|
I was asked to be the keynote speaker recently for an important conference at Rutgers Business School on the future of business education. I thought it would be helpful for business school leadership and students and for recruiters of business school graduates to recap my message in this Playing to Win/Practitioner Insights (PTW/PI) piece. It is called The Future[s] of Business Education: Two Strategy Paths. And as always, you can find all the previous PTW/PI here. Audience participation The conference attendees were mainly U.S. business school deans and other senior faculty members. The array of deans was quite impressive with deans from leading schools including Cornell, Goizueta, Haas, Kellogg, Stern, Ross, Tepper, Tuck, and Wharton. I started with a bit of audience participation by asking all tenure stream academics from business schools to stand up. I then asked them to sit down if their school has in its MBA program a required statistics course that provides instruction on how to make an inference from a sample to the universe from which the sample is drawn. As I expected, 100% of the audience sat down. That is now completely standard fare. I asked them to stand back up and then to sit down if their school seeks to convince MBA students that they should make their decisions based on rigorous data analysis. Again, as I expected, 100% sat down. So, I got confirmation that business education universally teaches students both how to make inferences from data and that they should make data-based decisions. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his weekly Medium posts at rogermartin.medium.com.","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogermartin.medium.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493}} Making inferences from data I then dove into making inferences from data. As I have pointed out many times before and recently at Nudgestock in London, statistics teaches students that the only legitimate way to make an inference to the universe from which a sample is drawn is to ensure that the sample is representative. You cant ask a sample of men what they want in their Electric Vehicle (EV) and infer what consumers want in their EV because men are not representative of all consumers. The same would hold for a sample of women or young consumers or east coast consumers. Statistics teaches that you can legitimately use a sample of men only if you are trying to determine what male EV buyers wantbecause that sample is representative of the universe. In addition, the sample must be big enough to be statistically significant. However, it is important to realize that 100% of all data that we use in such statistical analysis is from the past. We never have data from the future. Hence, when we use data analysis to tell us what to do, we are implicitly assuming that the future is identical to the past. Otherwise, the sample wouldnt be representative and business school statistics class tells us that we shouldnt be using it. Yet our marketing, strategy, finance, operations, and HR classes tell students to make decisions based on rigorous data analysis. The Aristotelian distinction I then explained the Aristotelian distinction about which I have written before. Greek philosopher Aristotle was the father of science and his Analytica Posteriora the most important work in the history of science. While he created the scientific method, which was formalized in the Scientific Revolution 2000 years later, he did not prescribe its use everywhere. He made a critical distinction between two parts of the world. In one part, things cannot be other than they are. For example, anywhere on the earths surface, gravity has always and will always cause objects to accelerate toward the ground at 32 feet/second2because when it comes to gravity, things cannot be other than they are. But when it comes to smartphones, there were zero in the world in 1999 and probably (the estimates are all over the place) over seven billion now. Smartphones exist in the part of the world where things can be other than they are. That world changed dramatically with the introduction of the BlackBerry in 2000 and has changed pretty much every year since. Aristotle did more than make this distinction. He encouraged the use of his scientific method in the part of the world where things cannot be other than they are but warned against ever using it in the part of the world where things can be other than they are. The father of science was crystal clear and modern-day statisticians would affirm his logic. In essence, he was warning against the use of unrepresentative samples. For business educators this calls for an assessment of the degree to which business is in the cannot part or the can part of the world. The whole business obsession with VUCA (i.e., volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity) suggests businesspeople see the future of business as constantly shiftingi.e., can, not cannot. Of course, there are exceptions. Plastic cools at a certain rate in an injection molding machine. But that phenomenon represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the business world. Consumers change, competitors change, technology changes, regulations change, and so on. The future is routinely different than the past. The business school schism Therein lies the fundamental business school schism. Business schools teach two things that cant coexist in business. Businesspeople live in a world in which the future is routinely different than the past. But they are educatedand universally so as demonstrated by my audience participationto use methods appropriate only for a world in which the future is identical to the past. This leaves business school students with a choice. On one hand, they can ignore their business education, bt that begs the question: why spend time and money on something that you subsequently ignore? On the other hand, they can embrace their education and become terribly flawed technocratsfollowing the analysis despite its inherent logical inconsistency. I think they are choosing a bit of both. On one hand, they are actually doing more than ignoring their business education: they are skipping it entirely, especially at the MBA level. I pointed out in a 2013 speech at the Academy of Management that U.S. students applying to U.S. MBA programs was in secular decline and from what I can see, the decline has continued. On the other hand, the MBA is still the second biggest volume graduate degree in America (after one-year Master of Educationwhich has a built-in demand because teachers get an automatic salary bump with one). So, many are still embracing it. Two strategy paths This leaves two strategy paths for business schools. On one hand, they can keep teaching fundamentally flawed, logically inconsistent content and watch business education continue to decline for two reasons. First, many prospective students will take a pass on business education because they dont want to be trained to be data technocrats. Second, the business world has only a limited appetite for absorbing data technocrats. On the other hand, they can do what I recommended in my speech. That is to teach the Aristotelian distinction and equip students to follow Aristotles instruction in the part of the world that can be other than it is, which is the dominant part of business. That entails teaching business students to imagine possibilities and to understand the logic of possibilities well enough to choose the one for which the most compelling argument can be madewhich means focusing more on developing students logic capabilities than their analytical prowess. The business school reaction Sadly, I dont come out of the conference feeling that business education will choose the second path. In business education (and probably any other kind of tertiary education), when convention is challenged it is attacked, which is what Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutionsand it is exactly what happened at the end of my talk. The first audience question wasnt a question; it was an assertion from a dean (dont know who he was but I think he said his name was Bruce): That was a lot of arm-waving. My immediate reaction, which I verbalized, was that this was why I was delighted to have left the academy six years ago and havent thought a single day about going back. This is what the academy does. When it doesnt like something because it challenges convention, somebody takes responsibility for launching an attack. And since they know behavioral economics, they know that the rest of the audience will anchor on the attack, and the challenger will be destroyed by brute force. Childish but true. I didnt take the bait and instead of defending, I simply asked what in my talk constituted arm-waving? He didnt like that much and mumbled around for a while then asked me to put up slide 13 and pointed to the second point and said I hadnt explained it much. So, not explaining one point on one slide as thoroughly as he wished meant that the entire talk could be dismissed as arm-waving. Suffice it to say, he didnt get the satisfaction he was looking forand I think I can give myself credit for not eviscerating him. Twenty years ago, I would have. But I realize now that this is theater, and he was just playing his assigned role. Since the designated attack dog hadnt succeeded, the rest of the audience questions were mild and not unfriendly. But I am quite convinced that nothing is going to change on this front. Business schools will continue to teach the schismthough perhaps they will do it more sheepishly. Practitioner insights Paradigms die hardper Kuhn. The paradigm of business education teaching students to make rigorous data-based decisions is well entrenchedsuper well-entrenched. The standard approach of the people who depend on the continuation of the dominant paradigm is to fight any attempt to challenge itwhether they have any useful argument or not. That is where business education is todayand it isnt going to change from within. My advice then is for two kinds of practitionersbusiness school students (prospective or actual), and companies that recruit from business schools. For students, lower your expectations, though it is a bit different for undergraduate business versus MBA education. For undergrads, you will pick up a language system for business and learn some useful business concepts. One way or another, you will have to do thatand this is one plausible way. But protect yourself. Understand that they are teaching across a schism, and it doesnt make sense. Just ignore them. You cant be a useful businessperson making rigorous data-based decisions the way it will be taught to you. For MBAs, think carefully. Your opportunity costs are much higher than for undergrads in business because the average full-time MBA has 45 years of business experienceand they give up two years of an already attractive salary to take a full-time MBA. You share some of the undergrad reasons for attending, but at a far higher opportunity cost. Many of you should take a pass. This isnt an institution that is learning and getting better. It is entrenched in an agenda that isnt helpful to the worldor you. For employers, it makes sense to recruit there. The biggest value of business education programs is selectivity. It is hard to get into a quality business program, so the schools have presorted for you. The second value, in the case of MBAs, is commitment due to the high opportunity cost they pay. They must have high commitment to personal improvement to incur the out-of-pocket and opportunity costs to get their education. So, it is a high-value cohort from which to recruit. But you need to recognize that you will have to deprogram many of them who will graduate believing that they need to make all their decisions entirely based on rigorous data analysisbecause that is what they are taught. You will have to deprogram them for them to be useful to you. But if you understand that and have a system for deprograming, you will get human capital that it is worth recruiting. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his weekly Medium posts at rogermartin.medium.com.","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogermartin.medium.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493}}
Category:
E-Commerce
When Apple’s AirTag came out four years ago, one of the most obvious uses for it was for luggage. On my long trips to Asia, I always breathe a sign of relief when I glance at my phone and find that my checked suitcase has been loaded onto the aircraft. And I often wish I had one in my carry-on suitcase, especially when the overhead bins run out of space and the flight attendant checks my bag at the gate. July, a fast-growing Australian startup, has become the first luggage brand to incorporate AirTags directly into its suitcases. The technology was made in partnership with Apple and Google, so the tags are integrated with both Apples Find My and Googles Find Hub networks. On October 14, July unveils this new feature, which will eventually be incorporated into its full line of carry-ons and suitcases. Cofounder Athan Didaskalou believes trackers will soon become standard in all suitcases, but it is still important to him for July to be first to market with this technology. “We have a team of industrial designers on hand, and we like making things,” Didaskalou says. “The only way to stand out today is by continuing to innovate.” [Photo: July] The Ubiquitous Roller Suitcase Step into an airport today, and you’ll see virtually every traveler pushing wheeled luggage. Didaskalou points out that each element in the now-ubiquitous roller suitcase was the result of a breakthrough in design. In 1987, an airline pilot developed the concept of a wheeled suitcase with a telescoping handlea vast improvement over having to carry your suitcase like a briefcase. By the 1990s, most suitcase brands had shifted to this design. In recent decades there have been incremental improvements. After September 11, 2005, the Transportation Security Administration imposed a new regulation that all luggage locks had to have a keyhole that agents could access. Soon after, it became standard for all suitcases to have TSA locks. And a decade ago, brands began incorporating phone chargers into their suitcases so travelers could charge their phones on the go. (The TSA now forbids phone chargers in checked luggage, so chargers in suitcases must be removable.) [Photo: July] The global luggage market is enormous: It was $38.8 billion in 2023, according to Grand View Research, and its projected to grow to $61.49 billion by 2030. Given that most suitcases today have the same set of standard features, brands often end up competing with each other based on aesthetics. Samsonite dominates the industry, owning a fifth of the market with its many brands, which include American Tourister and Tumi. Samsonite generated $3.68 billion in 2023. But there are many other players. At the high end, there’s Rimowa, known for making durable suitcases with distinct grooves. Over the past decade, a wave of startups has popped up with sleeker and more colorful designs at an affordable price point of $200 to $300 for a carry-on. Direct-to-consumer startups like Away, Monos, Béis, and Floyd all create trendy cases that target the millennial and Gen Z traveler. But it’s a crowded, competitive market, and some brands have struggled. Paravel, for instance, tried to create an eco-friendly suitcase, but it filed for bankruptcy in May of this year, and was acquired by the British suitcase brand Antler. Another luggage brand, Baboon to the Moon, was struggling to grow its revenue and was acquired by turnaround firm the Hedgehog Co. in 2023. [Photo: July] Improving the Design of a Suitcase July was founded in Australia in 2019. Its sleek, colorful suitcases have become very popular in Australia and across the Asia Pacific region, which North American brands like Away and Monos have been slower to enter. Didaskalou wants July to stand out from competitors by rethinking the design of its suitcases in a more fundamental way. Over the past few years, the brand has been playing with the configuration of suitcases. It was among the first brands to launch the trunk format, where the suitcase doesn’t open in the middle, but rather toward the top. “Some people want depth when they’re packing,” he says. “It can be awkward to open your luggage in the middle and try to balance it on the luggage stand at your hotel.” When Apple and Google opened up the API for the AirTag, it occurred to Didaskalou that luggage tracking was the next frontier of suitcases. Many consumers were already putting AirTags in their suitcases, but it was not a seamless solution. “They might need to move the AirTag from one suitcase to another, or take it out to use it for something else,” he says. “Or they might forget to use it altogether. It’s just another thing to worry about when you’ve already got a lot on your mind.” [Photo: July] July’s designers spent months trying to figure out how to incorporate AirTags seamlessly into suitcases. They ended up putting them into the strip of plastic at the top of the suitcase, right next to the TSA lock. When you first get the suitcase, you pull on the plastic tab that separates the battery from the AirTag to activate it. Then you press a button on the strip to activate it, to see your luggage in your Apple Find My or Google Find Hub app on your smartphone. Didaskalou says that while the experience is simple for consumers, it was complex to design. It was important to make the underside of the AirTag accessible to change its battery. However, the AirTag is on the same strip as the TSA lock. “We needed to have access to the AirTag but not expose the TSA lock,” he says. “We also needed everything to be very tightly secured, because things bounce and move when you travel.” July has patented some aspects of this AirTag component, but Didaskalou believes many other luggage brands will soon realize that consumers now expect to be able to easily track their luggage. So they will soon begin incorporating AirTags or other trackers directly into their suitcases. But he believes they will only become widespread in the next year or so. And ultimately, Didaskalou believes that it’s the larger luggage makers that are more likely to update their suitcases first. In many ways, he’s looking to compete with Samsonite, an innovator with roughly 20% of the market share. “Samsonite has always been first to come up with new materials and manufacturing processes,” Didaskalou says. “We’re proud because this is the first time we’ve beat them.”
Category:
E-Commerce
Shares in Americas Quantum Four quantum computing companies surged again yesterday. D-Wave, IonQ, Quantum Computing, and Rigetti all saw their stock prices jump by double-digit percentages. But why? The Quantum Fours big stock price gains had nothing to do with radical new quantum computing breakthroughs. Instead, investors can thank banking giant JPMorganChase for the gains. Heres what you need to know. Why did quantum computing shares surge yesterday? Yesterday, Americas four most prominent quantum computing companies saw their stock prices surge by double-digit percentages. But the genesis behind these soaring share prices wasn’t directly related to news about the companies. Instead, the upward movement in the Quantum Fours share prices was largely due to financial giant JPMorganChase. On Monday, the investment bank announced a Security and Resiliency Initiative to invest in industries critical to Americas national economic security interests. This initiative will see JPMorganChase invest $1.5 trillion in select industries over the next 10 years. And the first wave of this fundingto the tune of up to $10 billionhas already been decided upon. The banking giant announced it will invest the 11-figure sum via direct equity and venture capital investments in companies operating across four key areas, which include: Supply Chain and Advanced Manufacturing Defense and Aerospace Energy Independence and Resilience Frontier and Strategic Technologies For quantum computing investors, its that last areafrontier and strategic technologiesthat matters. Included in that grouping are companies in the AI, cybersecurity, and quantum computing space. It has become painfully clear that the United States has allowed itself to become too reliant on unreliable sources of critical minerals, products, and manufacturingall of which are essential for our national security, JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon said in a press release announcing the initiative. He added, This new initiative includes efforts like ensuring reliable access to life-saving medicines and critical minerals, defending our nation, building energy systems to meet AI-driven demand, and advancing technologies like semiconductors and data centers. Our support of clients in these industries remains unwavering. However, it is worth noting that Dimon did not specify which quantum computing companies would receive investments from the bank. In an accompanying chart, the bank merely said that strengthening capabilities in quantum computing and other areas, including AI and cybersecurity, could directly translate into higher GDP and create military, intelligence, biotech, and cyber resilience benefits. Yet despite not name-dropping any of the Quantum Four, their stocks surged. Quantum stocks soared by double digits In the United States, there are four prominent publicly traded quantum computing companies: D-Wave, IonQ, Quantum Computing, and Rigetti. All four companies saw their stock soar yesterday after JPMorganChases announcement. D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS): up 23% to $40.62 IonQ (NYSE: IONQ): up 16% to $82.09 Quantum Computing (Nasdaq: QUBT): up 12% to $21.46 Rigetti Computing (Nasdaq: RGTI): up 25% to $54.91 In addition to Americas Quantum Four, shares in the United Kingdoms Arqit Quantum (Nasdaq: ARQQ) also jumped 20% to close at $58.27. Despite Mondays price surges, all Quantum Four stocks and the U.K.s Arqit are currently down in premarket trading on Tuesday morning, as of the time of this writing. The drops arent large: QBTS is down less than 3%, IONQ and QUBT are down around 4%, RGTI is down just over 3%, and ARQQ is down just under 3%. These modest declines suggest that some investors are engaging in profit-taking after yesterday’s share price surge. Still, many quantum investors are likely buoyed by the notion that one of Americas biggest investment firms thinks quantum computing will be critical to national security in the years ahead. If that conjecture is correct, companies operating in those spaces have a lot to gain. Shares in the Quantum Four have had a great year While the real-world benefits of quantum computing, which uses the properties of quantum mechanics to solve computational problems that classical computers couldnt hope to, are likely still years away, the companies operating in the nascent space have seen tremendous returns over the past year. When it comes to the Quantum Four, all have had incredible returns both year-to-date (YTD) and over the past twelve months (12/m), as of yesterdays stock market close: D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS): up 383% YTD, up 4,087% (12/m) IonQ (NYSE: IONQ): up 96% YTD, up 670% (12/m) Quantum Computing (Nasdaq: QUBT): up 29% YTD, up 3,001% (12/m) Rigetti Computing (Nasdaq: RGTI): up 259% YTD, up 6,629% (12/m) These are gains that many investors are hoping will continue well into the future.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|