Business Building Through
Opportunity Capture
Bring the Mind of Einstein

Memory Certification Program

Toyota Talent walks you
Define the companies
Bad Economy
Know Your Reputation
  More ...


AIM Inlines latest service to help you improve your business communication needs. To learn more click here.

Creative Media Registration


Ivory Towers

Economists and bankers one day; university vice-chancellors the next! Life is never dull in the world of corporate philosophy. Especially when entrenched belief systems need a good shake up.

Universities have endured for centuries. Why should they need to change today? That was the question put to me just last week by the vice chancellor (research) of one of Asia’s top-ranking business schools. After drawing in my breath sharply in a credible simulation of disbelief my answer went roughly as follows…

Humanity is entering a period of turbulence that is going to touch almost everyone. The world is out of kilter. Among other factors too complex to go into here, the extraordinary dynamism arising from the convergence of scientific discoveries and the high-tech enabling of globalization in its current phase (on one hand) and potentially catastrophic environmental trends (on the other) are propelling us towards a great societal transition. A transition in which we are going to have to redesign the entire material basis of our civilization.

What is more the rate of change, of both human advancement and planetary degradation (for these are the issues at stake) appears to be accelerating exponentially. Unlike previous revolutions however, which emerged purely out of human need and ingenuity, we are entangled in a complex web of destructive natural forces and unsustainable human activities. Whereas previous revolutions took many decades before new patterns of production and consumption were embedded, this one will take possibly 10 to 15 years to alter much of what we do and how we do it.

Meanwhile alarming symptoms of this malaise, such as climate change, the rising price of food, the lack of water and energy, and new epidemics that are rarely mentioned in the press (like the incidence of a whole range of autoimmune diseases, for example) are close to spinning entirely out of our control, providing further impetus for societal change (or civilizational collapse) on an unprecedented scale.

Other signs of this are already evident. In terms of the global economy we have started the evolutionary shift from an obsolescent industreality (dominated by an predominantly Anglo Saxon legacy of both beneficial and pernicious behaviors) to a profoundly interconnected economy where, once again, China and India are certain to assume influential (perhaps dominant) roles.

The rapid rate of urbanization in countries like China has given us an opportunity to take principles of abundance (rather than scarcity) as a starting point for architectural and industrial designs intent on creating sustainable, closed-loop, systems of production and consumption. Capitalism is adapting to accommodate tumultuous business conditions. Even political agendas are becoming more universally inclusive.

So too is human consciousness. Today we are much more inclined to think of ourselves as a whole earth community inhabiting a fragile planet whose very life force is being suffocated by profligate practices we must change. Meanwhile the nation state is teetering on the brink of irrelevancy and we continue to allow the malignant force of organized religion to cause unnecessary conflict and confusion.

But other factors, too, including breakthroughs in cognitive brain science, genomic drugs that amplify human intelligence and other neurological enhancements, are also altering how we might learn to adapt to these new realities. In fact the ability to continuously adapt (to changing and mostly unforeseen circumstances) has become critical for everyone on the planet, including businesses and, by implication, society's institutions.

Since the invention of the modern university in the 12th century, higher education institutions have always responded to fundamental changes in society. The forces for change have always emerged from society – that is from outside, not from within, the walls of academia. In fact the university was simply a different way of engaging with the world.

Down through the ages, the dominance of certain disciplines - theology, classics, humanities and more recently science - has followed profound changes in society. Today’s transition is leading, as before, to a learning revolution. But whereas past learning revolutions resulted in a change of disciplinary focus, the current learning revolution is resulting in profound changes to focus, direction and delivery of an ever-changing curriculum. 

The unified national systems in the higher education sectors of many countries encourages universities to behave as if they are still living in the 19th century. They are distinctive only for their uniformity, their copycat policies, and the illusion of difference. Yet in so many recent reports purporting to examine the health of this sector over the years, employers have stated their dissatisfaction with university graduates claiming they are not imaginative or original thinkers nor are they able to reason with any degree of logical consistency. They can remember a few basic facts. But what use is this when facts go out of date so rapidly?

If businesses behave this way they go out of business. To all intents and purposes, if colleges and universities refuse to examine how they might need to operate in a world of enabling technologies and of systemic complexity (in order to reinvent themselves) they will simply lose control and influence over higher learning. They may well lose their niche as an industry. 

Many universities around the world have already lost the plot. Higher loads of bureaucratic trivia have triggered a brain-drain that is unstoppable in some countries. In the West, economic rationalists have targeted extensive cost cutting which has led to depleted resources and a further exodus of talent. One might have thought that, in these circumstances, it would be wise to position oneself for renewal.

The global information economy puts a premium on intellectual capital – increasing pressure to remain at the forefront of knowledge creation and commercialization. This requires life-long learning and a corresponding rise in the use of continuing education and professional development. Universities need to reflect on important future issues prior to developing new policy platforms that align with this and other real world trends. Only then will they be in a position to reframe their purpose and guarantee continued relevance. Take the following, for example:

There is a growing belief in some quarters that public higher education is taking too big a bite out of state budgets. Increasingly technology is seen as a vehicle for reducing the costs of learning. Internet-based programs offer the possibility of customized learning anywhere and at any time of the day or night, thus threatening more traditional methods of instruction.

Distance learning is being driven by changing demographics. The fastest growing group attending higher education in the past 20 years are working, part-time, females over 25 years old. This group want to increase their salaries and advance their careers. They are prime candidates for education delivered to their homes and offices.The pervasiveness of web-based, internet technologies will increasingly add momentum to distance learning with the capacity to reach previously unimaginable numbers globally. But attitudes will need to change.

One of the more entrenched beliefs concerns costs. It is widely held that increased value necessitates increased costs and consequently higher student fees. But that is an economic orthodoxy which has been proven wrong many times over. Universities are no longer quarantined from global market forces. If they are to discover new and uncontested market space they can make their own, each academic institution will need to find ways of enhancing its unique value while reducing the cost of certain factors on which it has traditionally competed.

Many people in the teaching profession automatically assume that universities will have a pivotal role to play in future societal development. I am not so sure –unless there are unique and compelling reasons for their existence.

The modern university is a human invention. It has adapted at various times to respond to societal change. These adaptations have depended upon changes in the contextual environment. But an invention is just that. It does not necessarily persist. Nothing can be guaranteed. New inventions come along and others fall by the wayside. That is life.

Arrogance has written off entire industries in the past while new ones have constantly emerged. Higher education will need to become more relevant, more aligned with reality and more strategically focused if it hopes to have an industry to shape in tomorrow’s world.

The ivory tower is an unfortunate metaphor in a world where connections and relationships beyond the boundaries of the institution matter more and more.

The standard models of university higher education are no longer viable. Increasing competition (particularly from new competitors) coupled with less public funding; increasing tensions and dilemmas to manage (as between teaching and research, academics and administrators, for example); slowness to change due to inertia in the system; and an increase in demand for university places coupled with fewer staff to cope with this teaching load, all indicate a model that is unsustainable.

The struggle to reconcile internal values, cultures and aspirations with the very different modes of operation required to meet new and demanding student expectations demands a fundamental shift from a focus on individual academic competence to a university-wide common purpose and strategic framework. And  then beyond that to global alliances and partnerships.

When technologies shift, knowledge monopolies crumble. Is it possible that academics and academic work will not remain the primary function and focus of the future university?

Deciding what are core and non-core activities will be crucial in determining the future role of teachers, just as has been the case in the nursing profession, for example. Project work (rather than ongoing tenure) will most likely assume greater significance. And as new forms of contractual arrangements emerge many universities may simply become brokers in globally distributed knowledge systems.

Even in the best case scenarios academic work will need to be re-designed to take into account pressures regarding numbers and delivery. It is quite possible that links, relationships with industry, research and technological delivery systems may become the dominant focal point for university staff in the future.

Original ideas often come from reassembling knowledge in new ways. In the past we tended to reduce knowledge into its various components, labeling and promoting these discrete elements as if they were somehow preordained. That brought us to where we find ourselves today. We now recognize this to be untenable. So structuring knowledge differently is an imperative.

Today we have embarked upon a deliberate path of re-synthesizing knowledge. This is no mere coincidence. Over the past 30 years, spurred by information technologies and a newfound mobility, the sum total of human knowledge, experience and wisdom has become available to us. Knowledge has become global.

In the process we are discovering much (especially about ourselves) that was previously lost to us. Indigenous knowledge and integral practice (as in the integration of disciplines into meta-disciplines like strategic foresight and integral science for example) are becoming essential means of shifting human consciousness beyond the merely fearful, mundane and trivial.

In the modern era, too, marshaling information is no longer enough to constitute learning. It’s what you do with this information that counts. That is why the humanities are more relevant than ever. Subjects like philosophy, history and literature can teach us how to interpret information and how to argue a point of view. That kind of learning is essential for innovation and for entrepreneurship. Music teaches valuable lessons about time and space. Similarly, visual thinking is critical to using computers and to manipulating images across multiple dimensions.

It is a sad indictment of many universities that they do not appreciate the power of integral practice and are still caught up in a time warp where discrete disciplines (typically vocationally focused) rule.

The financial survival of educational institutions and the growing need for continuous, lifelong learning, demand that universities become more like clubs or societies that extend membership over a lifetime. Think about it. Higher learning is the only business that has a ceremony for getting rid of its customers.

Colleges spend thousands of dollars recruiting students and then, after three, four or five years, these same colleges make students dress up in a gown, march them across a platform in full public view, and then ritually fire them!

Now imagine an MBA program that saw the value of its customers as extending far beyond the years that they spent on a campus. Instead of firing people after a few years, such a program would shift its emphasis away from graduation to lifelong learning through membership of the institution. Students would remain members as long as they undertook courses, whether those courses were conducted online or on campus. The goal would be to keep members over the life cycle of their careers – and even into post-retirement. Learning would be something that was continuous.

There is no doubt in my mind. Educational institutions that desire to ride the new global economy will move from the industrial age event model to a model that turns students into members of a network – a network that keeps them engaged over the course of their life. 

Corporations are now demanding executive education that is much more action-orientated. They want programs that change individuals as well as the enterprise. Real-life issues and dilemmas now become the material for learning in real time. In this context staff become consultants to each other.

And now that technology allows us to extend learning into the period after people leave campus we can also tap into communities of interest and continue the dialogue created in sessions. This can be used as an open source research lab that keeps everyone abreast of what is working and what is not working.

Obviously new ground rules for working in partnership with business still need to be established and constantly refined. This will require universities to review their traditional roles of research, teaching and service – and the interconnections between these, previously understood to be inextricably intertwined.

Education will never look the same as it once did. Learning just doesn’t sink in when you cut it up into small bites. Today it has to be a continuous and compelling engagement with life.

Like many corporations today Levi Strauss was telling its managers that they needed to be different – a new kind of manager, responsible for ensuring that learning was happening. But their training continued to occur inside the same old windowless hotel rooms. Naturally, attendance dropped off.

Until, that is, the company shifted its business model to become a brand management organization. Training sessions were shifted to new environments like art galleries, nightclubs, and other venues that were right in the center of the consumer marketplace. Facilitators gave cameras to Levi Strauss employees and told them to find examples of brand equity being built or destroyed, to talk to consumers about products, and to bring all of that information back to the group.

If you are going to be a consumer-focused institution you have to do it in a consumer-focused way. The learning environment has to reflect a corporate client's public messages, strategic direction and identity, and culture.

Ultimately, you would have to think, e-learning must change democracy. One could argue the Internet has already brought democracy to education: access is available anywhere, costs are tumbling, place and time are not important any more. The only resistance is cultural opposition to learning online instead of on campus. Much of this opposition comes from established educators, though their monopoly is crumbling.

I am only really scratching the surface here of why change is inevitable in the higher education sector. We have not seriously examined topics like assessment, funding models and teacher training; the impact of global issues on learning; how integral practices will enter the curriculum displacing obsolescent disciplines; nor how enhanced intelligence methods might change how knowledge is created and processed.

Even so, I have no doubt the higher education sector must restructure. And from first principles if  institutions are to address the many dilemmas inherent in today's context for change. Distinctiveness, not conformity, needs to emerge. But the willingness and ability to relinquish autonomy in order to become part of an expansive global learning network ( a virtuous investment) will also be crucial.

Possibly the biggest challenge in all of this will be in universities choosing whether they remain discrete, self-governing entities or opt to become specialist hubs in vast learning networks spanning the globe. In both contexts, academics must become something else rather than just transmitters of knowledge. In order to facilitate learning they will need to develop new skills – especially in terms of flexibility, relationship management, communications and creativity. They will also need to become better skilled at using technology. The biggest stumbling block in that regard is not in the learning but in how teachers apply their learning effectively.

Another critical challenge will stem from a need to manage the diverse systems of alliances and partnerships implied by such global learning networks; the kind of relationships inherent in the linking of distribution and administrative channels of venture capitalists with technical providers in universities, for example. Managing the interaction between the content expert, the packaging expert and the distributor will be a key to success as it requires an administrative system that can work worldwide for both faculty and students.

As we work with new interactive technologies and individually enhanced intelligence, learning will continue its journey of transformation from knowledge as matter to knowing as process.

Yesterday's conventional wisdom dictated that content was King. In today's connected economy there is a realization that context is everything. The trouble with that system was that, while students learned a whole raft of facts and lots of theory, they ended up with very little sense of themselves as being what they were learning about – of becoming different people in the process. In other words there was a chasm between personal identity and personal knowledge.

Always-on' internet technologies (the next generation) coupled to enhanced cognitive capabilities will enable learning to occur invisibly and automatically as it melds with doing. That is a big shift from the days when educators packaged materials and then funneled these into the heads of learners. The trouble with this system is it raises the fundamental question yet again, Whither the University?

Post your comments at
Copyright © 2014 AIM Inlines Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.
No portion of this web site may be used or reproduced in any manner
whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Back to Articles | Top of the Page


Home | Vision & Mission | Profile | About Us | Speaker Opportunity | Our Partner | Photo Gallery | Become a Member
Disclaimer & Copyright | Privacy Policy | In the News | In-house Training | Articles | Contact Us

Copyright 2014, AIM Training Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.