THE POWER OF A CUP OF COFFEE

In a time when we can reach thousands of people with a single click, perhaps we are forgetting one of the simplest and most powerful ways to connect with someone: sitting down, talking, and having something together.

In my last three articles, I focused quite a bit on something artificial: AI. This time, I wanted to shift gears a little and talk about something much more human: sitting down, having a conversation, listening, and connecting with other people. And to do that, I am going to use one of my favorite excuses: a cup of coffee.

The history of coffee is a mix of legend, trade, and encounters between cultures. Although the plant has its roots in Ethiopia, it was in Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula that, between the 15th and 16th centuries, coffee began to be cultivated and prepared as the beverage we know today. From there, it spread throughout the region, and with it came the first coffeehouses: places to talk, exchange ideas, and do business. From its earliest days, coffee was never just a drink; it was also a space for people to come together.

Centuries later, coffee found a second home in Costa Rica. Since the beginning of the 19th century, it has been part of our economy, our landscape, and our identity. It is in the mountains, in family stories, in our kitchens, and in that very Costa Rican phrase: “¿Quiere un cafecito?” — “Would you like some coffee?” But its true value goes far beyond what it produces or represents economically. Coffee is not only grown or exported: it is served, shared, and used to open conversations.

Interestingly, coffee also ended up connecting two very different chapters of my own life. I was born and raised in a coffee-growing country like Costa Rica and, years later, had the opportunity to live and work for almost nine years in Qatar, an Arab country where coffee also holds a very special place.

One of the most important things I learned in Qatar was precisely the value of sitting down, having a coffee, and talking. Both personally and professionally, that moment goes far beyond the drink itself. Sometimes, the line between those two worlds becomes so thin that it almost disappears.

And that is no coincidence. In 2015, UNESCO inscribed Arabic coffee, a symbol of generosity, on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, following a nomination submitted by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman. Not so much because of the drink itself, but because of what it represents: generosity, hospitality, and human connection.

At first, it was difficult for me to understand. I had worked in environments where work was work and personal life was personal. Meetings had an agenda and a specific objective. You talked about the project, the budget, deadlines, and results. Everything else seemed secondary.

In Qatar, I learned a different way of building relationships. Before talking about business, you had to get to know the person. Talk about family, life, what you thought about things, and what was on your mind. It was not about wasting time or avoiding the professional conversation. It was about building the trust needed for that conversation to actually mean something.

That is where I understood that business is not built through business alone, but also through the personal relationships that support it. A proposal can be excellent and a contract perfectly written, but without trust between people, everything becomes more fragile.

A cup of coffee creates a different kind of space. It lowers our defenses, breaks down formality, and allows us to listen. That is where ideas, collaborations, and opportunities often emerge — the kind that rarely come from an automated application or a meeting full of slides.

Since returning to Costa Rica after almost a decade away, I realized that I needed to get to know the place I was returning to all over again. Not only reconnect with people I already knew, but also meet those who are doing interesting things today, building projects, moving ideas forward, and contributing from different spaces.

I could spend hours scrolling through LinkedIn, reading profiles, posts, and career paths. But little by little, I realized that this gave me information, not necessarily context. So I started doing something much simpler: reaching out to people I found interesting and inviting them to have a conversation.

Not necessarily because I wanted to ask them for something. Many times, it was simply to meet them, hear what they were working on, understand how they see Costa Rica today, and learn from their experience. After so many years away, those conversations have become a way for me to reconnect with the ecosystem, seek guidance, and, above all, shape my own perspective on this new chapter of my life back in the country.

And yes, sometimes you have to knock on many doors before a few of them open. But those conversations, even when they do not lead to anything immediate, can still leave you with something valuable: an idea, a perspective, a connection, or a new way of looking at things.

This becomes even more important at a time when technology, especially artificial intelligence, is present in almost everything we do. We have more tools than ever to communicate, yet we risk having fewer real conversations. We can send hundreds of messages, complete applications in seconds, and automate outreach, but no platform can replace the experience of sitting across from another person, listening to them, and allowing the conversation to take an unexpected turn.

A cup of coffee can lead to a good conversation, a friendship, a collaboration, a job, a project, or at the very least, a good joke. For some, it might be tea; for others, a beer. The medium may change depending on the context, but the intention remains the same: to create a genuine moment of connection.

So, if you are looking for an opportunity — whether professional, personal, or simply the chance to learn something new — do not be afraid to invite someone for coffee, even if you do not know them well yet. Not every invitation will get a response, and some conversations may not lead to anything concrete. That is okay.

The true power of a cup of coffee is not always in immediately getting what you were looking for. It is in creating a space to get to know someone, to listen, and to let yourself be known. In a time dominated by algorithms, profiles, and online applications, that simple gesture can have more impact than spending hours scrolling, hoping to find behind a screen something that might only appear when two people sit down and talk.

NOT EVERY TASK NEEDS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

For the third quarter of this year I set out a series of articles on Artificial Intelligence, with the aim of exploring some of the questions I consider fundamental to its adoption within organizations.

In the first, I argued that our Artificial Intelligence adoption strategy must serve the business and not the other way around, and that the gap between technology and organizations is, before it is a technology problem, a leadership problem. In the second, I looked at what Artificial Intelligence actually amplifies —the organization's knowledge— and at how much of that knowledge never gets documented, which is precisely why so many technology adoption initiatives fail.

The first two articles were about readiness. This third one is about return, about an equation. Less inspiring than the previous ones, but far more pragmatic when it comes to making decisions.

Because even an organization with a clear vision and an honest map of its own knowledge still has to answer something that no strategy document answers for it: is it worth doing this specific task with Artificial Intelligence? Not the company. Not the department. The task.

Gartner projects that worldwide spending on Artificial Intelligence will reach $2.59 trillion in 2026, 47% more than the previous year, and observes that organizations continue to favor tactical initiatives aimed at incremental improvement while their CIOs struggle to demonstrate a return. The same firm had forecast that 30% of generative AI projects would be abandoned after proof of concept by the end of 2025, and now anticipates that more than 40% of agentic AI projects will be canceled before the end of 2027, for three reasons worth noting: escalating costs, unclear business value and inadequate risk controls.

None of the three is a technical failure. All three are decisions that were never made properly.

More than a formula, a filter

This year I had the honor of meeting Rama Ramakrishnan, professor of the practice in Artificial Intelligence and machine learning at MIT Sloan, from whom I learned —and was able to put into practice— a way of framing this decision that I have found genuinely useful in the field: "the generative AI cost equation." It does not produce a number, and that is precisely where its value lies. It is a filter a management team can apply to a single task, in a single meeting, with no need for a consultant.

It reads from left to right, and it holds that in most cases it makes more sense to hand a task over to generative AI when what that task costs today is greater than the sum of everything the AI alternative will cost and, at the same time, when the consequences of the AI getting it wrong are consequences the organization can absorb. Two conditions that have to be examined carefully.

The left-hand side of the equation is the one organizations skip fastest (what it costs today to do the task we are evaluating), and it is the one that connects directly to my previous article. Very few organizations can say what a process actually costs them: how many hours, how many people, how much rework. When the knowledge holding that process together lives inside someone's head and was never documented, there is no baseline to compare against. A good many AI business cases collapse on that very first term.

The right-hand side has three costs that add up, and it is worth naming them separately because each one hides a different kind of problem:

• Adapting the model. What it takes to bring a general-purpose tool up to the degree of correctness the task genuinely demands. A marketing draft and a credit decision do not call for the same standard, and pretending otherwise is expensive in both directions.

• Using it. Licences, tokens, infrastructure. The trap here is assuming this term only goes down.

• Catching and fixing its mistakes. The invisible term and, very often, the decisive one.

Once all of that has been examined, there is one last condition to evaluate, the one joined to the equation by an "and": "the cost of a miss." Last October, Deloitte agreed to partially refund the Australian government for a report that contained fabricated citations, including references to court rulings that did not exist. The refund was a fraction of the contract. The reputational cost was not, and nobody will ever put a figure on that one.

Which brings me to the point of this article. Applying this equation honestly means accepting that for a good share of our processes the right answer is no. Not "not yet." No.

That answer is one nobody presents at a board meeting, it does not go into an annual report, and no vendor is going to help us reach it. And yet the discipline of saying no is precisely what protects the budget of the initiatives that do deserve it. An organization that automates twenty processes indiscriminately will almost certainly see a worse return than one that automates five after applying the equation.

It is also, once again, a matter of governance. Someone has to be accountable for the decision not to automate, and that decision should be as documented and as defensible as the decision to invest. In most of the organizations I know, only one of the two ever gets written down.

We spend a great deal of energy asking whether Costa Rica is ready for Artificial Intelligence. I would settle for something smaller and more useful: organizations able to explain, on a single page, why they chose to automate this and not that. Here, where almost the entire business landscape is made up of small and medium-sized companies and capital is scarce, a poorly evaluated initiative does not merely deliver less than expected. It eats the budget of the one that would have worked.

Artificial Intelligence will keep getting cheaper by the unit and more expensive by the decision. The organizations that see a return will not be the ones that adopted it fastest, but the ones that were most rigorous about choosing where not to use it.

Sources and references:

• Deloitte / Departamento de Servicios Sociales de Australia. (2025). Deloitte Refunds Australia After AI-Generated Report Errors. OECD AI Incidents Monitor. https://oecd.ai/en/incidents/2025-10-05-be45

• Gartner. (2024). Gartner Predicts 30% of Generative AI Projects Will Be Abandoned After Proof of Concept by End of 2025. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-07-29-gartner-predicts-30-percent-of-generative-ai-projects-will-be-abandoned-after-proof-of-concept-by-end-of-2025

• Gartner. (2025). Gartner Predicts Over 40% of Agentic AI Projects Will Be Canceled by End of 2027. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2025-06-25-gartner-predicts-over-40-percent-of-agentic-ai-projects-will-be-canceled-by-end-of-2027

• Gartner. (2026). Gartner Forecasts Worldwide AI Spending to Grow 47% in 2026. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-05-19-gartner-forecasts-worldwide-ai-spending-to-grow-47-percent-in-2026

• Ramakrishnan, R. (2024). A Practical Guide to Gaining Value From LLMs. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/a-practical-guide-to-gaining-value-from-llms/
  
  

THE KNOWLEDGE YOUR AI WILL NEVER READ

Artificial Intelligence learns from what is documented, but much of the judgment that sustains an organization remains embedded in people’s experience (Polanyi’s Paradox).

In my previous article, I argued that Artificial Intelligence does not transform organizations: it amplifies what they already are. I want to explore that idea further, because the question that follows determines whether technology adoption delivers value or becomes a wasted investment: what, exactly, is AI going to amplify?

The answer is the organization’s knowledge. And that is where the problem begins, because very few organizations actually know where their knowledge resides.

In 1966, philosopher Michael Polanyi captured this idea in a phrase that should be discussed in every boardroom: “we know more than we can tell.” From this insight emerge two categories that are important to understand.

• Explicit knowledge is knowledge that has been codified: manuals, policies, procedures, databases, contracts, dashboards. It can be copied, audited, transferred and—most importantly—fed into a system.

• Tacit knowledge is knowledge that lives within people: judgment, accumulated experience, professional intuition, relationships and the ability to read context. It is neither informal knowledge nor second-class knowledge. In fact, it is often the knowledge that determines what happens. It is what enables an operations manager to recognize that a green indicator may be hiding a problem, or a negotiator to sense when it is time to stop pushing. Neither of them could necessarily articulate the rules they are following, yet both are often right.

The uncomfortable reality is that no one really knows how much tacit knowledge exists within their organization. Market intelligence firm International Data Corporation (IDC) states this plainly: there is no reliable way to measure that proportion, and this uncertainty is itself a strategic risk, because you cannot close a gap you cannot measure. In knowledge-intensive industries such as professional services, healthcare, advanced manufacturing and financial services, that proportion is almost certainly larger than management assumes.

The good news is that tacit knowledge can be transformed into explicit knowledge. The bad news is how much that process can cost.

Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi documented a compelling example in The Knowledge-Creating Company. In the mid-1980s, Matsushita was developing a home bread-making machine but could not successfully mechanize the kneading process. Its engineers understood all the theory, yet the bread still came out poorly. Ikuko Tanaka, a member of the software development team, became an apprentice to the master baker at the Osaka International Hotel. It took her a year to understand a particular stretching motion that the baker performed instinctively but could not explain. That movement was eventually translated into an engineering specification—internal ribs inside the machine—and the resulting product broke sales records during its first year.

That is what it means to externalize knowledge: one person, one year, to make a single movement explicit. It is not a two-day workshop or a repository of documents.

When that work is not done, technology operates on an incomplete map. Zillow, the U.S. real estate platform, had some of the best explicit data in its industry: prices, comparable properties and transaction histories. Using that data, it built an algorithm to buy and resell homes. What the model lacked was the local judgment of real estate professionals—the understanding of why one block sells while the next one does not. My interpretation is that buying a home was never purely a data-driven decision: it is also a decision built on trust, and trust is created between people. In November 2021, Zillow shut down the business after losing $422 million in a single quarter and cutting approximately 25% of its workforce.

The consequences are already being measured. A 2025 report by MIT Media Lab’s Project NANDA reviewed more than 300 enterprise AI initiatives and concluded that 95% of organizations were seeing no return on their investment in generative AI. Its conclusion was not that the models were inadequate, but that the barriers were organizational rather than technological. IDC reaches a similar conclusion from another direction: 89% of organizations acknowledge some form of data-quality problem, and more than half of AI initiatives stall after the pilot stage.

That is why I continue to insist on the sequence. Before feeding data into any innovation initiative, organizations need to understand where that data comes from and what judgment has been left out of it. Identifying which knowledge is critical to the business, who possesses it, how it is used and how it is transferred is not an optional preliminary step: it is a prerequisite for generating a return on the investment. Without it, organizations automate incomplete processes, digitize bad practices with impeccable efficiency and build solutions that the people running the business do not recognize as their own. The outcome is predictable: employees either manually verify what the system recommends or quietly stop using it altogether.

And this work does not belong solely to the technology department. I will continue to emphasize the following:

• It is strategy, because it defines which knowledge sustains the business model.

• It is culture, because where knowledge is a source of power, people will not share it simply because they are told to.

• It is process, because the departure of a key employee should not become an operational risk event.

• And it is governance, perhaps the element organizations underestimate the most, because someone must ultimately be accountable for what gets documented, what gets automated and what should continue to depend on human judgment.

Costa Rica has talent, openness and a national strategy underway that provides us with an overall direction. But what we need to work on inside our own organizations is something different: having clarity about what we know, what has been documented and, above all, what remains intangible because it lives in the minds of our people.

Before asking whether we and our organizations are ready to adopt Artificial Intelligence, perhaps the more interesting question is whether we truly know what we claim to know. Because an organization that does not know this is hardly adopting AI: it is delegating decisions based on an edited version of itself.

If you found this article interesting, I invite you to read and learn more about Polanyi’s Paradox:
https://handwiki.org/wiki/Philosophy:Polanyi%E2%80%99s_paradox

Sources and References

• IDC. (2026). The Knowledge Your AI May Never Have. Ewa Zborowska. https://www.idc.com/resource-center/blog/the-knowledge-your-ai-may-never-have/

• MIT Project NANDA. (2025). The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025. Challapally, A., Pease, C., Raskar, R., & Chari, P. https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly_decks/v0.1_State_of_AI_in_Business_2025_Report.pdf

• Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.

• Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.

• Zillow Group. (2021). Zillow Group Reports Third-Quarter 2021 Financial Results & Shares Plan to Wind Down Zillow Offers Operations. https://investors.zillowgroup.com/investors/news-and-events/news/news-details/2021/Zillow-Group-Reports-Third-Quarter-2021-Financial-Results--Shares-Plan-to-Wind-Down-Zillow-Offers-Operations/default.aspx

Published in La República newspaper on August 10, 2026.👈 (spanish version)

OUR AI ADOPTION STRATEGY MUST SERVE THE BUSINESS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

Costa Rica leads Latin America in artificial intelligence adoption. The latest report from the Microsoft AI Economy Institute places the country at an adoption rate of 26.5%, representing the percentage of the working-age population using generative AI tools by the end of 2025. This positions Costa Rica among the top thirty countries worldwide.

This is good news, but it should be read carefully, because this indicator measures people, not organizations. There is an enormous difference between an employee using AI to write an email and an institution that has genuinely transformed the way it operates.

That gap has a name, and a cost. According to Boston Consulting Group, which analyzed seventy digital transformations and surveyed more than eight hundred executives, only 30% achieved their objectives. This means that seven out of ten initiatives fall short of what was “planned” and “promised.”

The cause is rarely the technology itself. It is the misalignment between two clocks moving at different speeds. Dr. George Westerman, an MIT researcher with whom I had the opportunity to study this subject, summarized it in what he calls the First Law of Digital Innovation: “Technology changes quickly, but organizations change much more slowly.”

The underlying problem is that technology advances exponentially, while we think linearly. We overestimate what a tool will accomplish next quarter and underestimate what it will achieve within a couple of years. Meanwhile, our budgets, structures, and processes remain designed for the slower-moving clock.

Costa Rica already has a National Artificial Intelligence Strategy for 2024–2027 (MICITT, 2024), which is a positive first step. However, there is a considerable gap between a national strategy and an individual organization’s strategy. This is where the real difficulty lies: each organization’s adoption strategy must respond to its vision, business objectives, operations, and governance. Never the other way around. Technology supports the business; it does not lead it.

Before allowing ourselves to be carried away by the impulse to approve the next technology budget, we should conduct an honest, internal, and, in many cases, uncomfortable assessment. For this purpose, I would like to introduce the Digital Mastery Framework, developed by George Westerman, Didier Bonnet, and Andrew McAfee through research involving hundreds of large companies and published in Leading Digital (2014).

The model is simple, and that is why it works. It brings together two dimensions:

• Digital capability: the extent to which technology is embedded in the organization’s actual processes, customer experience, operations, and people’s daily work.

• Leadership capability: the ability to envision a different future, engage people in that vision, and sustain change over time.

Adapted from Westerman et al. (2014)

The intersection of these dimensions produces four profiles.

• Beginners: outdated systems, isolated initiatives, and leadership that reacts instead of anticipating. They view transformation as a risk rather than a priority.

• Fashionist: they buy every new technology that appears. They have all the latest tools, but no unifying vision: applications that do not communicate with one another, projects that do not scale, and victories that do not last.

• Conservatives: perhaps the most common profile among mature organizations and across much of the public sector. They have strong leadership, rigorous governance, discipline, and such a high degree of caution that it ultimately becomes costly. Their vision is incremental, and because they are afraid of failure, they invest too little in innovation.

• Digital Masters: they do not simply buy technology; they integrate it around a vision that their people understand and support. They innovate from the top down and from the bottom up.

Here is the point that interests me most: all four quadrants describe leadership problems, not technology problems. No organization moves into a higher quadrant by purchasing better licenses or fashionable platforms. Therefore, as you read these lines, my invitation is simple: identify where your organization currently stands. It may fit within one quadrant or perhaps somewhere between two. This self-assessment may be uncomfortable, but it explains much of what works today—and why organizations repeatedly experience failures in technology adoption.

Closing this gap is not a matter of budget, but of leadership capability. The first step is defined by the vision, not by a technology plan. It requires a vision that engages the teams responsible for implementing it, rather than becoming just another senior management KPI; a vision that inspires employees, not only directors or investors.

Next comes people’s commitment. Those who do not understand why something is changing will resist it—sometimes openly, but most often silently. Governance should not be limited to approving only what appears safe. It should also create space for internal experiments and pilot projects that sometimes fail and, at other times, teach the organization something that could never have been purchased.

Then comes the relationship between technology and the business. As long as IT is viewed as an obstacle rather than a partner, meaningful progress will remain difficult.

That 26.5% does not mean we are ready. It means we are curious, that change attracts us, and that we want to explore it. Being ready is something entirely different, and that is the uncomfortable question: whether the leadership of our organizations is ready.

Artificial intelligence will not transform any company or institution by itself. It will amplify what they already are: their clarity or disorder, their ambition or fear.

Technology will continue moving forward, with or without us. The real question is not how much AI we will purchase this year, but how fast, agile, and flexible our organizations are in adopting it with purpose.

Sources and References:

• Boston Consulting Group. (2020). Flipping the Odds of Digital Transformation Success.
  https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/increasing-odds-of-success-in-digital-transformation

• Microsoft AI Economy Institute. (2026). AI Diffusion Report 2025 H2.
  https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/topics/AI-Economy-Institute/reports/Global-AI-Adoption-2025/

• Ministry of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications (MICITT). (2024). Costa Rica’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2024–2027.
  https://micitt.go.cr/el-sector-informa/micitt-presento-estrategia-nacional-de-inteligencia-artificial-enia

• Westerman, G. (2019). The First Law of Digital Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review.
  https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-first-law-of-digital-innovation/

• Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading Digital: Turning Technology into Business Transformation. Harvard Business Review Press.

Published in La República newspaper on July 27, 2026.👈 (spanish version)

ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY →

A Biomimetic Approach Applied to Institutional and Corporate Innovation

We can define innovation ecosystems as dynamic and collaborative environments where diverse agents or components interact, such as companies, universities, research institutions, startups, governments, investors, and society in general, with the aim of fostering and promoting innovation.

However, it is the interrelations or dynamics among the different participants that are most complex, as they share resources, knowledge, experiences, and diverse, divergent, and diverse opportunities, all to drive the generation and dissemination of innovative ideas.

Reflecting on the innovation processes I have led or been involved in in Qatar recently, as the Chief Operating Officer of Ibtechar, I focused not only on analyzing the results obtained in the projects we have developed for various organizations in the country, most of them for ministries of the Qatari government, but also on the actions we have taken within our organization and, primarily, the organizational culture we have fostered to ensure that the projects have had a tangible impact.

As a company, at the end of last year, our management team made the valuable decision to invest in processes, tools, and methodologies that would enable us to grow in all aspects: financially, in performance, operationally, and in human resources. One of those methodologies, and the most challenging one so far, was the implementation of the "Scaling Up" methodology, developed by Verne Harnish, which provides a structured framework for companies to grow effectively and sustainably.

Due to internal processes related to this methodology, recently, at the end of Eid, we had the opportunity to gather around a "Suhoor" dinner (a meal consumed before dawn during the fasting month of Ramadan in Islamic culture) and celebrate the achievement of our goal for the first quarter of 2024. During the celebration, seeing all team members gathered, so diverse and multicultural, I reflected on how we managed to achieve this goal together. I realized that to be dynamic and adapt in such a rapidly changing work landscape, we must truly embrace diversity and foster inclusion. This is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic advantage.

To crystallize my thoughts, I realized that as a company and as a team, we have deeply internalized the value of diversity, understanding that the diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences of our team enhance our ability to achieve truly innovative results and solutions. We don't just follow a trend with the word innovation; we live it day by day, especially in an applied manner, as we like to call it: "practical innovation."

With a team of around 10 different nationalities (from the Americas, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East), each member brings a unique cultural perspective, a set of skills, and an approach to the table, enriching our collective pool of ideas (collective intelligence) and leading us to explore unconventional paths.

In our quest for innovation, often confusing and challenging, diversity has been a guiding principle, initially unconsciously, allowing us to create an environment where every voice is valued and heard, unlocking the full potential of our team.

To support my reflection, I turned to the concepts I have been reading and studying from Dr. Tamsin Woolley-Barker regarding her biomimetic approach applied to institutional and corporate innovation. Dr. Woolley-Barker mentions that just as nature innovates, transforms, and adapts, institutions must acquire the necessary capabilities to continue innovating and generating new ideas. These capabilities include:

• Being agile in responding to change,

• Being a continuous learning organization,

• Gaining expertise through hands-on learning, and

• Breaking down silos so that people understand the overall purpose of the organization.

When we talk about institutional and corporate innovation, it is essential to understand that the development of these capabilities occurs over time and must spread throughout the population of the institution through knowledge transfer, from one generation to another, and the promotion of an organizational culture that fosters innovation and continuous learning.

There is a very powerful question posed by Dr. Woolley-Barker, which introduces the concept and need for diversity in any ecosystem: What are the fundamental principles by which living beings acquire new innovations, new capabilities?

An example of this can be observed in a butterfly catalog, where, despite belonging to the same species, each individual shows differences. There is a lot of variation, which is a fundamental characteristic of living systems and their ecosystems: abundant variation. Each individual is unique.

To achieve transformation, diversity is essential, as it can be defined as the fundamental raw material of change. This is of paramount importance because in any ecosystem, conditions are constantly changing and undergoing a continuous process of selecting various variables. Diversity can be defined as nature's natural insurance; without it, we could face extinction.

The amount of diversity defines the extent of change. For example, if we have a great diversity within a population, we can transform very quickly; but if we don't have that diversity, we will have little to work with and always get the same results.

The more diversity we have within a company or organization, the better the ecosystem for innovation. And we're not just referring to people but also to experience, skills, perspectives, and personalities. The more diversity we have, the more raw material we have to accelerate our transformation.

In the transformation processes of our ecosystems, selection pressures emerge over time, resulting in more unique populations in local places. Populations, solutions, and strategies are different everywhere, even if these populations are migrating and sharing among each other.

This is how, as we achieve this singularity and local differentiation in nature, the only way we can obtain this novelty and variation is through two processes: mutation, which is generally harmful and always random, or through migration, which introduces novelty.

And this is precisely what we need in our institutions and companies: a constant flow of ideas, diverse ideas aimed at people, diverse perspectives, and different fields coming together (business, art, biology, etc.). This is where the magic happens, where innovation will flourish, which is why it is essential for institutions to promote, foster, and seek out spaces and situations on the edge of their own ecotone (transition zone of two different ecosystems but where characteristics of both mix), and it is there where diversity and excitement will manifest.

We must create and foster more organizational ecotones, structures, processes, and systems that foster connection and open exchange in diverse spaces and establish a minimum shared purpose to engage people with a common purpose. All this must be supported by transparent information flows. If members of an institution cannot see and understand the big picture, that will greatly affect our agility.

Many institutions and companies have cultures where they are aware of diversity and incorporate it, but they do not provide a field where people can connect, contribute, and improve that information confidently and securely. Therefore, inclusion and autonomy are equally as important as diversity.

In summary, diversity emerges as an essential element in driving innovation both in institutions and in companies. From the dynamic interaction among diverse actors to the application of innovative methodologies, diversity becomes a fundamental catalyst for generating fresh ideas and agile adaptation to constantly changing environments. By creating environments that foster migration and exchange of ideas and inclusive cultures, where diversity is celebrated and valued, organizations can establish fertile ground for growth, collaboration, and joint success in achieving shared goals.

Published in La República newspaper on April 23, 2024👈 (spanish version)

THE IMPACT OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. →

In recent years we have experienced a series of events and happenings in our local and global environments of which we have been able to be a part both directly and indirectly. Unlike our parents, we have managed to access this information almost immediately, thanks to a series of interactive tools that we have today that allow us to be in constant communication with people, groups, initiatives, institutions, and governments, allowing us not only to know what is happening but also to actively participate and express our opinion as citizens.

Bottom-up citizen participation is growing day by day, gaining strength and voice in different parts of our globe, including those places where governments commonly did not allow this type of interaction. This collective phenomenon occurs thanks to access to massive communication and information technologies and platforms that help unite a significant number of people to take direct action and exercise what is known as civil disobedience.

However, vertical forms of Top-down civic participation are consolidating at the same time. Processes such as citizens' assemblies, participatory budgets, and referendums are having a significant impact on the course of many collective decisions.

These mechanisms of direct and indirect democracy are occurring while the traditional concepts of governance and political hierarchy are being diluted due to growing tension between the local and the global, as digitalization reorganizes the traditional logic of power.

 PARTICIPATORY CITIZENS; NEW DECISION-MAKERS.

The ordinary citizen is obtaining greater decision-making power than he was used to having. Governments, corporations, and civil society organizations have historically distrusted most open, participatory processes that they do not control. However, decision-makers, in both public and private sectors, are increasingly willing (in some cases forced) to listen to the voices of the people, leaving behind the widespread mistrust of widely accessible participatory and deliberative tools.

However, granting more decision-making power to the average citizen is still considered an action that is not always optimal or effective depending on the issue being discussed and the impact it may have, mainly on the course of a country.

 In some cases, these collective decisions can undermine economic and political stability, a clear example was the support in the US to take measures considered "tough" with China at the commercial level, in the same areas of the country that were later seen affected by the implementation of tariffs on Chinese products. Another recent event was the Brexit vote in the UK, making it clear that direct democracy can be misused. Still, as public and private organizations see the growing demand for participatory tools, more and more are starting to adopt them, as they understand the related benefits, they can bring in terms of disseminating know-how and gaining legitimacy.

 The way in which this opening is taking place in the political scene worldwide is a delicate process and in many cases of great tension, resulting in a weakening of it in times of disturbances and demonstrations. In democratic countries, for example, the attempt to reassert power by the executive in the name of collective stability and to act firmly and quickly can amount to a setback. Non-democratic countries, on the other hand, are using communication and information technologies to gain greater control over their citizens. A clear example of this is the population tracking and control policies and measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic that countries such as Qatar and Singapore have implemented, which, through a technological application installed on mobile phones, the intelligence of its citizens allows them to have constant access to the location and activities carried out by its inhabitants.

 DIGITAL INCLUSION AND PARTICIPATION

 We can say that technology can increase audience participation, but it has a negative side as well. Although this digitization is allowing new forms of cooperation and communication both between citizens and between citizens and their governments. It is also disrupting deliberate decision-making while opening new avenues for populism and manipulation.

 "Civic technologies" or technologies that enable constructive political engagement, are maturing. An interesting example was France's "Grand National Debate" (three months long) launched in 2019 in response to widespread protests, garnering nearly two million contributions online.

 Right now, a way that governments are enabling more active citizen participation is through online tools that provide public services or interact more efficiently with constituents. The Multilingual Digital Platform of the Conference on the Future of Europe is a benchmark: it gathered contributions in 24 languages. For many governments, digital transformation is considered an asset in their search for a more inclusive society; Estonia has become a benchmark and is widely seen as one of the most advanced digital societies in the world, before the COVID-19 pandemic they started building and developing services such as electronic voting, online learning in schools, digital bureaucracy, and healthcare.

 However, a growing reliance on online tools may exacerbate the inequality between the connected and the unconnected. The COVID-19 crisis has exposed this divide; While some people were able to rely on the Internet to stay informed, provide remote education to their children, and continue working from home while maintaining a comfortable social distance, many others did not have this privilege and, on the contrary, experienced a very critical situation both emotionally and emotionally. as economic.

 According to the Edelman Trust Barometer (2021), 57% of people surveyed shared or forwarded news or information online that they found interesting. At the same time, however, many people face many obstacles in their search for facts, the result of misinformation and algorithms that can reinforce the tendency to adopt only those opinions that align with their own.

 THE NEW CITIZENS OF THE 21ST CENTURY

 In recent years, the role of citizens in terms of their political participation has changed exponentially, currently, there are more people who want their voice to be heard. In 2019, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, expressed that democracy is more than voting in elections every five years, it is about making our voices heard and being able to participate in the way society is built. People, in general, are not only increasingly willing to speak in public in ways that go beyond the mere act of voting, but they also could do so through the channels offered by social networks. These provide a highly effective and relatively easy way to coordinate. Some good examples of these phenomena of communication and connectivity are the protests carried out in the Arab Spring, which stirred up politics in the Middle East (2010-2012), or the “gilets jaunes” (yellow vests) demonstrations that paralyzed parts of France in 2020, or the performance of social networks as a crucial tool for the success of school strikes such as the so-called "Fridays for Future" promoted by the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, which managed to bring millions of people to the streets in 2019.

 One of the fundamental goals of active civic engagement is the fact that citizens (including those who may be susceptible to online disinformation) expect to be heard on an ongoing basis by public sector leaders, business leaders, and community organizations. civil society. While people were once content to be represented by elected legislative representatives and administration officials who (in theory at least) work on their behalf, they now rely more on their peers and themselves, rather than institutions.

 As citizens of the 21st century we have the opportunity to use a series of means of communication that allow us to stay informed, build identity, and develop critical thinking, which makes it an enormous responsibility, since the use of these must-have Its objective is to develop actions for the public good, respecting diversity and human rights, in order to achieve cooperation with other citizens that allows significant modifications to be made for the entire society.

 Published 21st June 2022, La República Newspaper, Costa Rica 👈 (spanish version)

THE CREATION OF PASSION-DRIVEN TEAMS REQUIRES CORRECT AND ADEQUATE TRAINING →

For 5 years I have been working in Qatar as Director of Operations of IbTECHar Digital Solutions, a leading Qatari company in innovation, selected twice (2017 and 2019) by the World Economic Forum Committee as one of the 100 new companies in the MENA region that is shaping the 4th Industrial Revolution (4iR).

Being part of a company that has managed to revolutionize Qatar's innovation ecosystem in recent years, promoting and developing tailor-made innovative solutions for public and private institutions/companies in the country, has been really stimulating but mainly challenging.

One of the biggest challenges has obviously been the cultural clash, not only from a community and religious point of view but mainly from the mindset of the Arab countries and in particular the Gulf countries, they have a business approach and development approach way different from what I was used to in my experiences working both in America and Europe.

The speed, and efficiency, but mainly their political pressure in decision making, are some of the elements which I had to "unlearn" to learn, in order to understand the necessary dynamics that would allow me to merge and connect, beyond imposing a style that was not culturally aligned.

In these 5 years, our company has grown rapidly, even during the two critical years resulting from the pandemic. This growth has generated an increase in human resources, which has become one of the issues that most requires my energy, attention, and mainly dedication.

Ibtechar has a very diverse business model in terms of services, but technically very specific. This factor added to the fact that the Qatari economy attracts a growing number of migrant workers in numerous sectors has set that we currently have a human team with high cultural diversity (10 different nationalities), a team responsible for operating innovation spaces, carrying out tailor-made consultancies, product and project development and the participation in numerous tenders.

As Director of Operations, one of the most difficult challenges, from an efficiency and productivity point of view, has been to train the different and diverse teams and their project leaders, due to the nature of our projects, they tend to be young professionals who still don't have all the capabilities required by the company for an initial job position; requiring a huge effort to establish the necessary skills, not only in the technical part but also in the interpersonal one.

This is why I started a research and study on how to train my teams more effectively, in order to keep them motivated in their work and performing their tasks efficiently and productively. In this process, I came across a series of books that taught me very interesting models and processes, but one, in particular, caught my attention, this book is “Creating Passion-Driven teams” by Dan Bobinski, which in chapter 12, "Poor Training: A leading cause of trouble" had a profound effect on how I was looking at the challenge I needed to solve.

This chapter defines that most managers and team leaders simply do not know how to train people, which I totally agree with and I include myself, since, although for many years I was a professor at the university and guest mentor in several learning centers, the way in which business teams should be trained, in terms of the creation, development, and monitoring of processes, is something totally different.

One of the things that caught my attention when reading was the question: Why do people leave a company? In my head, most of the time, this is associated with issues of salary and motivation, however, I was not at all clear on what scale of values my assumption was. According to an investigation made by Christian & Timbers (recognized company based on data science to offer the best talent and human resources for the famous companies called Technological Giants and many of the outstanding "Unicorns" of Silicon Valley), the number one reason is the lack of challenges, followed by lack of opportunities for growth or advancement. The insufficient payment was the ninth position as a reason, far from what I thought.

This makes it clear that employees currently require a constant challenge and an opportunity to grow, an opportunity to learn and grow. Payment is a crucial factor, but currently and especially with the new generations of millennials as part of the workforce, it is the motivation for what is being done and the impact/results of any action that leads many people to choose where and for how long they want to work for someone else.

Another finding of my reading, which has particular repercussions on my study, is the fact that the companies that offered little, none, or poor training present 41% of employees who want to leave within a year. However, in companies where training was considered good or excellent, only 12% of employees were considering working elsewhere. This means a 240% greater chance that employees will want to leave, becoming a lot of human and financial capital that slips away if people don't feel like a company is investing in them.

With these percentages of employees leaving companies, the big question that must be asked is: How much does it cost to replace an employee who leaves?

According to the Society for Human Resources Management, the cost to replace an employee in the United States of America averages $17,000. Those who earn more than 60,000 USD/year will cost around 38,000 USD to be replaced (63% of a year's salary).

This means that, if a company wants to invest in passionate teams, it must invest in training, increasing the annual training budget, and in this way it will be saving money, instead of losing it by replacing employees and restarting processes over and over again, thus minimizing an efficient productivity line.

If we are looking to be a company that is serious about developing passion-driven teams, we need to make sure that our teams are receiving good and appropriate training and stimulation.

“The Manager or Leader as Coach”

One of the primary responsibilities of managers and team leaders is to train their frontline employees. However, asking a person to read and learn the necessary material without testing the acquired skills or demonstrating competence can never be classified as training, a cheap shot because I accept that I made the mistake of assuming this was enough.

The ability to stand up and speak does not make a coach. The fact that we show someone how to do something does not mean that he has learned.

After this harsh realization of my knowledge transfer processes, I found the Four Steps Skill-Transfer Method. This method is considered one of the most effective in knowledge transfer due to it manages to differentiate cognitive learning (knowledge/comprehension) and physical learning (muscular movement/skill) by separating them and putting cerebral learning before muscular learning.

When the brain understands what is supposed to be happening, it is easier for it to communicate precise instructions to the muscle.

Here are the four steps:

1. The instructor does, the instructor explains. As a mentor, it is crucial to demonstrate what you want a trainee to do, by going through a set of activities, providing a narrative to describe, and explaining what to do.

2. The instructor does, and the trainee explains. It is demonstrated again, but this time the apprentice says what to do. Taking the mentee through any of the steps is avoided, he is responsible for describing what to do before the mentor does it. This step allows the learner to engage in the new mental skill.

3. The trainee does, the instructor explains. The learner performs the task with step-by-step instructions. One of the biggest obstacles to learning is the learner's embarrassment. The learner should focus her brainpower on the manual (follow the instructions) instead of trying to remember what to do next.

4. The learner does, the learner explains, and the instructor evaluates. Here the trainee merges mental and physical learning under the guidance of the instructor. The learner builds trust and the stage is set for true ownership of her ability to perform the task. It's not just "I showed you, now you do it." The learner has the ability to explain what is to be done and demonstrate competence in performing the task.

It is important to emphasize that this four-step method is not necessary or applicable for all learning situations, and as explained above, it is mainly aimed at companies that have processes and operations that must be adopted by the work team, in order to guarantee a unified way of carrying out its processes.

Along with these 4 steps, there is a revealing way to build and design training programs through 5 steps:

Step 1 - Analysis: The analysis usually begins with the clear identification of the gap between what is and what is wanted.

Example:

• What employees currently know vs. what they need to know.

• What employees currently do versus what they need to do.

• What employees currently believe versus what they need to believe.

Step 2 - Design: It determines what learning objectives, what knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes should be taught. Learning objectives should be based on specific job-related functions and tasks.

Step 3 - Development: How an instructor will present material, accommodate interaction, allow the practice, assess proficiency, and remediate.

Step 4 - Implementation: Delivery of training. Need to create a safe learning environment and present material in a way that reaches learners.

Step 5: - Evaluation: Determine the effectiveness of training:

• Were the learning objectives met?

• Were the materials used correctly?

Evaluation should be a continuous process.

We are experiencing very particular work dynamics and pressures, which are increasingly diverse, varied, and changing in terms of the types of knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes that are required within a company. This makes it difficult for universities to include them within their curriculum and stay aligned with the needs presented by companies, much less when only about 58% of Latin American workers currently practice the profession they studied (Bumeran, 2021).

Companies must take an active role in the training processes of their work teams if they want to be competitive in the labor market, and above all, become workplaces that retain their talents, offer spaces for growth and achievement, and create an environment of sustainable and sustainable work overtime for both the employer and the employee, a win-win situation.

Published 09th June 2022, La República Newspaper, Costa Rica 👈 (spanish version)

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ACCESS AND INCLUSION

Today, more than half of the world’s population is using the internet, which means that cooperation and communication among citizens and between citizens and governments are dramatically changing. However, according to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a global scenario shows that digital access and its adoption are not designed uniformly or inclusively. In 2018, only 24.4% of Africa’s population was online, while Europe had a 79.6% internet penetration rate. At the same time, in the USA, it is registered at 69.6% (other statistics show that countries in Africa and Asia have driven growth during recent years in mobile cellular subscriptions and mobile broadband subscriptions).

In order to bridge the digital gap, it is essential to create more inclusive and participatory digital communities and spaces, which reinforce affordability while also increasing digital awareness and skills. By gaining more inclusive access to digital content, people can become better able to understand the digital systems which increasingly rely upon producing and delivering services or products related to their needs (health care, education, employment, and civic participation), as well as to easily navigate these digital systems and deal with them more efficiently.

According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), we are currently living in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) that represents a fundamental change in the way we live, work, and communicate with others. The 4IR is a new chapter in human development, empowered by outstanding technological advances added to the first, second, and third industrial revolutions. These advances are combining the physical, digital, and biological environments; the speed, breadth, and depth of this revolution force us to rethink how countries develop, how organizations create value, and even what it means to be human.

Through this dramatic change, it is essential to understand that the 4IR is not just a technology-driven change. Although its focus seems to be on technology and its advances, it is an enormous opportunity to help and include everyone, where we can join efforts and objectives between leaders, policymakers, and people from all segments of society and nations, to harness converging technologies in order to create an inclusive, human-centered future.

As part of this revolutionary change, a close, strategic relationship developed between information and communication technology and digital manufacturing, which contributes significantly to the use of access to information and communication technology in the field of digital manufacturing and technological innovation that drives development in society. From this standpoint, Mada’s “Fab Lab” endeavors to transform technological ideas into reality and provide a critical role in this ecosystem for innovation by providing more access to technology for facilities and support services that enable entrepreneurs, researchers, and startups, which allows them to convert innovative ideas into practical prototypes for owners and society in general.

Fab Lab is an educational outreach center that started at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)’s Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA), as an extension of its research into digital fabrication and computation. Fab Lab is a technical prototyping space for invention, typically equipped with an array of flexible computer controlled tools that cover several different length scales and various materials, intending to make almost anything, Gershenfeld, Neil A. (2005) considers Fab Lab a platform for learning and innovation; a place to play, to create, to learn, to mentor, and to invent.

Fab Lab can change patterns of fabrication, promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) skills, create businesses and jobs, furthermore, drive economic growth and productivity. It does this by providing the opportunity for practically anyone in the broader public with creative ideas to participate in the design, production, and distribution of products and services. A growing global network of Fab Labs has generated an entirely new realm of possibilities at the local level to stimulate innovations, inventions, and applied research across industries.

However, the issue of inclusiveness in the field of digital access has not been duly taken into account by some Fab Labs around the world, as in their approaches they neglected the issue of the inclusive design, focusing on collaboration resulting in “one size fits one person”, which is different from the “universal” design that features “one size fits all”.

To create a positive change and a more inclusive environment that fosters innovation and production; the importance of the process developed by Mada Center has excelled to create and launch the first “Fab Lab” designed to be fully inclusive for people with disabilities and all groups that lack this kind of interest, as Mada Center aims to make it a global reference. Moreover, Mada seeks to design the lab space and environment not only to integrate persons with disabilities but also to develop its content so that assistive technology and online courses are mixed with digital production, which will contribute to changing social norms, values, and attitudes while addressing biases, unconscious stigmatization, and adopt policies and practices in training centers to have more awareness of the importance of inclusiveness. In a world where change is driven by science and innovation occurs faster than ever before, inclusive education and training must take advantage of technology to advance the cause of inclusive access and more specialized and effective learning.

Published Sep. 2020, NAFATH Magazine, Qatar 👈

FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SKILLS

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, known as Industry 4.0, is the fourth most important industrial stage since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. This stage represents a fundamental change in the way we live, communicate, work and, mainly, how we interact with each other.

This chapter in human development is characterized by a fusion of extraordinary technological advances where the boundaries of physical, digital and biological environments become increasingly diffuse.

However, this revolution is more than a simple change driven by technology, it is an extraordinary opportunity to help and support for all of us as citizens, as social and political leaders, as local and central governments, for all types of people, regardless of their gender, age or income, where we can and should take advantage of emerging technologies to create and build an inclusive future, centered on the human being and its relationship with its context.

The above is seen as a promising present; however, it also generates a series of questions about how this revolution -characterized by mobile connectivity, the Internet of things, artificial intelligence and next-generation robotics, 3D printing, advanced materials, genetic engineering and nanotechnology, all combined and connected- is transforming production and consumption systems, impacting business models, economic growth, sustainability and, with greater evidence, employability and entrepreneurship, demanding different skills and abilities.

Disruptive changes in existing business models are generating a profound impact on the labor landscape. According to the report of the World Economic Forum on the Future of Employment (2016), it is estimated that 65% of children entering primary school today will likely grow up to work in types of work that do not yet exist. In addition, the McKinsey Global Institute projected in 2014 that between 15-25% of the tasks performed by industrial workers in developed countries, and between 5-15% of those same tasks completed in developing countries, could be automated to 2025.

In particular, innovation and new technologies are influencing the skills required for production and consumption, generating a significant impact on the jobs and trades we know today, from the creation of new ones to their displacement, including development of new skills. For example, automation and robotics will reduce direct labor, but they will also require a set of changing skills in the workforce and in the growing entrepreneurship initiatives.

This means that human capital, defined as the knowledge and skills that people possess to create value in the economic system, is significantly evolved. The Global Human Capital Index of the World Bank (2017) classifies the level of development of human capital through four elements:

• Capacity: level of formal education of younger and older generations as a result of past education investment.

• Development: formal education of the next-generation workforce and continued upskilling and reskilling of the current workforce.

• Deployment: application and accumulation of skills among the adult population.

• Know how: breadth and depth of specialized skills at work.

Education systems, both formal and informal, direct or indirect, should adapt and anticipate the changes caused by the disruptive innovations resulting from the industrial revolution we are living, working closely with governments, businesses and entrepreneurs to identify the essential skills for the future.

However, as citizens living in society, we have a fundamental and key responsibility for the challenges outlined above, and it is to be permeable and receptive to “lifelong learning”, in which every new experience becomes an opportunity to learn and develop skills as an individual. For Escotet (1992) the fundamental mission of lifelong education is "to teach to learn, to instill that learning is not terminal and to prepare citizens so that after leaving the formal education system they continue learning." To this I add we have to continue learning on our own, without dependence, being guided by our passions and interests, leaving aside the traditional pattern of waiting for external training determined by a third party.

Published 27th Sep. 2019, La República Newspaper, Costa Rica 👈 (spanish version)

SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION BY DIGITAL FABRICATION

To influence the population through the use of information and knowledge is the main force of social transformation (UNESCO, 2005).

A few years ago, computers were conceived and developed as large objects which were complex to understand and difficult to assimilate by anyone in our society, relegating their use to a very select group of experts. Their use in learning and for personal purposes was not conceivable as citizen rights. However, computers today are part of our daily life, as an indispensable tool for the development of different everyday activities and capacities and as generators of new experiences.  In our present day, we live an era / digital revolution which is a phenomenon very similar to that of computers in its early years, but with a marked difference in the speed and immediacy in which these skills are shared and assimilated by our society, allowing to reduce the gap between what can be conceived and what can be produced.

However, although we are surrounded by digital elements, their use and exploitation are uneven. The 2005 UNESCO World Report noted that, in addition to a tangible digital gap, there is something still more disturbing: the cognitive gap, which separates the most favored countries from developing countries. While in the former development and dissemination of science is promoted and supported, which implies: imagining, searching, modeling, simulating, testing, verifying and demonstrating, in the latter the uncritical reproduction of the abundant information available online is generalized, which implies copying, cutting and pasting. And this will only help to deepen the gaps, broadening the deep pre-existing inequalities.

For all of the above, the conclusion has been reached that our society is advancing at two speeds, a concept coming to reflect the difference between those who have the capacity to understand, anticipate and respond to the requirements of the new millennium, and those who have not developed such capacity.

In addition to a quantified absence of vocational and technical training in science and technology, there is a marked cognitive gap in our learning environments, it is important to note the generational transition we are living, marked by a visible change in the times; the so-called Digital Natives by Prensky (2001), users with technological affinity, who allow the implementation of new models of learning, working and playing with greater ease than the so-called Digital Immigrants, people who did not have access to technology and Internet in their early education processes.

Within this marked digital era, a revolution marked by "digital manufacturing" is being generated, which is reflected in the exponential development of shared knowledge and technological development, becoming more than a set of tools for advanced industry and, on the contrary, they are every day more accessible to ordinary people and they are being distributed all over the world. This creates great opportunities for restructuring the relationship between citizens, cities, countries and their public-private institutions.

Teaching and learning within digital manufacturing allows the conscious relationship between computer-assisted design (CAD) and its involvement in the production from the digital object to a physical object by means of machine computer-assisted numerical control (CNC). All of this in conjunction with material management, electronics, and programming.

Encouraging the creation of customized objects and promoting scientific, engineering and creative experimentation through rapid prototyping. Ideologically, it promotes collaborative work, shared information and invention. Innovation and entrepreneurship will happen as a consequence of the above. 

Published 30th May 2019, La República Newspaper, Costa Rica 👈 (spanish version)