IOT’S people problem – Peter Hirst

MIT Sloan Associate Dean of Executive Education Peter Hirst

MIT Sloan Associate Dean of Executive Education Peter Hirst

From Insight

This spring, I participated in three major IoT-focused events and came away with mixed feelings about the state of the industry. The first was the Internet of Things World in Santa Clara, California. The conference tends to focus on more technological aspects of IoT and draws thousands of attendees. A few days later, I flew to London to take part in the Internet of Things World Forum (IoTWF), an invitation-only event that caters to the C-suite audience. The third was a board meeting and strategy workshop for the Internet of Things Talent Consortium, a spinoff from the IoTWF, of which MIT Sloan Executive Education is a founding member. The three events were highly educational, thought provoking and inspirational in their own right, but all shared a common theme—we, the people, are the main barrier to faster and wider IoT adoption. Moreover, it’s the very nature of humanity, our habits and idiosyncrasies that seem to be stalling the robots’ march toward making our lives wonderfully better—or toward total world domination, depending on how you look at it. More seriously, here are some themes that emerged in my mind once the conference excitement wore off.

Stop Resisting Change
People are creatures of habit. We are comfortable with what we know. It’s not laziness—it’s an evolutionary trick we’ve developed to survive as a species. New is scary and we tend to resist it, willfully or subconsciously, but this resistance can hinder progress. For example, as we heard from the main stage at IoT World Forum in London, GE— who is one of the earliest and relatively successful entrants into IoT—sees organizational inertia as one of the biggest problems in digital transformation. Culture clashes between different kinds of businesses within an organization are dragging down the entire enterprise. Traditional engineers and digital engineers are not speaking the same language. Business leaders are not yet adept in the ways of leading required to drive a digitally-enabled transformation. At IoT World, I was on a panel discussing the future leadership needs around IoT. The panel featured professionals in different industries from education to talent recruitment to defense. And what everybody was saying is that when you look at executives, the need to have agility and resilience is just as great as the need for people who can understand both the technology and the business. In the IoT era, leaders need to have awareness of all sorts of business-environment issues, as well as other important concerns, such as privacy and cyber security, regulation and public policy. Whether it’s strictly IoT or not, you could see that in examples like Uber or Airbnb, as they’ve run into public policy, regulatory and other kinds of situations. I think it’s fairly self-evident that it would be hard for those businesses to succeed without having leaders who are able to take on those kinds of aspects as well.

I’ve touched upon this subject previously, and hearing from companies like GE only reinforced my impression that there is an immediate need to not only train the workers who will work on the IoT implementation, but also to educate leaders on how to lead the transformation. In light of this, the IoT Talent Consortium is redoubling its efforts to help organizations understand and analyze that question. The group sees itself as a community where digital-transformation pioneers and people who believe that they need to or want to go through this kind of journey can share experiences and identify successful practices.

Read More »

Risking your life for corporate camaraderie – Neal Hartman

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Neal Hartman

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Neal Hartman

From the Huffington Post

Imagine being submerged inside a downed aircraft in icy water, knowing that to reach air and safety you have to work with fellow passengers. Of course, you understand this is only a training exercise, aimed at honing your capacity for trust, collaboration, and team building. Here’s the question: Will defying death succeed better than the rope courses, scavenger hunts, tug of wars and other standbys of traditional corporate team building?

The Groton, Conn.-based company Survival Systems USA is betting that undergoing realistic disaster training is the new trend in helping corporations enhance teamwork, improve leadership and build skills needed for 21st century workplaces. The company is adapting its aquatic survival training into a program for companies seeking to push the envelope in employee team building.

The Survival System training, which involves a mock plane or helicopter crash in nasty conditions, is but the latest in moves toward intensive team-building exercises that go far beyond the classic “trust fall.” Exercises may range from rock climbing, rappelling, wilderness camping and sailing to sophisticated “geo hunts” in which teams use GPS to follow clues.

Read More »

Retailers are leaving money on the table by understaffing – Rogelio Oliva

MIT Sloan Visiting Professor Rogelio Oliva

From Marketwatch

If you’ve gone shopping this holiday season, you may have had the following experience.

You go into a store looking for a gift but need help from a salesperson. Maybe you need more information on the product, or perhaps you need help finding the right color or size. You look around the store, but you can’t find anyone. Giving up, you leave the store without making a purchase.

If that sounds familiar, you aren’t alone. The proportion of customers who typically leave a store because of poor service is not negligible. Prior research shows that 33% of customers who experienced a problem were not able to locate sales help when they needed assistance, and 6% of all possible sales are lost because of lack of service.

Help wanted

Effective management of store labor is clearly important, as it impacts sales performance. However, labor-related expenses also constitute one of the largest components of retailers’ operating costs. As a result, there is a widespread tendency to understaff to save on those costs.

But what is the right number of employees? This is a complex question, as retail environments are characterized by volatile store traffic, making it hard to determine the correct staffing levels and often leading to inconsistent service.

The traditional method for determining staffing is sales-driven and depends on store budget allocation. A typical sales-based staffing rule is to match a constant ratio of expected store sales to the number of store associates. However, that rule ignores the fact that retail sales are also affected by store traffic and might result in labor-to-traffic mismatches, which can hurt sales revenue. Retailers can’t reach their full potential in sales if they follow that staffing practice.

Another problem is that shopper demand may be different from past sales, as past sales include only customers who purchased and not those who had an intention to purchase but left the store due to lack of service. As noted above, this is a fairly common scenario.

Matching staff to shoppers

To address this challenge, my colleagues and I developed a method to match store labor with incoming customer traffic in an efficient manner to improve sales performance. Our method is unique, as it goes beyond the focus on past sales at individual stores to leverage performance data across different stores within a retail chain. It enables retailers to derive aggregate labor requirements by using traffic data, point-of-sale data and labor data across stores with similar attributes like store format, product mix and market demographics. Read More »

Trump and transforming capitalism: making our movement see itself – Otto Scharmer

MIT Sloan Sr. Lecturer Otto Scharmer

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Otto Scharmer

From Huffington Post

“Trump is America’s wake-up call” I heard a visitor to the United States say the other day. True. Trump’s first year has been a wake-up call heard around the world. But are we really waking up? And who is “we”? And what, if anything, is the new awareness that we are supposed to wake up to?

This column inquires into these questions, and announces a major initiative that blends the news and social media power of HuffPost with the online-to-offline movement-building capacities of MITx u.lab.

Over the past few months, having attended events and grassroots gatherings in various parts of the world, I’m encouraged that such a waking-up and movement building process is well underway. I’ve seen firsthand a new landscape of initiatives focused on transforming the foundations of our economies and our social structures that is emerging. At the same time, social media movements such as #MeToo have shown how quickly latent and necessary changes can be catalyzed in our current moment. While there is still much more structural and systemic work to be done, it’s increasingly clear that as our old economic structures and civilizational forms hit the wall of our planetary limits, a new world is taking shape that focuses on bridging the three major divides of our time: the ecological divide, the social-economic divide, and the spiritual divide.

This awakening process is not only happening in grassroots movements. It’s equally observable among many, particularly younger, leaders working inside our traditional institutions. Everyone knows that we live in a moment of profound disruption. An old order is about to end. And something new is about to be born.

Last week, I was running a session at the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. During the discussion, one of the senior management attendees said: “The problem you describe is not totally new. The destructive dynamics of prejudice, ignorance, hate, and fear have been around for a long time.” And then he asked, “But why is it so much worse today? What is actually different now?”

What a great question. It prompted me to deepen my own sense making.

Read More »

How analytics and machine learning can aid organ transplant decisions – Dimitris Bertsimas and Nikolaos Trichakis

MIT Sloan Prof. Dimitris Bertsimas

MIT Sloan Asst. Prof. Nikolaos (Nikos) Trichakis

From Health Data Management

Imagine this scenario: A patient named John has waited 5.5 years for a much-needed kidney transplant. One day, he learns that a deceased donor kidney is available and that he is the 153rd patient to whom this kidney was offered.

Clearly, this is not a “high-quality” organ if it was declined by 152 patients or the clinicians treating them. But because John has been waiting a long time for a new kidney, should he accept or decline the kidney? And can analytics and machine learning help make that decision easier?

Currently, that decision is usually made by John’s doctor based on a variety of factors, such as John’s current overall health status on dialysis and a gut instinct about whether (and when) John will get a better offer for a healthier kidney.

If John is young and relatively healthy, the risk of prematurely accepting a lower-quality kidney is future organ failure and more surgeries. If John’s health status is critical and he rejects the kidney, he could be underestimating how long it will take until a higher-quality organ is available. The decision could be a matter of life or death.

John’s dilemma isn’t unique in the world of kidney transplantation, where current demand outpaces supply. Since 2002, the number of candidates on the waiting list has nearly doubled, from slightly more than 50,000 to more than 96,000 in 2013. During the same time, live donation rates have decreased. Complicating this problem of supply and demand is an unacceptably high deceased donor organ discard rate, as much as 50 percent in some instances.

Read More »