Steve Spear and Anders Wallgren interview at DevOps Enterprise Summit 2015 — Steven Spear

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Steven Spear

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Steven Spear

From DevOps Enterprise Summit

MIT Sloan’s Steven Spear speaks with Anders Wallgren at the DevOps Enterprise Summit about how high-performers in different industries stand out from the competition. These companies tend to be constantly learning, allowing them to deliver value even in hypercompetitive markets.

Watch the full video on the DevOps Enterprise Summit YouTube channel. 

Steven Spear is a Senior Lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management and at the Engineering Systems Division at MIT.

MIT Sloan Experts Twitter Chat: #FailBetter – Anjali Sastry and Kara Penn

 

MIT Sloan Sr. Lecturer Anjali Sastry

MIT Sloan Sr. Lecturer Anjali Sastry

Smart leaders, entrepreneurs and change agents bravely push innovation to the limit, but do so with a key theme in mind: ensure every failure is useful.

Join Anjali Sastry, Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan (@AnjaliSastry), and Kara Penn, MBA ’07 (@kara_penn), on Tuesday, December 8, from 7 pm to 8 pm as they discuss the research and inspiration behind their book, Fail Better: Design Smart Mistakes and Succeed Sooner.

Read More »

3 steps for harnessing failure the right way — Anjali Sastry and Kara Penn

MIT Sloan Sr. Lecturer Anjali Sastry

From Fast Company

Think back to your last project. Was it set up to maximize learning? Did you uncover valuable insights along the way? Did you deliver what you set out to? And once it was over, did your team reflect, or did you move straight to the next thing?

A systematic method for managing your projects can set up your team for useful epiphanies at every step. In the end, it can help you to create better deliverables with more lasting and further-reaching impact.

Read More »

What type of corporate culture is best for innovation? One that tolerates failure

MIT Sloan Assoc. Prof. Pierre Azoulay

What type of corporate culture is best for innovation? How ought firms and managers encourage their workers to be more creative? And if those workers fail in the pursuit of creativity, is that necessarily a bad thing?

These are the questions we wanted to answer in our latest paper.* We used life sciences as the backdrop of our research comparing similarly accomplished scientists who received either financial support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), the large non-profit biomedical research organization, or federal funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The HHMI money lasts five years and is often renewed (at least once); the program “urges its researchers to take risks … even if it means uncertainty or the chance of failure.” The NIH grants, on the other hand, last three to five years, have more specific aims, and their renewal is far from an assured thing.

MIT Sloan Assoc. Prof. Gustavo Manso

Among other things, we looked at how often these scientists published articles that were among the top 5 percent or top 1 percent of the most cited papers in their fields. We found that the HHMI-funded scientists produced twice as many papers in the top 5 percent in terms of citations, and three times as many in the top 1 percent, relative to a control group of similarly accomplished scientists funded by the NIH. But they also were more prone to underperform relative to their own previous citation accomplishments. The take-away lesson is clear: biologists whose funding encourages them to take risks and tolerates initial research failures produce breakthrough ideas at a much higher rate than peers whose funding is dependent upon meeting closely defined, short-term research targets. But there is a cost associated with these long-term incentives, since they also  lead to more frequent “duds.”

Read More »