My dream for the College of Business here at SF State University, is to develop a truly new format of graduate business education where we create businesses as a fundamental aspect of a cohort-based system. In other words, you are with us for two years. Your mission is to master the theory of business while building a real, viable business. Upon graduation, we help you further by incubating the whole operation for no more than 3 years. In return, the company distributes private shares of the company (for both the University and the faculty/staff members who deliver the MBA). When you hit a home run, we all win. More details here: http://tinyurl.com/mydreamforMBAeducation

Problem

Currently, the model for Graduate Business education, particularly in the Executive MBA programs, has become stale, and mundane. Executive MBA programs are like Klenex is to facial tissue - they all basically do the same thing in just about the same way. If you think about the high school math teacher who has her class build an actual flying airplane in order to teach mathematics and physics, we have to ask ourselves, what's the equivalent in graduate business education. Answer: build a viable, functioning business.

Solution

The solution is to work with faculty members and students through a fully cohorted system to bond together students around building a business from soup to nuts. The main mission over the 22 months would be to go from germination to fruition, and using the principles taught in business schools to do it really well. To do this, we would need to create a grafted on foundation that pools the venture seed money, and stores the profits from winning businesses after they have gone public, and then feeds the whole program; from tuition to completion, and then on-to the incubation period post earning the MBA, on site. Similarly, we would, instead of paying our faculty and rewarding faculty in the traditional way, members of the faculty would earn private equity shares in the companies that emerge as a means of bonusing their efforts. In the end, the hope is that after we have had a few successful company launches, we would have enough equity built into the operation to shrink tuition rather than need to increase tuition (and eventually getting it down to zero to boost the ability of traditionally underrepresented students to the business pipeline). Prior to beginning this operation, we would need to secure a high quality faculty willing to work in such an etreprenueal program, and gather them together over a summer to help shape the curriculum. This new model has potential for breaking the frames by which we rigidly operate our MBA programs & will require some serious thinking through by the faculty. For the students, the program would begin with a week long retreat to establish a working foundation and germinate some quality ideas that the students will wrestle over the first term. They would then learn every aspect of business and weave that learning into the building of the business. Over time, they should thread together what they learn and in real time apply those learnings to the new operation, and upon completion of the program, actually launch the incoprorated organization. Graduates would move to a different location on the campus (preferably closely located to the classrooms and the faculty) and we would give them reduced rates for office space, access to faculty for board advisorship, and potentially use current students as interns in the more advanced companies to provide real working experience for students who are new to the program. This incubation period would not be an indefinite proposition, but would be extended for a minimum of three years, and a maximum of five as most businesses fail in the first five years. We would want to support them all the way through to the IPO, if we could.

Practical Impact

Once a company goes IPO, you can see the potential for growth of the investment. It's time we tapped into the real world potential to link real businesses with graduate business education, and simultaneously change the model by which higher education operations are funded, and wean ourselves off of state support. More importantly, if we dedicate ourselves to forging new businesses, in green and/or sustainable industries, students would not only apply what they learn, but advance a whole new category of business development. Additionally, they would be adding new jobs to the market space.

First Steps

I've already been talking this idea up with several faculty members. Many are intrigued and enticed, but seem to balk because of the current restrictions dictated by union contracts and how faculty are measured for success (ultimately, the peer reviewed journal article being the coin of the realm and the biggest yardstick for measuring success among faculty ranks). We would need to build the whole operation with a strategic plan at the outset, simultaneausly designing and constructing the back end infrastructure needed to support the endowment that works to sustain the program. We would need to have good viable conversations about how the curriculum would change and design an interactive and cross-disciplinary set of courses that actually served the end goal - helping students build a business, rather than remain stagnated in the silo driven culture of the discipline. Faculty would need to upgrade their teaching skills and work to incorporate business building into the mix. Lastly, we would need a legal team to review the contractual relationships so that they are clean, ethical, and fair to all involved to ensure that people are rewarded fairly, and as the businesses become successful, we put into place standards so that there is no temptation to suck the fund dry for personal gain. In the end, our mission would be to ensure that graduate business education is affordable (and ultimately free for all students), and applicable - which eventually be the true measure of a high quality business education - can you apply it in the real world and make it work?

Credits

I have been bending my mind around this idea since my early days working on my Ph.D. at the University of Michigan. The idea of venture capital is not new. What is new, is bending graduate level business curriculum around in such a way that we generate new businesses, and an alternative revenue generating stream that works to improve our over all operations. Think about it? Higher education organizations have been around for a very long time (Harvard being founded in the mid 1600s). What was the last organizational innovation that we have witnessed with how educational operations are run? It's time for a new, innovative and invigorating model.

Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcZQ8_lAlzY

You need to register in order to submit a comment.

Sort By: Latest Oldest Likes Replies

February 8, 2011 at 10:36am

Aaron Anderson

Dear Aleksander,

Thanks for the input. You raise some interesting points. First, I'm sorry to learn that you didn't find any colleagues in your MBA program worthy to engage in some kind of business efforts. One of the fundamental ROI components of business school is the network you exit with, and if you were frustrated by the lack of quality in your program, your program failed you. I see a great deal of synergies develop over the two years in our program that last well beyond the finish of the program.

Indeed, developing a business from a blank canvas is both daunting and challenging, which is what makes it a perfect laboratory and backdrop for learning the business fundamentals. What I'm proposing isn't a typical helping of what is usually offered in business schools around the globe. The faculty would be deeply engaged in the efforts of their students, and thus the legal concern, albeit a a part of the equation, not a deal breaker.

Clearly, most businesses fail in their first five years, but in the sandbox provided at a brave school, failure becomes a great learning opportunity. Moreover, if you dig a bit deeper into my thinking posted at the location, you will find that the intent isn't to let the students go at graduation, but to tuck them into an incubator, inside or adjacent to the school location to provide further support for an additional three years - rounding out the five year mark. Which case, the business should either have flown the coup or folded. Either way, the lessons learned are invaluable.

The upside is large. The downside not so down, as either way you learn about how real businesses work in real time by starting real businesses. My hope is that people find the blank canvas invigorating, empowering, and exciting. That some of the businesses will fail is not important. We know that some will succeed and some will fail. But if we never try, we will never know.

Clearly, this particular MBA program wouldn't be for you (or perhaps your skepticism is preventing you from thinking it might work, but even so, no one ever goes back for as second MBA ), but I'm betting a lot of folks would enjoy the opportunity to study in such an environment. If I could find a brave Dean willing to take a stab at it, and a set of professional, expert faculty to jump in to the deep end of the business development and education pool, we are on.

Regards

February 7, 2011 at 5:55pm

Aleksandar Zivaljevic

As a student of an MBA course, I see the following issues in this approach:
-Company is a legal entity, thus any wrongdoings can have serious legal implications. For that reason I choose my business partners on a base of my knowledge of their previous involvement in business. If I look at my colleagues at MBA today, I see close to none I would get involved in a business venture with.
-Developing a business from "blank sheet" is time demanding and difficult process. I consider two years not enough for that (based on number of years I spent in developing businesses).
-Some of the MBAs have extensive experience in small business and what they join MBA course for is a corporate sector experience. I am one of them.

May 28, 2010 at 1:34am

Aaron Anderson

Dear All,

End of the semester Graduate Hooding Ceremony and the deadline for my forthcoming book, put this thread on the back burner for a bit. Glad to see a lively discourse and welcome Gary to the mix as well. Let me see if I can tackle some of (perhaps not all the questions raised since my last comment.

First, Michael getting a bit sour on the "practical impact" statement. In further thinking it through, my field and expertise is less about business theory and more centered on Organizational Behavior and Management of Higher Education. The practical impact should be, less in concert with the launching of new IPOs, and more centered on building a new fiscal model for funding higher education organizations.

My primary motive for the generation of this new idea is to create an alternative source of revenue for higher ed orgs such that they are not dependent up on outside sources, and are able to shrink tuition dollars to the point where the education is free for all (by competitive application process and possible nomination by various stakeholders; e.g. current employers, community leaders, etc...). The notion of the IPO is the only way that I know how to capitalize on the generation of new business, using the energy of the stock market to lever up the possible ROI.

Toward that end, my firm belief is that fundamentally, if business schools truly believe in the products they offer (in my case, MBAs at the far end of graduation), then we aught to be willing to invest in them. Upon graduation, it would not be necessary for all businesses to go IPO, but the aim would be, primarily, to generate new jobs in innovative companies. Moreover, those students should be willing to hire their peers in the common effort. Faculty would act as advisers or board member to help the incubation process (or perhaps Alumni could come in as well as either board members or angel investors). As long as there was some kind of private share awarded to the university (which could then later be sold to whomever), then the alternative revenue stream is alive and perpetuating.

Gary's point about the syllabus still needs reworking. It would take an interdisciplinary collective of faculty members and administrators to iron the whole curriculum out. In effect, it would look totally different, than say, the standardized curricula that are reflected in MBA programs around the USA and the globe. What would we do differently? I couldn't say in absence of a working group and long conversations with colleagues about that. In the development of this new curriculum, we should also invite business leaders to add to the mix, otherwise we risk the same academic isolation that happens when curricula are designed exclusively by theoreticians.

As to what's the compelling difference in this type of education v. a traditional or entrepreneurship style of program, Gary answers his own question. In the end, they start with a clean slate, and in a safe invironment, students are required to think differently, with a clean slate to apply the business principles and theory taught in the program. The end result is that you don't just tinker with one component or conduct an analysis of a whole business operation a la case study method. Students actually build a business from the ground up.

And this follows in to Gary's other question - what to do about failure. In my classroom, we always talk about failure as a perfect learning opportunity. That most business fail with in the first five years is the reason why I think we should not just launch, but incubate them for 3-5 years max. If they fail, they fail, and those that do bomb, we have come back as guest speakers to discuss with the new students what happened and why it bombed. Was the theory broken? Did we apply they theory incorrectly? What happened that we can learn and not replicate the similar mistakes or improve the theory. In that way, not only is practice improved, but theory can also be challenged and improved. In that way, we can see faculty members perhaps retooling existing theory or crafting new models that improve what we teach in the program.

Annie - you are right - the central question is how do we get students to wade into the reality while studying the theory such that they are exposed to the how and why while they do and create. Putting theory to practice in real time will necessarily amplify the learning potential.

Oh, and Michael - not to worry about the credentials. My take on the diploma mill is that simply because you have a Ph.D. doesn't mean you are not a moron. In fact, it may prove the point. You most certainly could get into my course - through the College of Extended learning, most students could register for any course with the University at any time as long as there are available seats. The only problem is that currently, it's restricted to only students in the Executive MBA program. Come talk with me if you would like to audit. It might be fun to have some one with your background and skills in the classroom.

Matt, your point is well taken - that any form of upper level education is necessary to be successful in business is a myth. The business pantheon is riddled with large numbers of extremely successful people who dropped out of or didn't start business school. An MBA is not required, but it helps one sharpen the tools in the belt and should give them a safe place to hone their skills for using those tools such that they can get to comprehensive business solutions more swiftly had they not had the education.

This comment is getting a bit long winded. I'll stop here and hopefully I've added some more fuel for further discourse. In this new era, my thinking is that content is going to matter more than anything, and the true measure of value will be applicability. And in what way will matter greatly. As we move forward together on this idea, some one is going to have to take the leap for it. And it won't look like any other MBA curriculum out there. It will require a serious investment of time by the faculty (which some have carefully crafted their schedules over the years to minimize time with students, which is the antithesis of what this idea means for faculty).

Much like the participation in the "ratings" game, it will require a first mover to make the switch. For example, we in the higher education industry know that a school's ranking is highly arbitrary and dependent upon what the school itself reports. Moreover, what we have are a number of publications that have levered the work of these schools to sell magazines over doing their own, independent investigations. In the current economic climate, institutions should universally stop participating in any kind or ratings surveys in favor of having prospective students search out and find institutions based on fit rather than rank. But until a number of big names drop the rankings charade, we are stuck with it. The current MBA curriculum is broken - it's delivered us Enron, AIG, Leahman bros, and a whole host of other companies not mentioned but that are out there that operate only on the profit principle. If we are going to generate real, viable businesses that work on the triple bottom line, perhaps it wouldn't be bad to build them from the ground up laced together with sweat and toil such that the culture is infused with values that place Corporate Social Responsibility at the fore rather than win for only those at the top of the pyramid.

May 23, 2010 at 10:26am

Anna Stillwell

The central question that you are addressing is, how to engage students in real-life, relevant learning, no? First let me know if my read on the central issue is accurate. Once I understand what your true purpose is, I will add my suggestions and comments

May 18, 2010 at 5:25am

Michael Colyer

There is so much in this idea and when I started reading it I was thinking "yea....Now here is a man that can see the future in business and a way to move business into the future that can take America to the next level." I then came to the "Practical Impact" and all the air was let out of my balloon.

Working to take a company to an IPO is the start of the end. I do not have near the paper you have and am betting I could not even get into your classes, but I would like for you to think of the following.

1. Why is it that you find it important to take a company to an IPO to call it a success? Wall Street has brought down more companies than the Great Depression.

2, If I start a company and have 25 employees and they have a wife or a husband and two kids each, am I not a success because 100 people live a good life because they work for my company? Can you think of any other way to measure success?

3. If you go into this looking to fund your Idea would this not drive you into your making the program to benefit the program and not the people you clam to want to help?

4. Your Idea is what we had in my time in High School. In my day it was called shop "wood working, automotive both engine and body work, DE (this was the business direction), electronics, etc...etc". So I ask why is it that your Idea is about trading and flipping and not developed to empower people to build a better America?

If higher education keeps going down the road of teaching people how to get rich and does not go back to the values of teaching the concepts of how to make America a better place there will be no place to do business either here or the rest of the World. Current programs teach to make it in China and sell it in America but I ask.....if Americans are not working who is left to buy the goods?

I feel that you have a great Idea but your Idea of the outcome is wrong. I mean no disrespect but it is you I look to for the future of America. If all you teach is how can I make money for me and my share holders.....there will be no America left to build your business idea with because no one will be working that can buy your goods or services.

I will also contend that if you design your program to help the masses and not the concept of making money for the share holders you will find many of your obstacles melt away. Who could argue the question of number two above as a measure of success?

I can only hope I have given you something to think about and have not insulted your Idea. I am not at you level and hope I have gotten my point across. I am from the school of hard knocks and think that the problem with most MBA programs is that they teach toward the success of the indavical and the share holders and not the future of the company and the people that work so hard to make it work and forget the importance of how their teachings will affect the future of America.

May 15, 2010 at 3:05am

Gary Hamel

Another question: How would you handle the fact that most new business ideas don't pan out? If a student spends a couple of years incubating a business that fails, how does this effect their job prospects? In other words, how would you help students to "fail forwards?"

May 15, 2010 at 2:46am

Gary Hamel

I like this idea, but I think the real opportunity here is to build a specialized "Masters in Entrepreneurship." I don't see your proposal as a replacement for a traditional MBA program, but rather as a model for a specialized MBA. The reality is that most MBA students will probably end up going to work for a relatively large, existing, organization--so they need a lot of insights into the management systems and process of established organizations.

Here are a few questions . . .

First, what would the syllabus look like for such a program? How much would it differ from the traditional MBA coursework. It would be great if you could amplify this hack by laying out a proposed outline of required courses. Beyond getting students focused on actually building a real business, what modifications would you make to the traditional curriculum, or how its taught?
Second, why do you believe your "hack" will improve the quality of the educational experience for the student? Maybe this sounds like a dumb question, but if you're going to win support for this idea, I think you need to be very clear about how your idea will improve educational outcomes. What, for example, will students learn in working to build a "real" business that they wouldn't learn in the process of building a business plan for a course in "entrepreneurship?" Many (most?) business schools now require students to some sort of in-company project work during their degree program--something equivalent to the "clinical" component of a medical degree. What are the advantages, in your view, of your proposed program vs. simply having students undertake some sort of major project for a sponsoring company during the course of their studies?

What excites me about your idea is that in starting a new business, students have a "clean sheet of paper." Beyond building a new business model, they could also be encouraged to build an unconventional new management model. Good luck in taking this forward.

May 11, 2010 at 8:51am

Aaron Anderson

Klmon -

All due respect, but the fact that all new start ups are different is exactly the point. And with a constant steady state of good, high quality faculty members advising the process (hopefully those with some practical experience starting businesses as well), hopefully the bumps would be mitigated. Even so, the fact that all start ups are different and each cohort would work together on one and the same business, helps amplify the educational process. in that way, different generations of cohorts would help advise one another as well.

Students in MBA programs already do business sponosored projects on a variety of levels, so I don't see the syndicate approach as being all taht different from what is offereed currently across many MBA programs.

Cheers,

Aaron

May 11, 2010 at 8:47am

Aaron Anderson

Matt,

Good question. Dealing with under achievers and under performers is always a challenge, in both the workspace and academia. In higher education settings they get grades and are ejected if they fall below the minimum criteria. Some one has to pull the rip chord on people who are regularly under performing in the GPA categories. In the business setting, under performers or bad elements eventually find their way out the door - either on their own, or by being fired. In that way, perhaps we can pull that trigger for such folks, but there is an upside - learning to work with difficult people in the safe setting of academia helps, and mirrors what happens in the "real" world. In other words, you, the students would need to learn how to do a mindful intervention that works to remdy thsituation.

May 5, 2010 at 9:55am

Matt Shlosberg

Here's a thought: One of the keys to success in any organization is having the right people in the right positions. How do you ensure that in the process you are proposing? If you have a group of students running an organization and one of the students turns out to be a poor performer, what do you do with him?

April 27, 2010 at 3:20am

Aaron Anderson

Thanks for the comment David. Given the isomorphic tendencies for MBA curricula, I'm pretty sure there are not many programs that use this model currently. It requires faculty bend too far out of their usual modus operandi, and challenges the usual tenets of how to measure high quality teaching (e.g. publish or perish).

The one question that comes to mind, is would it be better to house this curricular approach in a private or public institution? I'm a 100% byproduct of public colleges, but could see where the restrictions required by the legalities of being a public school may prevent some one from starting such a program.

thanks for chinginin

September 4, 2010 at 4:47am

Ellen Weber

Interesting possibilities here, and I like the idea of students being more in change of their results, but would not omit the opportunities for skilled faculty to facilitate an entrepreneurial culture for the group. I am still curious about a few details. How would your idea ensure visible results of successful completion, or application, that are typically required in more innovative MBA programs:

For instance, How would you ensure that most students acquire problem solving skills more suited to an era that looks to much different types of leaders from one that fit business skills of past decades? What would the assessments look like and how would they inform business students of their current weaknesses as well as predict strengths in business? How would your program account for students with proclivities and interests much different from their faculty? How would a climate of trust be created, as needed to create innovative designs? How will you blend students into a wider MBA organization that has textbook industries holding them in their grip - as I was reminded by one MBA leader over lunch the other day?

In my Leadership courses for executives MBAs, I require students to create one key innovative business solution – with evidence that it improved a broken business routine. Students, in that way must look to ideas from successful leaders within a more modern era (for instance Gary Hamel is listed among leaders they research as are local leaders) rather than memorize facts MBA texts offer. They also critique one another’s contributions in ways that offer possibilities for growth to peers. Everything assessed is evidence based and geared to improve business practices for the present era. I like some of the ideas offered here about broader perspectives and more exposure, provided the syllabus lays out requirements and assessments are aligned to learning outcomes. Would the kind of program you propose here do better in incubators to get a firmer start, without tensions from traditional MBA faculty vested in more familiar formats?

July 22, 2010 at 8:46am

Ellen Weber

Great post and refreshing discourse! Recently I was invited into MBA program to propose business leadership course - called Lead Innovation with the Brain in Mind. Faculty showed enthusiasm, MBA student raved about new possibilities in their feedback. Not one negative in the entire batch of feedback forms. Topics in Innovative Leadership course would foster innovation that shows itself in a new business leadership model! Skill sets developed actively will show evidence in real business leadership settings, and will include -

Tone and brain chemicals that steer innovation business culture;
Problem solving skills through curiosity that averts crisis;
Recruiting innovative leaders through two-footed questions;
Team approach for innovation in collaborative business settings
Facilitate meetings as creative roundtables that jumpstart brainpower for profitability
Staff-centered innovation opportunities through brain based motivation
Change problems into possibilities through intelligent risk taking at work
Building innovative communities where mirror neurons stir more productivity
Social media and technology’s role in increased business innovation
Opposing Views and Innovative actions on opposite sides of problem for shared vision of excellence
Mentoring intelligent inspired colleagues for entrepreneurial leadership
Diversity or myths or innovation at the center of beliefs
Ethics within working memory, basil ganglia and business practices
Humility and the higher performance mind through intrapersonal intelligence
Intuition for invention stored in brain’s amygdala
Organizational innovation linked to your brain’s plasticity
Talent development through multiple intelligence growth
Transform toxic workplaces through neuro-genesis
Multi-tasking – research – and the human brain at work
Competition or consensus for innovative advantage
Bureaucracy’s role in innovative growth
Humor’s role in the creative mix for current workplaces
Fear holds an ax over innovative input in stagnated bureaucracies
Toxic personalities and their impact upon innovative change
Smart skills for innovative leadership in a post-recession era
Staff-centered innovation opportunities through brain based motivation
Change problems into possibilities through intelligent risk taking at work
Building innovative communities where mirror neurons stir more productivity
Social media and technology’s role in increased business innovation
Opposing Views and Innovative actions on opposite sides of problem for shared vision of excellence
Mentoring intelligent inspired colleagues for entrepreneurial leadership
Diversity or myths or innovation at the center of beliefs
Ethics within working memory, basil ganglia and business practices
Humility and the higher performance mind through intrapersonal intelligence
Intuition for invention stored in brain’s amygdala
Organizational innovation linked to your brain’s plasticity
Talent development through multiple intelligence growth
Transform toxic workplaces through neuro-genesis
Multi-tasking – research – and the human brain at work
Competition or consensus for innovative advantage
Bureaucracy’s role in innovative growth
Humor’s role in the creative mix for current workplaces
Fear holds an ax over innovative input in stagnated bureaucracies
Toxic personalities and their impact upon innovative change
Smart skills for innovative leadership in a post-recession era.
What do you think? Would love to offer additions to a leadership program in inception of change for a new leadership era! I have taught executive MBA leadership and ethics courses lots but would so enjoy collaborating with genuine innovators at MBA programs!

May 31, 2010 at 11:46am

Neil LaChapelle

I've been involved in the setup of two online universities in Canada (Lansbridge University and the University of Fredericton), and of course the initial offering for both institutions was an MBA degree. It seems to me that you can get at a lot of what you want by simply reimagining MBA degrees that are very well suited for some important target markets - such as some for large companies wanting to develop young talent who have B Comm degrees or technical specialties, and some for a market you might help define - that is, start-up teams with seed funding who need short-term crash courses/mentoring in starting up, and if they succeed, help maturing along with the business at it scales up and matures.

Since those start-up teams would be cash-strapped, you'd either need investor agreement to treat that education as a business development expense, or you'd need to assume some of the risk yourself. Kind of like angels and venture capitalists who provide managemenet advice and guidance, except that you'd only be providing that mentorship, against the risk of not getting paid.

In other words, it would be possible to do this without the backing of a huge institution, assuming the risk of not getting paid, but then you'd have to manage your portfolio as carefully as a venture capitalist, or you'd be out of business.

Pedagogically, I think you would need to analyse a much smaller chunk size for some of the tactical/technical learnings of business school, to allow for more just-in-time learning delivery, plus you'd want a network of mentors ready to advise people on short notice. A lot of this is coming together in the online ed. market anyhow, of course.

My experience suggests that trying to do this with traditional universities, faculty and staff would be a path fraught with overconstraint. However, trying to do it entirely in the more open space of dealing with on-contract adjuncts will make it much harder to get your programs accredited as degrees. These institutional and regulatory constraints currently set the limits on what can be done in educational innovation. The market readiness and technological delivery mechanisms exist to support a lot more innovation in education than we currently see, but those aforementioned constraints are very heavy.

If you can find a transformational leader well-positioned to champion your innovation in some specific institution (where people are inclined to go for it), or some higher-ed institution already innovating and receptive to more models, that would help a lot. If you bring those people together with incubator/venture types and suggest this new program as a joint offering for the groups, there might be some potential for strategic partnering around your idea. The government might also toss in some support for the plan, once it seems to have some traction.

One curriculum innovation that could work would be for you to own a bunch of decomposed, technical-skill level modules, along with live support for tutoring in those skills (India is a great place to look for both kinds of resources), and then establish the equivalence of that collection to the technical skills taught in various MBA courses. Make those available on a user-pull basis to people in the marketplace, and then allow the distance-ed departments of existing universities to offer the higher-level, synthetic, deep-dive portions of the program, plus assessment and accreditation. This would mean commoditizing what you can, and serving as an intermediary/broker for what can't be commoditized about the MBA experience.

Lots of possibilities, but very stubborn constraints in this industry!

May 28, 2010 at 4:16am

Michael Colyer

The key to your idea is with your University. You need to answer the following regardless of the problems of the existing tenure system.

What is the minimum curriculum requirement your University will accept on any MBA program in business keeping in mind that you will need to add classes and student's time to make your idea and their business work? I do not think that any program that follows current curriculum is conducive to success.

I think you need to build your program on the success of the program. What I mean by that is that all that graduate buy into the program and pay back to the program. Think of it as a pyramid, as the number of graduates grow the amount coming back to the University will grow. I know I would not have a problem paying back 10% of my profits if I knew I had the knowledge of the University behind me. Alumni is a key to your program's success. Look into how much is given back to Harvard by it's Alumni.

Forget about getting students willing to work on building a new business. They will beat a path to your door if the program is set up right.

Faculty will only flock to your program after you display your success. You in academia live to see and have to live with your name in print. Having your name tied to the next Google would mean more to most than a bigger pay check and your successes would lead to greater participation by both the University and it's faculty, but you will have to take the leap much like anyone wanting to start a businesses.

May 15, 2010 at 3:03am

Gary Hamel

A few suggestions/questions . . .

What about tapping alumni as angel investors?
What about partnering with an existing business incubator?

A recent WSJ article says there are currently 1,200 independent business incubators in the US--perhaps some of them would be willing to provide seed money, facilities or expertise for your proposed program.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870388030457523631011768405...

As an alternative to having students start a greenfield business, could you have them work within an established company to create a new business? Your program could partner with in-house incubators in large companies.

May 14, 2010 at 9:52am

S Manish Singh

I have lived with this idea over a period of two years now. And I have a plan to get this going somehow. I am currently in the process of incorporating a company to develop, promote and promulgate this idea and some others that I have for various levels of education. It has to be project based to begin with and incorporation would occur only as and when the project gives back indications of proof of concept and marketability/financial feasibility. But the pressure to create something that will provide financial security is not something you want your students to live with from day one. Most students require a broader perspective and exposure to understand concepts like value creation which are key to conceptualising business entities. The risk is to limit their broadening perspective by narrowing their focus to requirements of a singular business venture. There are many other aspects to be borne in mind and many ideas that can be effectively brought to bear to make this work. If I went into detail I am afraid I'd get kicked out for manipulating space on the MIX. But it is a great idea I think.

May 13, 2010 at 7:24am

Matt Shlosberg

I was first going to submit this as a separate story, but I figured I'll just add this as a built to your hack.

Back in 2005, the late Russ Ackoff of Wharton Business School (UPenn) was asked what he would do if he could completely redesign the MBA program. He said he would completely scratch all classes and all professors. He would simply find jobs for all students and have them learn all the necessary skills on the job. I remember taking a class with Russ Ackoff and he said something I'll never forget: "Students don't learn anything from professors, but professors learn because they keep on repeating the same material to their students." So, what's the point of classes then?

Henry Mintzberg of McGill University started an International Master's in Practice of Management. This program is focused on just one thing - getting executives so sit at a round table without a facilitator and discuss topics given to them by Henry Mintzberg. They have no outside resources. They have to make all decisions by bouncing ideas off each other. After they do it four days a month for a year and a half, they get a Master's degree. He has proven his program to be successful.

Just some thoughts to consider...

May 11, 2010 at 1:20am

Kimon Paxinos

The issue here is balancing the control over the extent of student application of MBA learnings and the business context they are working in. Start-ups suck time and money and could jeopardise people completing their studies. No two business are alike either and it is too hard to try and control for the risk and effort of different start-ups.

I think you ought to pitch the idea at a closer range: Get various corporates to sponsor a syndicate of students. The students would have to apply their learning by way of a written assignment in the context of the course and the sponsoring company. Let the managers review it and mark the assignment. If they like it they can authorise the plan of action recommended and allow the students to do it in the organisation. If they do it well, they can be paid for it at a reasonable consulting rate or in terms of a success fee. This, I submit, would be an achievable win/win for all and shake up everyone's innovative management juices?

May 5, 2010 at 9:53am

Matt Shlosberg

Aaron -

Great idea! I am actually working on something similar. My approach is to design an executive education program in a way that embeds education into the executive's work environment. Students would spend 50% of their time in class. They would spend the other 50% learning how to apply their knowledge in their work environment.

April 27, 2010 at 3:20am

Aaron Anderson

Whoops. that was supposed to close out: "Thanks for Chiming in." Sorry for the typo.

April 26, 2010 at 10:38am

David Sims

Aaron,
This is a great idea that flows with the spirit of a good deal of educational reform ideas I've been having discussions with folks about lately. I guess the theme could roughly be summed up as, put the textbooks away (or at least rely on them less) and teach students by doing. At the k-12 level, one school of thought comes out of the Maker movement, which aims to teach kids interdisciplinary lessons that combine science, math, basic engineering, as well as communication and teamwork skills, by allotting time for kids to build and invent things rather than just read about principles.

I see similarities in this. Not being close to academia, I wonder how much of this is already going on. I know that professors in business and technology sometimes gain rights to the IP they develop and spin these out into businesses. Would the difference here be that this is more of an institutionally sanctioned effort rather than that only of individuals and teams?