Peter Shchedrovitsky biography. Information war: self-determination and disengagement. - That is, let them live as they live

Technologies and thanks to them the world itself - culture, civilization - are changing before our eyes, and this is just the beginning. No matter how fantastic it sounds, a little more - and a person will begin to share the planet with robots. Next to this new reality Russia, its economy, industry, and education look like an archaic territory, a reserve of the last century. What will not change will disappear from the face of the earth, warns the well-known philosopher, methodologist, member of the Expert Council under the Government of the Russian Federation Pyotr Shchedrovitsky. We offer fragments of his lecture at the Ural Federal University.

Futurists and visionaries over the past 50 years have repeatedly predicted future changes in technology.

“In 1980, Alvin Toffler predicted major technological corridors that would change the entire industrial system in the future. Toffler referred to such corridors as computers, biotechnologies, new materials and new energy sources.

After 20 years, another visionary, Jeremy Rifkin, answering the question of how Europe should adapt to the new situation, said: first of all, it is necessary to deal with energy, because it affects everyone. If energy costs exceed 10% in the household budget or in any project, then most likely the project will not be implemented, and the household will experience great difficulties.

Five interconnected technologies follow from this. The first is renewable energy sources. For example, in 2016, 140% of the total energy demand was produced in Denmark using renewable energy sources, in Germany, on one Sunday, 62% of the daily energy demand was produced, and in Chile, energy has been free for a year and a half: the country has established so many photovoltaic stations (converting solar energy into electrical energy - ed.), that there was a crisis of overproduction.

Han Chuanhao/Xinhua/Global Look Press

The second technology is resource-saving houses and public buildings; either with a zero energy balance, or even supplying services to the general network: some - energy, others - recycled garbage, purified water, and so on.

The third technology is small energy accumulators. The fourth is electric transport or hybrid transport. And the fifth is smart grid, "smart" systems for dispatching, producing, transmitting and consuming energy.

In 2010, experts and government officials of Germany, as part of the government's strategic initiative "Industry 4.0", fixed the priority of creating new platforms for cyber-physical systems, which include "smart factory", "smart home ownership", "smart industrial or office building", "smart energy system ".

Today, a new technology platform for the New Industrial Revolution is emerging. There are three main technological corridors in the core. First, everything is digital. Starting next year, a European who does not have a sensor that takes online parameters of the body and is connected to big data (databases of huge volumes processed at high speed - ed. note) will pay for health insurance by about 1.8 times more. Another example: if you suddenly had an accident, then while the helicopter is taking you to the hospital, the damaged organ will be printed on a 3D printer from an electronic model of your body stored in big data.

The engine of a modern aircraft, such as General Electric, sends all information about its operation to the appropriate database at the time of flight. When the plane lands, there is no need to diagnose it in terms of the condition of the engines, maintenance, repairs - all this has already been done (in the old mode, these operations took 75% of the maintenance time). If the engine "decides" that it needs to "replace" itself, then the General Electric license is updated at the nearest landing airport, the new engine is printed on a 3D printer and put on the plane. The company itself does not produce anything, there is no logistics, but there is a cashing out of "digital mandates", and the control center itself will contact the 3D printer and give it all the necessary digital information to start the production process.

The second corridor is new materials. We have passed the stage of nanomaterials, nanocoatings, composite materials. Now we are at the stage of creating a whole range of programmable materials, or materials with controlled properties, including biological ones. A common example is a stent that is placed in blood vessels for their expansion and strengthening, which is a "droplet", which, after the introduction, acquires the temperature of the human body and expands to the desired shape.

The third corridor is "smart" control systems, which involve the transfer of part of the functions to things and machines included in the decision-making networks. For example, you ate some product that was in the refrigerator, threw away the wrapper with a barcode, the refrigerator read this information and ordered your favorite product in the store, and the drone delivered it to you. Or let's take modern security systems: in a large city, for example, London, swarms of drones fly and scan what is happening in offices, apartments, streets; Based on these data, criminals are searched, for example.

"Another example is unmanned vehicles, the degree of readiness for scaling is 2-5 years, that is, a little more - and they will become massive" Jan Huebner/imago stock& people/Global Look Press

Another example is self-driving cars. The degree of readiness of this technology for scaling is 2-5 years, that is, very soon they will become mass; in heavy-duty transport this has already practically happened.

Another technology is the "dossier" of the city dweller, the readiness for scaling this technology is 5-10 years. Now I work at Skolkovo in programs for single-industry towns and explain to them that within 10 years everything that happens in the territory of a small city at the household level, the consumer behavior of each family, at the level of education, medicine, transport, will be in the "figure" and it will be possible to work with already aggregated indicators.

Cyclical economic development

This is not the first time this has happened to humanity. We can say, relatively speaking, that we are in 1517: Gutenberg has already launched the printing press, America has already been discovered, and Luther has entered the square. The revolution has already happened, we just don't see it. Our compatriot Nikolai Dmitrievich Kondratiev already at the beginning of the 20th century, sitting in a cold library in Petrograd, wrote a book about the great cycles of the conjuncture - cyclical processes occurring in the economy, and about the logic of these cycles.

Kondratiev put forward three completely accurate assumptions. First, economic cycles are based on technology change. Second: technologies do not “walk” one by one, they change at the same time, as a complex, there is a change in the “technology platform”.

This "technology platform" has an incubation period that takes 40-60 years. Many of the technologies that we use now appeared 30-50 years ago. For example, photovoltaic stations. Even 10-15 years ago, experts argued that it would be nuclear rather than solar energy that would develop, since in nuclear energy the share of the fuel component in the price of a kilowatt-hour is minimal. What do we see now? Last year, 9.5 gigawatts of nuclear power and 80 gigawatts of "solar" were put into operation in the world. This is because the choice of technology is not made on the basis of certain performance characteristics rather based on the potential of this technology's entry into synergy with others. Elon Musk made a solar panel in the form of tiles - and there was a transition to integrated photovoltaic solutions at the household level. The solar station now is not only the roof, but also the windows in the house, as well as the crumb used in building materials. A radical transition is taking place due to the fact that technologies are joined into complexes and mutually support and complement each other.

As soon as the "platform of technologies" has developed, the second stage begins - an explosive growth in labor productivity based on these same technologies. It lasts, as Kondratiev deduced, approximately 35 years. At the same time, the previous structure - economic, residential, industrial, formed on the old platform - does not evolve, but disappears.

Ideas about the division of labor

A classic example: in 1912, Ford, being the market leader, produces about 40,000 cars. On December 1, 1913, the first assembly line was launched at the Highland Park plant, where 10 thousand cars were produced in the first month, 250 thousand in 1914, and 1.5 million cars in 1929, which accounted for 75% of the world market. The scheme that he implements - 26 synchronized processes - allows him to reach the conveyor speed of 1 meter per second by 1923 and at a pace when every 50 seconds a car leaves the assembly line. Today, in Toyota's fully robotic workshops, one car rolls off the assembly line every 48 seconds. That is, for a hundred years this technology has not changed and will never change, because Ford chose all the available performance on this platform.

When representatives of the young Soviet republic come to Ford in 1928 and ask for help with the organization of the automobile industry in the USSR, he asks: do you have a chemical, paint and varnish industry? - Not. - What about glass? - Not. - And the tire? - Not. — What about such a range of metals? - Not. Then he says: guys, I am an old man and once created both the assembly line and the division of labor system within which this assembly line is possible, in the United States. A car is built from activities that create individual parts and components: you can't make a million cars if you don't have 6 million wheels, the performance of the tire industry must be in sync with that of the automotive industry.

“Today, in Toyota's fully robotic workshops, one car rolls off the assembly line every 48 seconds. That is, in a hundred years this technology has not changed. ” Caro/Bastian/Global Look Press

Ford gave them 30,000 drawings (which were later lost during transportation from Moscow to Gorky), sent consultants (who were expelled in 1930) and said: while you are doing import substitution, I will supply you with individual parts that you still cannot do . Therefore, when the first Soviet Ford leaves the plant in Gorky on October 31, 1931, it is one and a half times more expensive and takes one and a half times longer to make. And so it is until now.

Today, Elon Musk is changing the “technology platform” in the automotive industry, he says: we will assemble a car not from 2 thousand components, but from 18 modules (this is not new story, the first experiments with modularization in other industries date back to the 1960s). Moreover, these modules provide such consumer qualities that were not there before: for example, artificial intelligence and unmanned control or an electric motor, which saves approximately 75% of fuel costs over a long period of operation, and the characteristics of electric vehicles are constantly evolving. Now, in the new system of technological division of labor, one car rolls off the assembly line in 1 minute 50 seconds, which is almost 2.5 times worse than Ford, but in 2020, as Musk assures, we will catch up with Ford, and in 2025 the machine will go once every 10 seconds, the conveyor speed will reach 5 meters per second.

I've been to Seattle on a Boeing twice and watched them take steps towards better assembly line manufacturing. When I was there for the first time, they set themselves the task of producing 48 Boeing-737s per month, that is, one aircraft every three-quarters of a day, now they have a goal of producing about 70 aircraft per month. This is not a matter of organizing work in the workshop, but much broader - such a conveyor will not work without being included in the global system of division of labor, in which, for example, Japanese companies produce composite materials, and joint Japanese-American companies make individual parts from these materials, to for example, wings that are transported by special transport to Seattle for assembly.

So, new technical means have a performance limit. After reaching it, a decline begins, which lasts about 25 years. Total: 60 plus 60 - the cycle lasts 120 years. And this is in the leading countries, and in the countries of "catching up" industrialization, this process can stretch for 250-300 years.

If we take Russian history, we will find that, despite the fact that our engineer Sobakin wrote a book about "fire engines" (that is, steam engines - ed.) after a trip to England and personal meetings with Bolton and Watt (the creators of hundreds steam engines, which predetermined the first industrial revolution that spread from Great Britain - ed.) just five years after the first steam engines were launched in England, they appear in our industrial enterprises only a hundred years later. And two steam engines, bought by the state and supplied at the Tula Arms Plant in 1828, remained unused, because the production process of the Tula artisans who produced weapons did not in any way involve the use of these steam engines.

An example from today: many development institutions and industrial enterprises have accumulated 3D printers, but for various reasons they are not used. Another indicative fact: Russian patent legislation was adopted in 1812, and by 1900 the accumulated total was only 65 patents - also because Russian engineers preferred to patent abroad, due to the slowness of our system, very high cost and low effect. from the patents they filed here.

Which of the countries will be the most prepared to deploy on its territory full complex new industrial revolution and thus become a leader in the next stage of development is not known in advance. There are always several applicants, each with its own pros and cons. In 1850, you, being in England, the most advanced and powerful power at that time, would not have read in any newspaper that the United States of America would become the leader of the second industrial revolution, no one could have imagined this. Although after the fact we notice symptoms that the United States rushed to this goal immediately after the victory in the Revolutionary War: in 1791, Hamilton wrote a treatise on manufactures, where he explained what America needs to do to become the first.

The economic system of the division of labor must be built into the context of the socio-professional division of knowledge. At the same time, project management should be carried out on the basis of one intelligent platform. If there are no common penetrating, end-to-end knowledge systems, common standards, then cooperation and synchronization will not line up. And you can't have common standards, if there is no common ontology (section of philosophy, the doctrine of being - ed. note).

In other words, there is a horizontal and vertical division of labor. Horizontal is the division of labor for the production of a product, and vertical is the division of labor for the production of all the knowledge that is needed to produce this product. You can't produce a product without a blueprint, and that's a type of knowledge. Before Ford, there was no standard car project, each manufacturer made its own craft product, so the car was so expensive: it was made from different parts and was unrepairable, it was impossible to find components, and Ford writes about this: a broken car was standing near some rich ranch , demonstrating the wealth of the owner, children played in it, wiping the leather seats.

Ford was the first to think about a mass-produced car, and for 15 years in his workshop he made an engine suitable for mass production. At the same time, he sought in advance to achieve certain characteristics in terms of weight, and the engine had to be commensurate with these characteristics. Ford was forced to develop (or create a consortium for the development of) 26 types of steel and alloys ... Thus, for the first time, Ford begins to operate not with a “piece of iron”, but develops the concept of the product life cycle, he says: we are not selling a car, but effective driving hours.

When you sell a nuclear power plant, you are also selling not a piece of hardware, but an effective kilowatt-hour. The energy company does not care at all on which "pot" electricity is generated, it wants to have effective cost and operation parameters, to clearly understand what risks, downtime, losses. And when in 2006 we started introducing 6D modeling at Rosatom (this is project life cycle management, that is, plants), we had to rebuild the entire design process, the whole process took 10 years. That is, if you do not rebuild the technology of activity, then no “number” will help you. The very presence of digital technologies hints at the direction of restructuring, but does not replace it, and this is a very complex process.

There are at least three consequences of the fact that the vertical division of labor determines the horizontal. First, you must have semiotic (sign) tools, such as money, that would support entrepreneurial activity at this stage of the industrial revolution. The new industrial revolution will change semiotic tools, experiments with bitcoin and there is work in this area.

Second: the new industrial revolution will change the "cell" of the economy (in the "zero" industrial revolution (XVII century), the cell was a handicraft cluster, in the first (XVIII - 1st half of the XIX century) - a factory, in the second (2nd half . XIX - XX century) - transnational corporations). The candidate cell of the New Industrial Revolution is the so-called "open architecture platforms", which are broader than TNCs. And those TNCs that cannot move to a new platform will disappear from the face of the earth.

And thirdly, you need new technology thinking, which will become quite massive and a through element will enter the system of activity for the production of any new product. In the course of the "zero" industrial revolution, engineering and design activity became such a technology, during the first - design, during the second - research. The technology of thinking that is becoming the leading one today also has its own name - “programming” (but you don’t need to reduce it to computer programming, this is only one of the types).

Each industrial revolution sets new requirements for human capital and training and education systems

Key changes in the field of the content of training and education are, firstly, a broad humanization. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a significant part of the faculties are humanities, in the engineering training program, three-quarters of the disciplines are not technical, but humanitarian, because it is believed that if an engineer does not know how society and the economy works, then he is a bad engineer; if he does not know how to integrate into research work, communicate, work in a team, then he is incompetent.

The second is a systematic approach as a metalanguage spoken by representatives of different disciplines. The system language defines the general logic of the description complex systems, which allows the researcher, engineer, manager to jointly solve a particular problem. Further developed the management approach, different management methodologies. And, finally, over the past ten years - the most powerful introduction of thinking technologies into the educational process, for example, TRIZ - Altshuller's technology for solving inventive problems, which is used in one hundred American universities (Genrikh Altshuller - Soviet inventor and science fiction writer - ed. .).

In general, education is the formation of a picture of the world. To own a picture of the world means to see cause-and-effect relationships between phenomena. We have a huge number of young people do not have any picture of the world. The function of education, traditionally assigned to universities, is to form a picture of the world, and not to prepare for “activity”. To prepare for "activity" should be a vocational school or a higher engineering school. Both "education" and "training" have their own special important tasks, but it is necessary to prepare for inclusion in the system of division of labor as quickly and cheaply as possible. But the picture of the world is not formed so quickly.

In some of the leading universities in the world, included in the global hundred, the educational process is arranged in a way that is ridiculous for us: students read books aloud and sort them out (there is a list of such books, there are about a hundred of them). Moreover, it is assumed that you read in the original, if you have a poor command of the language - with a dictionary and translation. Then you come to the seminar and discuss what you understand, discuss, including using game methods. At the same time, students can learn some craft in order to be able to earn a living, because ontology orients in the world, but does not necessarily give direct income.

The changes taking place in the systems of training and education in the next 15-20 years will be quite radical. The diploma will be “assembled” like Lego: a person will be able to receive individual elements of training, moving from one part of the world to another, alternating the cycles of education with the cycles of work, having the opportunity to gain a set of competencies from modules.

Pedagogical work, the work of the teaching staff will also change. Today, models that have shown their effectiveness in sports and show business are being introduced extremely quickly in this area. There are "stars" who tour around the world and offer their potential clients a certain "menu" of various units of content and forms of organization. educational process.

This model of organizing the educational process began to take shape, one might say, as a solution to the problem situation that each of you faced. One very good specialist in the field of insurance and the application of its mechanisms in different areas could not recruit students for his course, because the course was very difficult. Then he decided that he would open an online course, and within a year he had an audience of 615,000 people. It turned out to be a much more efficient approach. And today, most global universities set themselves the task of joining alliances and exchanging information to compete for an audience of a billion people. Their own contingents of students remain the same - 10 thousand, as at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or 50 thousand, as the University of Leuven (the oldest in Belgium - ed.), but access to education is open to any potential user.

“The robot is much kinder, he is attentive, remembers everything that the child did, helps him, the robot does not drink, does not smoke, he does not have a husband and wife, he does not have a bad mood and teaches better” Wang Song/Xinhua/Global Look Press

Of the 1,200 faculty members at the University of Leuven, 10% are millionaires. But not thanks to teaching, but due to the fact that they participate in development, create technology companies together with students and receive income from this “valorization” of knowledge. For example, the Weizmann Institute (Israeli multidisciplinary research institute in the field of natural and exact sciences - ed.) conducts research, specializing exclusively in the first stages of the life cycle of new knowledge, the result of the study is the substantiation of a fundamental technological possibility, the form of fixation is a patent, 200 objects of intellectual property result in royalties of up to $30 billion a year. They are not involved in implementation, this is the task of industrial enterprises, the institute has completely different functions in the division of labor. Inner atmosphere- coffee and lunch, they constantly communicate with each other. All employees under 35 years of age. People come and prove to the representatives of the supervisory board that their idea has a patent perspective. I spoke with management about the criteria by which they make decisions about funding projects. They answer: in the eyes. Burning eyes - so you can take, boring eyes - goodbye. A grant is given for three years; no one gets involved in what the grantees do, after three years a wide range of independent experts, the full list of which no one knows, evaluate the results of the work for the possibility of obtaining a patent. But even if all the experts wrote that there is no prospect of a patent, the management of the institute, by its decision, can extend the financing of the work for another 3 years.

Another 10-20 years will pass, and we will occupy many places in mental activity not personally, but together with robots, or robots will occupy them without us. Americans are already converting elementary grades in parts of schools in New York state to learning by robots. Robots teach math, language, and so on. The robot is much kinder, he is attentive, remembers everything that the child did, helps him, does not drink or smoke, he does not have a husband and wife, he is in a bad mood and he teaches modern techniques, faster, more efficient, besides, it does not need to be retrained.

Jobs are also changing dramatically. The professions of the "worker" in the era of the second and New Industrial Revolutions differ significantly. Part of the former engineering and managerial competence is transferred to the level of the worker.

More and more employers, talking about the qualities they want to see in their employees, talk about “soft” skills, and put them in first place, believing that “hard” skills can be improved in the workplace, and with “soft” skills, the employee must leave the school. These skills include client skills (that is, communication), teamwork skills (both in large teams and in small groups), the ability to cope with problems, find problem-oriented solutions (not solutions at all, but a solution that solves this particular problem), the ability to relearn and, finally, the skills of psychophysical self-organization.

Now in WorldSkills (international competitions in working professions, Pyotr Shchedrovitsky is actively involved in the development of this movement in Russia - ed.), collective competitions have begun to develop, when several people together perform difficult task. One of the key questions of Peter Drucker (American economist, management guru - ed. note) was: why one average Japanese can do five times less than one average American, but ten average Japanese put together can do twice as much as ten average Americans gathered together? Because one thing is your individual competencies, and another is your ability to enter into teamwork and get out of it. It trains, but does not always flow from one to the other. A person can be very competent, but completely incooperative.

Russian system of education and training

What can be said about us? At the end of the 19th century, Russia had one of the most effective systems of education and training, and, without a doubt, this system occupied a leading position in terms of the pace of development. Thanks to the "reserves" that were carried out during this period - at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries - today we are no better, but not much worse than other countries. At the same time, it must be understood that in the 1920s and 30s, the universities created in Tsarist Russia were overwhelmingly divided into separate institutions, whose activities were focused on the tasks of mass training of personnel for accelerated industrialization within the framework of the second industrial revolution.

The research process during this period was taken beyond the traditional educational institutions- in specialized research institutes and design bureaus, and they, in turn, were concentrated in the existing industries, and above all - to solve military problems. Then it seemed that it would give quick and concrete results. In the medium term, this led to a number of negative consequences, which became apparent only by the beginning of the 1980s.

The likelihood that we will be able to return the research process to the university is, frankly, doubtful. At the same time, one must understand that research is no longer the dominant type of thinking and activity, as it was during the second industrial revolution. The number of researchers in the world is declining, networks of interdisciplinary and interprofessional communication are becoming the institutional basis of modern research programs, the effectiveness of cooperation in solving competitive research problems is supported by large databases and the possibility of their aggregation. In the world before our eyes there is a transition to the management of complex R&D programs based on small breakthrough teams, network structures and new principles of financing. Research institutes of 600-1000 people, of which three-quarters are engaged not in research, but in support, will become unnecessary.

kremlin.ru

An indispensable condition for the implementation of modern research activities is cooperation with industry. But there are two problems here. The first problem is that industrialists today cannot answer the question of what they need. Not a single company, even the largest, can independently provide breakthrough research and development even within its narrow industry. It is necessary to create consortiums at all stages of the life cycle of creating new knowledge and new products. The second problem is that those industrial enterprises that know exactly what they need will most likely not come to existing educational institutions today, because they understand that it is useless to expect applied results from them.

At the same time, if we are talking about the training system, then the terms of training at almost all levels are too high. The intensity of the educational process is low, and its cost - both in terms of real costs and in terms of market price - is overstated. Ford believed that any person learns to work on an assembly line in two or three days, and no prior training is needed for this. Moreover, he joked that it did not matter whether the candidate for a position at his factories graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or escaped from Sing Sing (a prison for especially dangerous criminals 50 km from New York - ed.). If we are talking about more complex activities, such as design, then the process will take several months (in extreme cases, 1-1.5 years), and for this it is absolutely not necessary to spend money from either the state or the employer on student education for five years.

Though Russian system training of workers and engineers in the last quarter of the 19th century was repeatedly recognized as the best in the world (it is no coincidence that she received gold medals at industrial exhibitions in Vienna, Philadelphia and Paris), Ludwig Knop (who was often called the "Russian Arkwright"), in the 1860s who had been creating the Russian textile industry for years, was very dissatisfied with the results of the training of engineers at the Moscow Higher Vocational School (IMTU). He did not take graduates from there to set up equipment, but brought simple artisans from Birmingham (England), believing that the Russians had a lot of theory, but lacked practical skills.

I assure you that even today, if you talk to a person who hires people to work on a machine, he will tell you that he would prefer a WorldSkills graduate to an engineering graduate. Moreover, when we have a million graduates of programs for the preparation of highly skilled workers who have passed through the WorldSkills system, we will stop saying that we have good engineering training in universities.

In the vast majority of existing educational institutions, we, teachers and organizers of the educational process, pretend to teach, and students pretend to study. This is the result of a social compromise around the so-called "free education", which we inherited from the Soviet Union. Late 50s - early 60s Soviet Union“promised” everyone an endless social elevator. As the majority of workers in the Soviet industrial giants: “my father was a peasant, I am a professional worker (or even an engineer), and my son will be an engineer or “manager”. This “picture of the world” turned out to be not just the result of a social compromise between the population and the authorities, but a mental model that demonstrated that life was getting better and that the construction of a “communist” society was not far off.

Today we understand that this model was the result of delusions. Ahead of us is another crisis of the industrial system that took shape in the era of the second industrial revolution, the closure a large number jobs, a reduction in the number of employees, the disappearance of many professions that today seem stable and in demand. The crisis of the existing industrial system and the formation of a new technology platform will inevitably affect the field of education and training.

In the world today there are only a dozen or two educational institutions that are trying to run forward. However, maintaining leadership in a particular field of knowledge, even for such educational institutions, remains a significant challenge and requires the construction of new cooperation and new system division of labor in the very field of training and education.

Viktor Chernov/Russian Look

Not so long ago, American billionaire Richard Branson put forward interesting idea: he said that all the resources that are spent on training and education of personnel should be given out in the form of grants to people for the development and launch of new entrepreneurial projects. If the grantee manages to create a new enterprise, then everything that he needs in the future, he will then learn - by choosing one or another educational institution, or on his own - but in all cases, having built an individual curriculum for himself. At the same time, such an entrepreneur creates new jobs, which in turn will become a guide for numerous curricula. And if he doesn’t create it, then he didn’t need such training and, in principle, could not give a positive return for society.

Educational policy is inseparable from industrial policy, as well as from the policy of maintaining and encouraging social mobility.

We thank Aleksey Fayustov (Ural Federal University) for his help in preparing the publication.

Born on September 17, 1958 in Moscow, in the family of the Russian Soviet philosopher G.P. Shchedrovitsky.

Education

• 1975-1980 - Pedagogical Institute. Lenin, Faculty of Pedagogy and Psychology. Received an extensive humanitarian education and two degree specialties: methodologist primary education and teacher of pedagogy and psychology. While studying at the Pedagogical Institute, he was engaged in the legacy of L.S. Vygotsky.
• Since 1976, he began to actively attend the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC), organized by G.P. Shchedrovitsky. At MMK, he specializes in the field of methodology of historical research, deals with problems of programming and regional development
• Since 1979, he has been participating in organizational and activity games (OGI), specializing in the field of organizing collective methods for solving problems and developing human resources.
• After graduating from the Pedagogical Institute, he completes postgraduate studies at the Institute of General and educational psychology. Deals with logical and methodological problems of research, description, objectivity and objectification in the humanities.

Teaching activity

• From graduation to this day. V different time read courses on pedagogy, logic, psychology, management, ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of economy, cultural policy, general and applied methodology, philosophy of education, etc.

Work

• Currently holds the position of Deputy Director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences
• The president

An associate of Sergei Kiriyenko on the influence of the teachings of methodologists, the reasons for the failures of Skolkovo and the fate of Kazan oriental studies. Part 2

“Have Vladimir Putin heard about the methodology?” “I don’t know, I never asked him,” replies Pyotr Shchedrovitsky, a well-known scientist, political strategist and adviser to the general director of Rosatom. In an interview with BUSINESS Online, he told what the methodological school really is, around which many myths have recently been created, and why the strategies of regional and municipal level a priori make no sense.

"I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER SCHOOL, EXCEPT THE SLAVOPHILS, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED FOR SO LONG"

— Petr Georgievich, can you briefly describe what methodology is?

- The work of the Moscow logical (since 1960 - methodological) circle began with the assumption that if we manage to describe the laws of mental activity, then we can build new technologies of thinking on this basis. Such technologies will make our intellectual work more efficient. It's in a nutshell. For 30 years, the participants of the methodological circle have been describing different types thinking and various intellectual practices: pedagogy, design, science and Scientific research, management. They tried to develop normative descriptions of various intellectual processes and then, on the basis of these descriptions, construct normative prescriptions and technological maps. Just like we describe natural processes and then build engineering systems.

Who was at the heart of this movement? Your father Georgy Shchedrovitsky...

- The circle formed in the early 1950s around the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. The oldest in the circle of like-minded people was Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev ( famous Soviet dissident, logician — approx. ed.). Then there was youth group— Mamardashvili Merab Mamardashvili - Soviet philosopher— approx. ed.), Grushin ( Boris Grushin - Soviet and Russian philosopher, chief researcher— approx. ed.) and Shchedrovitsky Sr.

- And Vladimir Lefevre ( Soviet and American psychologist and mathematician- approx. ed.)?

- Lefevre studied in the class of Georgy Petrovich when the latter worked in high school. Since he behaved badly, he was a difficult teenager, Georgy Petrovich was still obliged to look after him, he accompanied him home from school. On the way they talked about life. As Vladimir Alexandrovich later admitted to me, this had a great influence on him, in contrast to what Georgy Petrovich told them in class.

- Lefevre emigrated to the USA and, they say, developed the methodology "How to defeat the USSR" for the Reagan team. What do you think about it?

I didn't hold a candle.

But have you heard this version?

- I've heard a lot. I heard the version that Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky destroyed the Soviet Union. So nothing surprises me anymore. And how many interesting things I heard about myself! .. We never had a close relationship with Lefebvre, we saw each other several times from the moment he left for the USA. He came (and has not come lately) to Russia for a conference on reflexive systems...

So, this four was formed, they called themselves dialectical easel painters. Then each of them had a group of disciples, each of the three went along his own line. Mamardashvili took up pure philosophy, the history of philosophy. Zinoviev for a long time engaged in non-classical logic, then he was "carried out" in journalism and sociology. And Grushin was engaged in sociological research on the basis of " Komsomolskaya Pravda” and became one of the founders of Russian empirical sociology. By the way, he has excellent four volumes, which he published on the basis of his empirical research, about how the public consciousness in the USSR: from the death of Stalin to the era of Gorbachev. A very good book, and, thank God, he managed to publish it. And Georgy Petrovich continued the line of methodology.

- And Anisimov ( Oleg Anisimov - Russian philosopher, psychologist, founder of the Moscow methodological and psychological circle- approx. Ed.) Whose student?

- This is generally the third generation. In the early 60s, the second generation of students came to Georgy Petrovich: Genisaretsky, Rozin, Dubrovsky, Sazonov, Rappoport, Lefebvre. And Anisimov is already the third generation. And I'm rather already a representative of the fourth (or final) phase of the third generation of followers of the system-thinking methodology.

— What were they doing?

- In different ways, each had its own themes and areas of work. Alekseev was engaged in teaching reflection, pedagogy, training chess players. Genisaretsky deals with design and issues of philosophical and cultural anthropology. Lefebvre was engaged in reflexive games, ethics. That is, each had its own direction. There was a very big school, many different names, many interesting works. The very fact that the methodology lived until the death of Georgy Petrovich and continues to live in a slightly modified form to this day is an amazing phenomenon. I do not know of any other school, except for the school of the Slavophiles, which existed for 35 years, which would have been reproduced for so long.

“For a person to be fond of methodology and at the same time do something in this area - here is a small list. In fact, units Photo: Irina Erokhina

“IN OUR COUNTRY, FROM SEARCHING FOR A CONSPIRACY TO POGROMS, IS A VERY SHORT DISTANCE”

— How much is the methodology in demand in Russia now?

I think she's in high demand.

- In business, for example?

- It's a question of specialization. Suppose a person is consistently engaged in the development and application of the developments of the methodological school. What can he become in life, in social practice? Where are these developments most often used? The first, most widespread version is that they use the pedagogical developments of the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC), and are engaged in pedagogical practice. There is one school in Moscow, which is completely built on the developments of MMK. There are several curricula that are widely used by different educational institutions. There are learning methods built on the basis of games, methods of project-based learning for adults.

The second direction of application is consulting practice. I would say there are fewer of them than "teachers". There are certain developments, certain schemes. Let's say tutors, coaches, management consultants, systems engineers.

The third is professional managers. There are even fewer of them, they work in a variety of areas. Let's say I worked in the Rosatom system and applied methodological methods. Or, for example, Viktor Khristenko, Andrei Reus. Khristenko worked with Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky and always emphasizes that he is his student. He and I are almost the same age and came to the circle at the same period.

— Does the methodology continue to evolve?

- I think yes. There will be a new generation, it will bring new tasks, tools will develop.

— Are there analogues in the West?

- Certainly. Georgy Petrovich in the early 60s said that methodology would be mainstream, it was the doctrine of methods that would be that part of philosophy that would take shape in broader practices. It was his visionary idea, and it is fully realized. The methodology of science, the methodology of design, the methodology of management became the most important direction in the development of most social practices in the last quarter of the 20th century. But he was not talking specifically about his school, he was talking in general about the methodological movement that would take place in different areas. Methodology emerged from philosophy and began to actively influence the methods of thinking and effective organization of activities in various fields.

- There is a hypothesis that the methodology has greatly influenced modern Russia.

Are you looking for a Jewish Masonic conspiracy again?

“But it's not in a bad way.

- I do not know. In our country, there is a very short distance from the search for a conspiracy to pogroms.

- The same Khristenko ...

- Khristenko has a book where he describes his experience using the language and means of the SMD methodology. Take and read .... Of course, the methodological circle and the methodological school influenced very a large number of people. But a random event can also affect people. I know great amount people who were simply influenced by Georgy Petrovich, not by methodology, but by himself as a person.

“People should know first hand about all these legends and myths. By the way, do you think Putin is familiar with the methodology?

- I have no idea. Never asked him.

- In general, do young people go into methodology?

- Thank God, it's coming.

— What is the reason for all this today?

— There is the Georgy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky Development Institute Foundation, there is a publishing program — we publish the works of the founder and modern research that we do. Every year we hold GP Memory Readings. Our teacher. There are a number of training programs. People come, participate, maybe not as actively as then, in the 60s ... I have a friend Takhir Yusupovich Bazarov ( Russian psychologist— approx. ed.), he says to me: “I never went to Shchedrovitsky’s seminars on purpose, because everyone went.” “And how,” I ask, “it saved you?” We are now working together...

But most of the representatives of intellectual youth in the 60s and 70s went to seminars, later, in the 80s and 90s, they went to organizational and activity games. Because at that time in the USSR it was a phenomenon. Just like I know a huge number of people who went to the lectures of Merab Konstantinovich Mamardashvili. It was an aesthetic spectacle. But now it's not. Now people have more opportunities, more events. After all, anyone can watch YouTube, why go there?

- A huge number of political technologists, managers passed through this school in the 70s and 80s ...

- Yes. Not even through school anymore, but through games.

— Business games?

- Organizational and activity. Business games were created earlier, back in the 20s. Bernstein created a method of business games together with colleagues, then he was sent to prison, and he died. And his wife, Maria Mironova Bernshtein, came out after serving more than 30 years and continued his work. She has been the leader of these games for a long time. Russia invented business games earlier than America.

- Is it a lot big businessmen, the oligarchs went through it?

- Well, a man came in, listened to a lecture. 100 thousand people went through my lectures, so what?

“I mean through a more conscious course.

“Any complicated business is always done by few people, and so they took part in some seminars, listened to lectures, read books ... I get on the plane, I see a young man reading Shchedrovitsky. We have published about 20 books, they are available to everyone. Still, it is in a certain demand, somehow spreads, influences. And for a person to be fond of methodology and at the same time do something in this area - here is a small list. Actually units.

“The concept of 'strategy' suggests that you can concentrate excess resources on a breakthrough direction. If you can’t, then talking about strategy is shaking the air.” Photo: BUSINESS Online

“THE WORD “ENTREPRENEUR” IS CRASHED OUT AND KICKED OUT, THE WORD IS CRASHED OUT AND THROWED OUT. THERE WILL BE NO WORDS IN THE DICTIONARY!”

— Among other things, you were involved in drawing up regional development strategies. Are you familiar with the Tatarstan "Strategy-2030"?

- Not. I don't write strategies lately. I gave up these classes 7 years ago because I came to the conclusion that it was pointless. I even wrote an article about it, which was published in a St. Petersburg magazine.

- In general, is it possible to be strategic now in business, in politics?

“There is a book by a man called Chris Zuk, he is one of the founding fathers of a consulting company called Bain Consulting. He has a book in Russian about strategy, which is written on empirical material. He analyzed 400 global companies that developed a strategy, and as part of this study showed that only 8 percent of companies managed to implement their strategies.

Why only 8 percent? Do you have an answer? Because it is a complex activity, or because it is basically impossible to predict the future?

“If you're asking me, I mean that's why I gave it up. The term lost its content, and under the guise of a strategy, people began to order, and contractors began to develop all sorts of bullshit. Bullshit is labor that is fictitiously accounted for. And I decided that I did not want to participate in this.

Here Chris Zuk highlights the presence of a strategy as follows: the company sets goals in the horizon of 5 - 15 years and then steadily increases its profits, achieving these goals. This is his concept of strategy. First, goals must be formulated. Secondly, these goals must be steadily achieved - not like you achieve them for two years, and then you do not achieve them for five years. And thirdly, it makes a profit. Because if the goals that you consistently achieve only end up taking money away from you, then this is not a strategy.

Here he says: they analyzed these parameters and came to the conclusion that only 8 percent of companies have a strategy. You ask: why? Let's cross our fingers. First, there are no goals. Secondly, the goals are set incorrectly. Thirdly, they could not reach them. Fourth, they could not reach them steadily. Fifth, they couldn't make money. And then a combination of these factors. We named 5. Out of five, two by two, how many will we get? Three out of five. From five to four. You understand? What should I do now to answer your question? Should I take 400 companies and make a table of all those options? You can do this work without me.

— So do companies need to develop strategies?

“If they are required by law to develop...

Now the municipalities are obliged.

- Yes. As soon as you see that something is being over-administered, you need to run away from there, run away as quickly as possible...

— Do you agree that each municipality or region should ideally have a development strategy?

They can't have a strategy.

- That is, let them live as they live?

— Their object of management is not strategic, disproportionate to strategic. They do not and never will have the necessary concentration of resources to set and achieve strategic goals. For example, there can be no strategy for this order book. (Picks up a glass.)

- A small municipality - yes, but Kazan ...

What difference does it make, big or small?

Only a strategist can have a strategy. The concept of "strategy" suggests that you can concentrate excess resources on a breakthrough direction. After all, strategy is a military concept. Who is a strategist in Ancient Greece? This is a man who undertook to bring the army to meet the enemy in a state of readiness for battle and victory: not hungry, not with broken legs, not with confused weapons, but ready to fight and win the battle. He was called a strategist, or strategist. He was hired by the city community, trusted him with the army and their resources. He had to solve a specific problem.

If you can't concentrate resources on a breakthrough target for some reason... First, you don't know what a breakthrough target is. Second, you don't have resources. Third, there are resources, but they are dispersed. Fourth, it all happens at the wrong time. In all these cases, talk of strategy is a shake-up.

- That is, you can go with the flow and not predict ...

- Hire a strategist. If you have resources that you are ready to transfer to him in management for solving an extreme task.

— And the city, which is in crisis, has few resources.

- That's what I'm talking about. There are no resources. There are resources, but they are not ready to concentrate them. They will share these resources among 35 areas, but they will not be enough to achieve at least one goal. There are resources, they can even be concentrated, but in the end they will be transferred to someone who wastes them in vain. Why discuss fantasy stories? It's like a joke. Fantastic and realistic scenario of Poland's exit from the crisis. Realistic - that aliens will arrive, fantastic - that they themselves will come out of the crisis. Why bring any word to the point that it ceases to mean anything meaningful?! The word "entrepreneur" was screwed up and thrown out, "innovation" was screwed up and thrown out, "strategy" was screwed up and thrown out. Words in the dictionary will not remain! It seems to me that this happens when the bureaucratic system has nothing to do.

- Does Putin have a strategy? Or is it a tactic?

- I do not know.

- And in your track record it says "member of the expert council under the government of Russia." It's true? Does the government have a strategy?

— For some time, the formula for the transition from the dominance of a resource-based economy to innovative development acted as a metaphor for strategy. But how operationalized it is, this needs to be discussed. I believe that the innovation production infrastructure that has been created today is ineffective.

— Technoparks, huh?

- I once told Fursenko that the discussion of "innovations" is similar to the game in the "Field of Miracles": I guessed all the letters, but did not guess the words. But this is a joke. If we assume that the transition to an innovative economy is a stratagem, then we can look further with respect to it, whether sufficient resources are concentrated to achieve it, how this complex task is decomposed into more particular ones, and how these resources are distributed among the solutions of particular problems. It may happen that secondary tasks burn a lot of resources, while primary tasks do not have the necessary. Thirdly, one must ask: do managers of the second and third echelon of the state system of government accept this framework as the basis of their current actions? Or not...

At Rosatom, we once faced a discrepancy between the strategic goals and the performance criteria used current activities. We have formulated strategic goals, but the KPIs at the level of the various organizations that are part of the corporate control loop were formulated in such a way that they did not motivate middle managers to achieve these goals. There was a gap. And we've made several attempts to "sew" these two levels of management so that we can say for sure that each individual manager is working to achieve the strategy and the workers in the workplace are also working to achieve the strategy. This is not always possible: people understand the same task differently.

They use different means, which, in turn, are in varying degrees proportionate to the achievement of these goals. They know how to use some means, they do not know how to use some. Very often, what top officials consider as a stratagem is simply blurred as it is implemented. But not because they have the wrong strategy or the first persons are somehow not like that, but simply because entropy occurs in large systems.

- What will happen to the Russian strategy is still unclear?

- Yes. Let's wait. It should also be taken into account that written documents are just declarations, not all strategic goals and guidelines can be written in a public document. In other words, it is not at all necessary that real strategic goals be spelled out in a political document. For example, for the army: "General, let's publish your strategy on Facebook." It's funny, isn't it?

“The Skolkovo Foundation, from my point of view, should have supported specific developers, helping them to form, through monetary contributions, their real share in the ownership structure of manufacturing companies” Photo: minsvyaz.ru

ABOUT SKOLKOVO: INNOVATORS SHOULD BE MOTIVATED

- Why didn't the Skolkovo project as an innovation center go ahead? Did you participate in this project?

- You mean Skolkovo - commodity, not passenger ( I mean business school — approx. ed.)? In the early stages, all the experts in the country that I know of took part in the development of this project. At that time, I had a clear understanding of what was missing in the domestic innovation system, and I expected that this missing mechanism would be implemented through the Skolkovo project.

Denis Kovalevich and I have an article called "Innovation Conveyor" ( 2015 — approx. ed.), you can read it. Everything is written there about innovations, as I understand them. It also makes statements about why, in my view, existing institutions have failed to produce innovations at low cost. It's all written, all published.

What was I thinking in 2010? Imagine that you are the developer of some innovative idea. Imagine that a special structure has been created for the implementation of the project, and in it you, as the owner of intellectual property rights, have 100 percent of the shares. Now this idea has begun to be realized: from a prototype to serial production, this process goes through several stages. At each next stage, new investors enter the implementation process, gradually - as you move from idea to industrial production - your share of ownership in the company begins to decrease. As a result, your share will actually turn into zero. If you have zero percent or close to it in a block of shares in a manufacturing company, then this means that you have lost interest in this project. If you want the initiator to continue to develop this activity, you need to provide him with a package that will motivate him.

At that time, I carried out the following simple idea that we need to come up with such mechanisms that will make the initiator - inventor, ideologist, producer - a full-fledged co-owner of the production company that will sell this product. In this case, we can expect that he will improve his development. If he has a small share, then he will not be motivated. Therefore, the Skolkovo Foundation, from my point of view, should have supported specific developers, helping them to form their real share in the ownership structure of manufacturing companies through monetary contributions.

- What should be the minimum share in the project for a person to be interested?

— I believe that for different types of innovative products, this share may be different. In the patent - one, in the license and the corresponding royalties - the other, in the spin-off - the third. Otherwise, as I have already said, sooner or later, the developer will lose interest in the implementation of the project and in improving the technology. But this is a problem not only for Russia, but for the whole world.

- How is this problem solved in the world? For example, in America?

- It is solved in different countries in different ways. There are very serious motivational mechanisms. For example, Levin University has managed to involve teachers and students in the process of creating innovative companies and technology start-ups for 25 years. Now, out of 1,500 professors working at the university, 100 are already millionaires. This is the result of a proper motivation system. Their salary for lecturing ceases to be their only and even main source of income. They are interested in increasing the number of innovative companies and the wider use of knowledge in industrial practice.

Photo: Irina Erokhina

"WE NEED A NORMAL ORIENTAL SCHOOL IN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE"

— Petr Georgievich, you actively worked with Tatarstan in the early 2000s. What is your impression of the republic today?

— I have a good impression. I believe that Kazan steadily holds the third position among Russian cities. It shares it, most likely, with Yekaterinburg and very actively uses all the opportunities that are provided both at the level of the Federation and at the level of public initiatives. In this sense, the city is growing, getting prettier, the infrastructure is being modernized in it - at least in the part that is visible to a person who does not live here permanently, but moves around the city by car.

— I have a question about your Russian Islam project. ( In 2002 - 2005, Peter Shchedrovitsky, together with Sergei Gradirovsky from the Center for Strategic Studies of the Volga Federal District, studied the role of Islam in the socio-economic development of the Volga region, the study raised the problems of disunity of the Russian Ummah, radical Islamic movements. Project was criticized by the Orthodox clergy- approx. ed.)

These ideas, unfortunately, were distorted and distorted at that time! Honestly, I don’t even know why, but I can guess. It was about a simple thing: we need a working school of oriental studies in Russian, including a school dealing with the history and philosophy of Islam. And such a school, by the way, was created in Russia in the 19th century, and its center was then in Kazan. Here, too, for the first time in the world, a center for Sinology research was established. Kazan University had the most powerful school of Oriental languages ​​in Russia. Then Nicholas I took the library in oriental languages ​​and some of the specialists to St. Petersburg.

It seems to me that today this school can be restored and its center can be located here. I'm not sure that it's worth returning the stolen library back, and I'm not sure that it has survived. But research can and should unfold here. It's about about the enormous work of translation and interpretation: having such a powerful Islamic diaspora, it is impossible not to have the corresponding theory, philosophy, and religious studies in Russian.

This is what we had in mind in the early 2000s, but this idea was turned into some kind of bogey. And now we will have to re-develop this idea, look for opportunities for its implementation, political and organizational resources for implementation. By the way, you have to.

Son of the founder of the Moscow methodological circle George Shchedrovitsky. Deals with logical and methodological problems of research, description, objectivity and objectification in the humanities.

In the early and mid-1990s, he was a member of the analytical group of the foreign policy association (“Group of the Immortals”, named after the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Alexander Bessmertnykh). In 2000 - 2005, he was an adviser to Sergei Kiriyenko, Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Volga Federal District, on strategic development.

Initiator of the issue and member of the editorial board of the book series "Philosophy of Russia in the first half of the 20th century" and "Philosophy of Russia in the second half of the 20th century".

From 2011 to the present - Member of the Board of the Center for Strategic Research "North-West", Head of the MEPhI Department, Advisor CEO State Corporation for Atomic Energy "Rosatom", representative of the Russian Federation in the meeting of participants of the company "Center for Ion and Antiproton Research in Europe (FAIR)".

In general, education is the formation of a picture of the world. To own a picture of the world means to see cause-and-effect relationships between phenomena. We have a huge number of young people, including quite decent ones, who do not have any picture of the world, they do not have causal relationships between phenomena, they do not understand that if they do A, it will turn out to be B, and they check these connections on their own empirical experience , But it is not best use the time we have been given. Universities are educational institutions that take on the risk and responsibility of shaping the picture of the world, rather than preparing for "activity." PTU, which can also be called a university, should prepare for “activity”, but this does not stop it from being a vocational school, it has its own tasks, which are also important, but they can be completed faster, not necessarily in 5-7 years. But the picture of the world is not formed faster.

In some of the leading universities in the world, included in the global hundred, this process is arranged in a way that is ridiculous for us: there students read books aloud and sort them out. There is a list of such books, about a hundred, it rarely appears something new. "Politics" of Aristotle is included there without fail. Moreover, it is assumed that you read in the original, if you have a poor command of the language - with a dictionary and translation. Then you come to the seminar and discuss what you understand, discuss, including using game methods. Once, while lecturing in Germany, I asked my second-year students of the Faculty of Philosophy, what did they manage to do while we were not seeing each other? They said: we read 15 pages of "Being and Time" by Heidegger (a German philosopher, one of the largest in the 20th century - ed.). You may laugh: what is 15 pages in a semester and a half? Or, on the contrary, you can be surprised: the guys studied as many as 15 pages of Heidegger. I assure you: 90% of you are not able to understand a single one. At the same time, they master some kind of craft in order to somehow earn a living, because ontology orients in the world, but does not necessarily give direct income.

The ongoing changes [in education] will be quite radical. The diploma will be assembled like Lego. A person will be able to receive individual elements of training, moving from one point of the world to another, alternating the cycles of education with the cycles of work, having the opportunity to gain a set of competencies from modules. Pedagogical work, the work of the teaching staff will also change. Today, models that have shown their effectiveness in sports and show business are being introduced extremely quickly in this area. There are "stars" who tour around the world and offer their potential clients a certain "menu" of various content units and forms of organization of the educational process.

This model began to take shape, one might say, with a joke. One very good specialist in the field of insurance, the application of his mechanisms in different areas, could not find students in any way, a couple of people went to him, because the course is very difficult, mathematics is very difficult. Then he decided that he would open the course online, and within a year he had an audience of 615,000 people. It turned out to be a much more efficient approach. And today, most global universities set themselves the task of entering into alliances and exchanging information to compete for an audience of billions of people. Their own contingents of students remain the same - 10 thousand, as in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or 50 thousand, as the University of Leuven (the oldest in Belgium - ed.), but access [to knowledge] is open to any potential user.

Of the 1,200 faculty members of the same University of Leuven, 10% are millionaires. But not only thanks to teaching, but also due to the fact that they participate in development, create technology companies together with students and receive income from this type of activity. For example, the Weizmann Institute (Israeli multidisciplinary research institute in the field of natural and exact sciences - ed.) conducts applied research, specializing exclusively in one stage of the life cycle of new knowledge, the result of the research is a fundamental technological possibility, the form of fixation is a patent, 200 intellectual property objects result in royalties of 30 billion [NIS] per year. They are not involved in implementation - this is the task of industrial enterprises, specialized companies, the institute has completely different functions in the division of engineering labor. The internal atmosphere is… coffee-lunch, they constantly communicate with each other. All employees under 35 years of age. People come and prove to the representatives of the supervisory board that their idea has a patent perspective. I talked to the director about how they make decisions [about funding projects]. In the eyes, and how else: eyes are burning - it means you can take it, boring eyes - well, goodbye. A grant is given for three years, no one gets into what the grantees do, after three years 2 thousand independent experts, whom no one knows, evaluate the results of the work for obtaining a patent. But even if everyone wrote that there is no prospect of a patent, the leadership of the institute, by their decision, can extend the financing of the work for another 3 years, or they can close them, and the guys scatter.

And soon we will occupy many places in mental activity not personally, but together with robots, or robots will occupy them without us. Americans are already converting elementary grades in parts of schools in New York state to learning by robots. Robots teach math, language, and so on. The robot is much kinder, he is attentive, remembers everything that the child did, helps him, the robot does not drink, does not smoke, he does not have a husband and wife, he does not have a bad mood and teaches better - using modern methods, faster, more efficiently, he does not need to be retrained . Looks good as a designer too. There is nothing wrong with this, before this function was performed by machines, machine tools with program numerical control, tools, and so on. Now you need to understand what robots are, how to work with them, and build cooperation.<...>

What can be said about us? We can take a lot from the experience of tsarist Russia, but we must understand that the Soviet Union ruined that education system, destroyed it, and "cassified" universities as research centers into several "vocational schools". For example: he singled out a medical institute from the faculty of Tomsk University, increased the number of students by 20 times and, due to the lack of teaching staff, reduced the quality of programs. About 20 years ago, I talked to people who remembered all this, and they said: after all, it is obvious that the medical faculty as part of the university, where there is also a natural science faculty, is the potential for interdisciplinary research, for example, in the field of pharmacology, and the medical institute, which riveting paramedics for the army, this is not a research center, this component has been removed from it. From the level of the hundred best educational institutions in the world, the Soviet Union jumped to 600 bad ones, it was a policy of accelerated industrialization: the quality is worse, but more and faster. Today we pay for it. By the way, when in 2004 I was an adviser to [Minister of Education] Andrey Alexandrovich Fursenko, and we began to sort professional standards, which worked in universities at that time, it turned out that a number of them were adopted in 1939 and have not changed since then. Can you imagine?

In general, we are not lagging behind and not ahead. We started later, but the Japanese started even later. The very likelihood that we will be able to return the research process to the university, frankly, is doubtful. But now research is not the dominant activity, as it was during the second industrial revolution, this is a dying activity, the number of researchers in the world will decrease in the sense that there will be a concentration on areas, part of the research will go to the Web, to big data, and a number of specializations in research activities will become unnecessary. Small breakthrough teams, network structures and a completely different principle of financing - this is how it will happen in the world. Then why do you need research institutes 600-1000 people each, of which three-quarters are engaged not in research, but in provision? When I was in command of the entire scientific and technical complex of Rosatom, I suggested to one good director institute: expel half [of the staff], they are not needed. Six months have passed, a year has passed - nothing happens. Finally I wonder: what's the matter? He explains: understand, I was born here, grew up, I walk the streets, and everyone greets me, I can’t kick anyone out, after that I won’t be able to look in the mirror. So, let it die like this, by itself ...