New study offers hope for commuters caught in traffic – Ioannis Ch. Paschalidis

Ioannis Ch. Paschalidis, a former Visiting Professor at MIT Sloan

If you live in Boston, Los Angeles or any other major U.S. city, you know this fact: traffic is a nightmare. Sometimes it seems that traffic is all anyone talks about and each delayed meeting or event begins with a story about how bad it was.

The average commuter in the U.S. spends 42 hours in traffic per year. The cost of commuter delays has risen by 260 percent over the past 25 years and 28 percent of U.S. primary energy is now used in transportation. Road congestion is responsible for about 20% of fuel consumption in urban areas. According to one estimate, the cumulative cost of traffic congestion in the U.S. will reach $2.8 trillion by 2030. At the individual citizen level, traffic congestion cost $1,740 per driver during 2014. If unchecked, this number is expected to grow by more than 60 percent, to $2,900 annually, by 2030.

It’s a problem with a classic common and tragic root.  No individual driver has an incentive to make changes that would make the entire system better.  In other words, each driver seeks to make the best time or take the most convenient route, but no one is in charge of making the system work better as a whole.  As a result, traffic just keeps getting worse.

But technology, which in the form of the automobile gave us this problem, may now offer up the faintest hope of a solution for this problem—that is, the global positioning system, the pervasive use of cell phones, and the advent of the self-driving vehicle could bring new solutions to this seemingly intractable problem. Read More »

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 »

Four ways technology will change how people do business – Thomas Kochan

MIT Sloan Professor Thomas Kochan

MIT Sloan Professor Thomas Kochan

From MIT Sloan Custom Studio

Technology platforms and the IoT are clearly changing the structure of organizations — and the valuation of companies today is out of line with the numbers of jobs they create. In the past, the General Motors, and even the Googles, created lots of new jobs and the valuation of the company reflected this — but compare Netflix, just 3,700 employees, with its old-world equivalent, Blockbuster, which at its peak had $7 billion in revenue and 60,000 employees. Today, Netflix has a larger market capitalization. The world is changing — and the question is, will we create enough good quality jobs to meet the needs of the workforce of the future?

There’s an old Japanese phrase that came out of robotics work in the 1980s and 1990s in manufacturing that technologists ought to begin to understand and build into their work: “It’s workers who give wisdom to machines.” People give wisdom to the technology and then technology can in turn enhance human judgment. We can solve big problems in the world and create big opportunities and the next generation of inventions and jobs.

But it will mean some major changes to how businesses are run — and how companies view (and use) technology.

Technology is a tool — not a goal.

It’s not technologies that will solve future challenges — it’s how we use them that counts. That means we have to start with human and societal problems, and figure out how to put technology to work to address and complement what we can do together with other institutions. We must define the questions we ask of technologists and not view technology as an autonomous, deterministic force, but as an asset that is mobilized to address these important issues. Most important, we have to educate technologists and not leave them to define the objectives of the technology. If we do, they will define it very narrowly and squeeze out as much human variabilities as possible, which would lead us to false solutions. A broad participation in defining the problems will enable us to find our way to a better world for everyone.

Technology platforms need to be designed with stakeholders in mind.

There’s no single deterministic model or market design for digital platform design. Uber uses data to control its customers and driver workforce. What would be different about the experience for drivers, and maybe customers, if that information was decentralized so they could maximize their own incomes and improve their own livelihoods? We have to think about how we design these new platforms, so the benefits are more broadly shared across the different stakeholders.

In the long run, a good business model is one where the more your customers and employees know how the company works and have information to control their actions, the more committed they will be to building the business to benefit both themselves and the organization that’s providing that information. We’ve got to think about ways customers, employees, even public/private partnerships can share information to use these technologies much more holistically than for some specific stakeholder. In this way, customers become part of the innovation cycle. Maybe not the first mover for innovation but the second generation, and that will create new jobs, opportunities and applications.

It’s not about technology per se, it’s the interactions with people that use them and organizational designs that drives high levels of productivity, customer service and innovation. The new, flexible enterprise also has to draw on people outside the organization more fully. We must ask what’s in it for various stakeholders, and have them contribute to further development and inventions. If they are invested in it and see joint gains, it continues a positive cycle of innovation.

As organizational structures become more flexible, corporations will need to adapt.

A flexible corporate structure will need a lot more coordination across groups and different bodies of expertise. That means the “solid,” functional firms — finance, operations, HR, marketing and so on — are really going to be challenged to work out how the discovery and deployment of new apps will involve people across functions.

That doesn’t mean the old-world corporation is defunct. We still need people who have specialized knowledge in IT and marketing, but the productivity comes in linking them. Knowledge bases won’t go away, but the people and skills most valuable in the future (and incomes already reflect this) are the ones that have hybrid skills with technology know-how and figure out how to apply to functional areas. HR people won’t only specialize in compensation and performance management, but also know how to utilize technology to better design how we do our work.

With a lot of knowledge at the edges of organizations, strategy has to keep an eye on what the business is trying to achieve and ask how to be successful on a financial and sustainable basis, as well as when it needs to ally with others outside its traditional boundaries. This remains the role of the CEO and the board. However, they also have to rely on information flowing up rather than dictating what will be. That day is over.

The relationship between companies and workers is changing, too.

Technology is leading to a more decentralized workplace, with the flexibility to work in different places at different times. But do we have the managerial wisdom to take advantage of the new norm? There’s still the legacy of Frederick Winslow Taylor’s management control thinking: “If you’re not in the office, I don’t trust you’re not at home playing computer games.” The distributed workplace calls for a mindset change in management to ensure that we work with people and don’t compensate them for the amount of time spent in the office, but for the contribution they make and the work they do. If we can get over this managerial hurdle, we can take advantage of distributed workplaces.

We have to get over the notion that it’s all about shareholder value and the shorter term, and instead invest for the long term and listen to employees. This means finding ways to expand and create value, but also discovering ways to distribute value more equitably. At MIT, we have a good companies and good jobs initiative, and are going to hold a series of multi-stakeholder forums around these broad questions: What makes a company a great place from the standpoint of financial return, but also good for jobs and career opportunities?

The reality is, if we don’t start to engage in this way and have a social contract where people feel their interests are being served, we are going to have an explosion. It happened with Brexit, it happened in the 2016 U.S. election. A new social contract must be based on trust, mutual interest and listening to each other, creating value together and negotiating how to distribute value more equitably. Use the knowledge of the workforce by all means, but we can’t have a world of winners and losers.

This article is excerpted and modified from Telefonica and MIT Sloan Leaders Consider Distributed Future

Thomas Kochan is the Co-director, MIT Sloan Institute for Work and Employment Research, where he is Professor of Work and Employment Research.

How Educational Accelerators are Aiming to Neutralize Gender Bias for Entrepreneurs – Trish Cotter

MIT Sloan’s Trish Cotter

Gender bias is sneaky. It’s often subtle, yet pervasive – and the effects are far reaching.

We’ve heard a lot this summer about outright sexual harassment and discrimination against women in the tech industry. This is certainly disgraceful and I applaud the actions taken to remove the offenders from their positions. Yet, beyond these blatant examples, there is an implicit gender bias that has a cumulative effect in everyday decisions that stacks the deck against women and minorities.

This blog post will look at how we can help budding entrepreneurs to think differently – and how Educational Accelerator programs, like MIT’s delta v, are making changes to identify and root out these implicit biases.

Gender Bias in the Tech Industry

First, let’s look at some examples of gender bias in established tech industry companies. Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, wrote an exclusive feature for Vanity Fair on “How to Break up the Silicon Valley Boys’ Club.” She says she was “frustrated that an industry so quick to embrace change and the future can’t break free of its regrettable past.”

Wojcicki brings up sometimes subtle forms of bias that even well-intentioned male colleagues or managers may overlook. These include:

  • being frequently interrupted or talked over;
  • having decision-makers primarily addressing your male colleagues, even if they’re junior to you;
  • working harder to receive the same recognition as your male peers;
  • having your ideas ignored unless they’re rephrased by your male colleagues;
  • worrying so much about being either “too nice” or “sharp elbowed” that it hurts your ability to be effective;
  • frequently being asked how you manage your work-life balance; and
  • not having peers who have been through similar situations to support you during tough times.

Wojcicki states that by employing more women at all levels of a company, it creates a virtuous cycle that has proven to address both explicit and implicit gender discrimination.

So, how can we work with startups to take these biases out of the picture from the very start of a company’s formation?

Read More »

“Taken for granted” is not the new customer service norm – Lou Shipley

MIT Sloan Lecturer Lou Shipley

MIT Sloan Lecturer Lou Shipley

It’s been an extremely rough 30 days for three of the US airline industry’s largest carriers – United, American and Delta – whose rude and brutish treatment of customers was captured in smart phone videos that not surprisingly went viral.

In United’s case, the damage control was anything but as CEO Oscar Munoz immediately delivered a tone deaf, blame-the-victim response. His belated apology for United’s execrable behavior was of little help.

Friendly skies? Not so much.

The three high-profile airline debacles are stark examples of ham-fisted customer disregard and have given rise to the question: In an increasingly automated and technology-driven world, is being taken for granted the new customer-service norm?

Emphatically, no.  In fact, there’s ample evidence that it’s quite the opposite.

Savvy companies – global industry brands around the world – are investing in, listening to, and learning from customers because they realize that a relentless focus on their customers drives success and growth.

There are many excellent examples of companies that are putting a premium on delivering a consistently great customer experience to increase both revenue and customer loyalty.

Good examples of businesses that are both highly successful and customer-experience focused include Amazon, Netflix, UPS, Trader Joe’s, and the giant insurance provider USAA.

These thriving enterprises are in highly competitive markets and all of them are using customer service as a differentiator.

Read More »