Manoel Coelho, Director of Global Business Development at GlobalMed in Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, was looking ahead to the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and the opportunities the Games would offer for raising international awareness of the role and value of telemedicine. He worked closely with Dr. Antonio Carlos Marttos of Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital, who was the chief spokesman for the telemedicine initiative. Coelho's challenge was to assist Marttos in pitching the general idea of telemedicine to key decision makers, while also keeping his company in the line of sight as the preferred vendor. As Marttos envisioned it, mobile, suitcase-sized telemedicine units would be positioned at key venue sites throughout Rio to serve the needs of athletes and spectators. Telemedicine would allow for on-site diagnosis and connections to physicians at Rio hospitals, as well as to physicians in the home countries of athletes or spectators. GlobalMed embarked on the Rio Olympics project as a key initiative in its strategic mission to expand globally. The company, founded in 2002, had moved carefully and deliberately to establish its credibility in smaller projects at the Pan American Games in 2011 and at the London Olympics in 2012. Exposure via the Olympic Games would not only benefit GlobalMed, but the entire telemedicine industry. If the project moved forward, Coelho would need a comprehensive but adaptable project plan, including a thorough assessment of potential risks and challenges.

For generations, the model for receiving health care services in the developed world has been straightforward. It starts with showing your insurance card at the reception desk and ends with a 10-minute examination/discussion with a doctor. In developing countries, this model is structurally untenable: according to the World Health Organization, there is a global shortage of four million health care providers, and in 57 countries, this amounts to a crisis. The authors present several new models for delivering health care services in developing countries that use ICT (information and communication technologies)-i.e., cell phones, tablets and computers. It is only a matter of time, they say, before these models spread to more resource-rich settings.

In recent years we have witnessed an endless stream of value-destroying behaviour by individuals and organizations in the financial world. The persistence of these scandals, say the authors, indicates that the prevailing paradigm of financial economics requires transformation. They argue that the core issue at hand is a lack of recognition that integrity is a factor of production that is as important to success in all aspects of life as knowledge, technology and human and physical capital. They define integrity for individuals, organizations and objects, and going forward, call for leaders to identify out-of-integrity behaviour as it happens.

Imagination is what enables people to invent new business models, create differentiated products and services, and reframe a growing number of problems as opportunities. And yet we understand very little about how imagination works. The author shows that it has much in common with dreaming. He describes the key elements of the dream state and shows that the the number-one hazard for innovators is getting stuck in the 'tar pits' of prior knowledge. Once we learn the 'trick' of dreaming-of disassociating our thoughts from the linear and the logical-we can become wellsprings of originality.

Global trade has taken off over the past decade, and small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) are reaping rewards in developing markets. The authors describe four political and four socio-economic challenges presented by these markets, and describe five strategies for surmounting these challenges, using examples of successful Canadian and British SMEs that are leading the way in fast-growth markets.

Our mental models, or mindsets, determine the way we see the world, make decisions and behave. In the realm of Marketing, the author argues that many peoples' mental models are severely outdated. He explains why the old Marketing paradigm is outdated, and describes six aspects of the new landscape that modern marketers must embrace in order to thrive in what he calls "a new marketing paradigm."

In his work at IDEO, the author has been closely studying a gigantic emerging market: the Chinese middle class consumer. In this article he describes three key aspects of this consumer's identity. Calling this consumer segment "a moving target", he says the important thing is to maintain a consistently human-centered approach aimed at uncovering latent needs. Businesses that continually develop their empathy and understanding of this group, he says, can meet the evolving needs of one of the largest new markets in history.

Widespread critiques of capitalism-as articulated by social movements such as Occupy Wall Street-have been widely legitimated, say the authors, and the resulting ideological shift has propelled migration towards 'connected consumption'. Emphasizing the re-use of goods rather than buying new, these practices facilitate local, face-to-face connections, and they are redesigning models of service delivery. The authors describe four types of connected consumption, then focus on one ('time banks'), explaining the broader context that is propelling this movement's popularity.

Business leaders from Jack Welch to John Seely Brown are amongst a growing number of leaders advocating the power of storytelling. The author describes the key tenets of storytelling and shows why it is so naturally appealing to the human mind. For instance, because we are highly averse to uncertainty, we tend to embrace simplistic 'cause and effect' relations without questioning them. The problem is, when the story isn't true, such characteristics of stories becomes 'traps'. She provides four ways to escape story- formula infrastructure so that we don't fall into a 'no-exit storytelling trap'.

Three veterans of the C-suite discuss the current business landscape and some of their key challenges past, present and future. Mark Barrenechea, CEO of OpenText, explains why "Big Data is a bit over-hyped"; Former MasterCard CMO (now Sotheby's CMO) Alfredo Gangotena describes his greatest challenge ever: marketing EuroDisney to Parisians; and Mountain Equipment Co-Op CEO Mark Labistour explains his affinity for Design Thinking, and the importance of working towards a "desired future state" for your customer.

In the realm of feedback, the receiver - not the giver - is the key player in the exchange. The authors describe three triggers that lead us to dismiss feedback, and how to counteract them to improve your relationships and take charge of your life-long learning. In the end, they say, receiving feedback well is a skill, and an important one for each of us to learn.

In a wide-ranging interview, the Managing Director for McKinsey and Company Worldwide, Dominic Barton, discusses his firm's work on the global problem of water scarcity, what type of talent his firm seeks out and why workplace flexibility is so important today.

Since the 1970s, the authors have conducted six customer satisfaction surveys patterned after a baseline survey by the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs. Their latest survey found that: •The explosion of online social networking and other communication tools has raised the stakes in the area of customer satisfaction. •The intensity of negative reactions seems to be increasing. •In addressing complaints, companies are failing in their efforts to create one-stop services with technology and people dedicated to resolving customer problems. So, what can companies do to improve the level of customer satisfaction? The authors identify five areas of focus. 1. Encourage unhappy customers to complain, but be prepared to resolve the complaints. Today'unhappy customers expect businesses to handle customer service flawlessly (even if it is outsourced to a third party). 2. Understand what results your investments in customer service will produce. Since the 1970s, companies have invested billions of dollars in upgraded corporate complaint-handling practices. Only 20% of recent complainants were "completely satisfied"with the results of their complaint (compared to 23% in 1976). 3. Recognize that technology has limits -and that some customers want to interact directly with a person. Only 6% of today's complainants consider the Internet their primary channel for complaining. The authors say that online communication channels might be utilized more effectively to steer customers to live complaint handlers rather than pursuing totally automated solutions. 4. Be aware that customers may be even more influenced by positive online word of mouth than by negative word of mouth. By a margin of 46% to 19%, prospective buyers cited positive posts more often than negative comments as being most influential on their future purchases.

Is customer satisfaction worth the cost? To find out, the authors investigated the relationship between customer satisfaction and business outcomes, gathering data from more than 100,000 consumers covering more than 300 brands. Although high customer satisfaction ratings are typically treated by managers as being universally good for business, the authors'findings indicate that the benefits are not nearly so clear-cut. There is a downside to continuously devoting resources to raise customer satisfaction levels. Managers are rarely able to accurately quantify the cost associated with increasing customer satisfaction scores (for example, from 8.7 to 9.1 on a 10-point scale), nor are they able to determine precisely what such an increase is actually worth. It turns out the return on these investments is often trivial or even negative. Knowing a customer's satisfaction level tells you little about how he or she will divide his or her spending among the different brands used. As a result, changes in customer satisfaction levels are unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the share of category spending customers allocate with your brand. Why? Single-brand loyalty, which was common in our parents'and grandparents'generations, has been replaced with loyalty to multiple brands in a category in many sectors. Because of this divided loyalty, more customers partially defect (in other words, they give more of their business to a competitor) than completely defect from a business or brand. As a result, improving customers'share of spending with your brand tends to represent a far greater opportunity than efforts to improve customer retention. kThe measure that really matters, according to the authors, isn't your percentage of delighted customers or promoters. What matters is the relative "rank"that your brand's satisfaction level represents vis-àvis your competitors.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Executives typically think about productivity as something to be maximized. In service businesses, that means that companies often devote a lot of attention to designing automated processes that reduce their need for people -typically their most expensive resource. But in service businesses, increased productivity does not always lead to increased profitability. The authors analyzed data from more than 700 U.S. companies in service industries in 2002 and 2007. Their analysis suggested that, for a given level of technology, there is an inverted U relationship between productivity and profitability in service companies. In other words, service companies become less profitable if they are either too productive or not productive enough. However, because technology advances over time, the optimal productivity level increases over time. The authors found that several factors cause the optimal productivity level to be higher or lower. The optimal productivity level is not set in stone. As technology advances, the optimal productivity level increases. Online travel reservation systems offer an example. Advances in online technology enabled online travel service Expedia Inc. to increase its productivity by 15% from 2005 to 2010, with no damage to customer satisfaction. The authors argue that productivity in a service business should be treated as a strategic decision variable that depends on the business and the technology in question. One key question is the relative importance of customer satisfaction to the business model. When circumstances encourage the provision of better service quality (comparatively high profit margin, high price, low market concentration and low wages), companies should emphasize customer satisfaction more; when the opposite factors are present (high market concentration, high wages, low margin and low price), they can stress service productivity.

The authors' research suggests that understanding the underlying dynamics of project status reporting can help limit the chances of nasty surprises. In particular, they identify five "inconvenient truths" about project status reporting: 1. Executives can't rely on project staff and other employees to accurately report project status information and to speak up when they see problems. Many employees have a tendency to put a positive spin on anything they report to senior management. When the organizational climate is not receptive to bad news, truthful reporting can be inhibited 2. A variety of reasons can cause people to misreport about project status. Executives tend to attribute misreporting to poor ethical behavior on the employee's part. In fact, employees misreport for a variety of reasons; individual traits, work climate and cultural norms all can play a role. 3. An aggressive audit team can't counter the effects of project status misreporting and withholding of information by project staff. Executives may conclude that the best way to address the problem of misreporting is to rely on auditors to make sure that project status reports are accurate. However, once auditors are added to the mix, negative organizational dynamics can lead to a dysfunctional cycle that results in even less openness. 4. Putting a senior executive in charge of a project may increase misreporting. Although having a senior executive as a project sponsor often proves wise politically and can help in securing resources for a project, the involvement of senior leaders does not make it any easier to track project status.

The authors note that companies want to protect their supply chains from serious and costly disruptions, but the most obvious solutions -increasing inventory, adding capacity at different locations and having multiple suppliers -undermine supply chain cost efficiency. Surveys have shown that while managers appreciate the impact of supply chain disruptions, they have done very little to prevent such incidents or mitigate their impacts. The authors argue that supply chain efficiency, which is directed at improving financial performance, is different from supply chain resilience, in which the goal is risk reduction. Although both require dealing with risks, recurrent risks (such as demand fluctuations) require companies to focus on efficiency in improving the way they match supply and demand, while disruptive risks require companies to build resilience despite additional cost. Recently, managers have become much better at managing global supply chains through improved planning and execution and building operational reserves such as production capacity and inventory. However, the authors argue that reliance on sole-source suppliers, common parts and centralized inventories has left companies vulnerable to disruptive risks. Although sourcing from or outsourcing to distant low-cost locations and eliminating excess capacity and redundant suppliers can make supply chains more cost-efficient, they also make supply chains more vulnerable. How should managers reduce their supply chain's exposure to disruptive risks without giving up hard-earned gains in performance from improved supply chain efficiency?

MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte have been exploring the impact of social media on business over the past three years through surveys, data analysis and interviews with executives and academics. The latest survey explored whether companies are deriving value from their social business initiatives. Sixty-two percent of managers surveyed report that their organization's social business initiatives are at least somewhat successful at meeting their stated business objectives, while 63% of respondents report that social business has positively affected business outcomes at their company. Fifty-nine percent of respondents in multinational companies report that social business helps them operate across geographies. Perhaps equally compelling is the extent to which individual employees indicate the value of social business to their daily work. Fifty-seven percent of respondents say that it is at least somewhat important for them to work for companies with mature social business practices, while 46% of respondents say that social business is at least somewhat important for decision making in their day-to-day role. A key factor in whether companies are able to derive positive benefits from social business is social business maturity. The researchers asked survey respondents to envision a company with ideal social business practices and then to assess how close their company was to that ideal. The higher a respondent rates his or her company, the more likely they are to report that the company is deriving business value from its social business initiatives. For example, 92% of respondents from the companies with the most mature social business practices say that social business helps them operate across geographies.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Facing headwinds from a shifting media industry, executives at Spanish language broadcasting company Entravision recognized the need to innovate their business model. To get there they created Luminar, a big data insights division that utilizes about 2000 external data points to deliver customized, transaction-based insights to marketers, about Entravision's Latino audience. The fastest growing U.S. demographic, Latinos have amassed buying power worth more than a trillion dollars annually.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Oil & Gas is GE's fastest growing business, with revenues of $15 billion. It competes in high-growth markets and creates products like the recently launched first subsea compressor that utilize GE's broad technical capabilities. Measurement & Control, a division of Oil & Gas, covers a swath of industries and applications, according to its website, including sensing, asset condition monitoring, controls and instrumentation. But Oil & Gas, along with the rest of GE, is also betting heavy on analytics. The company announced this summer the first-of-its-kind cloud platform for collecting, storing and analyzing large scale machine data, to handle the massive data from the coming Industrial Internet. GE is also applying that analytic rigor to innovate internally - and drive commercial change. Philip Kim, (former) marketing operations leader for Measurement & Control , discusses how GE uses data to continuously improve performance - whether that's to grow sales, decrease costs or improve performance-- and in the process, democratizes analytics.