THC • The Future of Work and Education: Innovation as the Catalyst to Build a Future-Ready Workforce

I. PURPOSE

In recent years, the world has experienced changes that have transformed economies, work, and education. The surge and democratization of new technologies and tools, such as ChatGPT, considerably altered interactions. Adding to this the burgeon of Generative AI and the reality that eventually Gen Alpha will be joining the workforce, the future of work inevitably implies considerable change.

Following, we will explore three challenges on which our hypotheses are based: (1) Companies desperately need talent [4, 26]. (2) Educational institutions are lagging in preparedness [8, 14, 21]. (3) Real change needs to happen, and entrepreneurial education may be the path [16, 29].

A. Companies desperately need talent.

As companies grapple with achieving results with the available workforce, they are also struggling to find workforce- ready talent [4, 26]. There is a pressing demand for a workforce with the entrepreneurial abilities to address global challenges. Y et, educational systems are not effectively integrating innovation [15]. Nor do they recognize the urgency for students to develop the skills needed to shape the future.

The challenges that economies and enterprises are facing demand a multifaceted workforce. Enterprises need specialized, sophisticated, and unique skills [4, 9]. Entry-level 101 skills won’t cut it anymore, as agents and automation can complete the tasks of an entry-level candidate.

Enterprises need individuals who can adapt and learn new skills, including AI literacy, agility, and digital technologies [3, 24]. Consequently, entrepreneurship emerges as a determinant in addressing global challenges [13].

B. Educational institutions are lagging in preparedness.

We observe a lack of preparedness from educational institutions. As McCarthy and others state, they lack preparedness [14]. They are still lagging in addressing changes efficiently or effectively [17].

Institutions need to integrate entrepreneurial experiences that give students access to real-world challenges [11]. Additionally, innovation needs to be incorporated. Innovation in real environments, not simulated ones. Innovation to make learning experiences more engaging and enable students to develop the necessary workforce-ready skills [6].

As the availability of tools and resources increases, it is expected that students will take a more autonomous approach and proactively manage their learning [10, 28]. They will become more self-directive and resilient learners, which will be fundamental for students’ future success and employability [22]. According to McCarthy and others, there is a need to allow “students to generate their own outcomes, facilitated by the people, infrastructure, and systems around them” [14, 30]. Students should “view learning as a lifelong process” [14].

Although there is no universal definition for Innovation or Entrepreneurship, study after study concludes that exposure to entrepreneurial education is crucial for students to be future- ready [5, 16, 29].

After analyzing different studies, Shwedeh and others concluded that exposing students to entrepreneurial education increases their ability to identify opportunities and find innovative ways to address them [5, 15]. They also propose that it can give them the skills to navigate economic and social issues while significantly influencing them to start a career as entrepreneurs [19, 30].

Further research supports the evidence that we need entrepreneurial education to support entrepreneurial mindsets [19].

C. Real change needs to happen, and entrepreneurial education may be the path.

As economies and enterprises face challenges that require students to be workforce-ready, considerable change needs to happen [16, 29].

A confluence of factors, including AI agents and, in the near future, Gen Alphas’ integration into the workforce, will cause significant change. We consider entrepreneurial education to be one of the pillars of this change [11].

This case study aims to explore different avenues to address these challenges. We start with three hypotheses that can improve collaboration and generate a continuum of initiatives between academia and industry. With these hypotheses, we seek to begin closing the gap between what educational systems offer and industry needs [4, 16, 27].

Hypothesis 1. We need more collaboration between industry and academia [4, 16, 23, 27]. Our hypothesis is that both universities and enterprises will reap benefits from these collaborations [20, 26]. They will offer students exposure to real-life experiences while granting enterprises access to talent [18, 20]. The focus here is on industry-academia collaborations.

Hypothesis 2. It’s on higher education institutions to offer beyond-the-classroom experiences and learning opportunities [11, 22]. Institutions should foster entrepreneurial education and should make it an integral part of their programs [15]. In this case, the focus is on initiatives within higher education institutions, collaborating with but not depending on enterprises.

Hypothesis 3. The responsible actors for developing a prepared workforce with future-ready skills are not academia or enterprises. Instead, they are responsible for setting the standard of what is needed for future professionals to succeed in the workforce. Therefore, they are responsible for providing students access to resources and allowing them to choose whichever integrates best into their learning process and objectives [10, 11]. This hypothesis is about allowing students to take a self-driven approach [10, 22].

In this hypothesis, neither enterprises nor academic institutions blast a stream of classes, courses, workshops, and the like. Instead, we gain permission to be invited into students' projects, and we do that by incorporating ourselves into whichever part of the process they are in [10, 30]. Drilling down on the specific needs they have at that moment. It's an inbound approach rather than an outbound one.

Following, we will delve into these hypotheses.

II. DESIGN, METHODOLOGY, APPROACH

Out of the three hypotheses, the first two were tested. For each, a different implementation approach was used.

A. Methodology for Hypothesis 1

To test the first hypothesis, we collaborated with one of the top universities in the country to create a three-week hybrid summer course. All of the lessons, sessions, and cases were taught by experts with professional experience in the same field. This included experts in AI, ML, and DL (Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Deep Learning), SaaS (Software as a Service), digital products, UX/ UI (User Experience and User Interfaces), and Design Thinking, among others.

This first pilot included in-person and online sessions with the experts.

The course was addressed to students from the university with which we collaborated. Specifically, students from different fields of study with an interest in Innovation and Technology.

During the weeks leading up to the course, we had over 120 sign-ups. The first day, around 60 students showed up. We saw some of them churn over the weeks as they stopped joining the sessions. By the end of the three weeks, we had between 35 and 40 students who successfully completed the course. From this, we had some key takeaways: how students churn over time and why they take advantage of the resources available to them [11]. For instance, as we delved into the profiles of the students who finished the course, we noticed most of them were top or outstanding students in their respective classes. This clarified that, as authors have found, students will only leverage resources they find relevant to their goals and intentions [9, 10, 11]. Therefore, the value proposition of these initiatives or collaborations is not in how interesting they may seem to academia or enterprises, but how relevant students perceive them.

B. Methodology for Hypothesis 2

According to Nur Rafiana and other studies, teaching entrepreneurship theoretically is not enough; students need to analyze actual situations and focus on practical experiences, not only on reviewing hypothetical cases [11, 19]. That study further states that “entrepreneurship courses can significantly help raise the entrepreneurial spirit of graduates.”

So, to test the second hypothesis, which focused on higher education institutions, we created a different course. The innovation implemented was based on the premise that education should facilitate the exchange of ideas between students and entrepreneurs, provide equal opportunities for all, and “create a diverse and innovative environment” [13, 26].

In an effort to address this, a two-week Innovation and Entrepreneurship online course was launched. This course was not linked to any single enterprise or company. Instead, the resources within reach were used to create an additional and efficient learning opportunity for students, regardless of geographical location, field of study, age, university, or socioeconomic status.

Taking an entrepreneurial approach, one of the most important universities in the country was contacted to collaborate. More precisely, two areas were contacted. One of them didn’t collaborate, stating they hadn’t had time to review what had been requested via email: to extend the invitation to entrepreneurial alumni who could share their experience with current students. The other area collaborated mainly by sharing and promoting the course within the university and educational community, and inviting a couple of speakers.

The previous simply confirmed the institutions' lack of preparedness and maybe even their lack of interest [2, 3, 14].

Initially, the course was planned to be 100% in-person and only for the students of the institution with which we were collaborating. Barely any students signed up, which prompted us to change the model completely. We went 100% online and opened the course to students from all universities. It was students from one university in particular who showed the most interest; they made up most of the audience of the course. As we opened the course to other audiences, we also noticed interest from graduates and professionals with years of experience.

For this second pilot, several entrepreneurs were contacted during planning, of whom 10, highly recognized nationally and internationally, contributed by sharing their experiences with participants.

Speakers were distributed throughout the two weeks of the course, sharing lessons, experiences, and actionable points for participants. The line-up of speakers included recognized entrepreneurs by MIT Technology Review LATAM Innovators Under 35, entrepreneurs from Forbes Mexico 30 Business Promises 2023 and 2024, entrepreneurs who’d pitched at Shark Tank Mexico, and specialists in innovation and technology, among others. This line-up consisted of an equal number of five women and five men.

Experts and entrepreneurs discussed topics such as sustainable innovation, failing as an entrepreneur, how to prepare and make a pitch, turning a passion into a profitable business, emerging technologies such as Generative AI, Innovation models and applications, and more.

III. FINDINGS OR EXPECTED OUTCOMES A. Findings: From Testing Hypothesis 1

Students are interested in participating with enterprises in more than one way [15, 20, 26].

At the end of the course, we talked with students about why they joined. Some said that as it was summer, they had nothing more productive to do. Others wanted something for their resumes, experience, exposure to real-world cases and projects, to grow their network and make industry connections, to see if they landed an internship at the company, and so on.

Before the course even ended, participants were already asking if they could add it to their resumes. They were applying for internships and wanted something that would help them stand out, something that showed they had dabbled in the industry.

From this first test, we also learned that students were interested in the course because it gave them an opportunity to get to know other students with similar interests. This started to show something that became clear only after the second test: participants look for niche or field-specific opportunities. Broad themes like a course on “entrepreneurship and innovation” without clearly indicating who it is for and why are not appealing to them.

Niche-specific initiatives that drill down into what they are already interested in can help them see the value from a mile away.

Students who leverage these resources understand the importance of gaining industry relationships they can cultivate now and leverage later on in their careers.

Apparently, some academic institutions are missing some of these points. When we spoke with collaborators from academia, they mainly stated one of three things: students want paid internships, they have many events to choose from and can only select a few, and they are indifferent towards entrepreneurial and innovative events. This gap that exists between what students want and what academic institutions interpret may be due to several factors. One factor we consider of high potential is that academia is misinterpreting students’ actions. For instance, if they don’t sign up for a very broad course on entrepreneurship, academia concludes: they are not interested in extracurricular courses on entrepreneurship, instead of diving deep into the reasons why students didn’t sign up for that specific course. This is definitely not the case for all institutions; some of them are heavily investing in research and entrepreneurship labs and are continually shaping their initiatives to adapt to what students want and need.

Nevertheless, the initial interest shown, over 120 signups— indicates something different. Showing that students are not only interested in paid internships, they want real-world experiences and to build a network [15, 26]. When given the opportunity, they will evaluate whether it aligns with what they want. If it does, they will leverage that resource [15].

B. Findings: From Testing Hypothesis 2

Test two was a contrast between expectations and reality. We were expecting much more excitement and initiative from academic institutions and students. Instead, the most interested actors in participating were enterprises and entrepreneurs, mainly because enterprises need talent, and entrepreneurs benefit from exposure [4, 26].

The biggest challenge was definitely the lack of commitment from some educational institutions and, therefore, the indifference from students. This confirmed that universities and educational institutions are not fostering the environment needed and are not assertively communicating to students the urgency of developing workforce-ready skills [21, 27]. Nor are they using the right messaging or channels. We found that institutional channels are not aligned with how students discover opportunities.

In this case, teachers, coordinators, directors, and others sent multiple emails. Later, some of them confirmed that students don’t frequently check their institutional email, yet it’s still used as the primary channel, as it is the official channel. This led to the conclusion that in future pilots, direct-to-student outreach may be more effective.

Again, this indifference or lack of commitment isn’t the same in every institution. Some institutions are committed but lack a sense of urgency or agility. They are structured with more traditional hierarchies and lack cross-department coordination, which doesn’t allow them to act with a sense of urgency or implement initiatives as fast as enterprises are able to.

Another challenge was the initial format of the course. It was initially communicated as a 100% in-person format, which created a barrier, as many participants wanted to benefit from the mobility that summertime gave them.

In the end, the course had a small audience from different universities, cities, and fields of study, including Business, Design, and IT (Information Technology). Participants were very satisfied with the course as they gained practical lessons and learned from real-life experiences. These cases and experiences gave them exposure to practical know-how and new perspectives on how to solve entrepreneurial challenges, independent of the stage their ideas were in.

They also interacted and shared ideas with seasoned experts, entrepreneurs, and with each other, independent of their age or experience. One of them commented:

“[...] an inspiring experience on entrepreneurship [...] The speakers, coming from diverse industries, provided valuable practical lessons and motivation. I recommend this course to anyone who is interested in entrepreneurship because of its inspiring and educational approach.” – Veronica, Student of Bachelor of Enterprise Creation and Innovation.

As Nur Rafiana proposes, education should serve students interested in entrepreneurship and open their minds regardless of their field of study [19]. Through innovation and collaboration, students' learning experiences can be significantly reshaped and, more importantly, students’ workforce readiness. Educational institutions need to understand the urgency of fostering more collaboration and propelling the development of future-ready skills [9, 18, 21].

C. Comparison Of The Two Tests

From both tests, we drew the following conclusions. Firstly, we clearly need much more industry-academia collaboration to advance innovation and to create a future-ready workforce [22]. We need to find a way to simplify this collaboration and close the gap [23]. We have open internships and interns looking for jobs, but we don’t have an integrated approach in which industry and academia can work collaboratively instead of in siloes [15].

Comparing both tests, the first course had more interest. We can attribute that interest to several factors. The first course was hybrid, which gave students the opportunity to network while also enabling flexibility. It also focused on a niche, which could have been one of the reasons more students considered it relevant to them. It was affiliated with a specific industry and done in collaboration with an enterprise. This probably made it more appealing for students for two reasons: it was something they could add to their curriculum, and it gave them direct access to internships.

In contrast, the second course generated less interest and had more lessons and unexpected outcomes. This could be attributed to taking a broader approach and not considering all of the previously mentioned factors that made the first course more appealing to students.

We learned that a 100% in-person format does not appeal to students, much less during the summer, as they want more flexibility. We also learned that the audience was smaller but broader in a sense. We noticed that not only students but also professionals and entrepreneurs signed up.

Another unexpected outcome from the second test was that entrepreneurs don't always make the best teachers or speakers. Some of them, even with outstanding track records, ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue), profitable businesses, teams, clients, and more, still lacked the communication skills to engage students.

Finally, another unexpected lesson was that the people students admire are the people they will listen to. No matter if what they are saying is irrelevant. This means that to gain their attention, speakers not only need to be successful but known amongst the audience.

D. Lessons That Led to The Formulation of Hypothesis 3

The third hypothesis was formulated based on the first two tests. As mentioned, students are expected to take a more self- driven approach to their learning and preparedness [6].

From the pilots, we concluded that students who are entrepreneurs don’t want to be taught about entrepreneurship. They can learn that from podcasts, YouTube, blogs, social media, and other always-on, always-available sources.

They don’t want to be taught entrepreneurship; they already have a go-getter, entrepreneurial spirit that prompts them to figure it out on their own. Instead, they want to ask questions, exchange ideas, get feedback, analyze real-world scenarios, and learn from others' failures.

They understand the power of networks and want to leverage them as much as possible. They don’t want a course; they want a HUB or Lab and community. Even if they don’t call it that, they want a HUB that will give them the opportunity to network, exchange opinions, grow, and gain [15]. They want leverage.

They want to see people their own age succeed. They don't want to see a 56-year-old role model. For them, that's too old. Too far away from their reality. They will cling to any piece of hope that they can succeed at whatever they want, whatever success means to them. For that, they need people they can relate to, people near in age and geography. That is, professionals or entrepreneurs who have failed and succeeded, and who can serve as a reference for what they want to achieve.

IV. ORIGINALITY / VALUE

We are facing a talent war, a lack of talent readiness, and a critical time for developing new cognitive skills [26]. Emerging jobs and technologies are demanding a shift in the workforce, a shift in how prepared our youth is [6, 22].

As we face these challenges, the gap between what academia offers and what enterprises need keeps widening [16, 27]. There are constant conversations about the initiatives that should be carried out, then some of them are implemented, and very few actually succeed. When they don’t succeed, failure is usually attributed to students: they either have too many options or are indifferent towards these initiatives. Nevertheless, contrary to what academia proposes, studies show that there are a host of reasons, including institutional and contextual factors, why these initiatives don’t work. Some of those are covered in this paper, most leading to the conclusion that it’s not necessarily apathy [1].

We see originality in this case study in three main aspects: (1) Learning from first-hand piloting and experimenting. (2) Leveraging lessons to propose a third hypothesis to test. (3) Exploring more ways than one in which universities, enterprises, and entrepreneurs can collaborate.

A. Learning from first-hand piloting and experimenting.

This case study is original in that we experimented firsthand, testing two hypotheses, not only one.

Instead of spending so much time on conversations, we need more experimentation and piloting. We need to understand what will truly move the needle for this generation. We can start by asking. Gauging interest in an idea or initiative can give us much more information than discussing it behind closed doors, where only a few voices are heard.

To achieve this, we started collecting signups weeks before the courses. This served as an indicator of interest in the course and what participants wanted to learn. Based on that, we adjusted the syllabus and communicated the course accordingly.

This led us to comprehend that we should spend most of our time on the field, understanding what students want and how they respond to the resources we make available to them.

Further, we received feedback from students, some of which is shared here. This feedback can be leveraged to start implementing other ideas and pilots.

B. Leveraging lessons to propose a third hypothesis to test.

Different from plenty of purely theoretical research, we tested two different scenarios and piloted them to see how students responded. Initially, our focus was on students from higher education institutions.

With the second test, we noticed interest from other audiences as well, including graduates and professionals. Since companies desperately need talent [4, 26], educational entrepreneurship should be addressed to students as well as current professionals [12]. These findings can prompt us to change how we address our efforts.

Additionally, the findings and results led us to a third hypothesis, which is based on providing resources and allowing students to take a more self-driven approach.

C. Exploring more ways than one in which universities, enterprises, and entrepreneurs can collaborate.

Educational institutions are lagging in preparedness [8, 21]. In this case study, we are not presenting one single way to address this. Instead, we are proposing different avenues that allow universities to participate and collaborate with the industry instead of being 100% responsible for these initiatives [20].

We explored how partnerships between enterprises and universities can work in more than one way and how entrepreneurs can collaborate in open innovation initiatives to exchange knowledge, experiences, and ideas [7].

V. PRACTICAL/SOCIALIMPLICATIONS

These two tests, along with the findings and results, can serve as a baseline to understand how students are responding to these initiatives and how different actors can collaborate.

A. For Higher Education Institutions.

As two hypotheses have already been tested, other experiments can be built from this. Academic collaborators can conduct their own experiments and iterate based on the results they see.

The objective should be to enable a continuum of initiatives that can allow students to develop the future-ready skills they need. Academia can further the impact of these initiatives by understanding what students want and building from there. They could interview students and leverage their connection and nearness to listen to what they want. In this way, programs, courses, and initiatives can be created to address the challenges that economies and enterprises face.

B. For Enterprises.

Enterprises are constantly looking for talent. Nevertheless, there are many ways in which they can participate with higher education institutions, giving them a competitive advantage in the midst of a talent war. Enterprises can develop programs that will allow them to reach talent, interact with students, and build a network.

C. For Entrepreneurs.

They can coordinate and orchestrate initiatives but also simply participate by imparting a one or two-hour session. They can benefit from exposure and giving back to the community. Building awareness can help them in the future when looking for talent.

VI. LIMITATIONS / FURTHER RESEARCH

For further research, a hypothesis-driven approach is proposed to find what will actually appeal to this generation. It is also proposed to test the third hypothesis, in which students take a self-driven path to learning.

Audience and teaching methods can be explored. Although the main audience in the presented hypotheses was students from higher education institutions, interest from other audiences was shown. Therefore, further research can test which audience, besides students, can benefit from entrepreneurial education.

Teaching methods can also be tested, including hybrid, online, 100% in-person, and other possible approaches. Independent of the method, students should be exposed to real- world challenges.

There is a clear need for more integrated collaboration between academia and industry. This paper and the presented case should serve as a starting point for the collaboration and activities educational institutions should seek. Leveraging the findings and results proposed to test new hypotheses and explore other ideas.

VII. CONCLUSIONS

The world is facing complex and rapidly changing economies, increasing demand for students to be prepared with the skills to address challenges and lead the future [25].

Higher education institutions need to foster an environment in which students are exposed to real-world understanding of challenges. Including formal and informal learning opportunities that combine business and innovation [19]. Opportunities that enable students to develop knowledge and practical skills such as critical thinking, building character, and helping them understand their potential, interests, and aspirations [13].

For this to happen, we need collaboration with enterprises and entrepreneurs. In this case study, we explored two ways in which these actors can collaborate. Nevertheless, there are plenty of ways in which partnerships can be carried out, benefiting both parties. The main objective should be to identify what students respond to and what generates better outcomes.

As students become more self-driven, these partnerships and initiatives should take an inbound approach. One in which we provide resources that students can integrate into their own projects and development plans.

In conclusion, we need collaboration, agility, and vision—a vision without an endpoint but rather a continuum of improvement and enhancement to current educational systems. Enterprises, entrepreneurs, and academia should work hand-in- hand instead of in siloes allowing students to become agents of change in societies and economies desperate for improvement.