ITBHUGlobal.org: The Chronicle: Is an MBA a Plus or a Minus in the Startup World?

view in one page and print

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/08/is-an-mba-a-plus-or-a-minus-in-the-startup-world/

by Vivek Wadhwa on May 8, 2010

A long time ago, I had to make a really tough choice: invest in an MBA from New York University, or make do with my bachelors. I was newly married, had a child on the way, and didn’t have much in savings. The degree would set me back tens of thousands of dollars and take years to complete—especially if I did it part time. And I couldn’t imagine doing anything but programming computers for a living.  So why learn finance, marketing, and operations management, I wondered? Well, I decided to enroll because my understanding of the business world lacked depth, and I harbored a deep-rooted desire to get the best education possible. My wife and I moved into a small one-bedroom apartment in North Bergen, NJ, and we made do with what we had.

For a couple of years after getting my degree, I wondered whether I had made the right choice. Even though I scored a great job at CS First Boston in its IT department, I was just writing code and designing systems. Yes, I started to enjoy reading BusinessWeek and the Wall Street Journal; but had the financial sacrifice and time away from my family been worth it? It didn’t seem to have been.

Over time, I started rising through the ranks in IT. I went from being a programmer to becoming a project leader and then a vice president. I found that I could communicate effectively with user departments and my bosses; I could deliver projects on time; I knew how to manage and motivate employees; and I had the confidence to present business proposals to managing directors and board members. I was even able to help persuade IBM to make a $20 million investment in the technology that my team had developed. We spun off a startup called Seer Technologies, and I became chief technology officer. And that’s when my education really began to pay big dividends.

In the startup world, it’s simply survival of the fittest. You have to involve yourself with almost every aspect of the business—and use all skills. I would find myself having to develop and manage budgets; help market and sell; hire; assist in setting corporate strategy; and review legal contracts. As well, I still had to develop technology and deal with all the uncertainties and failures that come with a startup.

My MBA classes seemed to fit our business needs like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Even obscure topics like corporate finance came in handy, in IPO discussions with investment bankers and later, in raising capital for my own company.

So I have no doubt that my MBA was the best investment I’ve ever made, and my education helped me achieve success.  Which leads me to the reason for this post: a Twitter debate with Guy Kawasaki, Managing Director at Garage Technology Ventures. Kawasaki argues that MBAs are not needed in the startup world; in fact these provide negative value. He insisted that I was “in denial” when I challenged a piece he had written in Forbes several years ago:

What is the value of an MBA these days for young college graduates who want to start their own company?

Probably about a negative $250,000. (I have an MBA, and I was once a young college graduate.) I don’t think an MBA matters very much for starting a company. A much better educational background is an engineering degree. You can always hire MBAs, but if you don’t have the ability to conceptualize and deliver a product, you’ve got nothing.

In email exchanges, Kawasaki explained that his issue with MBAs is that they are “taught that the hard part is the analysis and coming up with the insightful solution”. In other words: implementation is easy and analysis is hard. “But this is the opposite of what happens in startups. Implementation is everything in a startup.” Kawasaki believes that MBAs aren’t a good fit for startups, and engineering graduates are.

I agree that engineering degrees are important. They provide a level of technical depth and analytical capability that is invaluable in the tech-startup world. But not everyone needs to be an engineer. You need smart people coming up with creative marketing campaigns; managing finances; and selling your products. And the CEOs and CTOs need to master all domains.

In my experience, the most successful entrepreneurs have been those with a strong technical background who have been through some sort of “finishing school”. (I am not talking about college dropouts such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs—I consider them to be outliers). Engineering degrees can be very technical and can actually narrow one’s horizons. To innovate, you need to understand customers and markets. To build a successful product—one that actually sells and makes an impact, you need to understand distribution and finance. So even in the lower echelons of technology, a broader educational background is a plus.

Is the MBA the best degree for engineers? May be not. Programs such as the one I teach at Duke may be a better fit. The Duke Masters of Engineering Management program is a one-year program that teaches students marketing, finance, intellectual property and business law, and management. It’s like a mini-MBA. Engineers don’t need to learn how to price an option with the Black–Scholes Model, for example. They certainly don’t need to learn how to create new types of financial products. There are also many other degrees that can provide the needed balance to engineers. These don’t have to be tech or management oriented; even an education in diverse fields such as psychology can be a plus: anything that broadens your horizons and teaches you how to come up with “insightful solutions”. The point is that education is the best investment that one can make. Unlike stocks and bonds, education never loses value; and when you add experience, it gains even more value.

Editor’s note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. Follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa

About Vivek Wadhwa

Vivek Wadhwa is a fellow with the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School and executive in residence/adjunct professor at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University. He is the founder of 2 startups, and is currently a visiting professor at UC Berkeley. He is also an advisor to several start-up companies and a regular columnist for BusinessWeek.com.

Wadhwa has long been a pioneer of change and innovation in the technology industry, and has founded 2 software companies. He started his career as a software developer and gained a deep understanding of the challenges in building computer systems.

Wadhwa’s research at Duke University has focused on the impact of globalization on the engineering profession, the competitive threat from India and China, and one of America’s greatest advantages – its skilled immigrants. This research has received worldwide attention and acclaim.

Mr. Wadhwa holds an MBA from New York University and a B. A. in Computing Studies from the Canberra University in Australia. He is founding president of the Carolinas chapter of The IndUS Entrepreneurs (TIE), a non-profit global network intended to foster entrepreneurship.

_____________________________________________________________________________

ITBHUGlobal.org: The Chronicle: 10 New Rules for Today's Job Hunt

view in one page and print

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-New-Rules-for-Todays-Job-usnews-4094775035.html?x=0

Karen Burns, On Wednesday May 5, 2010, 11:45 am EDT

If you are mid-career, out of work and looking, you've probably already figured this one out: The tried-and-true job-hunting techniques that served you so well in the past no longer fill the bill.

[See 15 essentials to getting hired.]

While you were faithfully toiling away for the same employer, maybe for decades, a lot changed. Today it's a brave new world of social media and digital resumes and Google-ability. What's more, many extremely qualified people are willing to take positions clearly "beneath" them. Some will even work for free.

What's an experienced, qualified, truly valuable potential employee who needs a job that pays actual money like you to do? You really have only one choice: Get to know this brave new world, and conquer it.

Here are the 10 biggest differences between then and now:

[See 40 things you can't discuss at work.]

1. You can no longer depend on a resume to get an interview. Simply mailing out resumes and then sitting back and waiting for responses was never that effective, and today it just doesn't cut it. It's a waste of time, paper, postage, and psychic energy.

2. Your experience matters less than it used to. This is unfair, even counter-intuitive, but people don't want to hear about everything you did way back when. They want to hear about everything you can do, specifically, to help them today. And tomorrow.

3. You shouldn't expect to hear back. Unfortunately, this little courtesy has gone the way of the vinyl record. Keep on networking, interviewing, and researching right up until the moment you have a firm job offer in your hot little hands. Maybe even a little after.

[See 25 tips for acing the lunch interview.]

4. A resume is no longer a comprehensive summary of your work and education history. Don't bother to list jobs more than 15 years old. Emphasize recent accomplishments, certifications, and training.

5. More about resumes: You need a digital-friendly one that is easily uploadable, downloadable, and scannable (i.e., no bullets, boxes, boldface, unusual fonts, indenting). It should be rich in the "keywords" that employers in your field are looking for.

6. In fact, overall computer literacy is a must. Get comfortable with applying for jobs online and learn how to research on the Internet. If all this is new to you, your public library is a good place to start. Oh, and have a professional-sounding E-mail address.

7. A good idea is to go one step further and establish a lively Internet presence. Explore LinkedIn (get some stellar endorsements), Twitter, and Facebook. Become active in your field's social media sites. Consider building your own Web site (with a career-oriented blog, professional photo, and resume).

8. One of the first things a potential employer will do is Google you. That means you need to find out if there's anything negative about you online. If there is something bad, try to get it removed. Your best bet may be to "bury" it with more recent, more favorable, links (see No. 7).

9. More than ever it's about who you know, and who knows you. This is important: Finding employment nowadays is less a matter of applying for existing open positions and more about identifying needs potential employers have and demonstrating to them that you can fill these needs. Fortunately, there are more networking venues (real life and virtual) than ever before.

10. Many interviewers/hiring managers/recruiters may be younger than you. Get used to it. Treat them with respect and learn how to speak their language. Do not say "You remind me of my son/daughter," or "When I was your age... !"

You can do this. So go forth. And conquer!

Karen Burns is the author of the illustrated career advice book The Amazing Adventures of Working Girl: Real-Life Career Advice You Can Actually Use, recently released by Running Press. She blogs at www.karenburnsworkinggirl.com.

___________________________________

http://www.karenburnsworkinggirl.com/

http://www.karenburnsworkinggirl.com/?page_id=688 (blog)

Karen Burns, Working Girl

Seattle, WA, United States

_____________________________________________________________________________

ITBHUGlobal.org: The Chronicle: Sanjeev Sanyal: Building Bostons, not Kanpurs

view in one page and print

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sanjeev-sanyal-building-bostons-not-kanpurs/394495/

 Around the world, universities are the stuff that makes great cities. Imagine Boston without Harvard, MIT and the myriad other institutions that are clustered around the Boston-Cambridge area. In Britain, Oxford and Cambridge are vibrant urban centres that derive their vigour almost entirely from playing host to famous universities. Even large and diversified global cities like London and New York would be much diminished without the intellectual clustering of LSE, Columbia, UCL and NYU. In each case, the universities are an integral part of the urban landscape and are consciously leveraged by their host cities.

Yet, Indian cities do not think of their universities and research institutes as important drivers of urban growth. At most, they are seen as utilitarian places for teaching students. Their importance for clustering human capital and driving innovation is simply not seen as part of overall urban strategy. Indeed, universities built after Independence have been sealed off on campuses, often in distant locations, that deliberately discourage interaction with the wider city. Thus, Kanpur and Kharagpur benefit little from being host to a prestigious institution like the IIT. This is absurd.

The software of cities

Urban development is not just about the “hardware” — buildings, roads, plumbing and so on. It is the people, their social/economic activity and their continuous interaction that bring cities alive. Successful cities are those that can cluster human capital and encourage innovation, creativity and exchange of ideas. This has always been true. Think of the great cities of the past: Athens, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Ujjain and Varanasi. However, the this factor has become even more important in the 21st century. Never before has the economic value of ideation and creativity been greater. In short, the “software” is critical to the evolution of a city.

Universities are key to the software of a city. They attract young talent, encourage the churn of ideas and trigger innovation. The physical infrastructure of the university provides the venue for conferences, seminars and cultural/sporting events that allow for intense human interaction. Note how NYU played an important role in regenerating Lower Manhattan in the 90’s.

Next generation global cities like Singapore recognise this dynamic and use it actively as part of urban/national economic strategy. For instance, Singapore has built out a number of new institutions like Singapore Management University over the last decade. In most cases, these have been clustered in the middle of the city rather than on remote campuses. The city benefits from having a throughput of young people in the city-centre. At the same time, the university benefits from easy access to industry, government and urban “buzz”.

Prior to Independence, the urban role of universities was appreciated. The colleges of Bombay and Calcutta Universities were built into the city much like the colleges of London. Even Delhi University, although built as a separate campus, was still seen as a part of the overall urban fabric. There were even important towns like Allahabad and Aligarh that were driven largely by their vibrant universities, much like Oxford and Cambridge.

Contrast this to how tertiary education institutions were built after Independence. All the IITs and IIMs are large, sealed campuses built originally outside the city. The model was the industrial-era factory township. The physical walls that surround them have continued to wall them off socially and intellectually from their host cities even where urban growth has brought them inside the city. How different from the urban campuses of MIT and Harvard Business School. This is a loss to both sides.

Perpetuating the mistake

We appear to have learned little from our past mistake. Indeed, this is not even considered an issue worthy of attention and debate. Thus, the establishment of a new university or institute is still about acquiring large tracts of land, often hundreds of acres, and then building out stand-alone buildings. If anything, success is measured by how much land has been acquired rather than the quality of education/research.

This is a very wasteful process at many levels. First, it is unnecessarily converting productive farm and forest land. Why does Vedanta need 6,000 acres in Orissa and IIT Jodhpur 700 acres in Rajasthan for teaching a few thousand students? Second, it requires the creation of expensive infrastructure in isolated locations, including staff housing, convocation halls, seminar rooms and so on. How many times a year is the convocation hall used by the institution itself? In a city location, these facilities would have added to the overall urban infrastructure. Third, such remote campuses are inconsiderate of the social, educational and career needs of the families of the faculty and staff. This is a major constraint to finding good faculty. We cannot build universities as if they are industrial-era factory townships where the wives stay at home and the children study in the company school. Finally, and most damagingly, these campuses are unable to generate the externalities that one would associate with a good academic/research institute. Students come and leave. There is no clustering or inter-linkage with the real world.

The proposed IIT in Jodhpur is an example of how we are perpetuating the flawed model. The government has already acquired 700 acres of land about 22 km from Jodhpur. There a lot of talk about how it will be a “green” campus with solar panels and electric buses ferrying people from the city/airport. A number of complex options are being discussed to supply it with water. This is all meaningless when the most energy-efficient solution is to have had a compact campus that is nearer to the city. This would have automatically reduced the need to travel long distances and recreate social infrastructure. In addition, Jodhpur city has a problem with rising water tables and there is absolutely no need for expensive water-supply technologies when it can simply be pumped out. Worst of all, given the distance, the existing city will gain nothing from the creation of all the new and expensive infrastructure.

To conclude, universities are an important part of the urban economy and should be seen as an integral part of city-building. As we build out new institutions, we urgently need to stop thinking of them as fenced-off factory townships. We do not need more Kanpurs and Kharagpurs. If India wants to play on the global stage, it needs to create its very own Bostons and Oxfords.

The author is president, Sustainable Planet Institute

__________________________

The Sustainable Planet Institute

http://www.sustainableplanetinstitute.org/index.html

 India is currently undergoing an extraordinary economic and social transformation. Unfortunately, the current development trajectory comes with enormous costs in terms of the loss of natural capital such as destruction of forests and biodiversity, pollution of air, water and land systems, and unsustainable forms of urban growth.

This will palpably affect the quality of life of both current and future generations, especially those of vulnerable social groups.

While solutions exist today for a more sustainable tomorrow, there remains a strong human capital bottleneck to implement solutions and further innovate on them.

In order to remove this bottleneck, SPI aims to provide a platform that:

·         Provides thought leadership on the key sustainability challenges facing India

·         Educates the workforce of tomorrow on the imperative and tools for delivering sustainable solutions

·         Facilitates the implementation of innovative ideas on the ground by working with public, private and civil society sectors.

______________________________________________________________________________