Shyam's Slide Share Presentations

VIRTUAL LIBRARY "KNOWLEDGE - KORRIDOR"

This article/post is from a third party website. The views expressed are that of the author. We at Capacity Building & Development may not necessarily subscribe to it completely. The relevance & applicability of the content is limited to certain geographic zones.It is not universal.

TO VIEW MORE CONTENT ON THIS SUBJECT AND OTHER TOPICS, Please visit KNOWLEDGE-KORRIDOR our Virtual Library

Showing posts with label HBS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HBS. Show all posts

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey on Entrepreneurship 08-07


You Don’t Know @Jack: Twitter’s Co-Founder Talks Entrepreneurship

Do you agree with Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, about entrepreneurship? Listen to the full interview with Jack and tag someone you know in the comments below who would appreciate a Cinderella startup story!

Twitter’s co-founder, Jack Dorsey, talks about the history of Twitter, the founding of Square, and how he made the transition from programmer to CEO.
The Business is a Harvard Business School podcast. Twice a month during the academic year, host Brian Kenny will bring you a new take on the business world through unexpected stories, and conversations with business leaders, entrepreneurs and faculty members. Subscribe on iTunesU.

TRANSCRIPT

Brian Kenny: Our guest today is Jack Dorsey, cofounder of Twitter and Square. He’s joining us from the Bay Area, where he goes by the handle @Jack. I guess that’s one of the benefits of creating the platform Jack, is that none of the handles are taken yet, and you get to pick whatever you want, right?
Jack Dorsey: Yeah, I’ve never been so lucky with my name, which is a pretty common one.
BK: We’re going to cover a lot of ground today. I’d like to talk about Twitter and Square, but I think our listeners would also love to hear your insights about entrepreneurship, the challenges of leading a startup, and the kind of things that you’ve learned along the way and we’ll try to do it all in 15 minutes to be consistent and concise, which is your philosophy as I understand it.
JD: It is.
BK: So, in March of 1876, Alexander Bell made the first phone call, and he said, “Mr. Watson, come here. I want to see you.” Then 130 years later, in March, also of 2006, you sent the first Tweet, “Just setting up my Twitter.” And both of those have now become pretty famous entries, right? Do you think about that at all as you sent your first Twitter?
JD: You know, I haven’t always made the connection, but it was a magic moment at the company when you—we were working on the system for about two weeks, and when you first get to use it, and you first get to feel it, it just feels like electricity, and it’s something that kind of makes all the hard work worth it in an instant.
BK: You got involved in IT at a really young age, right? You started at 13. Is that when you wrote your first program?
JD: My father was an engineer. We had a lot of solder irons and circuit boards around our house, and I was always pretty interested in taking things apart. We got our first computer when I was ten, an IBM PCjr and a Macintosh, and I was enthralled by both of them, mainly the ability to just change what they do. So I learned how to program in BASIC, and I played with HyperCard, and little by little I got better and better at newer programming languages like C.
BK: Where did the idea for Twitter come from? I’m sure you’ve told this story a thousand times, but I think people are still not really certain where the idea originated.
JD: For my part, I was always obsessed and interested in maps and how cities work. I used to study them when I was a kid, and just look at them and wonder what was happening in a particular part of a city, or a region, or around the block. What if you could actually see that live? My parents had a CB radio and a police scanner, and you would actually hear what was happening in the city from taxi cabs to fire trucks to police cars, ambulances, and they would always report where they were and what they were doing, so you could actually listen to a police car saying that something is happening at 5th and Broadway. We’re investigating. We’re going over to 6th and John, and we’ll be there in 15 minutes. If you take those two end points, you could actually plot them. You could point all the activity in a map that’s actually happening in the city, and I just thought that idea was so fascinating. I taught myself as much programming as necessary to actually make that work on my computer. Little by little, I got more of these visualizations of the city, and I got into dispatch when I was about 17, and eventually moved to New York and worked for the biggest dispatch firm in the world.
BK: Bike dispatching; is that right?
JD: Bike dispatch and black cars and general delivery. Little by little, I had all this information about what was actually happening in New York City, which was an amazing feeling just to see the city unfold live right before my eyes. It took a while to realize that I was missing a big part of the city, which were the people. Where were they? What were they doing? What if you could build a technology to actually enable them to just simply report where they were and what they were doing, what’s happening around them? I tried to make that system in 2001 with my first Blackberry, which was a Blackberry 950 e-mail pager, and it just wasn’t the right time, not the right technology. In 2006, SMS started getting really big in the United States. I had a great team around me. I was working at a company called Odeo, which was a podcasting company. Twitter was never started as a company. It was started as an idea that grew out of a failed company, a failed startup. We built the system that allowed people just to report what they were doing and what was happening around them from their mobile phone, from SMS. We built it in two weeks and then sent that first tweet, and it took off.
BK: That’s amazing. Did you ever imagine that it would evolve the way that it has?
BK: What’s been, in your experience, the most amazing thing that somebody has done with Twitter that surprised you the most?
JD: I mean it really surprises me every day from—you know, I think the first real catalyzing moment for me was when I was in the office on a Saturday, and my phone buzzed, and it was a tweet, and it said simply, “Earthquake.” Immediately after that I actually felt the tremors in San Francisco. The phone kept buzzing, and there was earthquake, earthquake, earthquake. I think it’s epicentered out of Berkeley. I think it’s epicentered out of Richmond. I think it’s a 4.7. Then very, very quickly, that speculation and just that shared experience went down to fact when the USGS reported that it was a 3.7 epicentered out of Richmond. What was amazing about that is I was experiencing something in the world, and immediately I felt comforted, because it was obvious that other people were experiencing the same thing. I thought, wow, the world is so small. You can actually—just by having that shared sensation that shared experience, you all feel like you’re all in this together.
BK: Tell us a little bit about Square. What’s the sort of backstory to Square, and what are you hoping its impact will be?
JD: Well, Square is seen as a little tiny “dongle” that you plug into a mobile phone to enable you to accept credit cards, and a lot of people just stop there when they consider what we’re doing. What was interesting about what we did five years ago when we built the company and built the product was my cofounder Jim McKelvey is a glass artist, and he was trying to sell a piece of glass, and someone wanted to us their credit card to pay for it, and he couldn’t accept it. He never went to the bank to get a merchant account. It was just too expensive and too complicated to even think about. He just wanted to sell his piece of glass art. What we recognized was there was this real opportunity in the fact that people were losing sales because they couldn’t accept a device that more and more people had in their pocket, which was a plastic card, whether it be a credit card, a debit card, or a prepaid card. The most critical thing we did immediately was just enable them to accept every sale. As we’ve grown and as we’ve watched our sellers over the past five years, we’ve realized it’s not just important to be able to accept that form of payment, but actually account for one’s entire business, actually build tools to make the running of the business even easier. Little by little we’ve added more features and services that address any business’s top three issues, no matter how big you are. You could be a Facebook or a Twitter, or even a flower cart, which is just operated by one person. You need three things fundamentally. Number one is access to capital. You need to have money to grow your business and to start your business. Number two is you need to find customers, and number three is you need to retain those customers. That’s it. So we see our mission and our role as providing solutions for all three of those, and we’ve launched products over the five years to do just that.
BK: Both of these ideas sprung out of your observations, and your cofounder’s observations of a felt need, something that you could provide that didn’t exist that would help people. At what point in that process does the idea of how are we going to make money off this come into it?
JD: It’s extremely important because money and revenue is the oxygen to actually continue growing the business, and you need that oxygen to live. It’s not something that we think about every single day. I don’t think about all the times that I’m breathing. I know that it’s necessary to survival. I know it’s necessary to sustaining what I want to do in the world, so we see making money and revenue in the same way. But at the same time, we’re making a bet constantly with ourselves that in order to have an opportunity to really grow and sustain, we need to build the network. You take investment in order to have the time to make that bet, to hold your breath a little bit while you build that network out, and then that oxygen comes in to sustain the company.
BK: How did you sort of make the journey from being a programmer to being a manager to being a leader? What was that journey like for you?
JD: The interesting thing about entrepreneurship to me is a lot of people think about that word, and they assume that it means to start a business. The definition of entrepreneurship is actually taking on significant risk, usually financial, in order to build something. That means that anyone can really take on an entrepreneurial attitude. An entrepreneur does not necessarily create a business. It’s just a very—it’s a very bold attitude of taking on risk because you really want to see something in the world. What that means is that when you have a clear vision of what you want to see in the world and what you want to use in the world, you do whatever it takes to make it real, right? For me, to make that idea real of being able to see the city around me through police cars and ambulances and taxi cabs, I had to learn how to program. The next step around that was encouraging and attracting other programmers to help me. Suddenly you have a team, and you need to coordinate that team. Then someone has to actually be accountable to the decisions the team makes, and that leads into more leadership, and that leads into what we call management. So little by little, you attack the next most critical thing, and you learn the next most critical thing to make the idea thrive and to sustain what you’re building. It’s something that—you know, I didn’t wake up thinking I really want to build a business. I really want to be a CEO. I really want to found companies or be a leader. I woke up thinking I want to see this in the world, and what do I need to learn, and what do I need to do to make it real? And not just make it real, to make it thrive and make it something that everyone in the world could potentially use. That requires scale, and that requires thinking about teams. The most efficient means of doing that today, in our day and age, is building a company around it, so that’s what I learned how to do.
BK: Are there things that you’re doing differently at Square than you did at Twitter just based on your experiences there? There were some management challenges at Twitter; those have been written about. Has that sort of changed your approach in how you manage things at Square?
JD: I mean it goes back to learning around the decisions you make, but absolutely. When we started Square, one of the first things I built and wrote in the company was around analytics, instrumentation. I wrote some code to actually show everything that was happening with our service and more in the company. The reason why is because in the early days of Twitter we just did not put an emphasis on that. We were flying blind, and we were flying the system blind. When you don’t know how fast you’re going or how high you are, you will crash. We saw so many crashes in the early days of Twitter, because we just did not have instrumentation, and it led to a lot of speculation around what the problem was and how to fix it. That led to a lot of arguments and a lot of miscommunication, and a lot of contention. Just by showing what we’re doing constantly and pointing back to the data and pointing back to how things are going, it eases communication, and it eases the work environment, and that’s been critical within Square, given that we are moving people’s money around. If we go down, if we’re not available, if we’re confusing, we’re losing their money, and we’re losing them business, and we just won’t allow ourselves to do that.
BK: Technology is advancing so fast these days that it’s in many ways outpacing the ability of governments to think about policy around technology. Certainly when you think about data security, that’s an issue that everybody is grappling with. How do you think about the role of government and how involved it should or shouldn’t be in sort of managing and putting policy around technology and how we use technology?
JD: Technology—and that’s a word that becomes this very abstract concept. Ultimately to me it means a tool, a very simple tool that saves people time and allows them to work more efficiently and gives them time back to focus on what’s most meaningful. I think the majority of technologies today, and the majority of tools, point to a world that wants to be more global and more unified, and closer and faster. We see it in communication, and we see it in commerce. I think it’s the role of government to make sure that we’re balancing those desires with the practicalities of the day and encouraging more positive motion forward.
BK: I saw that you tweeted to the president of Iran when he first signed onto Twitter asking him whether or not people in his country could read his tweets. Did he respond to you?
JD: He did, and it was another one of those magic moments when the boundaries that we’ve put up in the world just eroded. I was thrilled and humbled to be able to even ask that question, and to get a response. He said he’s working on it. There’s a lot to untie there, and there’s a lot to move, but that is the intention. It’s up to the people of his nation and the world to hold him accountable to moving that forward.
BK: Jack Dorsey, thanks so much for joining us today. We hope you’ll tweet about this.
JD: I will. Thank you.



Sunday, July 13, 2014

How Business Leaders Can Strengthen American Schools 07-13

How Business Leaders Can Strengthen American Schools


The declining competitiveness of the United States in world markets is due in part to the country's stagnant education system. Yet partnerships between business and educators have been marked by distrust. Jan Rivkin highlights proposals for a new collaboration.


Business has long recognized the connection between an effective school system and a qualified workforce—by some estimates, the private sector invests $4 billion annually in efforts intended to improve public education.
So why isn't that investment paying off?
"Business leaders today are engaged in education in ways that are generous, well-intended, effective at alleviating the symptoms of a weak education system, and thoroughly inadequate to help strengthen the system," says Harvard Business School Professor Jan W. Rivkin, a leader with University Professor Michael Porter of the School's U.S. Competitiveness Project. Rivkin is the Bruce V. Rauner Professor of Business Administration.
“STUDY AFTER STUDY HAS SHOWN THAT A COUNTRY’S LONG-TERM PROSPERITY DEPENDS ON THE QUALITY OF ITS HUMAN CAPITAL”
Rivkin and fellow HBS faculty Allen S. Grossman and Kevin W. Sharerhave joined forces with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Boston Consulting Group to determine how business leaders can partner more effectively with educators to support America's students and schools.
"Study after study has shown that a country's long-term prosperity depends on the quality of its human capital," says Rivkin. "So if we're really falling down in that arena, we have an economic problem so important that business leaders can't sit on the sidelines."
On the positive side, this could be a promising moment for American education. Rivkin points to developments such as improved teaching and leadership talent, the use of technology in personalized learning, the Common Core State Standards Initiative, wider school choice, and a dramatic upgrade in the quality and use of data analytics to determine what is working in education and what isn't.
So where do business leaders fit in? The group's recently published work identifies three areas that capitalize on business's strengths and result in the greatest returns:
  • Influencing policy. "We know that policy often stands in the way of innovation and education," says Rivkin. "Business leaders can wield a great deal of influence in policy—especially local policy—and local policy is where all the action is in education." In Denver, for example, business leaders partnered with educators to lobby for an increase in taxes to support education.

  • Building on proven innovation. "There's no shortage of success stories in particular schools and districts," Rivkin says. "The problem is that they tend to get bottled up in individual localities." Since business leaders are often adept at scaling up innovations that work, why not leverage that expertise? ExxonMobil, a founding sponsor of the National Math and Science Initiative, helped to scale two projects: one focusing on improved training for science, technology, and math teachers, the other on improving advanced placement test results in the same areas.

  • Reinventing the local education ecosystem. Many communities have programs to support children and education—but they're often not coordinated, resulting in gaps and redundancies in service. This a fertile area for collaboration. "What you see in some places are business, civic, and education leaders partnering to create a strategy to support kids from cradle to career," says Rivkin. In Cincinnati, the Strive Partnership serves as a central clearing house for aligning goals with the metrics and decisions to meet those goals. "This fosters a sense of collective responsibility but individual accountability," says Rivkin. As another example, the GE Foundation sponsors Developing Futures, a program that partners with seven school districts where GE has major operations to upgrade management talent and processes at the district level.

OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME

So what's the likelihood that these sorts of partnerships will become more prevalent? The private sector's $4 billion per year investment in education is a drop in the bucket when you consider the $600 billion total spent annually on US K-12 education. But it is still a significant sum with high-impact potential. Unfortunately, no clear, aggregate data exist to indicate how that money is spent, or its effectiveness.
The U.S. Competitiveness Project and its partners surveyed business leaders and school superintendents to gain a clearer understanding of the two groups' interactions.
The picture that emerges is a mixed one. On the plus side, 95 percent of superintendents could point to some form of business engagement in their districts. But on closer examination, much of that engagement can be characterized as "checkbook philanthropy" in the form of donated money, goods, and scholarships.
"These are noble efforts that are effective in their own way," says Rivkin, "but they don't result in positive, lasting improvements to the system."
Superintendents are happy with this sort of interaction, the survey showed, and 80 percent would welcome more collaboration, with a majority indicating openness to new types of engagement.
The two groups had very different perceptions of the effectiveness of K-12 education, however: Business leaders characterized the system as "poor and deteriorating" compared to other advanced nations' while superintendents saw it as "strong and keeping pace."
Another potential barrier to productive partnership: Business leaders tend to give themselves more credit for being informed about education than superintendents do.
Rivkin notes that in the survey of superintendents, the qualitative comments section also showed a clear undercurrent of distrust and lack of respect. "The gist was that a business leader would come in and say, 'I know how to run my business so I know how to run your school.'" The attitude that superintendents desired of business leaders was quite different: "I'm going to learn first, you're the professionals when it comes to education," Rivkin summarizes. "I'll have my ideas, but we're going to do this together."
The group's ongoing efforts currently include several publications available for download at the U.S. Competitiveness Project's website, including Lasting Impact: A Business Leader's Playbook for Supporting America's Schools and Partial Credit: How America's School Superintendents See Business as a Partner.
"There are some good, evidence-based programs that business leaders can start getting behind," Rivkin says, "but there's no question that we need a better understanding of what actually works."
The partnership between business and education must be long term, he adds. "The problems that we've seen in the education system and in our approach to human capital have been a generation in the making, and it will take a generation to set them right. Most businesses have an approach to partnering with educators that made sense in the past but is not adequate for the needs or the opportunities of the future."

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Business School, Disrupted 06-01



If any institution is equipped to handle questions of strategy, it is Harvard Business School, whose professors have coined so much of the strategic lexicon used in classrooms and boardrooms that it’s hard to discuss the topic without recourse to their concepts: Competitive advantage. Disruptive innovation. The value chain.

But when its dean, Nitin Nohria, faced the school’s biggest strategic decision since 1924 — the year it planned its campus and adopted the case-study method as its pedagogical cornerstone — he ran into an issue. Those professors, and those concepts, disagreed.

The question: Should Harvard Business School enter the business of online education, and, if so, how?

Universities across the country are wrestling with the same question — call it the educator’s quandary — of whether to plunge into the rapidly growing realm of online teaching, at the risk of devaluing the on-campus education for which students pay tens of thousands of dollars, or to stand pat at the risk of being left behind.

Harvard Business School faced a choice between different models of online instruction. Prof. Michael Porter favored the development of online courses that would reflect the school’s existing strategy. Credit
David De la Paz/European Press Photo Agency

At Harvard Business School, the pros and cons of the argument were personified by two of its most famous faculty members. For Michael Porter, widely considered the father of modern business strategy, the answer is yes — create online courses, but not in a way that undermines the school’s existing strategy. “A company must stay the course,” Professor Porter has written, “even in times of upheaval, while constantly improving and extending its distinctive positioning.”

For Clayton Christensen, whose 1997 book, “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” propelled him to academic stardom, the only way that market leaders like Harvard Business School survive “disruptive innovation” is by disrupting their existing businesses themselves. This is arguably what rival business schools like Stanford and the Wharton School have been doing by having professors stand in front of cameras and teach MOOCs, or massive open online courses, free of charge to anyone, anywhere in the world. For a modest investment by the school — about $20,000 to $30,000 a course — a professor can reach a million students, says Karl Ulrich, vice dean for innovation at Wharton, part of the University of Pennsylvania.

“Do it cheap and simple,” Professor Christensen says. “Get it out there.”

But Harvard Business School’s online education program is not cheap, simple, or open. It could be said that the school opted for the Porter theory. Called HBX, the program will make its debut on June 11 and has its own admissions office. Instead of attacking the school’s traditional M.B.A. and executive education programs — which produced revenue of $108 million and $146 million in 2013 — it aims to create an entirely new segment of business education: the pre-M.B.A. “Instead of having two big product lines, we may be on the verge of inventing a third,” said Prof. Jay W. Lorsch, who has taught at Harvard Business School since 1964.
Credit

Starting last month, HBX has been quietly admitting several hundred students, mostly undergraduate sophomores, juniors and seniors, into a program called Credential of Readiness, or CORe. The program includes three online courses — accounting, analytics and economics for managers — that are intended to give liberal arts students fluency in what it calls “the language of business.” Students have nine weeks to complete all three courses, and tuition is $1,500. Only those with a high level of class participation will be invited to take a three-hour final exam at a testing center.

“We don’t want tourists,” said Jana Kierstead, executive director of HBX, alluding to the high dropout rates among MOOCs. “Our goal is to be very credible to employers.” To that end, graduates will receive a paper credential with a grade: high honors, honors, pass.

“Harvard is going to make a lot of money,” Mr. Ulrich predicted. “They will sell a lot of seats at those courses. But those seats are very carefully designed to be off to the side. It’s designed to be not at all threatening to what they’re doing at the core of the business school.”

Exactly, warned Professor Christensen, who said he was not consulted about the project. “What they’re doing is, in my language, a sustaining innovation,” akin to Kodak introducing better film, circa 2005. “It’s not truly disruptive.”

‘Very Different Places’

Professor Christensen did something “truly disruptive” in 2011, when he found himself in a room with a panoramic view of Boston Harbor. About to begin his lecture, he noticed something about the students before him. They were beautiful, he later recalled. Really beautiful.

“Oh, we’re not students,” one of them explained. “We’re models.”

They were there to look as if they were learning: to appear slightly puzzled when Professor Christensen introduced a complex concept, to nod when he clarified it, or to look fascinated if he grew a tad boring. The cameras in the classroom — actually, a rented space downtown — would capture it all for the real audience: roughly 130,000 business students at the University of Phoenix, which hired Professor Christensen to deliver lectures online.

Why had his boss, Mr. Nohria, given him permission to moonlight? “Because we didn’t have an alternative of our own” online, Mr. Nohria explained.

The dean had taken a wait-and-see approach — until 18 months ago, when his own university announced the formation of edX, an open-courseware platform that would hitch the overall university firmly to the MOOC bandwagon.

He said he remembered listening to an edX presentation at an all-university meeting. “I must confess I was unsure what we’d be really hoping to gain from it,” he said. “My own early imagination was: ‘This is for people who do lectures. We don’t do lectures, so this is not for us.’ ” In the case method, concepts aren’t taught directly, but induced through student discussion of real-world business problems that professors guide with carefully chosen questions.

“Nitin and I are close friends, and we’ve talked about this repeatedly,” Professor Porter said. “I think the big risk in any new technology is to believe the technology is the strategy. Just because 200,000 people sign up doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.” Though Professor Porter published “Strategy and the Internet” in the Harvard Business Review in 2001, before the advent of MOOCs, the article makes his sternest warning about the perils of online recklessness: “A destructive, zero-sum form of competition has been set in motion that confuses the acquisition of customers with the building of profitability.”

Mr. Nohria ultimately chose for the business school to opt out of edX. But this decision forced a question: What should the school do instead? “People came out in very different places,” Mr. Nohria said. “Very different places.”

One morning, he sat down for one of his regular breakfasts with students. “Three of them had just been in Clay’s course,” which had included a case study on the future of Harvard Business School, Mr. Nohria said. “So I asked them, ‘What was the debate like, and how would you think about this?’ They, too, split very deeply.”

Some took Professor Christensen’s view that the school was a potential Blockbuster Video: a high-cost incumbent — students put the total cost of the two-year M.B.A. at around $100,0000 — that would be upended by cheaper technology if it didn’t act quickly to make its own model obsolete. At least one suggested putting the entire first-year curriculum online.

On the topic of online instruction, Prof. Clayton Christensen said: ‘Do it cheap and simple. Get it out there.”CreditRick Friedman for The New York Times
On the topic of online instruction, Prof. Clayton Christensen said: ‘Do it cheap and simple. Get it out there.” Credit Rick Friedman for The New York Times
Others weren’t so sure. “ ‘This disruption is going to happen,’ ” is how Mr. Nohria described their thinking, “ ‘but it’s going to happen to a very different segment of business education, not to us.’ ” The power of Harvard’s brand, networking opportunities and classroom experience would protect it from the fate of second- and third-tier schools, a view that even Professor Christensen endorses — up to a point.

“We’re at the very high end of the market, and disruption always hits the high end last,” said Professor Christensen, who recently predicted that half of the United States’ universities could face bankruptcy within 15 years.

Mr. Nohria states flatly, “I do not believe our M.B.A. program is at risk.” He concluded that disruption is not always “all or nothing,” and cited the businesses of music and retailing as examples. “In the music business, all record stores are gone,” he said, while in retailing, “it’s not like Amazon has eliminated everything; after those debates, my feeling was that we’re going to be more in that category.”

Still, Mr. Nohria said, he wanted some insurance. “Our beliefs can always turn out to be wrong,” he said. Harvard Business School could not afford to stand on the sidelines. So last summer, he said, he asked the business school’s administrative director, “What would you say if we started a little skunk works around this technology?”

‘Hollywood’ at Harvard

That skunk works, in a low-slung building 300 yards from campus, is not little. It buzzes with 35 full-time staff members — Wharton’s online efforts, by comparison, employ one-half of one staffer, Mr. Ulrich said — who are scrambling to complete a proprietary platform that, after this summer’s limited go-round, could support much larger enrollments.

“Here’s Hollywood,” Ms. Kierstead said on a recent tour, passing an array of video equipment that’s hauled around to film business case-study protagonists on location. Nearby, two digital animators worked on graphics for Professor Christensen’s forthcoming course. Another staff member handled financial aid.

To run HBX with Ms. Kierstead, Mr. Nohria tapped Bharat Anand, 48, a strategy professor who had been researching how traditional media companies have coped, or haven’t, with digital disruption. “I think about those cases a lot,” said Professor Anand, who is also Mr. Nohria’s brother-in-law.

The dean handed him a sheet of six guiding principles, including these: HBX should be economically self-sustaining. It should not substitute for the M.B.A. program. It should seek to replicate the Harvard Business School discussion-based style of learning. This was no easy assignment, Professor Anand conceded.

“What is competitive advantage?” he asked, invoking Professor Porter’s signature theory. “It comes from being fundamentally different. We teach this all the time. But saying it is one thing. Putting it into practice is hard. When everyone is going free, everyone is going with a similar type of platform, it takes courage to do your own thing.”

On campus, Harvard business students face one another in five horseshoe-shaped tiers with oversized name cards. They fight for “airtime” while the professor orchestrates discussion from a central “pit.”

“We don’t do lectures,” Mr. Nohria said. “Part of what had already convinced me that MOOCs are not for us is that for a hundred years our education has been social.”

The challenge was to invent a digital architecture that simulated the Harvard Business School classroom dynamic without looking like a classroom. In a demonstration of a course called economics for managers, the first thing the student sees is the name, background and location — represented by glowing dots on a map — of other students in the course.

A video clip begins. It’s Jim Holzman, chief executive of the ticket reseller Ace Ticket, estimating the supply of tickets for a New England Patriots playoff game: “Where I have a really hard time is trying to figure out what the demand is. We just don’t know how many people are on the sidelines saying, ‘Hey, I’m thinking about going.’ ”

It’s a complex situation meant to get students thinking about a key concept — “the distinction between willingness to pay and price,” Professor Anand said. “Just because something costs zero doesn’t mean people aren’t willing to pay something.” A second case study, on the pay model of The New York Times, drives the point home.

Then a box pops up on the screen with the words “Cold Call.” The student has 30 seconds to a few minutes to type a response to a question and is then prodded to assess comments made by other students. Eventually there is a multiple-choice quiz to gauge mastery of the concept. (This was surprisingly time-consuming to develop, Professor Anand said, because the business school does not give multiple-choice tests.)

At a faculty meeting in April, Professor Anand demonstrated the other two elements of HBX: continuing education for executives and a live forum. He unveiled the existence of a studio, built in collaboration with Boston’s public television station, that allows a professor to stand in a pit before a horseshoe of 60 digital “tiles,” or high-definition screens with the live images and voices of geographically dispersed participants. “I’m proud of our team, and how carefully they’ve thought about it even before they’ve done it,” Professor Porter said.

The Clashing Models

Not everyone was so impressed. Professor Christensen, for one, worried that Harvard was falling into the very trap he had laid out in “The Innovator’s Dilemma.” “I think that we’ve way overshot the needs of customers,” he said. “I worry that we’re a little too technologically ambitious.”


The dean, Nitin Nohria, found that students were also divided on the issue of online instruction.CreditRick Friedman for The New York Times
The dean, Nitin Nohria, found that students were also divided on the issue of online instruction. Credit Rick Friedman for The New York Times

He also feared that HBX was tied too closely to the business school.

“There have been a few companies that have survived disruption, but in every case they set up an independent business unit that let people learn how to play ball in the new game,” he said. IBM survived the transition from mainframe computers to minicomputers, and then from minicomputers to personal computers, by setting up autonomous teams in Minnesota and then in Florida. “We haven’t got the separation required.”

Professor Porter has expressed the opposite view. Companies that set up stand-alone Internet units, he wrote in 2001, “fail to integrate the Internet into their proven strategies and thus never harness their most important advantages.” Barnes & Noble’s decision to set up a separate online unit is one of his cautionary tales. “It deterred the online store from capitalizing on the many advantages provided by the network of physical stores,” he said, “thus playing into the hands of Amazon.”

Here is where the two professors’ differences come to a head. In the Porter model, all of a company’s activities should be mutually reinforcing. By integrating everything into one, cohesive fortification, “any competitor wishing to imitate a strategy must replicate a whole system,” Professor Porter wrote.

In the Christensen model, these very fortifications become a liability. In the steel industry, which was blindsided by new technology in smaller and cheaper minimills, heavily integrated companies couldn’t move quickly and ended up entombed inside their elaborately constructed defenses.

“If Clay and I differ, it’s that Clay sees disruption everywhere, in every business, whereas I see it as something that happens every once in a while,” Professor Porter said. “And what looks like disruption is in fact an incumbent firm not embracing innovation” at all.

In other words, it’s not that U.S. Steel was destined to be undone by minimills. It’s that its managers let it happen.

“The disrupter doesn’t always win,” argued Professor Porter, who nonetheless called Professor Christensen “phenomenal” and “one of the great management thinkers.”

Who will win the coming business school shakeout? Professor Porter acknowledged that it’s a multidimensional question.

Most schools offering MOOCs do so through outside distribution channels like Coursera, a for-profit company that has Duke, Wharton, Yale, the University of Michigan and several dozen other schools in its stable. EdX, of which Harvard was a co-founder with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, counts Dartmouth and Georgetown among its charter members.

“These will come to have considerable power,” predicted Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He pointed to the aircraft industry: “In order to get into China, Boeing transferred its technology to parts manufacturers there. Pretty soon there’s going to be Chinese firms building airplanes. Boeing created their own competition.” Business schools, he said, “are doing it again; we are creating our own demise.”

Professors as Online Stars

The worry is all the more acute at midtier schools, which fear that elite business schools will move to gobble up a larger share of a shrinking pie.

“Would you rather watch Kenneth Branagh do ‘Henry V,’ or see it at a community theater?” asked Mr. Ulrich at Wharton. “There are going to be some instructors who become more valuable in this new world because they master the new medium. We’d rather be those guys than the people left behind.”

This raises a still more radical case, in which the winners are not any institution, new or old, but a handful of star professors. One of Professor Porter’s generic observations — that the Internet increases the “bargaining power of suppliers” — suggests just that. “It’s potentially very divisive in a way,” he acknowledged. “We’re all partners; we all get paid roughly the same. Anything that starts to fracture the enterprise is a sobering prospect.”

François Ortalo-Magné, dean of the University of Wisconsin’s business school, says fissures have already appeared. Recently, a rival school offered one of his faculty members not just a job, but also shares in an online learning start-up created especially for him. “We’re talking about millions of dollars,” Mr. Ortalo-Magné said. “My best teachers are going to find platforms so they can teach to the world for free. The market is finding a way to unbundle us. My job is to hold this platform together.”

To that end, he has changed his school’s incentive structure, which, as in most of academia, was based primarily on the number of research articles published in elite journals. Now professors who can’t crack those journals but “have a gift for inspiring learning,” he said, in person or online, are being paid as top performers, too. “We are now rewarding people who have tenure to give up on research,” Mr. Ortalo-Magné said.

Mr. Ortalo-Magné spins out the possibilities of disruption even further. “How many calculus professors do we need in the world?” he asked. “Maybe it’s nine. My colleague says it’s four. One to teach in English, one in French, one in Chinese, and one in the farm system in case one dies.”

What is to stop a Coursera from poaching Harvard Business School faculty members directly? “Nothing,” Mr. Nohria said. “The decision people will have to make is whether being on the platform of Harvard Business School, or any great university, is more important than the opportunity to build a brand elsewhere.

“Does Clay Christensen become Clay Christensen just by himself? Or does Clay Christensen become Clay Christensen because he was at Harvard Business School? He’ll have to make that determination.”

View at the original source

Friday, April 11, 2014

Facebook’s Future 04-11

Facebook’s Future


Today, we follow Facebook and update friends on our doings. In the not too distant future, predicts Mikolaj Piskorski, Facebook will follow us and call half the planet customers.



Editor's note: Now 10 years old, Facebook's growth is starting to slow. That's one reason it purchased What'sApp last month in a jaw-dropping deal valued at $19 billion. What might the next decade be like? Harvard Business School Associate Professor Misiek Piskorski, an authority on why and how people use various online social platforms, makes some predictions.
In the first decade of its existence, Facebook, aided by the broad adoption of mobile devices and fast internet connections, emerged as a virtual Cheers bar where people share their lives with a legion of geographically dispersed friends and acquaintances and reconnect with faces from the past. First college students, then Millennials, and soon after, their parents and grandparents were drawn in by the allure of this pioneering social network that effectively shrank the world down to a portable and vibrant community.
The company recently celebrated its tenth anniversary, and for much of that time, Facebook's stunning growth—more than 1.2 billion users worldwide—has been the story. That said, the core Facebook functionalities have remained essentially unchanged for the past several years, and so pundits wonder whether Facebook's attraction has peaked. The apparent disappearance of teenagers from the site has made these concerns even greater. I disagree with this conclusion. Teenagers will return to the site when they are older, and Facebook will continue to grow in size, particularly in India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Africa.
“HIS CREATION WILL THEN UNDOUBTEDLY BEAR LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO ITS CURRENT LOOK AND FEEL”
But what will Facebook look like a decade from now? In 2024, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg will turn 40. His creation will then undoubtedly bear little resemblance to its current look and feel. A decade of technological progress will result in major changes, and I believe the site will morph into a potent and active force in people's lives.
Today, Facebook is a passive vehicle where users manually post pictures, status updates, and YouTube videos. And then they quietly observe what others have posted, occasionally offering a comment, but often just scrolling down through content. As such, Facebook is a retrospective medium, a place to share experiences already completed and then put them on display. But the company does little to capture information as it happens, and even less to help us organize the future.
But this will change as Facebook becomes a prospective medium—a dynamic, real-time driver that will automatically gather current and future information that wearable devices will automatically broadcast about us, match it with what our friends are auto-broadcasting, and then deliver recommendations on what we should do socially. This will help us get off the mobile phone and actually meet up in the offline world. This way, Facebook will become less of a website to visit than an invisible conduit to the most important aspects of people's lives, a way to keep a closer eye on their children, plan social interactions, be alerted to pertinent products and services, and accelerate the value of a person's connections.
Two trends will lead to this outcome. First, people are already sharing private information generated by their wearable devices, such as Nike FuelBand. The device is a part of a greater Nike+ ecosystem that has attracted over 18 million users who happily share their athletic achievements with others. Just do a search on #nikeplus on Twitter, and you will discover a Nike-related tweet every 10 seconds in every conceivable language. Second, many companies are already encouraging us to share private information automatically. For example, if you are using Google Maps on your iPhone, you are most likely sending information to Google about your location and speed—data the company aggregates to present us with up-to-date traffic maps. It won't be long, however, before the two trends converge, and we will start broadcasting personal information automatically as we go through our day. As soon as Facebook develops appropriate algorithms to deliver the right social information to the right people and demonstrates their utility to us, adoption will soar.
While all this is happening, Facebook's marketing influence will accelerate dramatically, providing a growing revenue stream for the company. When Facebook first started it was no more than a mechanism to attract eyeballs for businesses. Since then it has evolved into a sophisticated marketing machine that enables marketers to serve targeted messages on the basis of our email address or mobile phone number.
But in 2024, technology will make possible real-time marketing possible. As we auto-broadcast our social data, Facebook can respond to them immediately with targeted offers in response to what we need right now. If I walk down the street and feel hungry, for example, Facebook will suggest a set of friends who live nearby and seem available and then advertise a restaurant that we all might like. Or if my nanny suddenly becomes ill and can't pick up my four-year old from preschool, Facebook will automatically display an advertisement for a substitute nanny who has worked for four close friends and who can step in and pick up my child.
Granted, this has the heavy feel of the movie "Minority Report" taken to its ultimate limits, and the road to 2024 will undoubtedly be bumpy and filled with controversy related to privacy. Over its first decade, Facebook has been no stranger to controversy, specifically about privacy controls, and it is to the company's credit that its growth has continued despite such concerns.
“GRANTED, THIS HAS THE HEAVY FEEL OF THE MOVIE ‘MINORITY REPORT’ TAKEN TO ITS ULTIMATE LIMITS”
This time, however, given the amount of information disclosed, Facebook will need to execute as flawlessly as possible. If it gets the privacy component wrong and infuriates its users, its survival is not guaranteed. Some other startup, maybe from China or maybe a US-based open source venture, will step in and grab that territory. And there is much to grab, with the world population soaring to 8 billion people by 2024. But if Facebook does get it right, it can easily grab half that population.
Is this an optimistic scenario or a Big Brother nightmare? There are a vast number of ways that this might potentially make our lives better and happier. And there are just as many ways that Facebook can go awry. If the main driver is to use the technology for invasive and intrusive paths toward profit, Facebook's future may well be questionable. If it can incorporate a real and active impetus to do the right thing for humanity, it will be much more successful in the years ahead than it has been in the past decade.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Why Pay Is Down For HBS & Stanford MBAs 03-16

Why Pay Is Down For HBS & Stanford MBAs

money, salary, pay
Are Harvard and Stanford MBAs no longer the highest paid business graduates on the planet?
For years, it was pretty much a given that the most lucratively rewarded MBAs in the world strode off the campuses of the Harvard Business School and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Yet, for the first time ever last year, the average salary and bonus paid to HBS and Stanford grads was below the sums landed by rival MBAs at both the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business.
For Harvard and Stanford MBAs, in fact, starting salaries and bonuses were the lowest they have been in the past three years. HBS grads landed jobs paying $138,346, down from $142,501 in 2012, while Stanford MBAs took jobs that on average paid $137,525, down from $140,459.
In contrast, Wharton grads were paid a record $141,243 last year, nearly $4,000 more than Stanford MBAs. Dartmouth Tuck grads left the school’s Hanover, New Hampshire campus with average salary and bonus of $139,036—more than $1,5000 extra.
Even worse, perhaps, average salaries and bonuses for the graduates of what are generally considered the two best business schools in the world are still significantly lower than they were five years ago in 2008.
THE GREAT RECESSION HELPED TO RESET MBA PAY
Though the Great Recession was already underway that year, most of the job offers were made to graduates before the market went bust so they reflected the pre-crash froth of an economy in a bubble. In 2008, Harvard MBAs reported record salary and bonus averaging $144,261. Last year, a full five years later, the pay was nearly $6,000 less. It’s a similar story for Stanford MBAs. The Class of 2008 received average salary and bonus of $140,771, also a record, but more than $3,000 less in 2013.
Truth be told, Harvard and Stanford pay hit an artificial ceiling in 2008. The reset of the economy has essentially reset those pay levels. After all, in 2008 average salary and bonus at HBS went from $135,630 in 2007 to $144,261–a hefty jump in a single year.  At Stanford, it went from $134,654 to that $140,771.
The latest compensation numbers are reported by the schools to U.S. News & World Report for its ranking of the best full-time MBA programs published earlier this week. Harvard and Stanford aren’t the only outliers. In fact, starting salary and bonus for MBAs fell at 12 of the Top 50 business schools.
A CHANGING MIX OF INTERESTS AND JOBS ARE ALSO BEHIND THE LOWER BASE NUMBERS
But how it is possible that HBS and Stanford no longer rule the pay roost? ”It’s simply the industry mix,” explains Maeve Richard,  assistant dean and director of Stanford’s Career Management Center. Where Stanford MBAs take their careers “has fluctuated significantly as students have gravitated from finance to technology over the last six years. Since 2007, the percent of students going into finance has gone from 38% to 26% (2013). That has affected the calculation of overall compensation since the cash bonus component tends to be high in finance.”
Many of the tech startups that have been successful in recruiting more of Stanford’s graduating class keep base salaries and sign-on bonuses low, preferring to hand out stock and other back-end bonuses not calculated in more traditional salary-and-bonus metrics.
“Over the same period (from 2007 to 2013), the percent of students going into technology has risen significantly from 12% in 2007 to 32% in the last graduating class. It’s important to note that the standards used by business schools and U.S. News for calculating compensation do not capture equity gains such as stock options, which is a potentially significant portion of compensation for those in the tech sector. “
‘MANY OF THESE FOLKS ARE TAKING AN EQUITY STAKE IN A NEW OR RECENT VENTURE’
Kristen Fitzpatrick, who heads up the Career and Professional Development Office at Harvard Business School, attributes the decline to a changing mix of careers and interests as well. “Our students now are pursuing more options –-different options-–where they can have an impact sooner rather than later,” says Fitzpatrick. About18% of the class went into technology, up from 12% last year, and for many of these folks, that meant taking an equity stake in a new or recent venture, rather than salary.”
Another 5% of the class went into the non-profit sector, up from 3% a year earlier. “They will definitely make their mark, but not win recognition for a high salary,” she says. “Beyond all this, the numbers of the class going into high-paying PE/VC firms are down – 10% this past year, down from 16% in 2012.”
Of course, no one at Harvard or Stanford is crying over the loss of their high-pay crowns. Once you add in some of those back-end bonuses—not included in the U.S. News numbers—you get quite a different picture of compensation. Consider, for example, the 9% of the graduating class that went into private equity. Roughly 47% of that group reported “median other guaranteed compensation” of $135,000. That’s right, $135,000, in addition to the $150,000 median base salary and the $25,000 median signing bonus.
THE SALARY-AND-BONUS GAP BETWEEN THE ELITES AND OTHER HIGHLY RANKED SCHOOLS IS SHRINKING
Sure, it’s a relatively small portion of HBS’ graduating class that is getting that kind of cash. But if you threw those numbers into the averages, they would look quite different. For the 9% of the class, for example, that landed jobs in private equity,
At the same time, average MBA salaries and bonuses since 2009 are up at 38 of the Top 50 schools, and unlike the downward trend at a few very elite schools, 20 of the Top 25 schools reported increases in pay last year. Even more telling, some of the increases are often greatest at MBA programs you would least expect. Think of schools like the University of Florida of the University of Washington.
What’s happened is that the gap between the top of the market and the bottom has greatly diminished. Generally, MBAs from the big brand schools were already making so much money that there wasn’t much room for significant improvement. MBAs from the lower Top 25 schools, on the other hand, have seen far greater momentum.
AVERAGE SALARY & BONUS IS UP 36.2% AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON’S FOSTER SCHOOL
The Top 25 school whose MBAs have been the greatest beneficiary of this trend? Graduates of the University of Washington’s Foster School of Business. Class of 2013 Foster MBAs pulled down average salary and bonus of $118,759, up 36.2% from the $87,177 average in 2009. It helps, of course, when the headquarters of such healthy companies as Amazon.com, Microsoft and Starbucks are in the neighborhood.  Similarly, graduates of Emory University’s Goizueta School of Business posted average salary and bonus of $124,148 last year, up 21.3% from the $102,372 they made in 2009.
Put another way, HBS grads made $44,042 more than Foster MBAs in 2009. Last year, the gap between the graduates of these two school had shrunk to just $19,587. What’s occurring is a greater appreciation for the MBA degree in general and the belief that the training a person gets in a quality business school is highly desirable to an employer, whether the graduate is from an M7 school or another still highly ranked institution.
Partially, this is a consequence of the fact that average salary and bonus is up only 3.6% at Stanford in the past five years, compared to increases of 25.3% at the University of Florida, or 18.6% at the University of Wisconsin, or 17.8% at the University of Maryland’s business school.
HIGHEST PAID MBAS IN 2013 WERE FROM WHARTON, TUCK, HBS, COLUMBIA & STANFORD
Of course, MBAs from the truly elite business schools remain the most highly compensated graduates. As noted earlier, the school with the highest average salary and bonus in 2013 was the Wharton School, where MBAs accepted jobs with average salary and bonus of $141,243. They were followed by MBAs at Dartmouth, Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford MBAs were next 

Average Salary & Bonus for the Top 50 Business 


Schools in the U.S.


2013 P&Q Rank & School2013 Pay2012 Pay2011 Pay2010 Pay2009 Pay5-Year Increase
   1. Harvard Business School$138,346$142,501$139,735$131,759$131,2195.4%
   2. Stanford GSB$137,525$140,459$140,972$131,949$132,7693.6%
   3. Chicago (Booth)$135,982$135,653$133,424$126,779$122,13111.3%
   4. UPenn (Wharton)$141,243$138,302$137,311$132,579$123,74114.1%
   5. Northwestern (Kellogg)$135,838$134,001$130,092$123,996$127,8346.3%
   6. MIT (Sloan)$137,057$139,035$132,618$125,905$125,7079.0%
   7. Columbia$137,654$134,868$134,233$123,486$123,15011.8%
   8. Dartmouth (Tuck)$139,036$138,713$138,220$128,013$128,2828.4%
   9. Duke (Fuqua)$135,101$136,461$128,666$118,923$120,47412.1%
 10. UC-Berkeley (Haas)$134,078$133,786$129,776$120,164$121,12410.7%
 11. Cornell (Johnson)$129,037$127,368$122,329$112,039$120,1427.4%
 12. Michigan (Ross)$134,883$134,360$127,817$116,201$125,9957.1%
 13. Virginia (Darden)$136,102$131,906$127,595$119,278$123,16410.5%
 14. UCLA (Anderson)$123,353$121,864$119,109$108,806$08,28613.9%
 15. New York (Stern)$131,975$133,919$128,888$121,867$124,1126.3%
 16. Carnegie Mellon (Tepper)$131,181$128,101$117,650$106,066$117,35911.8%
 17. Yale$126,013$121,631$125,735$113,226$117,2747.5%
 18. UNC (Kenan-Flagler)$123,526$118,195$101,904$111,327$113,1059.2%
 19. Texas-Austin (McCombs)$123,868$123,177$118,410$108,886$113,7688.9%
 20. Indiana (Kelley)$113,898$108,807$106,195$101,206$107,2216.3%
 21. Emory (Goizueta)$124,148$124,066$121,050$100,300$102,37221.3%
 22. Georgetown (McDonnough)$118,620$114,744$111,721$103,676$106,01211.9%
 23. Washington (Olin)$110,533$106,009$99,354$90,767$97,32613.6%
 24. Washington (Foster)$118,759$110,768$97,970$91,593$87,17736.2%
 25. Vanderbilt (Owen)$113,170$108,889$102,694$93,351$102,85210.0%
2013 P&Q Rank & School2013 Pay2012 Pay2011 Pay2010 Pay2009 Pay5-Year Increase
26. Ohio State (Fisher)$108,510$102,162$91,696$91,628$99,7108.8%
27. Rice (Jones)$115,693$108,587$108,175$102,017$100,97514.6%
28. USC (Marshall)$116,011$109,841$109,619$101,810$110,5944.9%
29. Maryland (Smith)$98,723$101,604$99,694$91,269$83,78817.8%
30. Wisconsin$109,293$105,614$105,333$93,332$92,15218.6%
31. Georgia Tech (Scheller)$108,055$101,612$97,376$92,282$92,29817.1%
32. Notre Dame (Mendoza)$115,296$111,255$104,763$96,490$99,60415.8%
33. Penn State (Smeal)$108,961$91,563$93,156$95,480$96,74612.6%
34. Texas A&M (Mays)$97,480$104,723$97,279$91,246$90,7777.4%
35. Iowa (Tippie)$95,058$87,026$94,003$92,802$85,46311.2%
36. Minnesota (Carlson)$117,972$118,986$110,349$97,298$106,26411.0%
37. Rochester (Simon)$92,262$95,046$81,117$78,083$82,80811.4%
38. Michigan State (Broad)$102,806$96,579$94,826$92,359$100,5712.2%
39. SMU (Cox)$100,748$95,296NANA$92,329 9.1%
40. Boston University$103,291$101,204$94,434$90,157$101,4941.8%
41. Purdue (Krannert)$100,609$97,293$89,720$89,655$98,9801.6%
42. Arizona State (Carey)$103,903$100,984$95,255$92,101$94,5569.9%
43. Brigham Young (Marriott)$110,216$108,227$103,369$97,207$98,50011.9%
44. Illinois-Urbana-Champagn$94,751$94,331$85,916$95,276$94,700.1%
45. Boston College$96,915$102,423$98,283$91,282$98,298-1.4%
46. Wake Forest (Babcock)$93,957$100,897$91,504$88,390$104,595-10.2%
47. UC-Irvine (Merage)$89,719$80,809$79,149$76,981$77,70215.5%
48. Florida (Hough)$84,281$78,102$78,522$75,403$67,28825.3%
49. Georgia (Terry)$86,096$91,830NANANANA
50. George Washington$87,198$89,508NANANANA
Source: Poets&Quants analysis from publicly available data from business schools