Hi Louise, can tell us about yourself and share some of your personal experiences working in this space?

I started my career as an architectural journalist and then moved into EdTech through publishing. My first education related experience was through a private equity transaction, Times Education Supplement that became TES Global. I was the MD, CEO, and then Chair of that business as we took it on a digital transformation journey. It was a fantastic ride, especially at a time when the whole EdTech work was beginning to ramp up and you were able to see new business models both innovate and add to the ecosystem. After I left that, I moved into corporate learning and workplace development as a non-executive Director of several companies. Now, I am the Chair of OpenClassroom, a Lumos investment, and have been there for 5 years. I am also an education investor through other funds and as an angel investor.

As someone who has worn multiple hats as an operator, investor, advisor, etc, how would you assess the state of higher education today, particularly in terms of preparing our workforce for a fast moving global economy?

I think it’s a really interesting question, because most people would agree that the traditional university degree based program isn't really fit for a fast-moving and globalized economy. In this environment you need a quickly adaptive program. Therefore, the proliferation of online educational experiences that are more flexible are going to be much more fit for purpose.

At the same time, I do have a problem with doing away completely with the traditional system. There is something about university or degree courses that help to build the “whole person.” The idea of just really focusing on vocational skills really frightens me because I think the piece around becoming a whole person who is creative, robust, adaptable, and who can actually concentrate on one subject is something that the university degree was always very good at. I think the rush to get completely rid of that model would be a big mistake. So I have two very opposing thoughts about this.

That said, what are some models that you are excited about which are addressing gaps in higher education well?

There are two themes I am most interested in at the moment. First, is the apprenticeship model where you are learning while doing, learning from peers, and being very embedded into teams while learning. The world of apprenticeships is really opening up so much. Some geographies and cultures are much more accepting than others; there are also new funding models that are coming that are very interesting.

The second is “just-in-time learning” and the ability to learn something when you need it (and then discard it when you don’t). It’s actually more similar to how we naturally learn. People Google something to learn when they need it, and then move on tomorrow to learn something new.

I saw a tiny start-up this morning, and they have spent the last year building an apprenticeship platform for businesses that is completely AI-driven. At first I thought it was a bit scary, but actually, they can build a course in seconds. They are still tackling quality control and how to prompt the AI correctly, but when you see how quickly they can create new courses that’s really exciting. In some ways that is also disposable learning.

You’re speaking about skill acquisition and human capital, which seems to be a perennial issue for companies. With talent requirements evolving so quickly, what is your view regarding the “skills gap” that we all have heard so much about?

Everybody, including corporations themselves, are looking for the next set of skills. In reality, companies only thrive if the workforce that are coming in are pushing that entity further with their own knowledge and way of looking at things. And if you haven't got that cycle, you’ll become an albatross pretty quickly. So the skills gap is not just about being able to hire or not being able to hire what you need today. It's what you need tomorrow.

Now, of course, the real contradiction there is that nobody wants to spend the money. We all go and recruit the next best thing we can from our competitors. We're not really very good at growing skill sets within businesses. It's a systematic failure in commercial businesses. It is a well known fact that for people to earn more money they usually have to change companies. I think that’s crazy. We would still rather pay huge amounts of money on recruiting than spend it on retention and development, or at least that’s the way companies have historically approached the problem.

“So the skills gap is not just about being able to hire or not being able to hire what you need today. It's what you need tomorrow.”

How have you seen companies prioritize closing the skills gap well?

Valuing retention and development are values that are developed by the top – the CEO and the Board. Or at least they should be asking these questions, but very few actually do. It should be started from the top, and those that do really put their workforce at the center of everything they do. They also have a much stickier workforce, as those people want to learn and increase their skill sets. They want the next job, the next promotion, and they don’t want to be left behind. The workforce at those companies really enjoy the journey. It’s about creating a culture of learning that starts from leadership.

From the company leadership angle, you must look at what you have, what you think you’ll need, what your competitors are doing, and what the best practices are within your industry. Then, it’s about comparing that with what your workforce wants. Unless people can see how it will help them, it won’t be adopted. It’s a bit like being a customer-centered business, but instead, it’s about centering your learning and development on what your workforce wants. I don’t think we do enough of that. We do a lot of skill mapping, but not really looking at what the workforce wants.

How would you advise a company trying to build in the higher education space today to have maximum impact as well as commercial viability?

The most thought provoking experience I had was when I did a joint venture with a U.S. teachers association as a British-backed PE company. Having to walk in the shoes of the public sector and think about all the challenges they face, the assumptions they have, and marrying that with a private sector mindset is extremely helpful. It also gets right to the heart of the problems and opportunities of marrying the public education system and public sector. Unless you fully grasp the challenges of the public sector, it’s hard to be commercially successful.

What have you seen over the last couple of decades in terms of the evolution of capital in our sector, and how can all of us, including Lumos, continue to build the ecosystem in the right direction?

Capital allocators, Lumos included, should think more about how to grow the ecosystem with integrity. This includes asking questions really genuinely, and pushing the companies to not only measure their impact but say “hey, there is more you can be doing.” If investors don't talk about inclusion and impact, then it won’t happen.