Hi, I'm Sam Birmingham

Mitch Resnick, MIT Media Lab, founder of Scratch

 Learn To Code, Code To Learn

The person who’s the easiest to get a first date with might not be the person you want to marry. 

Sugata Mitra Build A School In The Cloud

Schools, as we know them now, are obsolete.

I’m not saying they are broken. It is quite fashionable to say that the education system is broken. It’s not broken; it is wonderfully constructed. It’s just that we don’t need it anymore. It’s outdated…

We don’t know what the jobs of the future are going to look like.

We know that people will work from wherever they want, whenever they want, in whatever way they want.

How is present day schooling preparing them for that world?

And

So, what is happening here?

I think we need to look at learning as the product of educational self-organisation…

It’s not about making learning happen; it’s about letting it happen. The teacher sets the process in motion, then she stands back, in awe, and watches as learning happens.

Startup Australia: Let’s Do This Thing

Last month, I flew to Sydney for the #startupAUS forum, which brought together 50 leaders from across the startup community, hosted and expertly facilitated by The Difference team at PwC, with the support of Google, Freelancer and others.

Coming on the back of another (awesome!) Startup Weekend Perth, my enthusiasm was high (even if my sleep levels weren’t!) and the same was true for everyone else - particularly in the wake of idiotic comments by our Prime Minister about “rorting” of 457 visas by the IT industry and ongoing issues with ESOP.

The impetus for my involvement at #startupAUS was a great blog by Michael Fox on growing Australia’s tech startup ecosystem. Education was the focus of that piece and is a core interest of mine, so I was especially pleased to see education front and centre over the course of our two days at the forum.

The group ultimately set a stretch target to replace mining as the driver of Australia’s GDP growth, with a vision to create a nation of coders.

For mine, one statistic stood out above all others: Australian universities only churn out 12,000 Computer Science graduates each year, of which a mere one-third are local students. Making matters worse, CS enrolments are down 60% on a decade ago [Kaplan, NICTA]; the trend is most definitely not our friend!

It is galling to think that we’re building a National Broadband Network which is supposedly best-of-breed and have a Federal Government Department with the phrase Digital Economy in its very name, yet we have nowhere near enough skilled people for the reality to get within coo-ee of the rhetoric.

The Australian Computer Society predicted that there would be 14,000 new ICT jobs created in 2012/13, and a further 21,000 next financial year. Even if every national and international CS grad stayed in Australia, we don’t have enough people to meet current demand, let alone replacing those who leave the industry or even thinking about fulfilling next year’s demand.

How can we possibly hope to have innovative technology businesses replace unsustainable resource extraction and “unscalable “knowledge industries” as drivers of our national economy over the decades ahead when we can’t even meet today’s needs?

A wise friend suggested gap analysis, essentially identifying what our future needs might be for various skill sets and levels, and then we can (FINALLY) start addressing that (HUGE) gap. The code.org team rammed home the importance of their cause with similar analysis - although simplistic, the data shows a 1 million person gap in 2020 with 1.4m computer jobs predicted and only 400k CS students. If that is the challenge facing the US then how bleak is Australia’s predicament!

As Alan Noble explained in his post-forum blog: “In one sense #startupAUS is itself a startup”… I couldn’t have said it better myself!

Startups are high-growth, scaleable entities that see a problem and build something to solve it. They create something where nothing exists.

If #startupAUS is to be the peak body for the national startup community then we need to think like the startups that we purport to represent.

With that in mind, I turned to two of the most valuable resources for startups and those people building startup communities: the Lean Canvas; and the Boulder Thesis.

First, the Lean Canvas: I mocked up a little something for #startupAUS (pictured above) to help us identify, first and foremost, who our customers are, the problems that need solving, a business model which might underpin #startupAUS to ensure it is sustainable, and so on… What do you think? Am I in the ball park? What would you add/change/delete?

Next, to the Boulder Thesis, which has become the bible for Creating Your Own Startup Community. In Brad Feld’s words:

I developed four principles, which I call The Boulder Thesis, that I believe are necessary for the development of a vibrant, long-term, sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem.

1. Entrepreneurs must lead the startup community.

2. The leaders must have a long-term commitment.

3. The startup community must be inclusive of anyone who wants to participate in it.

4. The startup community must have continual activities that engage the entire entrepreneurial stack.

Our patchwork approach, plugging into the various activity hubs within the startup community, is broadly consistent with that thesis, and no one could question the long-term commitment of the 50 people involved in the #startupAUS forum.

What we need to make this thing work is a national body that is as inclusive as all those sub-communities it encompasses and, most important of all, the movement needs to be led by entrepreneurs.

As Brad Feld explains, all good startup communities are driven by those entrepreneurial leaders, supported by “feeders” (VCs, Government, Universities, Service Providers), and united by a common purpose. It is a rising tide lifts all boats approach; plant enough seeds and the harvesting looks after itself!

#startupAUS: For startups, by startups!

Energy was high on the back of the forum, now we must keep that fire burning. 

What do we need to succeed?

1. #startupAUS CEO (or whatever you want to call it): In short, someone to get this thing focused, to do hard yards of launch and initial fundraising, and to support our patches.

2. Activity: Our economy (not to mention the Federal Government) stands on a precipice; the ACARA deadline is looming; there are lots of great programming initiatives and countless startup-oriented events on the horizon. We need to connect more dots within this community and provide a united voice, stat.

3. Awareness: Almost all entrepreneurs are too busy working on their business to blow their own trumpet and we, as a nation and as an industry, are traditionally poor at shining light on our success stories and acknowledging our failures.

What can we do to make Joe Public aware of all the amazing achievements of Australia’s tech community, from CSIRO’s impact on the evolution of wifi and the genesis of Google Maps in Sydney, to success stories like Atlassian and the next generation of companies that are bubbling to the surface and attracting global interest?

In the words of AngelList co-founder Babak Nivi:

“Startups aren’t here to change the world, they’re here to save the world.”

The same goes for #startupAUS…

Are we going to be a nation of value extractors (miners and property speculators) and value capturers (bankers and lawyers), or a nation of value creators and innovators (hackers and founders)? Are we diggers and talkers, or do-ers and makers?

Revisit Matt Barrie’s epic Startup Australia blog. Fire up the #startupAUS hashtag. Stand up and be counted. The time is now.

Let’s stop waiting for permission and fucking do this thing!

Roughly speaking the world’s economy has always worked as a giant pass-along-game between the planet’s citizens. Person A needed stuff from person B and person B needed stuff from person C and person C needed stuff from person A. So everyone needed everybody. It has been a kind of giant circle of needs.

But as a smaller and smaller number of people are needed to make the basic things that people need for survival, from food to energy, to clothing and housing, the less likely it is that some people will be needed at all.

When you read in the press the oft-quoted concept that “those jobs aren’t coming back” this “reduction of need” is what underlies all of it. Technology has reduced the need for labour. And the labour that *is* needed can’t be done in more developed nations because there are people elsewhere who will happily provide that labour less expensively.

In the long term, technology is almost certainly the solution to the problem. When we create devices that individuals will be able to own that will be able to produce everything that we need, the solution will be at hand. This is *not* science fiction. We are starting to see that happen with energy with things like rooftop solar panels and less expensive wind turbines. We are nowhere near where we need to be, but it is obvious that eventually everyone will be able to produce his or her own energy.

The same will be true for clothing, where personal devices will be able to make our clothing in our homes on demand. Food will be commoditized in a similar way, making it possible to have the basic necessities of life with a few low cost source materials.

The problem is that we are in this awful in-between phase of our planets productivity curve. Technology has vastly reduced the number of workers and resources that are required to make what the planet needs. This means that a small number of people, the people in control of the creation of goods, get the benefit of the increased productivity. When we get to the end of this curve and everyone can, in essence, be their own manufacturer, things will be good again. But until we can ride this curve to its natural stopping point, there will be much suffering, as the jobs that technology kills are not replaced.

Union Square Ventures partner, Albert Wenger on technology, progress and the power of networks

Albert is a fascinating thinker. My favourite bit of this discussion comes at 12:15, when he is asked to ponder the future and technology’s place in it:

The thing I am most focused on right now is the future of how we organize ourselves and how we organize our social and economic activity; all this in the face of two very dramatic changes.

One – the Internet. It’s not like anything that has come before. For the first time it has put all of humanity in touch with each other instantaneously and for free. By free, I mean this call we are having right now is free on the margin.

Two – the incredible rate of progress (I disagree with Peter Thiel on this). It’s all around us and has resulted in our ability to supply anybody with food or facilities on the other side of the planet, for example. It does not exceed our technological capabilities and natural resources to provide living to everybody. If anything, that proves our capability for accelerating. 

A lot of the old ways for how we think economic activities are organized are breaking down. The thing that has worked very well for us is some form of capitalism. There are subtle differences between capitalism in Germany and the US. The basic idea that individuals have some kind of work through which they generate income – they spend that income on things and experiences. The problem with that model is that we are getting good at getting machines to do what we were doing historically. This machine is not human – it is not a buyer or consumer of the things it produces.

These twin forces – being able to communicate, share ideas, organize ourselves, and the force of technological acceleration are enablers. These seem good for the long run, but disruptive in the short run. People who had a job don’t have a job, hence falling incomes, etc. My interests are in using the internet to use this technological force for positive outcomes. That’s more of an outline of the forces I think we should think about.

Another choice excerpt at 17:43, on Hans Rosling’s prediction that global population will top out at 10 billion, and how we might employ all those people in a technological era where machines eliminate jobs:

If you’ve got population decelerating, and if you’ve got technology accelerating, it’s very clear what these two curves do to each other.

We are going to have to figure out how to use the resources wisely for all these people and stay above global warming. The social challenge would be around what we spend our time on; I think that will be the biggest challenge. I do think there are positive forces such as cultural production – ways to undo some of the damage we have done to the environment. Fundamentally though, our belief in the fact that we will strive to consume more, own more and have more seems broken.

Albert’s productivity hacks and habits are also worth taking in.

1. If you want to create a thriving community, you need to create opportunities for people to work together.

2. Having a central, physical location for creative, innovative people to gather is key.Yes, an accelerator qualifies- so do common kitchens, shared art spaces, and other collaborative spaces.

3. No startup community sprang up over night. Not even Silicon Valley. If you’re looking to build your community, it’s in your best interest to have a ten-year view.

4. Where the creatives go, the geeks will follow. Research has proven that entrepreneurs migrate to communities that are progressive and support the arts.

5. Want to build a great community? Know your strengths. Don’t try to be the next (Silicon Valley, New York, Boulder,…), be you.

Successful entrepreneurs focus exclusively on efforts that matter and are able to tune out the rest. People who focus succeed. It’s that simple.

“Culture is to recruiting as product is to marketing”

From Dharmesh Shah’s awesome presentation and explanation Why I Spent 200 Hours Writing Culture Code Instead of Python Code

Respected academic and innovation expert, Clayton Christensen, makes some brilliant observations about digital disruption and education in this interview with Mark Suster.

From Suster’s notes:

He talked about how for centuries education had “no technological core” (meaning it was bound by physical locations) and thus disruption was very difficult. Obviously that barrier has been brought down with low-cost ability to capture, stream and distribute content over the Internet.

Today’s higher education is responding by making more courses online and available to people outside of physical boundaries.

But while universities are developing online content they are not fundamentally disrupting learning because the method of delivery is not a new business model. “Online education is truly going to kill us.” He talked about the need to have content delivered closer to those in the work force who could immediately apply what they’re taught and then immediately be back in the classroom to discuss the implementation.

Still on online learning, this time in Christensen’s own words (at 3:08):

The technology itself is not intrinsically sustaining or disruptive. It’s how it gets deployed that makes the difference.

Right now the Harvard Business School is investing millions of dollars in online learning, but it’s being developed to use in our existing business model… But there is a different business model that is disrupting us, and that’s on-the-job education… It’s a very different business model, and that’s what going to kill us (traditional universities).

And on another of universities’ great failings, the gap between graduates’ perceived skills and employers’ actual needs (at 6:05):

The employers want people who have the skills to do a job. The universities don’t understand that job, and the students are here to learn what we think they should know.

We invest and we subsidise their education in fields for which there are no jobs. I really do think that the more we could link the employers with the people online who provide the skills, it really will cause the world to flip.

The scary thing is that in 15 years from now, maybe half the universities will be in bankruptcy.

Ouch!

What Most Schools Don’t Teach via Code.org

#programorbeprogrammed

Open Tech School