This case considers the state of telehealth, or the remote delivery of healthcare services via telecommunications technology, in 2019. Doctor On Demand, a promising start-up in the space, sought to solve the four main challenges that the telehealth industry had faced historically. First, although most Americans who had health insurance coverage through their employers also received telehealth benefits, very few knew about these services, and an even smaller number had tried them. Second, the right incentives for payors, such as health plans and large self-insured enterprises, were not in place, a situation that kept utilization rates for telehealth services at stubbornly low levels. Third, Doctor On Demand and its peers needed to add more providers and offer a broader range of healthcare services to patients if they hoped to drive the next leg of growth for their platforms. And fourth, the regulatory environment in which the platforms operated was incredibly complex, and if history were any indicator, other stakeholders in the U.S. healthcare system who felt threatened by telehealth would do whatever they could to impede its rise. The stakes were high, and not just for Doctor On Demand. If CEO Hill Ferguson and his team could address the industry's four major issues, they could unlock the potential of telehealth to deliver better medical care for more people at lower cost.
GoDaddy had long been known for polarizing television commercials that were focused on generating attention and buzz-CNBC called its brand "synonymous with controversial advertisements with scantily clad women." But the company decided that the ads did not appropriately reflect its internal culture and in 2013 undertook a transformation intended to shift its external brand to reflect its actual culture and to champion its diverse customers. In the process, GoDaddy partnered with the VMware Women's Leadership Innovation Lab at Stanford University and set out to make their company a top workplace for women in technology. Among the key issues it worked to address were the calibration, or talent review, sessions at which the performance of GoDaddy employees was discussed; performance ratings that resulted from these meetings impacted career trajectory, promotion, equity, and salaries. GoDaddy decided to pursue the "Holy Grail:" helping with career advancement through equal access to top performance marks.
This article aims to help organizations invest wisely in virtual competence by first explaining how this requires the development of three capabilities: virtual self-efficacy, virtual social skill, and virtual media skill. It then highlights concrete actions that managers can take to help ensure that virtual work meets its potential in their organizations. One key finding in the authors’ research is that people develop virtual competence through experience gained at home as well as in the workplace. Their research indicates that the level of virtual competence that exists today is insufficient for the large-scale adoption of virtual work. The authors’ research suggests taking the following steps to develop employees’ skills: First, assess the current state of each employee’s virtual competence. Second, assess the technology toolkit and media available to employees and make changes to support their work. Third, cultivate social interactions. Fourth, provide formal opportunities to help employees learn virtual media and social skills. Finally, assist employees in using both personal and social learning strategies. Social self-regulated learning strategies contribute to learner satisfaction, but not skill development; and personal self-regulated learning strategies have the opposite effect. To keep employees happy while also ensuring learning outcomes, managers should note that online learning needs to provide both social and personal modes of activities.
We all occasionally hear comments potentially driven by intolerance or bias. They often come without warning, sometimes from someone you really like. This article is about how to react. Research suggests that managers and employees alike are often loath to tackle uncomfortable topics. However, when formal company programs discourage bias, but everyday interactions allow or even encourage it, bias lives on. The good news is that the small everyday moments of potential intolerance are wonderful opportunities to tackle the problem of bias and discrimination in the workplace. What we are calling for is engagement, which doesn’t involve shaming or blaming. The goal is one of perspective-taking, which can make a difference without creating conflict. Engaging can have a positive impact in terms of cultivating empathy, increasing understanding, fostering speaker insight, and setting an example for bystanders. While formal training programs that address equity, diversity, and inclusion issues are helpful, they rarely have the reach required to fight intolerance where it breeds—at the micro level. Workplaces that are effective at micro-level engagement may get fewer complaints about bias. In addition, when employees feel psychologically safe and valued, they are more likely to share their thoughts and idea, which can lead to higher levels of productivity, innovation, and adaptability.
According to the authors’ experience as consultants with Kearney’s Proposition and Customer Experience Labs, companies frequently fall prey to a costly fallacy—the notion of an “average” customer. But the reality is that some 20 per cent of an institution’s customers typically contribute around 80 per cent of total value. To get the most out of existing customer pools, companies should consider adopting a value-based customer segmentation approach, which provides a quick yet robust method to identify future customer value while enabling companies to develop better growth, retention, and customer maintenance initiatives. The authors identify the following three dimensions that create customer value characteristics: a) client demographics and financial status; b) product usage, measured in both diversity and depth; and c) future potential, or expected changes in future net worth and/or usage. Value-based segmentation can help move customers who are part of the 80 per cent that bring in only 20 per cent of a company’s business into the smaller grouping that provides significant value. When the future value potential of an existing pool of customers is uncovered using value-based segmentation, businesses can make major strides toward providing truly differentiated offerings to this key asset. Properly leveraging the new insights obtained through such an effort can help to develop emotional connections via targeted marketing efforts that increase customer loyalty and boost their value to the business over time.
Innovations in digital technologies, lightweight materials, sustainable energy sources, and social trends like carsharing and ridesharing are converging to create an unprecedented level of connected and, eventually, autonomous mobility solutions that will revolutionize personal transportation. This innovation is ushering in a new ecosystem of mobility experiences, which will potentially play a much bigger role than brands when it comes to determining who wins the race to dominate mobility markets. Digitalization offers a seamless platform of services to provide mobility on demand, such as Uber. Vehicle manufacturers like Ford, Tesla, and Mercedes-Benz are adding smart product functionality to their cars while seeking business models that turn their smart products into services. The future of mobility depends on a congruence of technology and digitalization on a platform, seamlessly integrating safety, energy, data processing, decision making, and real-time cloud connectivity with infrastructure and on-demand services. Success in launching digital mobility experiences requires integrating digital mobility products and services; capturing and analyzing personal data using digital replicas (twins); getting data privacy and data governance right; and the balancing of personalization and the centralization of the value proposition to create economies of scale. Challenges include policy and technology uncertainty, value chain complexity, infrastructure needs, and regulatory standards and acceptance.
Kanopy LLC (Kanopy) was a video streaming platform that hosted independent and documentary films for educative purposes. Founded in 2008, Kanopy had rapidly expanded to several countries. By 2017, it had more than 3,000 college libraries and several public libraries as subscribers. Although Kanopy’s services were received with much enthusiasm, under Kanopy’s pay-per-view pricing model, libraries soon incurred subscription fees that exceeded their budgets. Kanopy’s popularity became an impediment to growth as libraries cancelled subscriptions or switched to more restrictive models. By December 2019, even though Kanopy’s revenues were increasing, the company’s founder needed to consider how to ensure the company’s continued growth. Given libraries’ constrained budgets, what changes did Kanopy need to make to sell its streaming services to libraries?
This case is located within the multinational pharmaceutical company Novartis, as key managers decide what kind of monitoring and evaluation to implement for one of its social business programs, Novartis Access. This new program will expand the company's reach into traditionally underserved markets in low- and middle-income countries using a basket of 15 medicines for non-communicable diseases offering them at public and faith-based facilities at a lower price than sold in the private market. Novartis Access is being launched in late 2015 in Kenya, with a long-term goal of operating in 30 countries. The case focuses on Michael Fürst, Senior Manager for Corporate Responsibility Strategy and Innovation, who must prepare a plan for monitoring and evaluation for Novartis Access to present to Harald Nusser, Head of Novartis Social Business. In order to prepare for his first meeting with Harald Nusser, Michael Fürst needs to identify the value and risks of monitoring and evaluating (and their differences) and make a proposal about what kind of monitoring and evaluation to adopt (if any), and how to overcome internal and external challenges.
It was end-2019 and seven years into the founding of Carousell, a Singapore-headquartered peer-to-peer online classified advertisements marketplace started by three friends, Quek Siu Rui, Marcus Tan and Lucas Ngoo. Valued at US$550 million, Carousell had gained wide popularity with a presence in seven markets across Asia Pacific. However new challenges that surfaced continued to confront the pioneer and market leader of mobile classifieds in Southeast Asia. Back in 2012, the opportunity and challenge the three young founders were facing was much simpler - to simplify a cumbersome and lengthy process to sell pre-owned items online. The trio built a smartphone app at a hackathon that reduced the time taken to list an item from ten minutes to 30 seconds. On a mission to inspire others to start selling, they adopted a mobile-first approach targeting young adults and gradually built a strong community of Carousellers over the years. With successive rounds of equity funding and scaling-up, soon came the question of monetisation. Carousell adopted a freemium business model, and began to roll out paid premium services for used-goods sellers to increase the visibility of their listings, and subscription services for professional sellers (such as real estate agents), to promote their properties. Having evolved from paper press to web desktop and mobile versions, what was next for the classifieds industry? Carousell reckoned Classified Version 4.0 would be AI-driven. How then could Carousell compete with new entrants, such as Facebook Marketplace, contending for a slice of the classified platform business? How could Carousell combat the increasing prevalence of online fraud on its platform to offer safety and assurance to its users? Would the monetizing efforts by providing paid services on the platform derail the community building effort that had been critical to Carousell's early success?
Organizational leaders are increasingly turning to design approaches as a panacea for uncertainty and disruption. However, frictions between design and typical engineering and management practices make integrating design into organizations difficult. To do this well, it is necessary to foster the coevolution of two types of design capabilities: deep expertise in design practices and wide understanding, application, and scaffolds of design. Underestimating the coevolution leads to three typical "pitfalls" that can limit the effectiveness of investments in design. This article examines each of these tensions in the context of large technology companies and presents practical recommendations on how to avoid them.
In December 2019, Jon Hu (Harvard Business School MBA, 2019) and Dr. Samantha Dale Strasser, co-founders of Celata Bioinnovations, were raising $1 million to launch their company. They had founded Celata less than six months earlier with the aim of redefining the drug discovery process. Celata's platform used novel data types and a unique data integration process to generate hypotheses about proteins that were involved in the formation and progression of disease. They believed the platform was better and faster at identifying actionable biological targets, increasing the speed of discovery and reducing the chances of failure, promising to lower costs and bring drugs to market more quickly. Their platform had achieved proof of concept during Strasser's PhD research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), when it helped identify and validate a target related to Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) in mouse models. However, full validation wouldn't come until their platform was used to develop a drug that successfully treated a disease in humans, a process that could take several years. In the first instance, Celata's platform was best suited to identify targets for cancers, inflammatory diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases, which collectively presented a global market opportunity of over $200 billion. However, Hu and Strasser were debating which opportunities to pursue. Should they try to improve the efficacy of current drugs, or go for brand new opportunities, indications for which there were no solutions on the market? And if they focused on the latter, should they just look for large market opportunities, or include "orphan" diseases, for which there was a relatively small market? Should they look for small molecule drug candidates, or include large molecule biologics in their search? And where should they operate in the drug development pipeline?
The July 2015 spin-off of DuPont's performance chemicals division as the independent company Chemours burdened new CEO Mark Vergnano and his team with perilous challenges. Despite market-leading offerings in several areas, the company faced a glutted market for its primary product, even after its prices had fallen 40% since 2012. The company also owed $4 billion in long-term debt, equivalent to 10 times 2014 earnings. Not least, DuPont had made Chemours financially responsible for chemical contamination at 171 U.S. sites, representing 62% of DuPont's environmental liabilities and 90% of its litigation by number of pending cases. Within six months, Chemours shares had lost 80% of their value.
Supplement to the (A) case 420-001, describing actions taken by Chemours CEO Mark Vergnano and members of his executive team to execute a successful turnaround of the company.
External pressures from an increasingly saturated industry were forcing the president of Crème Couture Bridal Inc. to contemplate the future of her business. Crème Couture operated as a retail outlet for memorable lifestyle events, selling wedding dresses, bridalwear, formalwear, and various accessories to women of all ages. The president wanted to develop an expansion strategy that would best position Crème Couture for long-term success. Specifically, she wanted to assess the profitability of each revenue segment to determine which segments should be further enhanced or eliminated. She wanted her expansion strategy to align with her long-term goals of attracting more clientele, providing exceptional customer service and increasing net profit.
This case provides a cautionary tale of the one-size-fits-all approach to organizational culture. Despite the success of Zappos.com and Southwest Airlines, not all companies' culture achieves its intended outcomes for employers and employees. Through the eyes of fictional protagonist Roxie Steele, founder of StyleForYou.com and StreetFashion.com, students learn about issues that entrepreneurs face when they scale a business from startup to full-fledged enterprise. Although Steele launched a new fashion e-commerce site in 2019, StreetFashion.com, the case is largely based on Steele's past experience as StyleForYou's CEO from 2000 to 2015. Students gain insights into the entrepreneurial challenges StyleForYou.com faced within the competitive and fast-paced fashion industry. Students apply a framework (i.e., leadership congruence model) to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of StyleForYou's management practices, with a focus on organizational culture and structure. Students also develop solutions for Steele regarding how to establish StreetFashion.com as a sustainable enterprise in the future.