In August 2018, after nearly six months of searching, Charles Wells was convinced that he should found HelloSelf to help people improve their sense of mental wellbeing. Those feeling mentally unwell would receive support from fully qualified clinical psychotherapists, while those feeling good would receive coaching and support to feel even better. Having researched a wide range of opportunities in the "BrainTech" space, including measuring brain function in job recruiting and brain-machine interfaces to control equipment, Wells had concluded that the search for mental wellness was the problem he would commit to solving. Now he had to develop a business model that would help turn HelloSelf into a successful enterprise and shape his launch strategy.

In April 2021, Charles Wells, founder and CEO of HelloSelf was reflecting on the company's progress since it launched two years earlier. HelloSelf's goal was to help the mentally ill recover and those who were mentally fit to stay well and feel even better. To do this, the company intended to provide members most in need with convenient access to PhDs in Clinical Psychology. For members with moderate needs and those seeking personal coaching HelloSelf would develop AI-powered "personalized psychological advice." This platform would provide its members with the ability to set goals, track progress, and discover new things about themselves. While it would take time to build all these capabilities, Wells identified the first step as providing clinical psychology-based talk therapy - Clinical Behavior Therapy (CBT) and other clinically tested methods - to those in most need. Progress to date, according to Wells, had been "reasonable." The company had built a platform to support effective, secure, online therapy with rigorous measurement of outcomes, and 125 therapists were using it to provide help to over 400 members every week. Members could track their progress on a native app. This was helping almost 2,000 members a year to get well and generating annualized revenues of £2.5 million. Now, the company was aiming to be 10 times bigger within three years - "hypergrowth" according to Wells. But this was only the beginning. The long-term goal was to help 20 million people a year which would require hypergrowth for more than a decade! How was HelloSelf going to do it?

In 2020, over half of all initial public offerings (IPOs) in the United States were special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), blank-check companies that typically had two years to find a business to take public, usually through a reverse merger. Together, 248 SPACs raised over $83 billion, 46% of the total US IPO proceeds in 2020. The SPAC boom accelerated in 2021. By the end of March 2021, there were 298 SPAC IPOs year-to-date, raising $96.6 billion. At the time, SPAC sponsors were eagerly seeking out opportunities in sectors such as fintech, healthtech, renewable energy, and electric vehicles to invest the $136 billion they had at their disposal. Moreover, there was another $66.4 billion in SPAC IPOs in the pipeline. The opportunities for SPAC sponsors were attractive, as much as a ten-times return on their investment, but SPAC investors had also made some spectacular returns. For instance, Luminar Technologies, a leading producer of sensor technology for autonomous vehicles, entered into a definitive agreement with a SPAC in August 2020, for a post money valuation of $3.4 billion. At the end of March 2021, it was valued at $8.3 billion, down from a day-end high of $13.5 billion, but still up 135% on flotation. Proponents of SPACs touted a more efficient and streamlined path to public markets compared to the traditional IPO process - a type of "regulatory arbitrage." There was also the benefit of giving retail investors opportunities that would be otherwise reserved for private equity and institutional investors. Yet many industry observers were skeptical of the SPAC boom, noting the misalignment between sponsor and shareholder interests, the opacity of the process, and the poor historic returns of the entire asset class. They believed that the SPAC boom would soon end.

Since its founding in 2008, the Indian Premier League (IPL), India's eight-week Twenty20 (T20) cricket competition, had become one of the most popular and lucrative sporting leagues in the world. In 2019, the IPL attracted 462 million TV viewers and 300 million digital viewers, and the total IPL ecosystem was estimated to be worth $6.8 billion. Key to the IPL's success was its league structure, which shared central revenues with its eight permanent franchises, set strictly enforced salary caps, and ensured transparent player purchasing. The basic logic was that these steps would maximize the level of competition throughout the league, making each match an unpredictable and unmissable event, which, in turn, would grow the value of the league's media rights. Equally important was the league's conscious efforts to market itself as entertainment for the whole family. Besides high-stakes cricket, IPL matches featured everything from dancing and singing to fireworks and fan competitions. This "integration of Bollywood and cricket" expanded the league's addressable market from what was traditionally a sport dominated by male viewers; indeed, 42% of the IPL's TV audience were women. The net result of these decisions was that the IPL was one of only two professional sports leagues in the world - the other was the National Football League (NFL) in the United States - in which all teams were profitable. The IPL's rise seemed unstoppable, but then, on April 15, 2020, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) announced that the IPL would be postponed indefinitely due to the novel coronavirus pandemic. There was little doubt that the pandemic would have financial repercussions for the league and its teams. However, some viewed it as an opportunity to rethink how the league was positioning itself to navigate the major changes underfoot in the world of sport - from how fans engaged with their favorite teams and players to the rise of esports and sports betting.

In March 2020, Dr. Cynthia Bamdad, founder and CEO of Minerva Biotechnologies Inc. (Minerva), was reviewing the first results of human clinical trials for the company's novel CAR-T drug therapeutic, one of the first ever to target solid cancer tumors. The results looked promising. CAR-T therapeutics were a new field attracting a lot of scientific interest. They involved genetically re-engineering a patient's T-cells, a key element of the human immune system, to attack the cancer. The first CAR-T treatments for cancer were developed for the relatively small field of blood cancers, 7% of all cancers. For instance, early pioneer Kite Pharma Inc. (Kite) developed a treatment for a special type of lymphoma that only affected 7,500 patients a year. Still, the financial interest was huge, and Kite was acquired by Gilead Sciences Inc. in August 2017 for $11.9 billion. Similarly, Juno Therapeutics Inc. was acquired by Celgene Corporation for $9 billion in January 2018. Minerva's therapeutics targeted 96% of all breast cancers and 46% of prostate cancers, a market that was orders of magnitude larger. After 21 years, Bamdad believed that Minerva was on the threshold of something really big. Should Bamdad sell the business and work within a larger organization? Or should she IPO and continue to develop the company's long-term pipeline of therapeutics and diagnostics?

In 2010, amid a flurry of new discoveries, Cynthia Bamdad, founder and CEO of Minerva Biotechnologies Corporation (Minerva), raised $6.6 million to test her new cancer drugs in mice. It had been more than 6 years since she had announced that she and her small team at Minerva had identified the mechanism that caused 96% of all breast cancers and had discovered a number of small molecule drugs and antibodies to block it. Funding the next stage of development had proven very difficult, but, undeterred, Bamdad had raised enough to keep her laboratory open and continue her research work. In the process, she made the startling discovery that the "cancer" mechanism she had discovered was an integral part of the production of all human embryonic stem cells, and that cancer was a result of this mechanism going awry. As a result, Minerva developed the ability to produce high-quality stem cells, which opened up a whole range of new commercial opportunities for the company, including advanced therapeutics and processes for growing and replacing human cells of all types. However, resources were limited. Where should she focus her efforts?

After nearly five years in operation, Doctor Cynthia Bamdad, founder and CEO of Minerva Biotechnologies Corporation (Minerva), was reflecting on the company's next steps. In a few short years, she and her small team had managed to develop a nanoparticle process for testing new drugs that was orders of magnitude faster than traditional approaches. Using this process, they had discovered the mechanism that caused 96% of all breast cancers and identified families of small molecule therapeutics that were effective in blocking this mechanism in live cells in the laboratory. Moreover, Bamdad did not think it would be long before the company could offer an early warning diagnostic for breast cancer, which would allow less invasive treatment of the condition. The company had filed several families of patent applications in support of these claims, but the challenge was funding. To date, Bamdad had relied on Federal Government grants and angel investors to fund the research, but the next steps would require much larger investment. Should Minerva seek to commercialize its drug development technology to help fund the riskier steps of drug development? Should it focus on a diagnostic which would make current treatments more effective? Should it license its small molecule therapeutics to one of the many well-funded companies seeking cures for cancer? Or should Bamdad raise capital to support tests in mice in order to reach the Federal Drug Administration IND (Investigational New Drug) application stage of drug discovery? This would allow clinical trials in humans, which would require more capital, but an IND would increase the value of Minerva's intellectual capital substantially. What should Bamdad do?

In June 2020, GreenFire Energy Inc. (GreenFire) presented its report to the California Energy Commission indicating that its proof of concept project to demonstrate its new geothermal electricity generation technology, ECO2Gâ„¢, had been a success. While conventional geothermal electricity only supplied 0.5% of US demand, the new technology promised to increase this to 25% by drilling much deeper. Moreover, it was a closed-loop system which didn't involve fracking like conventional geothermal and promised to be much more cost effective. Unlike other renewables, ECO2G could also provide baseload power 24 hours a day and be adjusted quickly to match demand. CEO Joseph Scherer likened it to the beginning of the oil rush. "When the oil industry first started, prospectors focused on places where oil was seeping out of the ground. Now, they drill for it in deep oceans. Same with geothermal, but geothermal is much easier to find, and there is a lot more of it!" Now Scherer and John Muir, brother of founder Mark Muir, had to choose how they would commercialize the technology. They had many choices.

In early 2020, 24M Technologies (24M) announced that two of its strategic investors had commenced building plants to produce lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries based on 24M's novel semi-solid electrode technology. This promised to halve the cost of conventional Li-ion batteries, increase the energy density to provide greater range in electric vehicles, and make them safer and more reliable. Cofounders Yet-Ming Chiang and Throop Wilder had set up the company 10 years earlier in a quest to take all that was good about Li-ion technology and improve it. The founders argued that, historically, Li-ion development had focused on miniaturized cells for consumer electronics and that these design principles had been carried over into cells destined for electric cars and grid-scale batteries. It made no sense to accept these constraints. What was needed was a fresh start; to begin with a "clean sheet of paper." The technology had taken 10 years and nearly $100 million to develop from a laboratory demonstration to a commercial product. Now, the challenge was to scale it up to compete with conventional technology.

On May 4, 2020, a press release from Boston, Massachusetts, announced the launch of Oxygen Esports (Oxygen), a new organization that hoped to dominate the rising esports scene in New England. Oxygen was created from a merger between Helix eSports (Helix), an owner and operator of gaming and virtual reality (VR) outlets throughout the United States, and Team Genji, an esports organization with two lines of business: esports teams competing in Hearthstone and Magic: The Gathering Arena; and a talent analytics and scouting business called Genji Insights. The new entity also acquired professional rosters from Team Reciprocity and in the free agent market, positioning Oxygen to compete in six top esports. William Collis (HBS MBA, 2011), co-founder of Team Genji and Genji Insights, had played a key role in formulating Oxygen's strategy prior to launch. Collis had decided not to compete in leagues with a "hard franchise" model, where teams paid the game publishers a large up-front sum for permanent league status. Instead, Oxygen would join leagues where teams often paid little or no upfront fees for similar benefits, and where publishers exerted less control over the leagues. Moreover, Collis was focused on building regional, rather than global, teams. Did this make sense? What else might Oxygen do in pursuit of their mission "to build a sustainable esports ecosystem for gamers of every skill level"?

King's had begun the financial year (April 1, 2017) forecasting a loss of £40 million. By December 2017, losses were projected to be over £90 million. In response to the crisis, in November 2017, the CEO of King's had removed the CFO and COO. Then, on December 10, 2017, the chairman of King's, Lord Kerslake, announced his resignation, signaling that the group would soon be put into administration. Writing in The Guardian, he warned of the deeper structural problems facing the NHS: My two and a half years at King's have been in equal part inspiring and frustrating. There are undoubtedly things that I and the Trust could have done better - there always are - but fundamentally our problems lie in the way the NHS is funded and organized. We desperately need a fundamental rethink. Until then we are simply 'kicking the can down the road.' Shortly after Lord Kerslake's resignation, NHSI announced that they would appoint Ian Smith (HBS MBA, 1987) as the interim chair. The next day, as Smith arrived at King's, there were extensive protests outside the main entrance over government underfunding of the health service in general and the departure of the chairman in particular. Smith entered via a back door to avoid the Union picket line in front. There he met the group's 28 clinical directors. The mood was angry. They briefed him on years of funding cuts in the face of poor operational performance, a highly congested emergency department, and long waiting lists for elective surgeries. Smith faced some immediate challenges. The chief executive was still in place; was he part of the problem or part of the solution? How could Smith engage with the clinicians and managers to launch a rapid turnaround? Would the regulator prove a help or a hindrance in the process? What would a "100 day" plan look like?

In October 2019, Dan Macklin, the newly-appointed chief executive of Salary Finance Inc., was weighing his options for the future of the business. The company's value proposition was quite simple: partner with employers to offer employees affordable loans that were repaid through automatic payroll deductions. Taking repayments directly from salary, and collecting those repayments in one transaction from the employer, dramatically reduced costs, saving employees large amounts of interest when compared to market alternatives like credit cards or payday lenders. Salary Finance Inc. was a subsidiary of Salary Finance Limited which was launched in the UK in 2015. By September 2018, Salary Finance Limited had partnered with over 100 UK employers and offered loans to around one million employees. It was at this point that the company decided to try and replicate this success in the United States, and opened an office in Boston, Massachusetts. By October 2019, the US business had partnered with 15 employers, offering loans to around 50,000 employees. In October 2019, Macklin was contemplating the best way to accelerate the growth of Salary Finance Inc. to hit his 10 million employee target. He was also wrestling with whether he should stick with the core product or add new products to drive sales. This had worked well in the UK where pay advances and savings accounts had proven popular in addition to their core loan product. Salary Finance Inc. was off to a good start, but it remained uncertain how quickly Macklin could grow the business and help more Americans get out of debt.

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?

In 2017, the global market for rechargeable lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries was 126 gigawatt-hours (GWh) valued at $37 billion, growing by $10 billion in two years. Once confined largely to consumer electronics and appliances, the rapid increase in demand was spurred by the adoption of electric cars and buses. Moreover, the falling cost of batteries was sparking interest in another potential huge market-the electrical utility sector. Batteries could be used to store electricity in periods of low demand and release it when demand was high, significantly reducing the need for peak generation capacity. However, historically, the costs of doing this had been prohibitively high. In response to the expected demand, several companies had announced "gigafactories," plants that, combined, could produce many times more output than total global demand in 2017. Tesla, Inc., the electric car maker, was the first. In 2014, it announced a 35 GWh battery plant, costing $5 billion, to be built in Nevada, enough capacity to fulfill global demand in 2013. In 2017, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he would announce an additional four gigafactory locations to supply the global market. Tesla was not alone in its battery ambitions. In late 2016, start-up Alevo began delivery of its new "GridBank" batteries from a 3.5 million square-foot facility in North Carolina, with the potential to scale to 60 GWh. Alevo claimed its batteries lasted four times longer and were safer than the conventional Li-ion batteries used by Tesla. Anxious not to be reliant on third parties, in 2017, several automakers had announced plans to build battery capacity, including General Motors and Daimler. Indeed, Daimler announced two plants for its Mercedes brand cars, one in Germany and one in China. New start-ups were also entering the fray, with Northvolt AB of Sweden partnering with ABB of Switzerland to build a 32 GWh facility.

In 2000, The Gap, Inc. (Gap) was the world's largest player in specialty fashion retailing, and companies such as Inditex of Spain, H&M of Sweden, and Fast Retailing of Japan were less than a quarter of Gap's size. But after two decades of growth, Gap's progress stalled in the early 2000s, while these players continued to expand. Inditex overtook Gap in 2008, H&M in 2010, and Fast Retailing in 2016. Inditex continued to set the pace ten years later in 2019, and Gap appeared to be falling ever further behind. Since 2000, four Gap CEOs had struggled to turn around the company. While several temporary profit increases appeared to herald a recovery, a sustained rally remained elusive and the share price remained volatile. Mickey Drexler, who joined the firm in 1983 and became CEO in 1995, had been primarily responsible for Gap's rise to global prominence, but he was fired in 2002 after two years of double digit, same-store sales declines and a 75% drop in the stock price. His successor, Paul Pressler, appeared to have engineered a remarkable recovery, but was fired in 2007 after disappointing sales and another slump in profits, leaving Gap to be run by interim CEO Robert Fisher, son of founder Donald Fisher. Pressler's permanent replacement, Glenn Murphy, fresh from a successful turnaround at a Canadian drug-store chain, promised tighter price controls, lower administrative costs, and a leaner, more aggressive Gap. He cut costs and drove up earnings per share, but sales continued to decline in his first few years in office. A sales and profit revival in 2012 looked promising, driving the company's share price up 50%, but it proved short-lived, and Murphy announced in 2014 that he would step down, handing over to company veteran Art Peck (HBS '79). After four years under Peck's leadership, the company was still struggling to rediscover its old magic, while Inditex was going from strength to strength.

In April 2019, Manoj Badale and Charles Mindenhall, co-founders of Blenheim Chalcot, were contemplating how they might go about developing their portfolio. Since founding the company as an internet consultancy called netdecisions in 1998, Badale and Mindenhall had transformed Blenheim Chalcot into the United Kingdom's "leading digital venture builder," having successfully built, and, in 15 instances, exited, 42 businesses across a number of sectors, including technology, financial services, sport, media, property, and education. In 2018, Blenheim Chalcot had portfolio sales of over £350 million and employed over 3,000 people. Unlike a traditional venture capital firm, Blenheim Chalcot was a "venture builder," often developing its own ideas then bringing in and supporting entrepreneurs with a range of services and support, and funding them in return for a majority equity stake (typically 80-90%). The idea was to increase the probability of success by allowing the entrepreneurs and their teams to spend less time fundraising and dealing with time consuming tasks, such as property, recruitment, legal set up, and gaining access to a client network. This enabled the entrepreneur to focus more on product and customers. The downside of this approach was that the growth of the group was somewhat constrained by the founders' own capital and their access to co-investment funds. As Badale and Mindenhall contemplated the future, they were asking themselves how they could best develop their ecosystem for building innovative businesses. In October 2018, they had opened an office in New York. They were also partnering with Imperial College London to open a 200,000 square-foot tech and innovation campus in early 2020. Should they continue on their current track? Or, should they be bolder, perhaps going public, adding new sectors, more businesses, bigger opportunities, and expanding into new geographic markets?

In August 2018, pymetrics, a solution offering neuroscience-based recruiting tests, closed a $40 million funding round that valued the business at $160 million. Over 60 companies around the globe were using pymetrics tests in their recruiting process, including Unilever, Hyatt, and Accenture. Clients were seeing real impact, including time and cost reductions-75% reduction in time-to-hire and 25% reduction in recruiting costs, as well as significant increases in diversity (in some cases over 100%)-and new-hire performance through metrics like retention. In addition, 1 million job candidates around the world had played pymetrics games to obtain career guidance. pymetrics tools offered significant advantages over traditional personality tests such as Myers Briggs because they measured brain function rather than responses to self-administered questionnaires. They also collected a lot more data very quickly and measured critical brain functions associated with effective executives, ranging from analytical capacity and risk aversion to attentiveness, resolve, ability to interpret emotions, speed of learning, and capacity for trust. In early 2021, the company was expanding rapidly. It employed nearly 100 people and operated out of four offices around the world. CEO Frida Polli was contemplating next steps. What should the priorities be? Was it more important to add more clients or develop more services to build current clients? How many global offices should the company operate, and how should these be organized? And could the company make more of its bias-free recruiting processes in a world where regulation against discrimination was becoming increasingly important?

In March 2013, pymetrics CEO Frida Polli visited Harvard Business School to listen to a section of MBA students from the class of 2013 to discuss her business plan and provide feedback on the tests they had taken to identify career opportunities. Polli had developed a series of neuroscience-based tests to measure brain function and map this to the profiles of successful executives. She believed that these could collect much more data than conventional psychographic tests in much less time, and it would be much more difficult for the candidate to "game" the system. Polli's goal was to help companies recruit more effectively. In preparation for the class, the MBA students had all taken the tests. She looked forward to discussing the results.

In 2013, CEO Frida Polli was contemplating the next steps for her start-up business, pymetrics. After receiving her PhD in neuropsychology and MBA from HBS, she was determined to put her scientific and academic knowledge to work to build a business solving real world problems. To this end, her team at pymetrics had adapted a set of robust neuroscience-based computer exercises designed to measure a number of elements of brain functionality and apply these exercises to the world of talent assessment. In just about 25 minutes, these tests compiled a powerful cognitive, social, and emotional profile of the individual that could match the output of experienced interviewers or much longer psychometric testing programs. And the added benefit was that these tests, unlike interviews, discussion panels, or self-reported questionnaires, were hard to "game" because the underlying brain function and rate of learning showed through. Frida believed that her exercise suite would be invaluable to recruiters and had demonstrated to a hedge fund and a major consulting firm that it was much more cost effective than their traditional approaches and could be used to broaden their search for the best talent. As she got out of the cab at LaGuardia to catch the plane for Boston, she wondered what the Harvard Business School class she was about to address would think of her ideas and how they might suggest she implement them.

In August 2019, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, was surrounded by controversy. The first major storm of protest followed the surprise election of Donald Trump as President of the United States on November 8, 2016; many put the blame at the door of fake news stories served up on Facebook's Trending News Feed. Zuckerberg dismissed these claims as "crazy," asserting that Facebook was a technology company, not a media company. In 2017, it was revealed that a Russian intelligence team had purchased 3,000 political ads on Facebook in an attempt to influence the 2016 US Presidential Election. Then, in March 2018, the public learned that Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy, had used 87 million Facebook profiles obtained from scraping the site to affect the election. As a result, Zuckerberg was called to Congress to testify. In early 2019, Facebook announced the company was to merge its Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp platforms and share data, but that this data would be more secure. The claim was greeted with much skepticism. To explain the move, Zuckerberg published a blog post, changing the company's mission from making the world more open to achieving privacy-focused communications on its platform. Meanwhile, Facebook continued to struggle with fake news while expanding its service offering. In June 2019, it announced it was to launch Libra, a new global cryptocurrency for its 2.5 billion users around the world. There was little doubt of the scale of Zuckerberg's ambitions.