HBS MBA Program Innovation Sales Meeting August, 2011

2 Foundation for Change Innovative new configuration: Schumpeterian Recombination Integrate curricular experiments underway at the School Open up opportunities for a continuing stream of innovation Draw upon work done during the centennial’s examination of the “future of the MBA” Addresses key educational goals and priorities Leadership o Cultivating the students’ capacity to translate leadership principles into practice – knowing, doing, being Globalization o Managing across national boundaries o Being responsive to local instituional contingencies Critical and analytical thinking o How to structure complex and ill-defined problems o How to think rigorously about different approaches to analyzing problems

3 Underlying Beliefs of MBA Innovation Design Team  HBS must be more explicit about the strategic positioning and direction of the MBA program  HBS cannot allow competitor schools to define the playing field  For 100 years HBS was able to enjoy differentiation around the Case Method – a tightly integrated platform for learning and knowledge creation  Case Method is still necessary but is no longer sufficient  The “newer” and alternative forms of pedagogy as they currently exist are flawed

4 Characteristics of the Field Method  It is a vehicle for developing the PRACTICE and PURPOSE components of business education  Creates high standards for knowledge creation and pedagogy  Platform for knowledge transfer  Vehicle for delivering learning related to the 3 key educational goals and priorities  It builds on what HBS already does well  It changes the stakes for students and how students are rewarded

5 Components of Field  Series of field exercises days  Skills-based  150 teams per exercise (scrambled each time)  Assigning students to teams (massive task) – IT enabled mechanism  3 field engagements / immersive experiences spanning longer periods  Individual sessions focused on specific topics relate to global management  Individual sessions focused on training in fundamental skills  Physical space created to support field -- new building and “hive” configuration

6 View of Field within Traditional Learning Model

7 Field 1 : Authentic Leadership 9/14 & 9/15 kick-off  “How do I lead a team and interact in a team context?”  Tools including “word cloud generation,” feedback tools, personal dashboards, “learning hub” on personal landing pages  Video recordings for personalized feedback – leveraging peers as part of the personal feedback & assessment process  Small team exercises to surface issues and areas for improvement  Becoming more “self-aware”  Self-reflection  Better understanding of self as leader  Best practices around feedback and inculcation of new “values”

8 Field 2: Geo Team Immersion (January)  Two months of pre-immersion activity  One week “in country”  China (2), Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, S. Africa, Turkey, UK, Poland, India (2), US (2), Ghana  Capstone activities on both ends  150 Global partners

9 Field 3 Market feedback simulation (glorified polling tool) Students will prepare business plans Market will value new product development ideas generated by students during the field 2 experiences Students will vote on each others ideas Some ideas will receive funding and some will be “bankrupted” by market

10 Changes to EC program Insertion of field method into 2 nd year Long-term simulations and exercises without constraints of EC schedule 4 15 session terms Learning focused on integrative, cross-unit offerings Verticals: social enterprise, healthcare, etc. Deep dive learning Voluntary curricular tracks

11 Challenges for HBS  Cultural  Cross-discipline collaboration requirement  Student feedback  Administrative  Field 2 Logistics nightmare!  (900 + flights & visas)  Moving to quarter system in EC and major changes to structure of RC (3/2/3/2/3) & 9:10 start time in RC  Revamp of start and stop times  Legal  IP  Liability

12 Implications / Questions for HBP resulting from HBS program redesign  Overall use of cases will drop – revenue implications  2-3 fewer cases per RC course  How will we “commercialize” this method?  Faculty vs. student pay model  Will the case product line suffer from competition with the new method?  Fewer cases written / less attention to fundamental case development needs