Facebook and the new paradigm on profits in the Knowledge Society

The remark made in Mark Zuckenberg's letter to future shareholders, stating Facebook does not make good products to earn money, but earns money to make good products - something Steve Jobs would have completely agree - changes one of the main paradigms in business as we have looked at, up to now: "making money" is no longer the driver. Transcending, making cool stuff, doing it better that the competitors is. The business theory is shifting from “I´m in for the money, which makes me transcend”, to “I´m to transcend, and it brings money”. Money is the consequence, not the goal.

Profits still are a performing index that indicates you are doing right things right. But they are not a goal, they are a consequence. When Twitter founder Jack Dorsey first met potential shareholders he did not know yet which would be the income driver. Venture capitalists didn´t care. They saw the potential of the networking idea and funded the startup. Of course, they were in for the money, but also for participating in “the next big thing”.

During my whole professional life since I took my MBA degree, the central idea in business had been “how do I make money”, and all efforts and focus were in finding where and how. It could not be otherwise. That was incompatible for me with deeper needs such as making this a better world just because I want to live in a better world. “Business is business” would be the remark to remember you that one thing is what you do to earn money and a totally different thing is what you do to change the world or have fun at what you work. The business theory was that you are here to make money, and if by the way you have fun, much the better. I was miserable, running the “hamster wheel” over and over. Only when I changed that perception into making things I like, whatever the consequences, did things become to go Okay.

This change in the reason why you do business brings another paradigm change. We were trained at MBA schools to make a good allocation of “resources”, meaning capital, labor and work. We had to be efficient in that. Yet, nothing was said of allocating talents. Talents were not in the management formulas, nor in the Balance Sheet. But in order to make cool stuff and transcend they are key. Finding, retaining and empowering talent is a must in the new economy. Knowledge is the main resource, not capital. And knowledge is produced by talented, motivated people.

I am pretty sure all employees with stock options at Facebook are thrilled at their new financial situation, but as it has been written in many places, many of them will want to take the money to start another cool thing, just for the sake of doing it. Profits? Sure, they will “show I was right”. But that´s it. I’m in for the next cool thing.

I learned at my MBA School that there are three reasons someone would want to work. First, extrinsic motivation, that is, the rewards that the work will have on me (money, fame, recognition…).  Second, intrinsic motivation: the rewards that I get in just doing the work that I do (the typical “I love what I do”). And third, transcendent motivation: the rewards I get by seeing the rewards of what I do upon others. Profit-centered business has to do mainly with extrinsic motivation. Knowledge-based business has to do more with intrinsic and transcendent motivations. Intrinsic and transcendent motivations have an economic effect: they boost intellectual productivity and lower intellectual costs. And, being knowledge economy the incarnation of post-capitalist society, these new management best practice rules are much welcome.

Alfredo Barriga

Education: the big gap or the big opportunity?

Knowledge has become "the" economic and social resource. That idea was said as far as 1993 by Peter Drucker. Few paid attention to the implications of such an idea. It means that the economy and wealth lie in the "neuron development" rather than in capital, land or labor. The new trio is people, ICTs and Information. The output is knowledge.

What would the world's GDP be if everyone on Earth could work where most talented? And how would each one's lot be if that opportunity became true? Wouldn´t it be a wealthier world? Wouldn´t all people be happier? Wouldn´t the productivity and output of each one boost?

Though this looks an Uthopian idea, it can be reached. This is what I call the Age of Aquarius (http://onknowledgesociety.blogspot.com/2011/09/age-of-aquarius.html). What excites me most is that developing humankind talents becomes under this paradigm an economic issue: development and allocation of talent are key for the development of the economy as well as business. Issue that neither capitalism nor communism nor socialism nor any “isms” have been able to perform. Allowing “the flowers to flourish”, in Ken Robinson's words, by changing education paradigms and focusing on human talent development becomes then the logical way to produce not only the people who will be able to work in a Knowledge Economy, not only the people which this new world is needing, but above all, it will help each person reach its full talent potential. Education under this concept will cover a human being as a whole, since only a fully developed person can create the full value that his or her talents can produce. It is a huge change of mentality, which comprises all the dimensions of human beings.

Under this idea, education will look absolutely different from what it is today. The main role of schools and teachers will be to discover, unravel and develop the hidden talents of their students and put them to work. This is where ICTs will play a great help. Internet will be the backbone for instruction. It will take the entire job required in education that has to do with instruction, while school will take care of human development: learning how to learn, how to connect and work with other people, how to know yourself, how to project oneself, how to contribute to the community. Codependence of all human beings on other human beings will become more apparent than ever, and we will teach our children how to grow in that environment full of opportunities.

To make that happen we need children to learn three basic things and have access to a fourth. They need to understand, that is, comprehend what they read, see and listen to. They need to think, that is, select the information they need, process it and come out with something more valuable. And they need to explain, that is, express their output in such a way others may understand. The fourth element is the platform: the ecosystem where all have access to the same contents, tools and communication facilities. That is the Web and the Broad Band.

Different measuring of the three basic components in different countries show there is a big gap between developed and under developed countries as well as within the same countries between those who had access to good private schools and those who didn´t. Therefore, education as it is right now is socially discriminating and economically unable to optimize the talents present in the nation. Students should be thriving under the Knowledge Society paradigms with a knowledge-based education. That will become a necessity: an economic as well as a social one. Countries that develop and allocate their national talents will be the ones which will lead in the new society, and that should serve as a huge driver of change. Unfortunately, incumbent literal "leaders" of the world do not see this and are resilient to change their priorities.  It will then be the work of new leaders to make the changes, and it is the role of those who do see this to push the message forward, no matter how scarce the attention received. It has always been the same with truly disruptive ideas.

Alfredo Barriga

Economía del Conocimiento y el “Modelo Chicago”

Nuestro país tomó hace más de 30 años un Modelo económico bajo la influencia de los llamados “Chicago Boys”. El modelo se centraba en el desarrollo de la economía a partir de una apertura de la misma al mercado global y en el incentivo en un modelo exportador basado en recursos naturales en los que somos, como país, más competitivos a nivel mundial.

El Modelo ha sido mantenido y perfeccionado en estos 30 años. Especial énfasis se ha puesto en crear un entorno macroeconómico estable y favorable a las inversiones. Los rankings de Chile en esta materia nos ponen en el “primer mundo”. Y, sin embargo, en otros índices seguimos muy por debajo del lugar que hemos alcanzado en macroeconomía. Especialmente notables – porque salen una y otra vez en los reportes del Banco Mundial, del World Economic Forum o de la ONU, por mencionar los más conocidos y acreditados – son los casos de Educación, Innovación y uso de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicaciones (TIC).

Curiosamente, esas cuatro grandes magnitudes – régimen económico, educación, innovación y uso de TIC – son las que componen el “Índice de la Economía del Conocimiento” (Knowledge Economy Index) elaborado por el Banco Mundial desde 1995. Éste índice, según definición del mismo Banco Mundial, es un indicador económico que mide si el entorno es conducente a que el conocimiento pueda ser usado eficientemente para el desarrollo económico. Es un índice agregado que representa el nivel de desarrollo de un país o región hacia una economía del conocimiento. Está calculado sobre la base del rendimiento en cuatro pilares relacionados con la economía del conocimiento:
·         Un régimen económico institucional que entrega incentivos para el uso eficiente de conocimiento existente y para el florecimiento del emprendimiento (“Economic Incentive Regime”)
·         Una población educada y capacitada para crear, compartir y utilizar correctamente el conocimiento
·         Un ecosistema de innovación en el que participan empresas privadas, centros de investigación, Universidades, consultores y otras organizaciones para aprovechar el creciente stock de conocimiento, asimilarlo y adaptarlo a la realidad y necesidades locales, y generar nueva tecnología
·         Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicaciones para facilitar la efectividad en la creación, diseminación y procesamiento de la información

Tomando los últimos dos datos publicados del Banco Mundial para una serie de países (los 11 mejor rankeados, Chile y los restantes 3 mejores rankeados de América Latina), se confirma lo que todos los demás estudios vienen diciendo desde hace años: Chile es “top” en temas de régimen económico institucional pero débil en el resto. De hecho, a pesar de que somos el primero en América Latina, ya nos han pasado otros países en cada uno de los índices distintos del de régimen económico: Uruguay y Argentina en educación, Argentina en innovación, y Uruguay en uso de TIC. En cambio, en régimen económico, hemos superado a países como Australia, Suiza o Japón.

He llamado al índice sobre régimen económico “capa Chicago”, y a los restantes “capa Knowledge” o del conocimiento. La siguiente tabla ilustra lo que comento:

Decía Peter Drucker que el momento más peligroso para una empresa es cuando le está yendo muy bien con su modelo de negocios, ya que es en esos momentos cuando no se perciben los nuevos modelos que reemplazarán a los incumbentes, y queda mal preparada para cuando, inevitablemente, tenga que adoptar los nuevos paradigmas. Un buen ejemplo de cómo hay que hacerlo es IBM, otrora el mayor fabricante de computadores del mundo, que estuvo a punto de irse a pique. Fue la llegada de alguien externo a la industria, Lou Gestner, lo que sacó a IBM de su aprieto, transformándola en una empresa de conocimiento, que genera sus ingresos fundamentalmente de su principal know-how: como cambiar paradigmas de grandes organizaciones y gobiernos usando Tecnologías de la Información. Hoy, 20 años después de estar al borde de la quiebra, es la tercera empresa por valorización de mercado de Estados Unidos. Pero, no hay que esperar a estar a punto de irse a pique para reaccionar.

Pienso que el mismo concepto es aplicable a los países. En Chile llevamos 30 años afinando el régimen económico, y figurando como uno de los países más admirados del mundo bajo estos parámetros. Sin embargo el  mundo va hacia la Economía del Conocimiento. Es allí donde se van a crear más puestos de trabajo y riqueza. Y para ello es necesario estar igualmente brillantes en educación, innovación y TIC que en "régimen económico".

Tal vez se piensa, erróneamente, que si se mejora en el ranking de "régimen económico", el mercado se encargará de mejorar los restantes pilares de la economía del conocimiento. Nada más lejos de la realidad: no hay ninguna correlación entre ambos. Avanzar en la economía del conocimiento supone avanzar en "régimen económico" y en educación, innovación y TIC. Cada una por su cuenta. Si Chile tuviera en educación, innovación y TIC el mismo puntaje que en “régimen económico”, estaría en el puesto 17 del Ranking KEI. Definitivamente, entre los países ganadores. ¿Y qué ganaría estando ahí? Una economía más dinámica, que ha estado creciendo y se prevé seguirá creciendo a dos dígitos anualmente; mejores puestos de trabajo, mejor remunerados; acceso a más bienes y servicios que los que actualmente tiene acceso nuestra población.

No hay nada en contra de ser un país esencialmente productor de commodities salvo en un aspecto: no van a ser los commodities los que van a generar mayor trabajo en el mundo en el futuro cercano – ni hablar del lejano. Y no van a estar los mejores sueldos alrededor de los commodities. Más bien parece que va a ser al revés, ya que al automatizarse mediante tecnologías los trabajos de esas industrias para mejorar su productividad, van a ser destructores de puestos de trabajo. Hoy una mina de cobre se maneja con mucha más tecnología y menos personal por tonelada de cobre extraída que hace 30 años, y no parece que esa tendencia se detenga. Por el contrario, la economía en Internet está creando 2,6 empleos por cada uno que destruye – y los va a seguir destruyendo: tratar de evitarlo es ponerle puertas al campo – está creciendo a dos dígitos año tras año desde que comenzó, está creando las empresas de mayor valor de mercado del mundo – tomados por años desde su fundación – y está generando mejoras continuas en productividad de las personas. Son las personas, y el conocimiento que sean capaces de crear, lo que en definitiva va a definir las economías ganadoras y las perdedoras en el largo plazo. Entonces, ¿Dónde queremos estar? ¿Dónde se destruyen trabajos o donde se crean?

En el caso de Chile se da además un agravante: nuestra principal fuente de riqueza es un recurso natural no renovable. Qatar vive del petróleo desde tiempos tan inmemoriales como Chile del cobre. Sin embargo, a pesar de estar nadando en dinero, está apostando fuerte por la economía del conocimiento, poniendo mucho énfasis especialmente en la educación.

Aumentar los royalties a la extracción de recursos naturales no renovables o renacionalizar los recursos naturales es una estupidez que no resuelve el problema de fondo. Lo que está en juego es saber qué tipo de sociedad vamos a ser en 50 años más. Qué heredarán nuestros nietos. Y, a la vista de los datos duros, si solo vamos a extrapolar el Chile actual a 50 años más - considerando lo que está sucediendo en el mundo en educación, innovación y TIC- lo tenemos complicado. El mercado no se va a reinventar, (cuando se acaben nuestros recursos) con la suficiente rapidez como para absorber la mano de obra que quedará fuera del sistema. Seguimos pensando que el cobre es eterno, o por último, que su término está tan lejano que no es tema para hoy. ¡Que se ocupen los que se enfrenten al problema!

El caso es que con ese discurso nos estamos privando como Sociedad de un mejor país para todos. Estamos renunciando a mejores puestos de trabajo, a una economía más diversificada y fuerte, a un ingreso mejor repartido, y a una base económica sustentable en el tiempo, porque el conocimiento no se agota: siempre crece y mejora con cada nueva generación de personas.

Por cierto: en Internet sí que funcionan los principios de los Chicago Boys, lo cual no ocurre en el "mundo tangible". Hay libertad de acceso e información, barreras de entrada y salida bajas, simetría en información, escasa regulación del Estado... y en 20 años ha generado la mayor revolución de la historia. Social, económica y política.

No me gustaría vivir en el Chile de hoy extrapolado a 50 años. Afortunadamente, no me tocará. Pero no quisiera dejarle ese Chile a mis niet@s.

Alfredo Barriga 

Internet freedom and intellectual property

Internet is now a days the environment where there is more freedom of expression and action. That is how the “founding fathers” of the web created it: as an open and collaborative environment. They introduced new paradigms, amongst which one was “share for free”. It has been this collaborative, opened and free-of-charge environment one of the biggest engines of the great social, political and economical transformation that the Internet is bringing to the World.

It is therefore in defense of this same freedom of action and expression that I support what has happened with the closing of Megaupload. Because in order to make the Web develop to its full potential and make freedom of expression prevail, it is necessary to defend those who would not give free Access to their contents as much as to those who would. The key word here is “consent”. If the content producer consents its access without paying, then that should be defended. Likewise, if the content producer wants to charge for access, that should be defended as well. It’s up to the content producer how to operate, and it’s up to the consumers in the Internet to decide which one they prefer and why. No one can be forced to give contents for free as much as no one may oblige to give contents charging for them. That is in the essence of Internet freedom. That some things are for free does not mean that everything must be for free and that people can use whatever means they want to make it free, against the will of the producer. That idea was not in the minds of those who created the Internet.

Piracy is taking something without the consent of the owner. It is defined as such outside the Internet and inside de Internet. Intellectual property is private property. Each owner decides what to do with it: it can be shared for free, it can be shared with the condition that any betterments should also be shared for free, or it can be charged. All business models are equally possible and should be equally defended. Therefore, for not consented access to intellectual property, using legal means of protection is good for the Internet. Time will say which business model will prevail, although I believe there will be a space for all forms. That is the real Internet freedom which we must take care of.  

It might be argued that putting to prison the people who trespass intellectual property is like putting fences to the sea. It can be argued that what this will do is that piracy will move to countries where governments will look to another place and will not grant extradition. But that is the road that must be taken. Piracy also happens offline. International treaties between countries are made to combat it. As the world becomes more codependent – and the Web is helping a lot to that end – it will be more likely that countries will adhere to common principles, in order to benefit from the globalization of the economy, which each time is more dependent in the broad band and the Internet.

It can be argued that it is the movies industry which should change its business paradigm, because piracy is unavoidable. It might be that, but in the end, it is the same industry which will have to see how to deal with the issue. They already are looking to enhance the consumer experience at the movies, so that it is better to go to a movie than at to see the picture at home. It may work or not. It may be that they come up with a model similar to the one which Apple created with iTunes.  Anyhow, what cannot be taken as a principle in the Internet is that someone who wants to charge for what has been created must be forced to give it for free, or suffer piracy. The Web cannot be transformed into the Far West, where everyone feels entitled to take whatever one wants, despite the means to take it. That, as a principle of coexistence would lead to chaos, and the first to suffer from it would be the users of the Web. That is why in the international forums of the Internet there is an agreement on promoting freedom of expression as much as defending intellectual rights.

In order to the Web to develop we must create a minimal coexistence environment in a win/win basis, which is the only one that works. That means equally respecting the different models by which those who create value get paid for their contribution. And then, the market will decide what to take, as long as all respect all the models as they were offered.

I prefer what happened to megaupload than SOPA. In fact, if this works Okay, we do not need SOPA. All that is needed is to respect the different business models, and apply existing intellectual property laws if a breach in these rights is made. With everyone’s cooperation, we will continue to build an environment where freedom to innovate and freedom to charge or not for a service are equally respected.

Alfredo Barriga

Fifty years ahead in education starts now!

In my last post of Nov. 15, 2011, I wrote about how education could look in fifty years time. The main ideas there were four:

• Education will be personalized according to talents and affinities for each student
• This personalization will take place through a defragmentation of the actual curricula
• This personalization will mean assigning different roles from those they have now to Universities, teachers and students
• All this is technically possible thanks to the Internet

Today I come across the great news of the new platform to be launched by MIT called MIT.x(http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2011/12/21/m-i-t-game-changer-free-online-education-for-all/)

It is not exactly my idea of how it will turn out to be, but I find in it a new paradigm that goes on the right direction:

1. students will be able to control which classes will be available on the system, and therefore will create a personalized education system
2. students may interact with other students in order to learn what they are being taught on their own
3. although M.I.T. will not give a degree, students able to show mastery of the subjects taught will receive an official certificate on completion. They will be charged an affordable amount for the credential

Some comments on this article say that online experience will never be better than face experience on a real campus. I think that is what we might be seeing now, but we are yet not able to really figure out how that will look in the future. What is certain is that online campus is different from offline campus. Whether that means students in the former are better prepared than students in the latter, is yet to be found. And even if it comes out that face classes are better than online, Knowledge Society will be richer nonetheless with both of them coexisting, since millions of people will have the choice of attending the best qualified classes with the best contents in the world. And clearly, online will be more cheap and affordable than the physical campus model.

I like it better that way. In time, I believe the system will evolve into a Business Model in which:

1. Professors will be able to upload their assignments Online, using methodologies such as the one Khan Academy is actually using or MIT is planning to use. Access may be for free or at a small charge, depending on the professor's fame and authory. They will be able to do it on their own or within a University platform, or as freelancers for more than one University. This will follow the same Business Model we are now having in e-books, with the author, the distributor and the reader each in its role, only this time the contents deal with learning. This could be labeled as "level 1" of the Busines Model of Graduate and Post-Graduate Education
2. Universities will be the "certifiers" of assignments taken, just as the Model proposed by M.I.T. is, therefore with an affordable charge. This could be labeled as "level 2" of the Business Model of Graduate and Post-Graduate Education. It does not mean an Academic Degree, but it will add to the curriculae of any professional, since in Knowledge Society learning will be a permanent task.
3. Universities will be able to give an Academic Degree for students that have several assignments certified as in level 2, according to criteria formulated both by Academy and Industry alike, according to the needs of the work market. This degrees will be paid for, but the final cost will be lower than today´s with the "tangible campus" Model
4. Universities will still have physical campus classes, if it proves to be better than virtual campus, at a higher cost. The education market will take care of that in the end

So I see more and better education for all, because all will have the opportunity to access the contents, methodologies, universities and professors of their choice, and bigger competition leads to better quality and lower prices. Plus, I foresee online platforms giving the service of managing accreditation certificates and making job matching according to each person. With this, the Knowledge Society will boost.

So, it may still be 50 years away to get there, but at least I think for sure that is where we are going.

Get ready

Alfredo Barriga

How will Education look like in 50 years' time?

Public Education was invented in the nineteenth century to produce the workforce needed by the industrial revolution, as brightly explained by Sir Ken Robinson:  

This model is no longer useful. As the Knowledge Society brings the Knowledge Economy, education must be able to help each person develop his or her particular talents and affinities, since talents produce knowledge, and knowledge is the resource. The education model based in standardized curricula and hierarchical learning methodology does not produce that each person develops its particular talents. I am afraid most people in the world actually do not work in what they like most and are most talented. And that, in terms of knowledge economy, is a monumental waste of resources.

The point is how can we generate an education model that can be personalized and yet scalable. Here’s a proposal.

Schools have two roles: instruction and formation. With instruction children learn things, with formation, they acquire habits and values. Learning is actually what gets the bigger part of the time spent at school. Habits and values are considered to be a consequence of learning. Why do we name “hard skills” those that come from instruction and “soft skills” those that come from values, if it is not that we praise more instruction than values? And, no time is spent at school in acknowledging the talents and affinities of each child.

The Internet is increasingly allowing instruction to be self-done.  Sugata Mitra has exprienced with children who teach each other using Online contents (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html) . Roger Schank has experienced with "learning by doing online" (MBA Online, La Salle at http://www.beslasalle.net/portal/masters/masters-mba-mbaol-online).  Salman Khan (The Khan Academy, www.khanacademy.org/) has introduced an interesting new paradigm called “flipping the classroom”. Children in classrooms are instructed by the teacher and do homework at home. Khan makes it the other way.

The methodology consists in making students get instructed at home through the Web, with lessons uploaded to YouTube. This allows students to “rewind and play” the lesson as many times as they want, until they get it. Or, to comment with other fellow students through social networking until they get it. In the classroom is where “homework”, that is, the repeated application of the concepts learned, happens with a one-to-one computer approach. The teacher monitorizes who is doing well and who is not, and makes the advantageous student help the handicapped one. Plus, there is team work to discuss matters and present conclusions. This makes students learn, think, and apply what they learned. And get used to work as a team.

I think with this approach you don´t need classes to be as long as they are now, liberating time that can be devoted to the “soft skills” part. This is where the teacher becomes a mentor rather than a teacher, helping each student to discover his or her talents and affinities. With the information raised from flipping the classroom, each student can be guided to those subjects more related to his or her affinities and talents. With this, the students in most classes will share talent and affinity, making the class something thrilling and challenging to both students and teacher. Mentoring then can be specialized by affinities, with teachers related to the subjects where affinity is shared by the students, making creativity part of the methodology of teaching.

This will help students when confronting what professional career they want to follow.

In Knowledge Society professional training will become an ongoing activity. But, instead of packaging knowledge under a college or post graduate degree, the student will be able to choose what subjects he or she should follow in order to better develop talents and affinities. Universities will provide accreditation of subjects. A personalized curriculum will be able to be made by each person, structured and poured in job searching engines, making it possible to match jobs, talents and affinities. Therefore, jobs will be given to people most talented and related to the soft and hard skills needed for the job, in a worldwide job market searching for specific knowledge jobs.

With the “flipping the classroom” paradigm, the fragmentation of college and the universal access to the Internet, students will be able to attend classes anywhere in the world (limited only by language, which can also be learned Online), making education more competitive, innovative and cheaper.

I think that in 50 years' time the way people are educated, search for a job and develop their professional career will be totally changed. Less and less people will have a permanent job in an organization. More opportunities – and more uncertainty – will be available as the Knowledge Society and the Knowledge Economy evolves, focusing in intangible assets rather than tangible ones.

It took a lot of guts to our forefathers to produce and make possible the Public Education paid by with taxation to educate a huge amount of people which, up to then, had no access to education. It will also require a lot of guts to change the actual paradigms which are no longer suitable for the present Society and Economy, due to the fear of uncertain results and the lobby that will be raised by incumbent members of the Education sector which might see a threat in the new order of things. But that is just what happened two hundred years ago when Public Education came to place.

The bottom line is that the new paradigm will have to fulfill the needs of Knowledge Society, that is, that each person may work where he or she is most talented and likes best working at. Only then will knowledge create the maximum value it may reach, since knowledge is the product of people interacting with other people, with nature and with things created by people.

Alfredo Barriga

El debate faltante sobre la educación del S XXI

La educación pública se inventó en el S XIX, y fue funcional a la revolución industrial y a la Sociedad Industrial, como explica con mucha claridad Sir Ken Robinson 

Este modelo no sirve para la Sociedad del Conocimiento que está comenzando. Al ser el conocimiento un recurso económico, la economía del conocimiento requiere, para desarrollar su potencial, que las personas puedan trabajar en lo que tienen más talento y afinidad, ya que son las personas quienes generan el conocimiento. El modelo educativo basado en mallas curriculares estándar y metodologías jerarquizadas de aprendizaje no permite que el talento de cada uno florezca en el ambiente educativo. Muchos lo consiguen, pero otros tantos – me temo que la mayoría - viven frustrados de no poder trabajar en lo que más les gusta y en lo que se sienten más dotados. Es un descomunal  desperdicio de talento que supone un desperdicio peor de recursos.

El punto es cómo generar un sistema educativo que sea a la vez personalizado y escalable. Es lo que no nos dice Sir Ken Robinson en sus planteamientos. Aquí va una propuesta.

Los colegios tienen una doble función: docente y formativa. Los niños van a clases a aprender y a formarse. Sin embargo, el sistema actual requiere que la mayor parte del tiempo se dedique a la instrucción, y la formación es parte de la misma, casi como un subproducto. Internet permite cada vez más que la parte docente sea una auto-instrucción.

Salman Khan (The Khan Academy, www.khanacademy.org/) ha introducido un interesante paradigma denominado “flipping the classroom” (intercambiando la clase). Su metodología de enseñanza le ha permitido que la instrucción sea realizada por el alumno por su cuenta (clases vía YouTube), y “las tareas” sea lo que se haga en clases. Ello permite, usando tecnología, saber qué alumnos han avanzado más y quienes menos. A través de tecnología, se ayuda a los que van más atrasados con el apoyo de los que van más adelantados. El resultado es que no se requieren clases de más de media hora, y los alumnos aprenden y aplican lo aprendido continuamente.

¿Qué se hace con el resto del tiempo? Aquí viene la parte formativa. Veo en el futuro a los profesores en un rol 50% de mentor y 50% docente. Su función es ayudar a que cada alumno pueda descubrir sus talentos naturales y desarrollarlos dentro y fuera del colegio. Con la información generada por el paradigma “flipping the classroom” se puede definir cuales asignaturas son las que cada alumno debe desarrollar más – al estar en el centro de su talento y su afinidad – y cuales puede tomarlas a título de “conocimiento general”. Los alumnos no estarían por lo tanto en un curso (o sea, un grupo heterogéneo de alumnos que comparten aula a lo largo de toda su docencia) sino que en aquéllas clases que realmente los potencian. Al estar con compañeros que comparten sus afinidades, la clase entera se potencia. Los profesores, según sus propios talentos y afinidades, pueden ayudar así a aquéllos alumnos que mejor pueden apoyar y descubrir su talento. Eso crea un entorno estimulante para la creatividad de alumnos y profesores, dejando a los primeros mejor preparados para el mundo en que les tocará vivir.

Al pasar a la Universidad o Centro Técnico, el paradigma continúa. Definidas las afinidades y talentos, las Universidades pueden ofrecer a todos una primera etapa (dos años) en la cual los alumnos toman asignaturas que le son más afines, independiente de cual carrera quieran seguir. Los dos años siguientes, se especializan, para obtener un título de pregrado. Un año más para posgrado, y otro para para doctorado.

En la Sociedad del Conocimiento la formación profesional será una actividad continua. Ahí las Universidades y Centros Técnicos cumplirían el mismo rol que hoy ofrecen con los diplomados y posgrados ejecutivos, pero en vez de “envasarlos”, agrupando asignaturas para la obtención de un título, permitirán que cada alumno elija las asignaturas que le interesen, quedando acreditado en esa asignatura concreta dada por un profesor concreto, en vez de un diplomado que, en la práctica, no dice mucho sobre qué ha aprendido.

El Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT) inventó hace años el concepto de “OpenCourseWare”, por el cual cualquier persona tiene acceso al material usado en asignaturas impartidas en esa prestigiosa Universidad y otras de gran renombre. El Modelo no se desarrolló porque no había Modelo de Negocios detrás. Lo que se propone arriba se lo daría: las personas pagarían a la Universidad por acreditarse en los cursos de su interés a cuyo material acceden gratis, lo cual pasa por algún tipo de interrelación con el profesor que imparte la materia, que también cobra por ello. Así todos ganan, y cada persona puede especializarse en materias concretas que tienen que ver con sus talentos y afinidades, mejorando su currículum.

Internet está permitiendo que cualquiera pueda “ir a clases” en cualquier lugar del mundo. También está permitiendo que cualquier empleador pueda buscar personas con conocimientos muy concretos para trabajos muy concretos, y que personas de un país puedan trabajar para empresas de cualquier país. El paradigma de que las personas trabajan en un puesto fijo en una empresa está dando paso a uno nuevo por el cual las personas trabajan para varias empresas en materias en las que son más talentosas y afines, generando independencia económica y mejor control de la carrera profesional, aunque sea a costa de mayor incertidumbre. No van a tener alternativa, según la Sociedad del Conocimiento se desarrolle, y se requiera cada vez más de trabajos muy especializados que no justifican contratar en planta a una persona.

De esta forma pienso que se desarrollará la educación que se requiere para la Sociedad del Conocimiento y para la Economía del Conocimiento. En 30 años más, la forma que las personas se educan, buscan trabajo y desarrollan su carrera profesional habrá cambiado totalmente. Habrá más incertidumbre pero también más oportunidades. Las nuevas generaciones sabrán que, en un mercado globalizado de 7 mil millones de personas, no necesitarán de un puesto de trabajo fijo, sino que podrán dedicarse a lo que más les gusta y más talento tienen, porque en ese mundo tan grande siempre tendrán trabajo, que no es lo mismo que tener "pega". Y al trabajar en lo que más les gusta, serán más productivos y tendrán mayor bienestar.

Todo lo anterior hace de la actual discusión sobre modelo de educación algo cortoplacista, que no va a preparar mejor a los niños que hoy se incorporan a la educación en prekinder y en 20 años más buscarán trabajo.

Alfredo Barriga