Just a few quick ideas that were discussed in the two sessions I attended.  The first was with Robert Eccles on “Leading Professional Service Firms (PSFs)”.  Three ideas:

1. What type of “alternative” business models are emerging?  We did a case earlier this year on Eden McCallum, which uses a “network” type business model (ie, a loosely linked internet-coordinated approach with flexible staffing) to compete against the major consulting firms.  Is this disruptive to the majors?  Or is it just a niche play?
2. Where does innovation come from in PSFs?  A lot of the consulting firms essentially “do R&D” by solving problems for clients.  How do you generalize and codify this into a new offering?  How do you select the projects that might create valuable IP / thought leadership?
3. How does a PSF build capabilities given the incentive structure?  The economic interests of the partners (in the short-term) does not necessarily align with long-term capability building.  The related question here is: why are so few consulting / investment firms able to expand beyond a small partnership and charismatic founder?

Anyway, some very interesting things to think about as I move forward into a consulting role this summer.  The second session I attended was with Andrew King on the “Industry Self Regulation of Environmental Impacts”.  Again, three  ideas:

1. Project finance (which consists of setting up a separate “corporation” for a large infrastructure project) has some unique issues.  While creating this SPE and funding it with a consortium of investors helps “de-risk” and spread the potential negative outcomes, it also dilutes a sense of responsibility.  No one has their brand equity at stake.  An interesting (and vividly beautiful) example of this are concrete plants in the karst of Vietnam.
2. There are two “Kermit the Frog” questions that each company should ask: 1) Is it easy to be green?  2) Can the frogs themselves make it easy?  I’m not sure how insightful that is, but I enjoyed the description.
3. The most economical way for a firm to raise standards is to do so in such away where it affects not just your firm, but changes the game for all firms.  Alliances, Due Diligence Best Practices, Signals – there a number of ways to raise the boats of all incumbents and to raise the barriers-to-entry for new entrants.

That’s it!   I skipped the third one (had a meeting to attend).  My only request for the next one: make the presentations 30 minutes long and let people jump around more!  It’s a bit ironic that HBS considers companies (during the Company Info Days) to only be worth 30 minutes each, but the professors to be worth 1hr each.  Such is the arrogance of academia…

More it’s just the lack of structure that bothers me.  The case method is inherently fluid and without answers – which is a great thing (!): there’d be no point having a discussion if there were only one answer.  The problem with LCA is there are also no correct processes, no correct frameworks, and essentially, no way to effectively compare & contrast opinions. 

In most case discussions, you think X and I think Y.  Fine.  We can discuss the pros / cons of each and possibly arrive at a compromise or at least fully evaluated strategic options.  In LCA, you think X and I think Y.  We smile and nod congenially, and someone else chimes in that they think Z.  Oh, and A.  Or maybe C?  Does it matter?  Not really.  Where were we again?  Exactly.  Annoyed?  Me too. 

Again, this would be a great course if the class size were only five people, but it falls flat on its face with ninety. 

The professor is fantastic, too!  I was chatting in the cafeteria during recruiting week with some sectionmates and a random guy walks up and says: “Hi X, Y, and Z… how are you all?”  Then he asked me a question about my previous industry…  I was thinking, “What…!??!?  Do I know you??”  It turns out he was our new TEM professor, fresh from memorizing all of our names (and career history).  I think that shows dedication & experience that visibly carries over into class.  He guides the case discussion in a way that can only be done by thinking incredibly quickly. 

Anyway, it’s fun to study entrepreneurial decisions.  Studies show that almost 1/3rd of HBS grads are running businesses 5 years out of graduation, and by 10 years out — over 50% are self employed.  That’s an amazing number… I definitely hope I’ll be one of them!

You’re forced to constantly pay attention, to continually integrate everything that’s been said, and to try to think one-step ahead of the discussion.  All while being prepared at-any-moment to jump into the conversation and communicate a relevant, timely, and insightful comment in an entertaining and clear way.  Believe me, it’s even tougher than I can make it sound!

One professor says the only true take-away from HBS is that it teaches you to become good at multitasking.  You have to listen carefully, follow the discussion, and craft a defensible theory / point all at the same time.  That’s not too far from the truth… and it’s one of the things I love about HBS.  So much of “academia” seems to be about dumping thousands of facts into your head.  How much of that is retained?  How much of that is useful?  The case method understands that education is about teaching and reinforcing behaviors.

A Classroom in Hawes

I could go on about the case method for hours.  I’ve really become a convert after seeing it in action here.  However, I am a bit skeptical on the grading portion.  Especially after receiving feedback from a couple professors this past week.  Now, I know I haven’t contributed the most brilliant comments in class, but I still think the evaluation of one professor was a bit off-the-mark.  But that just brings up the whole subjectivity of the whole process.  How can I defend my position?  I can’t.

At HBS, 50% of your final grade is from “class participation”.  What does that mean?  After each class, the professor takes time to record every single comment that was put forth during the 80 minute class.  Then he grades the comments, 1 to 3, based on how good he thinks they were.  Can a professor remember every comment given during a class?  More importantly, can he assign them to the correct person?  Further, can he remember their relative importance and weight them accordingly?

These are all difficult tasks for one person… let alone the person who’s already under so many stresses to lead a group of 90 people through a complex conversation!  Like I said, I’m a a bit skeptical on how accurate this all is…

So, without further ado, here are the classes every RC takes:

1. LEAD: Leadership and Organizational Behavior
2. TOM: Technology and Operations Management
3. FRC: Financial Reporting and Control (aka. Accounting)
4. MKT: Marketing
5. FIN1: Finance I

At some point I’ll have to go through and discuss each of the courses in some depth, but for now I’ll leave you with that ranking (with #1 being my favorite and #5 being my least favorite).  One important point to note: I’ve found that my enjoyment of a course is directly related to how good the professor is.  As interactive and self-guided as the HBS case experience is, a steady and experienced professor is an absolute necessity.  My LEAD and TOM professors are phenomenal, and it shows through in the classes… the discussions are dynamic, thoughts move quickly, and new insights and experiences spring from my classmates without effort.

FIN1 Books & Cases *

Some of the other courses… are less so spectacular.  I had lunch with a Professor last week and he expressed his amazement at how strongly HBS encourages teaching (over research).  This was in direct contrast to his experience at a few other leading business schools, and I can definitely agree with his observation.  At the same time, even with the strong incentives HBS sets forth, there are still professors that need a bit more experience.  Guiding a case method discussion really requires a lot of very difficult skills.  When it works, it’s a marvelous experience.  When it doesn’t, frustration abounds on all parts.

*[So far, FIN1 is the only class with actual books (which we've seldom used).  All learning is via cases.]