notconstrain themselves on the course material but actively promote the concepts of further re-searching on the Internet for additional information and views. Being in touch with new con-cepts, understanding and testing their applicability within the scope of MOOC may lead to thedevelopment of the learning and researching aspects of competency.

Due to the large amount of new information and numerous sources, MOOC participants arecalled upon making rational judgements from the available information and analysis in general.The wide availability also of courses tackling key aspects of data analysis in a variety of domains(engineering, science, financial etc.) can enable the MOOC participants to enhance such skills.

Finally, due to the self-driven interest for attending such courses and in combination with thenegligible cost (most are free), people are more prone to try things out that otherwise would haveto be coupled in the real world with commitment e.g. financial, specific schedule etc. However,the “free” and “self-managing” mentality in MOOCs enable people to get involved in new inno-vative and creative ways and acquire skills that may help them “think out of the box”.

As a result, new knowledge acquisition and skills associated with it are enhanced and we hy-pothesize that this has a positive overall contribution to the employee competency as such.

Hypothesis #2 (H2):MOOC-empowered Knowledge competencies have a positive contribution to Innovation.

2.4.3 LeadershipA leader motivates and empowers others, and also helps staff develop further their capabilities.Having benefited himself from the MOOC participation (both direct and indirect benefits), the

18

employee may act as ambassador and further guide/coach others to follow-up and develop theircapabilities. As such he could emerge as an influential figure which comes adjacent to the othercompetencies he might develop including advanced knowledge, multi-angled thinking etc.

The entrepreneurial thinking may also benefit as he strives towards keeping up with trendsand ongoing developments. In addition the existence of leadership-oriented MOOCs enablesthe acquisition of the theoretical part and helps to more easily identify and subsequently developthese traits.

Hypothesis #3 (H3):MOOC-empowered Leadership competencies have a positive contribution to Innovation

2.4.4 PeoplePeople skills comprise a wide variety of skills. Among them being able to establish good relation-ships, set-up new networks and effectively interact with peers are important also in corporateenvironments. Within MOOCs, participants have the possibility to radically expand their net-work with similar-thinking people who probably would have never met in real-life. Althoughmost MOOCs are overwhelmingly set-up for individuals, there are tasks that can be carried outin teams and where teamwork comes into play. That in addition to managing the interactionsmay empower the employees and benefit them also in their professional life.

Planning, Organizing, Executing may also benefit as for instance taking a MOOC requires goodtime management skills and self-guided learning (Kay et al., 2013); hence this may be one spe-cial characteristic of people who succeed to complete a MOOC, especially on their spare time.In addition identifying how to accomplish the goals, under the given deadlines might enhancethe overall employee’s capabilities for planning, organizing and executing. People who success-fully finish the courses are usually reliable as they train to deliver, honour commitment and keepschedules. All of these also assume a great deal of adaptivity/flexibility in order to balance per-sonal and professional life.

Finally, MOOCs may enhance employee’s pro-activeness, especially if these are sought, se-lected and followed by the employee himself rather than imposed by the company as mandatory.By being able to understand his needs, search for the right MOOCs and follow them through ageneral mentality of “go-get / can-do” and proactive thinking is promoted, which may also ben-efit the professional life.

Hypothesis #4 (H4):MOOC-empowered People competencies have a positive contribution to Innovation.

2.4.5 StrategyStrategic thinking is praised as a key competency that can lead to success. Strategy in today’scompetitive business landscape is moving away from the basic “strategic planning” to more of“strategic thinking” in order to remain competitive (Kanyi, 2011). Literature (Steptoe-Warrenet al., 2011) suggests that “managerial cognition, corporate values as well as individual values andbeliefs can have an influence on strategic decision making choices”. The availability of severalMOOCs on strategic thinking, may assist the development of this skill as participants learn thetheory, and via examples how to do practice it.

In addition, MOOCs are promoting a results-driven culture, where in short time-frames newknowledge is put into test and assessed immediately. As such people also learn to work method-ologically and focus on the important aspects that yield the best outcome.

Hypothesis #5 (H5):MOOC-empowered Strategy competencies have a positive contribution to Innovation.

19

2.4.6 CommunicationMastering of communication skills such fluent speaking, efficient argument expression, clearand with confidence discussion etc. enable the employees to be more effective and empowerthem. Although MOOC participants are mostly interacting via the keyboard (at least up to now),such capabilities can be built via the discussions they have on the forums. Additionally, live“meetings” are held for discussion of hot topics which could also assist participants to performin front of an audience. Finally, there are also MOOCs that deal with the art of efficient commu-nication from learning new languages to public speaking etc.

Hypothesis #6 (H6):MOOC-empowered Communication competencies have a positive contribution to Innovation.

2.4.7 TechnologyTechnology literacy is of paramount importance. Being able to understand potential and limi-tations of technologies, being capable to master new technologies, applying technical expertiseetc. are indispensable skills. Today the majority of MOOCs available are having a plethora oftechnical-oriented offerings covering many aspects of modern technologies from a theoreticaland practical viewpoint. These wide-spectrum of technology-driven aspects are taught by lead-ers on the area and MOOC participants can acquire deep technology insights in an easy waywhich otherwise would be hard if impossible to do effectively.

Hypothesis #7 (H7):MOOC-empowered Technology competencies have a positive contribution to Innovation.

2.4.8 CostMost MOOCs are available for free for the participants and as many of these are carried out byhigh-profile professionals, they constitute an excellent opportunity for the individuals. Costeffectiveness has two dimensions here (i) monetary and (ii) time-wise. Clearly since MOOCsare usually for free for the participants, they pose an excellent cost-benefit opportunity withoutstrings attached. In addition however the time aspect is important. Any competency that is de-veloped needs time and while this is not be reduced by MOOCs, their flexible scheduling at theconvenience of the MOOC participant may result in his benefit.

For the corporations also MOOCs could be a real low-cost alternative since no home-growne-Learnings have to be developed if similar ones already exist. At the moment this is the casewith many technology-oriented aspects; however we are still at the dawn of an era. According toBarnett and Mattox (2010); Becker (1993), investments in training and college degrees are in gen-eral worth the cost for corporations. Therefore potentially the MOOCs could pose an alternativewhere training can reach the masses at a fraction of cost. An example from the business domainis the opensap.com where with low cost from the corporation side, thousands of developers aretrained to the latest cutting-edge corporate products.

Hypothesis #8 (H8):MOOC Cost-effectiveness has a positive contribution to Innovation.

20

3 Methodology

3.1 OverviewKumar (2005) points out that research can be classified from three perspectives:

• Application of the research study: Two types exist i.e. pure research and applied research.Pure research may involve developing and testing theories and hypotheses which usuallycontain very abstract and specialized concepts, that although intellectually challengingmay or may not have practical applications (Bailey, 1987). However, as our work it in-volves research techniques, procedures and methods that are applied to the collection ofinformation about various aspects of a phenomenon, it falls in the applied research typeas this is described by Kumar (2005).

• Objectives in undertaking the research: In this study, emphasis is given on describing thephenomenon of MOOCs, establish the existence of a relationship/ association/ interde-pendence, between two or more aspects of a phenomenon and attempt to clarify why.Although research studies can be in theory classified in one of the perspectives, Kumar(2005) notes that in practice most studies contain elements of descriptive, correlationaland explanatory research, something that holds also true for our study.

• Inquiry mode: Two types exist i.e. qualitative (unstructured) to determine the nature ofa phenomenon and quantitative (structured) research to determine the extend of a phe-nomenon (Kumar, 2005). Our approach falls clearly within the quantitative research, asit describes, tests and examines cause and effect using deductive process of knowledgewhich Burns and Grove (2005); Duffy (1985) consider key characteristics of quantitativeresearch.

Overall this work follows a structured approach (quantitative research) and addresses the re-search question in a deductive manner. The literature is used to identify and develop hypotheseson the key employee competencies impacted and the subsequent effect on the innovation pro-cesses within a corporation. The derived hypotheses are tested empirically with data collectedvia an online survey. Statistical methods are employed to examine and quantify the cause–effectrelationships hypothesized. We consider that this is the best methodology for our approach aswe can have access to a large sample of users that fit the MOOC profile participant and can em-ploy advanced statistics to analyse the results.

3.2 Research ApproachThe approach followed for this work adopts some aspects from the methodology proposed forcase study research by Yin (2009). We have used these steps as a guideline and found them gen-erally useful and they have set a context which has led to a concrete and structured researchapproach. Similar steps are also proposed by Kumar (2005) for more general research.

Plan: Our aim was to investigate the impact of MOOC empowered competencies on innova-tion. Our research had shown that this is a white-spot which has not been given attention andcould have a potentially huge impact. Hence a plan was derived and as the form of researchquestion was “what, how much”, focused on contemporary events and didn’t require control ofbehavioural events, it was verified that the survey is indeed the appropriate method to follow(Yin, 2009). The definition of the research question is probably the most important step taken

21

in any research quest, hence we pinpointed it towards the identification of MOOC-empoweredemployee competencies and their impact on innovation. Confirmatory survey research was con-sidered as the most appropriate method to use in order to collect the necessary data and throughthem test the posed hypotheses.

Design: Our approach is the logical sequence that connects the empirical data of the initiallyposed research question and ultimately to its conclusions (Yin, 2009). The purpose as well asthe criteria by which the results are judged have to be explicitly stated, and for this work, thepurpose is to identify the key competencies in existing literature, and see which of these can beempowered by MOOCs; then we investigate their impact on innovation. The impact is empiri-cally assessed by applying Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) techniques in order to test the formed hypotheses.

The identification of the key factors is done via review of existing literature on competencies,innovation and MOOCs. We formulate several hypotheses linking the grouped competencies toinnovation and propose a model for capturing their impact. Subsequently in order to substan-tiate the theoretical model claims and verify our hypotheses a survey is done with focus on themodern workforce. The analysis and discussions include additional information on the resultsas well as the generalisation of the proposed model and empirical findings. Limitations of cur-rent research and future work are also included in order to provide a clear view on achievementsas well as potential extensions of this work.

Preparation: For the preparation several aspects were considered i.e. surveying the literatureto understand the key aspects in order to have a firm hold of the issues studied, avoid bias, andbe capable of formulating good questions and interpret the answers correctly (Yin, 2009). Datacollection preparation resulted in analysis of several sources in order to be able to set-up ourdata collection method.

Collection: As data collection, we have carried out our own survey and made it available viathe Internet to MOOC participants. We have specifically targeted the audiences of the leaderMOOC providers, as well as postgraduate students that take part in advanced courses while inparallel working. As advised by Yin (2009) an effort was done to create a case study database andmaintain the case of evidence. Adhering to these guidelines, and fully utilizing technology means(e.g. on-the-fly validation of input to the survey for correctness, making sure that everything isfilled in etc.) resulted in high quality and reliable data collection via a survey. The factors listedin Table 2.2 are investigated by several questions that touch upon their core parts (as listed inTable 2.1), while additional questions are also included for demographics and other reasons. Acontrol question (number of attended MOOCs) was embedded in the survey to make sure thatthe acquired data is also meaningful.

Analysis: The next step is that of analysis by relying on theoretical propositions (Yin, 2009). Asexpected the propositions had already shaped the data collection plan and therefore prioritiesto the analytics strategies were evident. The data collected was organized also according to theresearch question tackling. As an analytic technique the “pattern matching” logic (Yin, 2009) wasfollowed. This was suitable for this research, and enabled us to compare some empirical findingswith the literature.

The empirical part is heavily dependent on state of the art statistic tools which are utilizedto validate the acquired data and asses the proposed model. Structured Equation Modelling(SEM) is used for testing and estimating causal relations using a combination of statistical dataand qualitative causal assumptions. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory FactorAnalysis (CFA) are performed, while path analysis is used to describe the directed dependenciesamong a set of variables.

22

Share: The final step was devoted to prepare the case study report, whose composition hadalready been drafted before data collection and analysis was finalized as advised by Yin (2009).The case study report audience is targeting primarily the corporate world but also may be usefulin academia. Academics are as Yin (2009) points out, likely to be more interested in the rela-tionships among the case study, its findings and previous theory or research. Hence we have putemphasis to relate the findings to the literature (theory) and follow the SEM approach to measurethe impacts. The corporate world might be more interested in the overall answer to the researchquestion and realise where MOOCs can have an impact and how this affects their workforce.The format of the report is the classic (Yin, 2009) single narrative, with some pictorial displays tobring forward key aspects. The structure is linear-analytic (Yin, 2009) as we first focused on theliterature review, and then on the findings and their analysis.

3.3 Survey and MeasurementsThe survey model is considered appropriate for our endeavours. We have followed the guidelinesof Forza (2002) before starting theory testing survey research i.e. construct names and nominaldefinitions, propositions, explanation and boundary conditions. Subsequently we specified therelationships among the constructs that were translated into hypotheses, relating empirical in-dicators and structured the survey to capture exactly these constructs.

The survey follows the literature review and poses questions that cover the identified aspectsper variable. Effort was done to consider as much as possible findings that influence the design ofa good survey (Krosnick, 1999). The survey was available electronically in a mobile-friendly wayso that anyone with an Internet connection via a computer or smartphone could access easily.The target of the survey are modern workforce employees who are also MOOC participants. Inorder to ease participants, the scope of the survey is briefly explained and help items in sub-questions provide clarifications in order to avoid misinterpreted answers.

Two sections exist i.e. the demographics one collecting various anonymized data as well asinfo on the background of the participants. Some control questions were also built in order to as-sist with the validity and reliability of data such as the number of MOOC participations, workingexperience etc. The main research section followed with the employee competencies impactedby MOOCs. Each competency group was captured by a series of questions. The responses arecollected in the Likert scale (van Alphen et al., 1994) i.e. consisting of five levels from stronglydisagree to strongly agree. In each competency as well as in the demographics section, a fieldwas present where the responders could provide textual feedback. The latter was considerednecessary in order to be able to assess if additional aspects identified by the responders shouldhave been identified and included.

3.4 Sampling Group and Data CollectionThe sampling group constitutes of randomly selected workforce members (i.e. employees ofcompanies, institutions, etc.) that are also participants of MOOCs. The survey has been dissem-inated via mailing lists, social media and to some of the major MOOC providers. Due to the timelimitations we have managed to acquire in total 181 responses. The questionnaire was offeredover the web. The electronic version was chosen for reaching the wider public effectively andalso was in-line with the typical MOOC participant profile (as Internet access is a requirementfor MOOC participation).

With the technical means available, all responses were validated at the time of entry for cor-rectness e.g. guaranteeing that only one rating in Likert scale was given, as well as making surethat all questions have been answered. In that sense, we did not have any missing or malformeddata that would invalidate the survey, and all of the collected data could be used for the nextsteps. The responses were automatically captured in a spreadsheet, and the recorded data was

23

imported to a statistics program for analysis.

3.5 Unit and Level of AnalysisThe unit of analysis refers to the level of data aggregation during subsequent analysis and maybe individuals, dyads, groups etc. or even for operations management it can be plants, divisions,companies, projects, systems, etc. (Flynn et al., 1990). The unit of analysis in this research isindividuals i.e. employees that participate in MOOCs. Other levels of data aggregation are notconsidered and are left as future research as explained in chapter 7.

3.6 Validity and ReliabilityThe goal was to design, develop, implement and evaluate the survey in a coherent manner. Tothis end advanced methods are used i.e. EFA/CFA as analysed in chapter 4, and proof of reliabil-ity e.g. through careful selection of factors and questions that capture all aspects of the factors,the fitness of the participants as well as other measures e.g. the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha(Cronbach, 1951) in the received responses is done. Full details on all measures to assess thereliability of our dataset are depicted in chapter 4.

Yin (2009) notes that reliability is enhanced if responders give comments; hence this kind offeedback is integrated in the survey. The data reduction and clustering is used to avoid over-confirming the analysis of data. As the data is collected solely and anonymously over the In-ternet, we do not see any “effect of the researcher” as advised by Miles and Huberman (1994).In order also to guarantee that the case does not affect the researcher, we considered respon-ders with different profiles, business areas, geographical locations etc. It might still be thoughthat several categories are under-represented, however we do not see this as critical since ourresearch focuses on key competency factors that apply to any employee (and hence not reallybound to a specific domain or group as already explained).

The data collected is full i.e. there is no missing data as in order to successfully submit theanswers to the survey questions, all of them have to be answered. This enforcement is possiblewith the usage of electronic means at the time of submission. Additionally we have to note thatwe have followed a clear path from the theory to the hypotheses definition and to the surveyquestions that capture the necessary aspects of this investigation. All of these were realised priorto assessment of data in order to avoid any bias or side-effects.

Miles and Huberman (1994) consider that quality depends on five aspects i.e. objectivity, re-liability, internal validity, external validity and utilization. To enhance objectivity we have de-scribed in detail the efforts undertaken so that the reader has full transparency. We also makeclear our assumptions and opinions. The reliability is also about replicability and here we havemade clear all steps and concerns. We consider that based on our approach the effort can bereplicated and address wider or narrower audiences. To address internal validity we have linkeddata and results to theory. We have however decided to lighten the empirical part by groupingthe competency factors. For external validity in addition to the internal validity criteria, is en-hanced when generalizability is improved (Ljungquist, 2007). Utilization is concerned with theimplications of the findings and we discuss some of these in chapter 5 and chapter 7.

24

4 Results

4.1 Data ScreeningThe collection of data was realised via a survey and results were collected both online and inprint. In order to achieve sufficient size, several stakeholders were contacted. More specifically,we have contacted all major MOOC providers listed in section 2.3, have sent emails to MOOCparticipants and disseminated the survey in social media.

The survey was constructed to collect answers per factor in one page, and then move to thenext while also providing a bar indicator showing how much of the survey was completed. Ineach step the user was notified if missing or invalid data was entered, in order to make sure thatthe collected data per step are semantically valid. In addition a free text area enabled additionalinput from the users. Due to the way the data collection was done, we had guaranteed that therewould be no missing data. Upon check of the dataset, we noted that many people were interestedin scoping the survey questions, but without really answering them. To that extend, they weresupplying the same answer to all questions in order to go to the next page which would revealthe next set of questions. We have removed also these from the dataset.

Total MOOC participations per responder

Freq

uenc

y

0 10 20 30

05

1015

2025

30

Business only (21%)

PersonalInterest (23%)

Business andPersonal (56%)

Figure 4.1: Demographics: overview of participants’ MOOC background

In addition, we had embedded a control question in order to avoid collecting “invalid” data.That question in our case was the number of MOOCs that the responder participated in the past,and based upon this experience s/he contributes to this survey. The responders with zero MOOCparticipation were removed from the dataset as they fall outside the scope of this work. Figure 4.1depicts the number MOOC courses taken by the participants of our survey, as well as the mainmotivation behind doing so. Having clarified these aspects, the dataset we operated and presentthe analysis and results here, is a clean one with 181 items (answers) as depicted in Table 4.1.

4.1.1 DemographicsApart from the MOOC background of the survey participants depicted in Figure 4.1, the graphsin Figure 4.2 show an overview of the employment status and position in the company, educationand work experience, as well as gender and age. We can point out the significant representationfrom all age groups, as well as the adequate representation of all company types, and companypositions. The responders seem a highly skilled workforce with accomplished university educa-tion. In the education, one has to note that it probably captures also many of the responders

25

LargeCorporation (31%)

Small or MediumEnteprise (28%)

Public Sector or Government

Organization (8%) Student (24%)

Unemployed/Job Seeker (9%)

Employment

Management (25%)

Engineering (41%)

Administration (13%)Other (12%)

Unemployed/Job Seeker (9%)

Company Position

High School (31%)Bachelor (21%)

Master/PhD (48%)

Education Level

< 2 years (24%)2−5 years (17%)

5−10 years (20%)

10−20 years (25%)

20+ years (14%)

Professional Experience

Male (62%)

Female (38%)

Gender

18−28 years old (41%)

9−39 years old (28%)

40−50 years old (24%)

50+ years old (7%)

Age

Figure 4.2: Demographics of the survey responders

that are currently students in their first degree. The information presented may hint towards thebackground of the people that have participated in our survey and may provide clues later in theassessment.

4.1.2 Normality of dataAn overview of the descriptive data statistics can be seen in Table 4.1. The first column depictsthe factors, while the survey questions (listed in the Appendix) for each factor are in the secondcolumn. N is the number of responses while min and max depict the survey’s scale which in ourcase is the Likert scale (Norman, 2010). In addition the mean values reflect the central tendencyof our data, while the dispersion around the mean is shown in the standard deviation column.

All of our variables are based on Likert scale, and hence there is no reason to exclude variableson skewness unless they exhibit no variance. Hence we have focused on kurtosis (but also de-pict skewness for reference). A kurtosis greater or less than ±1 indicates a potential problematickurtosis and therefore lack of sufficient variance. Some items had borderline kurtosis issues withvalues between 1 and 1.35, i.e. P1, P3-P8, and I3. These are fairly borderline values and we simplyflag them for potential future issues in subsequent analyses. The only exception may be P6 witha value of 2.096. However, Sposito et al. (1983) report that for practical purposes, problems mayarise if the kurtosis is outside the ±2.2. Since P6 is near but still under that limit, we have decidedto not remove it. All of our values were normally distributed (with the considerations discussed),and therefore we have retained all of them.

26

Table 4.1: Data descriptive statistics

27

4.2 Exploratory Factor AnalysisFactor analysis is a method that can be used for exploring data patterns, for data reduction,confirming a hypothesis for a factor structure etc. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is amultivariate statistics method used to identify the underlying relationships between measuredvariables (Norris and Lecavalier, 2010).

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) tests whether the par-tial correlations among variables are small. The KMO statistic is a Measure of Sampling Ade-quacy, both overall and for each variable (Cerny and Kaiser, 1977; Kaiser, 1970). KMO valuesgreater than 0.8 (as it is the case for our dataset) are characterized as meritorious (Kaiser andMichael, 1977) and this is an indication that component or factor analysis will be useful for thesevariables. Bartlett’s test of sphericity tests whether the correlation matrix is an identity matrix,which would indicate that the factor model is inappropriate. A significant result (as it is ourcase) indicates that the matrix is not an identity matrix and the variables do relate to one anotherenough to run a meaningful EFA. The overview of the results for tests can be seen in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: KMO and Bartlett’s test

The next step is to identify the number of factors explained via our available dataset and in-vestigate if other additional factors from the ones we hypothesized in our model do exist. Weuse the Kaiser (1960) rule to determine the number of components which is the most commonmethod used in practice (Fabrigar et al., 1999).

We have conducted an EFA using Maximum Likelihood with Promax rotation to see if the ob-served variables loaded together as expected, were adequately correlate and met the criteria ofreliability and validity. Maximum Likelihood estimation was chosen in order to determine theunique variance among items and the correlation between factors. We also wanted to be consis-tent with the CFA that will follow in the next step and also uses Maximum Likelihood. Promaxwas chosen because it can account for the correlated factors.

Kaiser (1960) recommends that only eigenvalues that are at least equal to one are retained.As we can see in Table 4.3 we identify 9 factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1. These 9 fac-tors explain more than 63% of the total variance. We observe that this matches the number offactors also in our initial proposed model. Additionally, the reproduced matrix had 54 (5%) non-redundant residuals with absolute value greater than 0.05, further confirming the adequacy ofthe variables and 9-factor model.

28

Table 4.3: Total variance explained

29

Table 4.4: Pattern matrix

30

In Table 4.4 we witness a very clear loading on factors. The factors demonstrate sufficient con-vergent validity as their loads are above the minimum recommended threshold of approx. 0.45for our sample according to Hair et al. (2010). However P1, S5 and L1 are below that thresholdand hence they are excluded from our further analysis. The factors demonstrate sufficient dis-criminant validity as the correlation matrix (in Table 4.5) shows no correlations above 0.700 andthere are no problematic cross-loadings.

Table 4.5: Factor correlation matrix

For reliability we also measure the Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951) which is a coefficientof internal consistency. For the extracted factors the Cronbach’s alphas are shown in Table 4.6.We note that all of them are over 0.8 (with Leadership being on the border) which indicates goodinternal consistency, while some of them are above 0.9 which indicates excellent internal consis-tency (George and Mallery, 2013).

Table 4.6: Cronbach’s Alpha

Survey questions Cronbach’s AlphaPeople P2,P3,P4,P5,P6,P7,P8 .916Strategy S1,S2,S3,S4 .906Culture CUL1,CUL2,CUL3,CUL4,CUL5 .944Knowledge K1,K2,K3,K4,K5 .920Cost COS1,COS2,COS3,COS4 .927Communication COM1,COM2,COM3,COM4,COM5 .888Technology T1,T2,T3,T4,T5 .826Leadership L2,L3,L4,L5 .795Innovation I1,I2,I3,I4 .836

31

4.3 Confirmatory Factor AnalysisThe Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is used to investigate the model fit i.e. how well theproposed model of the factor structure accounts for the correlations between variables in thedataset. The IBM AMOS software is used for the assessment.

Table 4.7: Relative Chi square (CMIN/DF)

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 94 1195.023 852 .000 1.403Saturated model 946 .000 0

Independence model 43 5766.978 903 .000 6.386

Table 4.7 depicts the Chi square (CMIN) divided by the degrees of freedom (DF) which leadsto the computation of the relative Chi square (CMIN/DF). Several writers have suggested the useof this ratio as a measure of fit. Specifically Carmines and McIver (1981) note that: “Wheatonet al. (1977) suggest that the researcher also computes a relative chi-square . . . They suggest aratio of approximately five or less “as beginning to be reasonable”. In our experience, however,to degrees of freedom ratios in the range of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 are indicative of an acceptable fitbetween the hypothetical model and the sample data.” Marsh and Hocevar (1985) point out that“. . . different researchers have recommended using ratios as low as 2 or as high as 5 to indicatea reasonable fit”. However, Byrne (1989) concludes that “. . . it seems clear that a ratio > 2.00represents an inadequate fit”. Therefore calculated relative Chi square with a value of 1.403 forour model indicates a good fit.

Table 4.8: Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model .126 .773 .748 .696Saturated model .000 1.000

Independence model .230 .281 .247 .268

Measures of goodness of fit are also the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and the GFI adjustedfor degrees of freedom (AGFI) as devised by Jöreskog and Sörbom (1984) and generalized byTanaka and Huba (1985). Both GFI and AGFI should be less than or equal to 1, where a valueof 1 indicates a perfect fit. These measures are affected by sample size and therefore the currentconsensus is not to use them (Sharma et al., 2005). In our case (as depicted in Table 4.8) both areseen as moderate but this might be an effect of our sample size, and taking into considerationthe proposal of Sharma et al. (2005) we will not further concentrate on this.

Table 4.9: Comparative Fit Index (CFI)

Model NFI RFI IFI TLI CFIDelta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2

Default model .793 .780 .930 .925 .929Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000

Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) introduced by Bentler (1990) and values near to 1 indicate avery good fit. Generally values >0.9 indicate an acceptable fit, and this is also our case as depictedin Table 4.9.

32

Table 4.10: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .047 .041 .053 .759Independence model .173 .169 .177

The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) measures the discrepancy betweenthe fitted model and the covariance matrix in the population. Browne and Cudeck (1993) notethat “Practical experience has made us feel that a value of the RMSEA of about .05 or less wouldindicate a close fit of the model in relation to the degrees of freedom”. MacCallum et al. (1996)have used 0.01, 0.05, and 0.08 to indicate excellent, good, and mediocre fit, respectively. Asshown in Table 4.10, our RMSEA value is 0.047 which indicates a close fit of the model.

4.4 Structural Model and Hypotheses TestingHaving performed the EFA and CFA, we have proceeded testing the hypothesis conducted in the-ory. The IBM AMOS tools was used as it enables to specify, estimate, assess and present modelsto show hypothesized relationships among variables.

Our model is depicted in Figure 4.3. All factors are depicted and the values on the arrowsrepresent the path coefficients (standardized estimates) which depicts the weight of thee linksin the path analysis. We can see that all 9 factors have a positive contribution to Innovation.From thee Knowledge, Technology, Cost, Communication and Culture seem to be the biggestcontributors while Strategy, Leadership and People seem to follow.

Table 4.11: Testing of hypotheses

Hypothesis PathPath

Coefficient WeightCR value

>1.96SupportDecision

H1 Culture → Innovation .16 2.060 Supported

H2 Knowledge → Innovation .27 3.346 Supported

H3 Leadership → Innovation .04 .455 Not Supported

H4 People → Innovation .05 .598 Not Supported

H5 Strategy → Innovation .08 1.058 Not Supported

H6 Communication → Innovation .16 2.061 Supported

H7 Technology → Innovation .25 3.045 Supported

H8 Cost → Innovation .20 2.511 Supported

The calculation of the Critical Ratio (CR) which is the division of the regression weight esti-mate by the estimate of its standard error, and tests for loading significance is also calculated (asdepicted in Table 4.11). According to Hox and Bechger (1998) a CR higher than 1.96 (or lowerthan -1.96) indicates two-sided significance at the customary 5%. The CR criterion in our caseholds true for all model hypotheses except People, Leadership and Strategy. An overview of theresults is depicted in detail in Table 4.11.

33

Figure 4.3: AMOS structural model

34

5 Analysis

5.1 Hypotheses Analysis and DiscussionThe first hypothesis (H1) was that MOOC-empowered Culture has a positive impact on Innova-tion. As we can see from the overview in Table 4.11 the weight of the path coefficient is .16 andthe high CR value (2.060) is high enough to be above the cut-off level 1.96. Therefore the MOOC-empowered Culture related competencies do have a positive impact on Innovation. This is in-line with the general literature findings, as Innovators and entrepreneurs require skill sets for in-novation such as technical skills, thinking and creativity skills, as well as social and behaviouralskills (Hoidn and Kärkkäinen, 2014). Since MOOCs include usually participants from all over theworld, it is common to have multi-cultural settings and hence interaction with a highly diversegroup of people is the norm. Diversity respect and integrity are key elements here. In additioncommitment and professionalism are requested throughout the whole process, hence it comesas no surprise that they have a positive effect.

The second hypothesis (H2) was that MOOC-empowered Knowledge has a positive contri-bution to Innovation. As illustrated in Table 4.11 the weight of the path coefficient is .27 andthe high CR value (3.346) is well above the cut-off level 1.96. Hence, the MOOC-empoweredKnowledge is strongly contributing to Innovation. Knowledge is a driving force in Innovationand that specifically MOOC-acquired knowledge contributes to it reinforces our considerationsabout the overall impact of MOOCs in corporations. Acquiring new knowledge is a survival skillfor the workforce of the future as the European Commission (2014) report points out that life-long learning is gaining in importance as the labour market is rapidly changing and the half-lifeof knowledge is decreasing. The combination of video lectures, coupled with practical experi-ences and immediate-feedback, reinforce the “learning by doing” approach and this may proveto be much more effective than traditional e-Learning approaches. Active engagement of corpo-rations in MOOC may benefit their employees significantly as many employees also dealing withinnovation are keen on acquiring new knowledge and skills professionally or personally (Sheuet al., 2013). In addition the competencies acquired may be cross-disciplinary and this may helptowards strengthening innovation (Karniouchina et al., 2006), which also complies with our find-ing.

The third hypothesis (H3) was that MOOC-empowered Leadership competencies have a pos-itive contribution to Innovation. As illustrated in Table 4.11 the weight of the path coefficient is.04 and shows a very small but still positive impact. However as the CR value (.455) is well belowthe cut-off level 1.96 this hypothesis can not be supported. This is not really surprising as mostcontent offered in MOOCs is mostly technical and for knowledge expansion. There are MOOCstargeting leadership, entrepreneurial thinking, and influencing competencies, such as those of-fered by Coursera e.g. “Leadership in 21st century organizations”, “International organizationalbehaviour and leadership”, “Inspiring leadership through emotional intelligence”, “Healthcareinnovation and entrepreneurship”, “Developing innovative ideas for new companies: the firststep in entrepreneurship”, “Beyond silicon valley: growing entrepreneurship in transitioningeconomies” etc. just to name a few. However, they may be under-represented generally (andalso in our sample group). We would expect this though to drastically enhance if the corpora-tions do realise the potential benefits of MOOCs and the impact on their employees.

The fourth hypothesis (H4) was that MOOC-empowered People competencies have a positivecontribution to Innovation. As illustrated in Table 4.11 the weight of the path coefficient is .05

35

and shows a very small but still positive impact. However, due to the CR value (.598) the hypoth-esis is not supported. We consider that the MOOCs are still at a very early stage to effectively im-pact communication competencies and hence their subsequent impact in innovation is small.Additionally development of people skills actually assumes a significant portion of interactionwith people and large groups of them, which may not be the case as the majority of coursesat the moment offer only bulletin board interactions and some collaboration (which could beexpanded). Other competencies hosted under the umbrella of People skills seem to only mod-erately be affected. Corporations should consider what Farrington et al. (2011) points out i.e.that “Building an institutional capacity for breakthrough innovation requires cultivating peoplewith a talent for innovation and establishing structures to provide them appropriate training andenable them to share their knowledge” and MOOCs might be such a contributor.

The fifth hypothesis (H5) was that MOOC-empowered Strategy competencies have a positivecontribution to Innovation. As illustrated in Table 4.11 the weight of the path coefficient is .08and shows a very small but still positive impact. However, due to the CR value (1.058) the hypoth-esis is not supported. This was a surprising result, but we assume that the impact of MOOCs withrespect to strategy may not be easy to measure and self-assess. Frankelius (2009) points out thatsuccessful innovation can also include strategic knowledge about business intelligence, funding,marketing and other non-technical areas, which depict the areas that potentially MOOCs couldfocus. We have to point out that some strategy courses are offered – for instance in Courserathere are “Foundations of business strategy”, “Advanced competitive strategy”, “Leading strate-gic innovation in organizations”, “Competitive strategy” etc., however they correspond to a smallpart of the overall offering and may not be well represented in our sample. In addition to the po-tential strategy-related competencies that can be developed, focus is needed which may not bethe case for general-purpose MOOCs, but can be the case for company-specific MOOC offeringstargeted in this domain. As such, more detailed investigation of this should be done in a targetedgroup in order to reach more conclusive results.

The sixth hypothesis (H6) was that MOOC-empowered Communication competencies have apositive contribution to Innovation. As illustrated in Table 4.11 the weight of the path coefficientis .16 and shows a positive impact. The high CR value (2.061) places it above the cut-off level 1.96.Hence our hypothesis here is supported. This was expected as interaction with the system (evenif mechanized) as well as with the participants may have contributed to overall better structuredcommunication and expression skills. Discussions carried out, train the participants in arguingin a goal-driven way, based on (course) facts, in a coherent manner and adjust their message tothe audience. Additionally, sharing of information and material in an open manner can be donevia the MOOC forums and many people are keen on doing that. To that sense, it comes at nosurprise that MOOCs can enhance communication capabilities and that Innovation may benefitfrom it. With the increase of collaboration in MOOCs this impact may further increase.

The seventh hypothesis (H7) was that MOOC-empowered Technology competencies have apositive contribution to Innovation. As illustrated in Table 4.11 the weight of the path coefficientis .25 and shows a positive impact. The high CR value (3.045) places it significantly above the cut-off level 1.96. Hence our hypothesis here is strongly supported. This comes at no surprise as mostof the MOOC offerings today are technology driven/focused and enable the participants to fur-ther follow their (usually technology-related) interests. It seems that the technical competenciesacquired both in theory and in practice in conjunction with better understanding of technologyvisions and limitations, find their way to the innovation processes of modern enterprises as hy-pothesized. As such MOOCs pose as a promising tool for developing such competencies furtherand having a positive impact on innovation.

Finally, the eighth hypothesis (H8) was that MOOC cost-effectiveness has a positive contribu-tion to Innovation. As illustrated in Table 4.11 the weight of the path coefficient is .20 and showsa positive impact. The high CR value (2.511) places it well above the cut-off level 1.96. Hence ourhypothesis here is supported. This comes at no surprise as MOOCs offer a cheap (i.e. zero costfor the participants) way to further develop competencies, and hence many people take it up,

36

which results to development of skills which would have not happened otherwise. As such theoverall workforce is further advanced and this as expected positively impacts innovation. Thisfinding is of key importance for organizations that strive towards finding the balance betweencosts (both in time and money) and employee development programmes.

The survey enabled also the responders to provide feedback in free-text form. Although not allleft such feedback, some had provided many valuable comments which also enabled us to un-derstand their answers. Many people spoke enthusiastically about MOOCs as it enabled themto devote time to some interests that could only be done sporadically and mostly “when timeallows it”. As some noted these competencies would not be acquired if MOOCs were not avail-able easily at any time of day and at zero cost. Some expressed positive views about some cor-porate MOOCs they participated and pointed out that it really helped their professional life assuch training is not available (the specific technology is too new), and probably would be toocostly too. This clearly highlights a key benefit of MOOCs which is the timely delivery coveringcutting-edge needs that traditional approaches can not do in such a flexible or rapid way. Someparticipants noted that if they had to choose between MOOC and a course that would enablethem to participate in person without cost, they would probably choose the latter (assuming allother conditions are similar). However, an indication also was given that MOOCs will evolve andthe blending of virtual reality with MOOCs may be a good approximation of physical presencecourses. With respect to quality however, there are examples of MOOCs having similar quality astraditional classroom teaching (De Coutere, 2014).

5.2 Analysis ConclusionAs we can see several of our hypotheses were confirmed with the empirical assessment we havemade i.e. Culture, Knowledge, Communication, technology and Cost MOOC-empowered com-petencies all positively impact Innovation. It is important to clarify here that some of these hy-potheses may hold true for other settings e.g. with traditional training or e-Learnings. However,as we have analysed in the theoretical part, we have not been able to find contemporary bibli-ography that supports the same statements for MOOCs and the special characteristics they haveas analysed in the theory (chapter 2). To that extent we wanted to cover this whitespace and re-ally put down proof that MOOCs have a tangible impact that goes beyond simple competencyacquisition and are much more polymorphic and cross-disciplinary. As an example we havedemonstrated via this research that participation in a MOOC with the aim to acquire knowledge,has further implications in Culture, Communication, and Innovation. We have also shown thattheir cost-effectiveness is a key issue and contributes also to innovation.

The factors that were not supported by the empirical data (although all of them had positiveimpact), i.e. Leadership, People and Strategy, may have different causes e.g. the sample sizemay not be adequately representative, the self-assessment and measurement of the respectiveimpacts needs to be better captured, or it may be simply too early for MOOCs to result in suchnoticeable contributions to innovation. Nevertheless, some limitations have already been iden-tified (chapter 7) and we make a proposal for future research.

Finally, we have to point out that as we witness from the survey results a significant portionof answers was in the 3–5 range which shows that people consider MOOCS (and some are reallyenthusiastic about it) have really helped them to evolve their competencies and believe in theirfuture. Generally this research concludes with a positive outlook for MOOCs and their role inemployee competence development and its impact to innovation.

37

6 Conclusions and Implications

MOOCs represent a very interesting evolutionary development of the traditional learning expe-rience, which now is empowered with modern technology capabilities and the potential to reachand change the lives of millions. In their very short lifetime of only a couple of years, they havecreated tremendous momentum and seem to cover well the need for learning, and personal evo-lution of a wide variety of people. MOOCs could have an impact on modern workforce, as it couldempower it with new competencies that can be utilized in its everyday tasks.

The aim of this study was to investigate the role that MOOCs can play towards enhancing em-ployee competencies and what this means for innovation. As fans of MOOCs, we were motivatedby the potential it brings to self-development, which can go beyond the personal space and ben-efit modern enterprises. Although MOOCs are still at very early stages, we wanted to measurethe effect that they could have in modern workforce. We have identified the main employeecompetencies (the sum of which represents the competency of an employee), and subsequentlyformulated our hypotheses on their positive contribution in innovation. That led to the specifi-cation of a model based on theoretical research, and its subsequent empirical evaluation basedon data we have collected via a survey.

The competencies were grouped in factors i.e. Culture, Knowledge, Leadership, People Man-agement, Strategy, Communication, Technology, Cost (effectiveness). The empirical findingsindicate that indeed there is considerable positive impact from Knowledge, Technology, Cost,Communication and Culture. Although also Leadership, Strategy and People have a positive im-pact, it is not seen as being significant.

Several factors play a pivotal role in the innovation processes of the modern corporations.MOOC-empowered factors such as those analysed in this work, demonstrate that MOOCs canhave a contribution to the enhancement of modern workforce competencies and this has a sub-sequent positive impact on innovation. With emerging knowledge economies rapidly propellingus to a new era, and innovation being a key competitive advantage, MOOCs seem to be a promis-ing tool to achieve positive impact. Our investigation stays purposefully at high level, in orderto capture as much as possible from the high level factors and the intended audience is mostlymanagers and decision makers in enterprises that deal with employee development and learn-ing. Our hope is that the results of this work will spark further and deeper investigations on therole that MOOCs can play for the employees in modern enterprises and how all stakeholders canbenefit.

38

7 Limitations and Future Research

Taking a look at our goals and the research carried out, we have identified some limitations thatare not addressed for various reasons e.g. focus on specific areas, limited time, etc. and thatcould be considered as a starting point for follow-up research.

This research has focused on the niche area of modern workforce (mostly corporate employ-ees) and the impact of MOOC participation on their competencies and innovation processes. Assuch the aim was to make a holistic case and act as a lighthouse for the potential on MOOCs oncorporate environments. To achieve this we were forced to stay at high level. However, now thatwe have the first results, more in-depth research is needed to better understand the impact notonly on the identified factors presented here, but explicitly on each competency itself.

The research presented has considered a limited number of 181 responses, due to the specifictimeframe of this work. However, there is a potential for a much larger sample in the scale ofthousands, that could potentially reveal additional aspects. Consideration of additional parame-ters such as geographic constraints, exact background, IT literacy, corporation domain, learningcapabilities, etc. could potentially help us better understand the results and the interdependen-cies. Lack of access to a large and diverse population is seen as a limitation of this research andcould potentially lead to failure to identify certain phenomena.

The assessment of enhancement achieved via a MOOC is difficult and in our case was relyingto self-assessment from the participants in the survey. However, a better method with measur-able change on the employee’s capabilities (where possible) would help to quantify more accu-rately the impact of MOOCs and potentially their weaknesses. An example of this could be theaccess to the scores of the tests and quizzes carried out in the MOOCs, which illustrate the capa-bility of knowledge assessment and usage in practice. Additionally we have assessed the impacton innovation, in which the immediate effect is not visible and a longer term study might berequired to witness the impact. As such self-assessment and short time-frame are consideredlimitations of this research.

An in-depth added-value analysis for all stakeholders should be done to understand the addi-tional benefits for corporations but also society in general. We have hardly scratched the groundhere by asking the participants if they would participate in similar activities if they were not forfree as in MOOCs. A cost-benefit analysis for the stakeholder chain could reveal and positionMOOCs with respect to other enterprise activities and investments in personnel matters. How-ever, the impact also on society and the support of life-long learning goals could also be signifi-cant. Our research shows some promising results in the direction of Knowledge, Technology andCulture, which seem to be generalizable to different samples and go beyond the corporate world.To overcome this limitation however more focused studies need to be realized.

Our unit of measurement was the individual employee and how his competencies could evolveby participating in MOOCs. However, in corporations the employee is part of a group and com-plements group’s activities. As such another limitation of this research is the lack of focus ongroups and how their MOOC enhanced competencies complement each-other, empower thegroups and increase the collaborations especially among other groups and departments.

Finally, the wider impact as well as interaction between MOOCs and Management ControlSystems (MCS) needs to be more thoroughly investigated. We have touched upon the proactiveemployee who participates in order to enhance his/her competencies and grasp better rewardswithin the corporation e.g. position, salary, recognition, cultural understanding etc. Incentivesystems, as part of MCS (Merchant and Van der Stede, 1997), could potentially use MOOCs astools to lead to employee competency enhancement.

39

BibliographyABET (2011), Criteria for accrediting applied science programs, Technical report, Applied

Science Accreditation Commission (ABET).URL: http://www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Process/Accreditation_Documents/Current/asac-criteria-2012-2013.pdf

ACER (2001), Graduate skills assessment: Summary report, Technical report, The AustralianCouncil for Educational Research (ACER).URL: http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/GSA_SummaryReport.pdf

Adamopoulos, P. (2013), What makes a great MOOC? an interdisciplinary analysis of student re-tention in online courses, in ‘34th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS),Milan, Italy’.

Alldredge, M. E. and Nilan, K. J. (2000), ‘3m’s leadership competency model: An internally devel-oped solution’, Human Resource Management 39(2-3), 133–145.

Ananiadou, K. and Claro, M. (2009), 21st century skills and competences for new millenniumlearners in oecd countries, Technical report, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De-velopment (OECD). OECD Education Working paper no. 41.

Bååth, J. A. (1980), Postal two-way communication in correspondence education, Liber-Läromedel/Gleerup, Lund.

Bailey, K. D. (1987), Methods of social research, Free Press.

Barnett, K. and Mattox, J. (2010), ‘Measuring success and roi in corporate training’, Journal ofAsynchronous Learning Network 14(2), 28–44.

Becker, G. (1993), Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference toeducation, The University of Chicago Press.

Bentler, P. (1990), ‘Comparative fit indexes in structural models’, Psychological Bulletin 107, 238–246.

BIS (2010), Skills for sustainable growth, Technical report, Department for Business, Innovationand Skills (BIS), UK Government. Strategy Document, URN 10/1274.URL: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skills-for-sustainable-growth-strategy-document

BIS (2011), Prior qualifications of adult train to gain learners 2009 / 2010, Technical report,Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), UK Government. Research papernumber 34.URL: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prior-qualifications-of-adult-learners-train-to-gain-2009-to-2010

Bower, B. L. and Hardy, K. P. (2004), ‘From correspondence to cyberspace: Changes and chal-lenges in distance education’, New Directions for Community Colleges 2004(128), 5–12.

Brennan, J., Enders, J., Välimaa, J., Musselin, C. and Teichler, U. (2008), ‘Higher education lookingforward: an agenda for future research’, European Science Foundation, Strasbourg.URL: http://oro.open.ac.uk/11216/

40

Brewster, C., Farndale, E. and van Ommeren, J. (2000), HR Competencies and Professional Stan-dards, Technical report, World Federation of Personnel Management Associations.URL: http://www.cpm-bk.ch/de/pdf/hr_competencies.pdf

Brown, P., Dickerson, A., Finegold, D., Lauder, H., Wilson, R. and Neng, W. W. (2012), GlobalisingSkills: Implications for Singapore, Institute for Adult Learning (IAL) and Civil Service College,Singapore. ISBN: 978-981-07-3696-5.URL: http://www.ial.edu.sg/index.aspx?id=474

Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), Alternative ways of assessing model fit, Sage, Newbury Park,CA, pp. 136–162.

Bums, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961), Management of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burns, N. and Grove, S. (2005), The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique, and Utiliza-tion, Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique, & Util, Elsevier/Saunders.

Byrne, B. (1989), A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factoranalytic models, New York: Springer-Verlag.

Carmines, E. and McIver, J. (1981), ‘Analyzing models with unobserved variables’, Social mea-surement: Current issues, Beverly Hills: Sage .

Cerny, B. A. and Kaiser, H. F. (1977), ‘A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices’, Multivariate Behavioral Research 12(1), 43–47.

Chenhall, R. H., Kallunki, J.-P. and Silvola, H. (2011), ‘Exploring the relationships between strat-egy, innovation, and management control systems: The roles of social networking, organicinnovative culture, and formal controls.’, Journal of Management Accounting Research 23, 99–128.

Cohan, C., Kim, D., Nieters, W., Raghunathan, N., Salcido, O. S., Sohn, A., Thompson, M.and Ziegmann, M. (2012), Defining the core competencies, Technical report, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.URL: http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/files/attachments/Core-Competencies-2012.pdf

Coursera (2014), ‘College credit recommendation guidebook’.URL: https://www.coursera.org/signature/college-credit-guidebook

Cronbach, l. (1951), ‘Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests’, Psychometrika16(3), 297–334.

Daniels, M. (2011), Developing and Assessing Professional Competencies: a Pipe Dream? : Ex-periences from an Open-Ended Group Project Learning Environment, PhD thesis, UppsalaUniversityUppsala University, Division of Computer Systems, Computer Systems.URL: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-145983

Danneels, E. (2002), ‘The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences’, Strategic Man-agement Journal 23(12), 1095–1121.

De Coutere, B. (2014), ‘To MOOC, or not to MOOC’, Training Journal pp. 18–22.

Dempsey, C., Barry, M. and Battel-Kirk, B. (2011), Developing a European consensus on corecompetencies for health promotion, Technical report, Developing competencies and pro-fessional standards for health promotion capacity building in Europe (CompHP – projectnumber 20081209).

41

URL: http://www.nuigalway.ie/health-promotion/documents/M_Barry/developing_a_european_consensus_on_core_competencies_for_health_promotion_final_report.pdf

Duffy, M. E. (1985), ‘Designing nursing research: the qualitative-quantitative debate’, Journal ofAdvanced Nursing 10(3), 225–232.

Epelboin, Y. (2013), ‘MOOC in Europe’.URL: http://wiki.upmc.fr/display/tice/MOOC+in+Europe

European Commission (2009), Ects users’ guide, Technical report, European Commission, Officefor Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009.URL: http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/docs/ects-guide_en.pdf

European Commission (2013), Investing in intangibles: Economic assets and innovation driversfor growth, Technical report, European Commission, Directorate General for Enterprise andIndustry. Flash Eurobarometer 369.URL: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_369_en.pdf

European Commission (2014), Innovation union competitiveness report, Technical Report EUR25650 EN, European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

EvoLLLution NewsWire (2014a), ‘Colleges use MOOCs for blended learning’.URL: http://www.evolllution.com/friday-links/colleges-moocs-blended-learning/

EvoLLLution NewsWire (2014b), ‘MOOCs making strides toward credit’.URL: http://www.evolllution.com/friday-links/moocs-making-strides-toward-credit/

Fabrigar, L. R., Maccallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Strahan, E. J., Fabrigar, R. R., Strahan, E. J. andOf, D. (1999), ‘Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research’, Psy-chological Methods pp. 272–299.

Farrington, T., Kirk, B., Peters, L. S. and O’Connor, G. (2011), ‘Institutionalizing innovation com-petency through people’, Research Technology Management 54(6), 56–59.

Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., Schroeder, R. G., Bates, K. A. and Flynn, E. J. (1990), ‘Empirical re-search methods in operations management’, Journal of Operations Management 9(2), 250–284.

Forza, C. (2002), ‘Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective’, In-ternational Journal of Operations & Production Management 22(2), 152–194.

Fox, A. (2013), ‘From MOOCs to SPOCs’, Commun. ACM 56(12), 38–40.

Frankelius, P. (2009), ‘Questioning two myths in innovation literature’, The journal of high tech-nology management research 20(1), 40–51.

Garavan, T. N. and McGuire, D. (2001), ‘Competencies and workplace learning: some reflectionson the rhetoric and the reality’, Journal of Workplace Learning 13(4), 144–164.

George, D. and Mallery, P. (2013), IBM SPSS Statistics 21 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Refer-ence, 13 edn, Pearson. ISBN: 978-0205985517.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. and Anderson, R. E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7 edn,Prentice Hall.URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=JlRaAAAAYAAJ

42

Hoidn, S. and Kärkkäinen, K. (2014), Promoting skills for innovation in higher education: A lit-erature review on the effectiveness of problem-based learning and of teaching behaviours,Technical report, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECDEducation Working Papers, No. 100, OECD Publishing.URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3tsj67l226-en

Hoke, L., Abernathy, T. and Doron, S. (2013), Re-imagining workforce development – 2013 reporton the future of the south, Technical report, Southern Growth Policies Board, USA.URL: http://www.dra.gov/!userfiles/editor/docs/SGPB%20Reimagining%20Workforce%20Development.pdf

Hox, J. and Bechger, T. (1998), ‘An introduction to structural equation modeling’, Family ScienceReview 11, 354–373.

IPMA (2006), ICB IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0, Technical report, International ProjectManagement Association (IPMA).URL: http://capm.hr/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ICB32.pdf

Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1984), LISREL-VI user’s guide, 3 edn, Mooresville, IN: Scientific Soft-ware.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960), ‘The application of electronic computers to factor analysis’, Educational andPsychological Measurement 20(1), 141–151.

Kaiser, H. F. (1970), ‘A second generation little jiffy’, Psychometrika 35(4), 401–415.

Kaiser, H. F. and Michael, W. B. (1977), ‘Little jiffy factor scores and domain validities’, Educationaland Psychological Measurement 37(2), 363–365.

Kanninen, E. (2008), Learning styles and e-learning, Master’s thesis, Tampere University of Tech-nology.URL: http://www.evicab.eu/outcomes/delivera/

Kanyi, E. (2011), ‘Strategic thinking versus strategic planning’, Strathmore Business School.URL: http://sbs.strathmore.edu/blog/2011/09/09/146/

Karniouchina, E. V., Victorino, L. and Verma, R. (2006), ‘Product and service innovation: Ideas forfuture cross–disciplinary research’, Journal of Product Innovation Management 23(3), 274–280.URL: www.summon.com

Karnouskos, P. (2013), Key Contributing Factors to Effective Knowledge Management and itsSubsequent Impact on Innovation: A Study of Greek Small and Medium-sized Enterprises,Master’s thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Management.URL: http://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/082ef448b4650f59c1257c0d00566b0e?OpenDocument

Kay, J., Reimann, P., Diebold, E. and Kummerfeld, B. (2013), ‘MOOCs: So many learners, so muchpotential . . . ’, IEEE Intelligent Systems 28(3), 70–77.

Klemp, G. O. and McClelland, D. C. (1986), Practical intelligence: Nature and origin of compe-tence in the everyday world, Cambridge University Press, chapter What characterizes intelli-gent functioning among senior managers?, pp. 31–50. ISBN 0521302536.

Krosnick, J. A. (1999), ‘Survey research’, Annual Review of Psychology 50(1), 537–567.

Kumar, R. (2005), Research Methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners, 2nd edn, SAGE Pub-lications, Inc.

43

Ljungquist, U. (2007), Core competence matters: Preparing for a new agenda, PhD thesis, VäxjöUniversity, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Management and Economics.ISBN: 978-91-7636-567-0.URL: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:205407

Lopez-Nicolas, C. and Merono-Cerdan (2011), ‘Strategic knowledge management, innovationand performance’, International Journal of Information Management 31(6), 502–509.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. and Sugawara, H. M. (1996), ‘Power analysis and determinationof sample size for covariance structure modeling’, Psychological Methods 1, 130–149.

Maihemuti, S. (2011), Exploring e-government skills and competencies required in public sec-tors: A literature study, Master’s thesis, Swedish Business School, Örebro University.

Marsh, H. and Hocevar, D. (1985), ‘Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study ofself-concept: First- and higher-order factor models and their invariance across groups’, Psy-chological Bulletin (97), 562–582.

McIntosh, S. (2013), Hollowing out and the future of the labour market, Technical report, De-partment for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), UK Government. BIS RESEARCH PAPERNUMBER 134, BIS/13/1213.URL: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/labour-market-change-and-the-future-of-middle-ranking-jobs

Mediratta, B. (2007), ‘The Google Way: Give Engineers Room’, The New York Times.URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/jobs/21pre.html

Mehrabani, S. E. and Shajari, M. (2012), ‘Knowledge management and innovation capacity’, Jour-nal of management research 4(2), 164–177.

Meister, J. (2013), ‘How MOOCs will revolutionize corporate learning and development’, ForbesMagazine online.URL: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2013/08/13/how-moocs-will-revolutionize-corporate-learning-development/

Merchant, K. A. and Van der Stede, W. A. (1997), Management Control Systems: Performance Mea-surement, Evaluation and Incentives, 2nd edn, Pearson Education Ltd.

Meyer, J. P. and Zhu, S. (2013), ‘Fair and equitable measurement of student learning in MOOCs:An introduction to item response theory, scale linking, and score equating’, Research & PracticeIn Assessment 8, 26–39.

Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook, Sage:Thousand Oaks.

Mitchelmore, S. and Rowley, J. (2010), ‘Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review and de-velopment agenda’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 16(2), 92–111.

Norman, G. (2010), ‘Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics’, Advances inhealth sciences education : theory and practice 15(5), 625–632.

Norris, M. and Lecavalier, L. (2010), ‘Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in devel-opmental disability psychological research’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders40(1), 8–20.

44

OECD (2005), The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary, Technicalreport, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).URL: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf

OECD (2013), Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, Technical report, The Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

OECD/Eurostat (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data,3 edn, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, OECD Publishing.

Pearson VUE (2014).URL: http://www.pearsonvue.com/

Penchev, P. and Salopaju, A. (2011), Entrepreneurial competencies needed by managers in theirwork, Master’s thesis, Jönköping University, JIBS, Business Administration.URL: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-15165

Pickett, L. (1998), ‘Competencies and managerial effectiveness: Putting competencies to work.’,Public Personnel Management 27(1), 103.

Severance, C. (2013), ‘Moocs: An insider’s view’, IEEE Computer Society 46(10), 93–96.URL: http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/co/2013/10/mco2013100093-abs.html

Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A. and Dillon, W. R. (2005), ‘A simulation study to investi-gate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models’, Journalof Business Research 58(7), 935–943. Special Section: Cross-functional cases in managementeducation.URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296304000025

Sheu, F.-R., Lee, M. M., Bonk, C. J. and Kou, X. (2013), A mixed methods look at self-directedonline learning: MOOCs, open education, and beyond, in ‘25th Annual Ethnographic &Qualitative Research Conference (EQRC), Cedarville, Ohio’.URL: http://publicationshare.com/EQRC_OER_fsheu_Lee_Bonk_Kou_V6-APA-Single_sided.pdf

Smith, R. (2008), ‘The evolution of innovation’, Research-Technology Management 51(3), 59.

Spencer, L. M. and Spencer, S. M. (1993), Competence at Work Models for Superior Performance,Wiley. ISBN 978-0471548096.

Sposito, V. A., Hand, M. L. and Skarpness, B. (1983), ‘On the efficiency of using the sample kurtosisin selecting optimal lpestimators’, Communications in Statistics-simulation and Computation12, 265–272.

Stepan, A. (2013), Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) disruptive impact on higher education,Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University.URL: http://summit.sfu.ca/item/13085

Steptoe-Warren, G., Howat, D. and Hume, I. (2011), ‘Strategic thinking and decision making:literature review’, Journal of Strategy and Management 4(3), 238.

Stine, J. K. (2013), MOOCs and executive education, Technical report, UNICON.URL: http://uniconexed.org/2013/research/UNICON-Stine-Research-06-2013-final.pdf

Tanaka, J. and Huba, G. (1985), ‘A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary glsestimation’, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 38, 197–201.

45

UNICEF (2014), ‘UNICEF Competency Definitions’.URL: http://www.unicef.org/about/employ/files/UNICEF_Competencies.pdf

United Nations (2010), UN competency development – a practical guide, United Nations, Officeof Human Resources Management.

Universities UK (2013), Massive Open Online Courses – Higher educations’s digital moment?,Technical report, Universities UK, the representative organisation for the UK’s universities.ISBN 9781840362855.URL: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/MOOCsHigherEducationDigitalMoment.aspx

Urbancová, H. (2013), ‘Competitive advantage achievement through innovation and knowledge’,Journal of Competitiveness 5(1), 82–96.URL: http://www.cjournal.cz/files/127.pdf

van Alphen, A., Halfens, R., Hasman, A. and Imbos, T. (1994), ‘Likert or Rasch? Nothing is moreapplicable than good theory’, Journal of advanced nursing 20(1), 196–201.

Vila, L. E., Pérez, P. J. and Coll-Serrano, V. (2014), ‘Innovation at the workplace: Do professionalcompetencies matter?’, Journal of Business Research 67(5), 752 – 757.URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296313004098

Washington State (2012), ‘Competencies’, online information.URL: http://www.hr.wa.gov/WorkforceDataAndPlanning/WorkforcePlanning/Competencies/

Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D. and Summers, G. (1977), ‘Assessing reliability and stability inpanel models.’, Sociological methodology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass pp. 84–136.

Woodruffe, C. (1993), ‘What is meant by a competency?’, Leadership & Organization Develop-ment Journal 14(1), 2–36.

Yin, R. K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th edn, SAGE Publications, Inc.

46

Appendix

AcronymsAMOS Analysis of Moment Structures

CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFI Comparative Fit Index

DF Degrees of Freedom

EC European Commission

ECTS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System

EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis

EU European Union

GFI Goodness of Fit Index

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

IT Information Technology

KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy

MOOC Massive Open Online Course

RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

SEM Structural Equation Modelling

SME Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

47

Survey - Impact of MOOCs in EmployeeCompetencesThe recent introduction of Massive Open Online Course (MOOCs) may have a disruptive impact in the corporate world, especially when it comes to employee competency development and innovation. Examples of MOOC providers include Coursera (www.coursera.org), EdX (www.edx.org), udacity (www.udacity.com), openSAP (open.sap.com}, Iversity (www.iversity.org), openHPI (openhpi.de) etc.

MOOCs may be used to enhance employee knowledge and skills (including abilities), which may be positively reflected in the overall performance and innovation of an organization. This survey aims to identify the how MOOC impact employee competence/skills development.

We would appreciate if you take 7-10 minutes to fill-in this survey. This is research conducted by the Blekinge Institute of Technology (www.bth.se) and participant anonymity is granted.

Thank you in advance,S. Karnouskos (stka12@student.bth.se) & M. Holmlund (mact12@student.bth.se)

*Required

General Info

The survey is anonymous -- no personalized data is collected

Gender *Mark only one oval.

Female

Male

1.

48

Age *Mark only one oval.

18-28

29-39

40-50

50+

2.

Employment status *Mark only one oval.

Employed in Large Corporation (more than 250 employees)

Employed in Small or Medium Enterprise (up to 249 employees )

Employed in Public Sector / Government Organisations

Student

Unemployed / Job Seeker

3.

Position within a company *Mark only one oval.

Manager

Engineer

Administration

Other

Unemployed / Job Seeker

4.

Highest Education Level *Mark only one oval.

High School

Bachelor

Master / PhD

5.

Professional Experience *Mark only one oval.

less than 2 years

2-5 years

5-10 years

10-20 years

20+ years

6.

49

I participate or would like to participate in MOOCs mostly for: *If you have not participated, for which reason you would like to participate in MOOCs?Mark only one oval.

business purposes: for professional skill acquisition

personal purposes: for personal interest

both: business & personal

7.

How many MOOCs have you taken? *An approximate number of participations inMOOCs. If you have not participated just state0

8.

Culture CompetenciesPlease answer all questions with the following scale: 1.Strongly disagree, 2.Disagree, 3.Neither agree nor disagree, 4.Agree, 5.Strongly agree

CUL1: MOOC participation has reinforced my commitment to existing company goals *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

9.

CUL2: MOOC participation has empowered me to seek new challenges *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

10.

CUL3: MOOC participation and interaction has helped me to deal with cultural diversity*Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

11.

CUL4: MOOC participation has enhanced my integrity/ethical character treats *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

12.

50

CUL5: MOOC participation has made me feel and act in a more professionally manner *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

13.

CommentsPlease provide additional thoughts/considerations (optional)

14.

Knowledge CompetenciesPlease answer all questions with the following scale: 1.Strongly disagree, 2.Disagree, 3.Neither agree nor disagree, 4.Agree, 5.Strongly agree

K1: MOOC participation has enhanced my skills to analyze information and takerational decisions *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

15.

K2: MOOC participation helped me think of new ways, solutions and perspectives. *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

16.

K3: MOOC participation has enabled me to expand my knowledge / expertise *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

17.

51

K4: MOOC participation has boosted my capability to learn new and demonstrateunderstanding *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

18.

K5: MOOC participation has enabled me to communicate a compelling long-termvision that inspires confidence and generates excitement / enthusiasm. *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

19.

CommentsPlease provide additional thoughts/considerations (optional)

20.

LeadershipPlease answer all questions with the following scale: 1.Strongly disagree, 2.Disagree, 3.Neither agree nor disagree, 4.Agree, 5.Strongly agree

L1: MOOC participation has enabled me to keep up with trends in my line of work andidentify new opportunities *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

21.

L2: MOOC participation has raised my financial awareness angle and a concern forcost- effectiveness *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

22.

52

L3: MOOC participation has enhanced my capability of gaining agreement andcommitment from others by persuading, convincing and negotiating *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

23.

L4: MOOC participation has enhanced my capability of influencing others andpromoting my ideas *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

24.

L5: MOOC participation has enhanced my capability of organizing a group of people toachieve a common goal *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

25.

People CompetenciesPlease answer all questions with the following scale: 1.Strongly disagree, 2.Disagree, 3.Neither agree nor disagree, 4.Agree, 5.Strongly agree

P1: MOOC participation has enhanced my capability of adapting to changingcircumstances *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

26.

P2: MOOC participation increased my ability to deal with many types of people andadjusting my style to suit people and situations *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

27.

53

P3: MOOC participation has helped me expand my network and make connections to avariety of people I wouldn't normally have the chance *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

28.

P4: MOOC participation has helped me relate well to people at all levels *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

29.

P5: MOOC participation has enhanced my capability of organizing the resources andtime needed to successfully deliver my tasks *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

30.

P6: MOOC participation has enhanced my risk management skills *e.g. capability of monitoring progress, foresee risks and plan contingenciesMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

31.

P7: MOOC participation has enhanced my capability of acting proactively / takinginitiative *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

32.

P8: MOOC participation has enabled me to work more reliably by taking responsibilityand following guidelines *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

33.

54

CommentsPlease provide additional thoughts/considerations (optional)

34.

Strategic CompetenciesPlease answer all questions with the following scale: 1.Strongly disagree, 2.Disagree, 3.Neither agree nor disagree, 4.Agree, 5.Strongly agree

S1: MOOC participation has enabled me to acquire new insights and define effectivestrategic objectives *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

35.

S2: MOOC participation has enhanced my ability of finding, formulating, anddeveloping an approach that will ensure long-term success *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

36.

S3: MOOC participation enhanced my capability of understanding short and long-termcompany objectives and I can now contribute to them *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

37.

S4: MOOC participation enabled me to work in a more systematic and methodologicalway to achieve the goals *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

38.

55

S5: MOOC participation enabled me to be more customer oriented *e.g. to enhance my way of working by creating own measures of excellence, improvingperformance, focusing on the satisfaction of involved stakeholders.Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

39.

CommentsPlease provide additional thoughts/considerations (optional)

40.

Communication CompetenciesPlease answer all questions with the following scale: 1.Strongly disagree, 2.Disagree, 3.Neither agree nor disagree, 4.Agree, 5.Strongly agree

COM1: MOOC participation has enabled me to express my opinions more fluently andeffectively *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

41.

COM2: MOOC participation has enabled me to present information knowledgeably,well-structured, with skill and confidence *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

42.

COM3: MOOC participation enabled me to adjust my message to the audience, supportmy arguments credibly *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

43.

56

COM4: MOOC participation enabled me to interact, communicate and collaborate moreeffectively *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

44.

COM5: MOOC participation enabled me to exchange information more effectively *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

45.

CommentsPlease provide additional thoughts/considerations (optional)

46.

Technical Expertise CompetenciesPlease answer all questions with the following scale: 1.Strongly disagree, 2.Disagree, 3.Neither agree nor disagree, 4.Agree, 5.Strongly agree

T1: MOOC participation helped me develop my job technical knowledge and expertise *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

47.

T2: MOOC participation enabled me to get new technical skills *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

48.

57

T3: MOOC participation enabled me have a clearer understanding of technologyapplicability and limitations *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

49.

T4: MOOC participation enabled me to refresh existing skills and catch-up with thelatest trends *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

50.

T5: The acquired technical knowledge from MOOC participation increased myproductivity and performance *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

51.

CommentsPlease provide additional thoughts/considerations (optional)

52.

Innovation CompetenciesPlease answer all questions with the following scale: 1.Strongly disagree, 2.Disagree, 3.Neither agree nor disagree, 4.Agree, 5.Strongly agree

I1: The acquired competencies from MOOC participation empower me to create newknowledge and ideas *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

53.

58

I2: The skills acquired via the MOOC enable me to innovate in my professional life *e.g. enhance a process or productMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

54.

I3: The competencies I acquired via the MOOC help to enhance the overall companyefficiency *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

55.

I4: The competencies acquired via the MOOC contribute to the efforts of my companyto create new ways to attract or service customers *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

56.

CommentsPlease provide additional thoughts/considerations (optional)

57.

CostPlease answer all questions with the following scale: 1.Strongly disagree, 2.Disagree, 3.Neither agree nor disagree, 4.Agree, 5.Strongly agree

COS1: The MOOC participation saved me money *in comparison to traditional sources like paid courses, seminars, training, booksMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

58.

59

COS2: The MOOC participation saved me time *e.g. compare to traditional sources like paid courses, seminars, training, booksMark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

59.

COS3: If it wasn't for the free MOOC, probably I wouldn't have paid to acquire that skill*Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

60.

COS4: If it wasn't for the time-flexibility of the MOOC, probably I wouldn't haveacquired the skill *Mark only one oval.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly disagree Strongly agree

61.

CommentsPlease provide additional thoughts/considerations (optional)

62.

60