Anchoring: 1

I believe my life of start-ups is over now. There are personal reasons behind it - this has forced me to rethink my priorities - but this is as much triggered by professional considerations. I have come to realise the essentially speculative nature of start-ups, and also that in the industry I have chosen to be in, its unsuitability. Speculation may be permissible and even productive in other industries, particularly where the customers are also venturesome, as in consumer technology; but in education, there is an added layer of responsibility, which speculators disregard. I would call it an 'alignment problem', just as in machine learning, where the ways of doing business and the desireable objectives may be in conflict with the expectations of its intended customers and socially desireable outcomes.

This objection is only to the private higher education, however. The idea of higher education is enmeshed in the modern, middle-class-dominated social structure. The degree is the rite of passage in modern states and the foundation of meritocratic systems that underpin our democracies. 'Disrupting' private higher education, as I would have aspired to do from time to time, without applying the systems perspective, has costs. I believe the start-up approach can add a lot of value in non-compulsory education, sectors such as professional training, lifelong learning and self-cultivation, but it is totally unsuitable for higher education.

Besides, the logic of start-ups has pushed me to 'disrupt' higher ed in territories where higher education is less evolved and regulatory systems are immature, territories such as India, and this is where the impact of such speculation is most severe. If I pursued my 'innovation' objectives within a more mature regulatory structure, the journey would be more difficult but the guardrails would ensure the impact of missteps are limited. Overall, I have become distrustful of the non-scholar's arrogance of reshaping scholarly activities, and believe that selling such ideas to credulous Indian students is equivalent to selling tobacco to Indonesians, just because the regulatory boundaries are weak and chaotic.

Comparing my previous attempts at innovation also tell a story. My first one was a process innovation, attempted when I was in Bangladesh, within the boundaries of an established, successful but stagnant business. My efforts were to channelise the existing resources of the business and create a new business model, through new linkages and partnerships. This worked out very well, but I was working from a position of privilege and had the 'latitude' for failure. The experiment created a new and sustainable business model for those involved, but continued to have impact for several years after I left Bangladesh. 

The second attempt, much more recent and within the Covid-induced changes in the industry, was similar - a product innovation! This second attempt was inside an institution, who, as the sponsor, reached their desired objective, though it fell short of my own aspirations about educational change. Eventually, this experiment would lose its transformational aspirations and become a vehicle of standard industry practice. It continues to have impact, though I aimed for higher and different goals.

My current endeavour, though, is from outside the institutional structure and as a complete start-up. The circumstances of its founding were less than ideal, and the fund flows to it was disrupted more than once. But the principal reason this fell short is attributable to its non-institutional nature. Changing from the outside in a sector dominated by institutions is more difficult than changing an institution from the inside. 

This makes me draw the following conclusions:

1. Start-ups are speculative forms of organising activities, which may or may not be suitable in certain sectors.

2. Educational disruption should be attempted in sectors outside school or higher education. After all, the aim of disruption should be about giving opportunity to non-users, rather than trying to make things better for users.

3. If I try to do something again in Higher Education, I am going to try this from the inside, as part of an institution, rather than from the outside, as an independent entity or a start-up.

4. I believe the temptation of getting 'international students' had a corrupting influence on my work. I tended to forget that this is a 'market for lemons' where a lot of unscrupulous players operate. Hence, it is difficult to establish a serious education proposition if one is building an institution dependent on international students.

5. Online does not work in education. Technology has its place in education, which must be fully utilised. But particularly for undergraduate education, we are dealing with transformative possibilities and online makes it too transactional to have an impact. 

So on and so forth. I am thinking about the next steps as I work towards realising the 'global e-school' that I have been talking about forever. I am hoping my current enterprise will transition into this, but this would definitely involve finding new collaborators and making choices all over again. Coupled with my personal predicament, this is ground zero for me in more than one way. Hence, an act of anchoring, rethinking what my priorities are and adjusting to them, is at the top of my agenda right now.