How can traceability improve sustainability in the global coffee supply chain?

Food supply chains garner public attention for sustainability; traceability is one of the possible solutions, but is it always the case?

Verónica León-Bravo, Assistant Professor, School of Management, Politecnico di Milano

 

Sustainability in the food industry has recently gained a great deal of attention, as this sector faces several challenges regarding scarce natural resources to be preserved, attention to consumer’s health and safety, communities’ economic development around the world, food and packaging waste, land and water consumption, and unfair trade relationships. Moreover, consumers today opt for food that is not only tasty and nutritious, but also of high quality, grown responsibly and with specific characteristics or origin, which in turn calls for better and more efficient traceability. Consequently, food companies are developing varied initiatives, assessment policies, standards, traceability systems and reporting tools with sustainability purposes.

During the current health world emergency, food chains are also struggling with menaces on their products’ health and safety. As is the case of a few Brazilian poultry exporters who were suspended by China in July 2020 due to concerns about possible Covid-19 contamination in the containers. China established certain restrictions and newer or different certification requirements for food products coming from several countries, with the aim of avoiding a new outbreak, although no evidence that Covid-19 could be transmitted though food existed. Another case was related to Ecuadorian shrimp exports to China, which were suspended in July 2020 because of similar concerns relating to the containers, though the shrimp and inner packaging tested negative. How can companies in producing countries ensure buyers the quality and, even more critically, the health and safety of their products? Around the world, improved traceability could be the key for supply chain continuity under risky or unexpected situations.

Through its Food Sustainability Lab, the School of Management at the Politecnico di Milano is dedicated to studying the elements shaping and determining the food supply chain efforts to become sustainable, and improve its sustainability; thus, a broad multidisciplinary team is running several research initiatives in this area, given the interest and relevance for the academic community, companies and society at large.

One of the research lines is focused on the traceability systems implemented along the supply chain, in particular for food commodities, such as coffee, that involve actors dispersed around the world. Commodity chains are highly fragmented and long, with many very small producers in low-income countries, and several intermediaries are needed to ensure the product flow from origin to consumption. According to the International Coffee Organization, coffee consumption is steadily growing globally, reaching up to more than 169 million bags in 2019-2020. Producers (exporters) are mainly located in South America, Africa and South-East Asia, with Brazil being responsible for 43% of production. Global consumption registered close 119 million bags in 2019-2020, with the largest importers being the European Union and the United States [1]. Consumers in these markets increasingly demand coffee that is not only safe but also ethical, organic, generates a low carbon footprint, etc., requiring the supply chain to demonstrate traceability throughout the chain.

Traceability systems available in the market are said to help actors in the chain not only to track the product from origin to final consumption, but also to respond to the need for mandatory and voluntary quality standards, certifications of origin, and to create the basis for reporting sustainability-related practices and performance. The benefits of traceability could be spread along food supply chains: for managing risks, maintaining consistency and specific product features, and keeping a chain of custody. In addition, traceability helps to achieve operational efficiencies, increased productivity and reputational benefits.
Nonetheless, traceability requires substantial investments in technology and processes aimed at tracking goods along the supply chain. Cost is still proving to be a difficult barrier to overcome, especially in the initial production phases. Current debate in the literature also questions whether traceability systems are driven only by quality assurance expectations, or are also somehow related to sustainability needs and goals.

The research team at our School involved in this project is composed by Prof. Federico Caniato, Federica Ciccullo, Verónica León-Bravo and Giulia Bartezzaghi. Currently, we investigate the traceability systems implemented in the coffee supply chain, providing a taxonomy of solutions and characterizing how these systems are applied, in terms of technological display, information width and depth, as well as considering their relationship with sustainable value creation. The analysis of the case studies (including different stages in the chain, located in different geographical regions) revealed how the implementation of traceability systems along the coffee supply chain could be influenced by the targeted information width and depth, along with the supply chain tier, country of origin or company technological capabilities. On the other hand, it is observed that the link between traceability and sustainability, especially for coffee roasters, might be influenced by two main contingencies: volumes purchased and product type. Indeed, one of the companies being studied explained that dealing with large volumes makes it impossible to trace all the details up to the producer, especially for non-certified products. On the other hand, another company, using advanced technology for traceability, highlighted the precise information they are able to register and communicate while buying smaller lots from certified coffee producers. Besides, we found traceability and sustainability to be disconnected when they are both implemented but managed separately and not aligned. Whereas, traceability and sustainability can be synergistic when both followed a common strategy and are consistent with each other, i.e., the level of detail in the traceability system corresponds to the scope of sustainability practices.

Maintaining consistency and keeping a chain of evidence (e.g., benefits of traceability) are efforts incurred during the current health crisis as companies worked hard to apply newer and stricter safety measures that needed to be shown to international buyers. For instance, the Brazilian Ministry of Health and the slaughterhouses affected by the Chinese restrictions are working to reverse the bans and started testing the cargoes with the aim of demonstrating to buyers that the food is not only sanitized in the plants, but also before transportation. Similarly, Ecuador improved shipping protocols and applied the required quality standards, allowing shrimp exports to China to be resumed in August 2020. These two examples also show that different actors in the supply chain need to work together to apply health and safety measures, that in turn need to be demonstrated to the downstream actors, thereby ensuring traceability and transparency along the supply chain.

There is no doubt that adopting traceability could bring varied benefits to companies in the food supply chain, but for improving sustainability, it might not be enough. Sustainability in food supply chains needs attention from varied angles. Traceability implementation in a commodity supply chain is one of the projects currently being developed at our School. Other research projects in place are observing different food supply chain configurations, such as short supply chains, and their implications for sustainability; or analyzing the added value of information obtained in the assessment for sustainability with a supply chain-wide perspective.

Managing sustainability along food supply chains is still a work in progress that requires multi-tier involvement for reducing ‘distances’, reaching common understandings and better performances; and thus, achieving food security, improved nutrition and sustainable agriculture as called for by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

 

___________________________

[1] http://www.ico.org/prices/new-consumption-table.pdf 

Exploring Innovation and Design as Leadership: the IDeaLs project

The world of Innovation Management is being disrupted, as companies all over the world explore new ways to develop new products and services. With the advent of Artificial Intelligence and other digital technologies, the role of people in innovation processes is increasingly uncertain.

IDeaLs was born to explore how companies can achieve Innovation through collective Design activities and shared forms of Leadership.

Founded by the Politecnico di Milano and the Centre for Creative Leadership, IDeaLs is a research platform that unites Academics and Managers to discover new ways of engaging people in activities of collaborative design to Make Innovation Happen.

Over the past two years, IDeaLs has collaborated with nine international organisations operating in diverse sectors, ranging from utilities to logistic providers, healthcare organisations, and sportswear.
For each organisation joining the platform, a core team of 2-3 managers would bring an innovation challenge to the research team. Over a time period of 4-6 months, each challenge was analysed, and multiple workshops performed with the partner organisation. At the end of the time frame, the results of the research, and the impact in the organization, were shared among all partners in a collective final event.

In line with the requests made by managers, IDeaLs aims to develop new tools and methodologies to support organisations during their transformation processes. Over the past years, IDeaLs has developed a “Story-telling” experience: upon briefing by managers, through a series of workshops, participants designed their own transformation story, a roadmap for both individual and collective change. This experience had a positive effect on all partner organisations: firstly, every participant committed to three concrete actions to perform, resulting in an average of 120 small, autonomous steps towards the destination outlined by the managers; and secondly, the workshops increased the levels of engagement towards innovation, which was constantly monitored by the research team.

Ultimately, IDeaLs represents a community of “innovation leaders”, who discuss relevant topics on leadership and innovation, besides learning about the case-studies of the other companies. Three yearly events are organised in which members discuss their insights, share success stories, and examine their organisations’ approaches to innovation.

As a founder of the platform, the School of Management is contributing both to consulting the companies and to the research.

First of all, the activities are related to the design of new methods and tools to foster collaboration among individuals in an innovation setting. Second, the platform aims to give a methodological contribution, developing a measurement instrument which makes it possible to assess the strategic readiness of an organisation to pursue an innovative direction.

From a research perspective, the team is involved in the design of research directions for each year and is currently developing three separate Ph.D. programs related to the platform. The School of Management is further responsible for the dissemination of the knowledge acquired, through a yearly booklet which describes the partners’ projects, as well as presenting the theorical insights in international conferences and publishing the same in academic journals.

When it comes to us as individuals, we are often overwhelmed by innovations and know very well that the problem goes far beyond the process we apply to make them happen. The world of innovation was so focused on finding the perfect innovation process, but it forgot the people who run it.[1] IDeaLs aims to bring the person back to the centre, as a driver of organisational innovation.


The Research Team – http://www.ideals.polimi.it/

Scientific Directors: prof. Roberto Verganti; Prof. Tommaso Buganza; Joseph Press, Ph.D.
Research Team: Paola Bellis; Silvia Magnanini; Daniel Trabucchi, Ph.D.; Federico P. Zasa

_________________________________

[1] Source: IDeaLs Booklet 2019

A new era for academic partnerships: the (successful) ‘recipe’ of Politecnico di Milano in China

Conversation with Giuliano Noci
Professor of Strategy and Marketing and Vice Rector of the Chinese Campus of Politecnico di Milano

The Joint School of Design and Innovation Centre in Xi’an, inaugurated in 2019 in collaboration with Xi’an Jiaotong University (XJTU), is the first physical campus of the Politecnico di Milano outside Italy. It is an unconventional choice for an Italian university. How did you manage to finalize this project?

Our relationship with XJTU began 12 years ago thanks to a Chinese student who had the opportunity to see the quality of our doctoral programmes, in particular the doctorate in electrical engineering under Professor Sergio Pignari. It was he who, working hard for many years and taking many trips, began to build this bridge between us and China, until he developed this strategic partnership.
We first initiated various exchanges and combined Laurea courses. The idea of having a physical presence on the new XJTU campus then arose and was realized with the construction of a building designed by architects at the Politecnico di Milano (Remo Dorigati and Pierluigi Salvadeo with studio wok, Chiara Dorigati, Francesco Fuoco), which we will fill with people very soon thanks to the numerous projects we have incubating.

What effects did the pandemic have on this project and how did you reorganize yourselves?

The pandemic did not stop the projects; it just led to a partial review of the objectives we had set.
The idea was to start in September of this year with a joint Laurea (Bachelor of Science) course in architecture with our instructors physically present in China. Since this is not possible, we have temporarily moved educational activities online, drawing on the expertise that the Politecnico has gained in recent years.
Secondly, we moved forward an important agreement regarding MBAs made between the MIP — our Graduate School of Business — and the XJTU School of Management, which is one of the most prestigious in the country.
Finally, on the new campus we would like to create a new Joint School accredited by the Chinese Ministry of Education.
This would therefore result in going beyond the goal of having a physical presence: building a true joint university venture abroad. In recent weeks we have been developing the concept of a new Bachelor of Engineering in Industrial Product Design involving various Schools at the Politecnico di Milano (Design, Management, Mechanical Engineering, Information and Communication Technology). If the project wins the call from the Chinese Ministry of Education, it would, in fact, be the first pilot course at the new school, with unique distinctive features, above all interdisciplinarity.
Interdisciplinarity is essential in processes of innovation, about which Italy has certainly much to say. And China is strongly dedicated to this front, as shown in the Made in China 2025 plan that was launched recently.

So, education, but not only that: a university partnership that aims to be relevant for the country system?

Certainly. Our goal is also to support strategies for the international and technological development of our businesses. In this sense, Xi’an is one of the most important industrial districts in China, for the automotive and electrical industries in particular, and it is also a very important cluster in the ICT sector (Alibaba and Huawei have very important research centres there).
This is why we plan to have laboratories where we intend to carry out research together with Italian and Chinese companies. The Chinese market is complex but extremely attractive for our companies, and we can support them in their entrance into the market.

Let’s talk about students. The added value of international exchange during a course of university studies is indisputable, but how do students respond to the opportunity for a combined Laurea of this type?

The ambition of the Joint School is to go global. We intend to attract international students from around the world. But we also want to support growth and experience for our researchers and instructors, given that this is an opportunity for them to develop under multiple points of view.
Students’ reactions up to now have been enthusiastic. Faced with legitimate initial scepticism in studying on a continent that is so different from ours, Italian students have always had extraordinary appreciation for this cultural exchange. They are won over by the energy and dynamics characteristic of any Chinese university.
They realize the importance of interacting in an area with one of the highest rates of economic growth in the world, characterized by great encouragement and strong investments in digital technologies and artificial intelligence.

A partnership developed, as you said, based on continual work of visits to the host country. Now this specific historical situation imposes new forms of interconnection around the world.
What scenarios do you foresee in view of this? How do the distances bring us together or modify some means of interaction between us and China?

The topic of Hybrid Learning will further accelerate relations between the Politecnico di Milano and China. In recent months, when the number of trips has reduced to zero, we have actually interacted more frequently than before and have increased the level of objectives and results obtained. In this direction, with regard to both research and university/postgraduate teaching, previously little-explored perspectives are opening.
In China, during the period of quarantine due to COVID, a good 180 million students studied entirely online. For us, it is now natural to expand our educational programme beyond the physical presence of Chinese students, when students do not want to move. Applying the reasoning of Hybrid Learning (with in-person and remote lectures) also opens participation in new courses of study to Italian students who do not want to move to China, for example.
Paradoxically, at a time when physical connection was not possible, cognitive and relational interconnection was more frequent because on both sides we discovered the possibility of working with a never-before-imagined frequency of interaction precluded only by our sensory system.
For example, with Tsinghua University in Beijing — the most important university in China, which has a joint campus in Milan at our Politecnico — we are now launching three large educational projects involving the MIP Graduate School of Business (in addition to other university departments) which were developed in just six months. To obtain similar results in the past, four/five years of continuous trips would have been necessary.
This naturally does not mean diminishing the importance of physical contact and campus life.
It just implies new roads that are worth travelling.

One last question about the educational approach in Chinese management schools. Is the material taught evolving in a way more inclined to collaboration with the West, or are the two models radicalizing into different positions?

The perception I have always had about China is that there was curiosity about Western managerial models. What was interesting, however, were especially topics tied to managing innovation.
The approaches move in opposite directions. China is aware of the power of its economic system and is therefore self-referential, even in its means of management.
This, however, does not preclude different opportunities for us — as the Politecnico and as Italians — particularly for two reasons.
The first is the very high number of Chinese students that want to study abroad and who will move to Europe in significant numbers (and also to Italy, we hope).
The second is that Italy is very attractive for our capacity to both develop a system of small and medium-sized companies, and create luxury brands. This is a great reputation, on the level not only of design, but also of marketing.
As a result, our country and our management schools are decidedly interesting.

If you had to briefly give 3 keywords for the future of the Xi’an project in the short term, what would they be?

Consolidating the Joint School to favour paths of growth for young talent at the Politecnico.
Opening a couple of laboratories with companies: one in the automotive industry and the other might be exporting the Polifactory format to Xi’an.
Creation of a start-up incubator with the related establishment of a venture capital fund.

Is Made in Italy forever?

As more Countries promote the quality of their products and destinations, some essential sectors of the Italian industry are facing with a hard question: is the “Made in Italy” brand still competitive? And how can it guarantee a competitive advantage for our country in the long term?

 

Filippo Renga, Junior Assistant Professor of Production Plants and Business Organization
School of Management Politecnico di Milano

 

“Is Made in Italy forever?”: that’s the question that emerged during the 2018 Research of our Smart Agrifood and Digital Innovation in Tourism Observatories.

Beyond the slogan, an important doubt emerged about the competitiveness of some essential sectors of the country’s industry: can the “Paese Italia” brand – identified with the “Made in Italy” and frequently used in many sectors (food, tourism, clothing, music, design, art, etc.) to underline the Italian identity of a product or a service to increase its value on the market – survive intact in the long term and guarantee a competitive advantage for our country?
This is a question we will try to answer through the upcoming research, but which has already found confirmation in some phenomena we are recording.

 

Food quality is not only Made in Italy

Starting from food, we all know that any product with the “Made in Italy” mark receives special attention by a large part of the international consumers. This gives origin to frauds linked to the “Italian Sounding” (that is the use of images, brands and denominations recalling Italy to market products that are not related to our country in any way. Just think to the well-known “Parmesan”).

However, through our experience we realized that more and more countries promote the quality of their food products, thereby dispelling the myth of the “quality food” as a prerogative of Italy. For example, it is interesting to notice that in extremely attended international events dedicated to quality food – such as in London or Berlin – there isn’t a significant presence of Italian companies. Furthermore, food trends often originate outside our country (e.g. organic food). Even though a Google search it is possible to see that, if you insert the words “quality food” in the local language of many countries, no Italian product emerges. Finally, many TV formats about the restaurant industry were born abroad and are therefore imported by us.

This also happens because the concept of quality is anything but unequivocal, as shown by the model of the Food Quality Heptagon (see the Slide Booklet “Quality and sustainability with the digital traceability”) we developed. Many recent successful innovations in the food industry weren’t born in Italy, although they relate to products that have always been considered our “feuds”, as was the case of the coffee with Nespresso and Starbucks; or in the case of tomatoes, of which Holland is one of the first exporters in the world thanks to high-tech indoor farming systems, that made it possible not only to increase the production but also to improve the taste compared to the past.

 

What happens in tourism

On the other hand, in Tourism the weaknesses of the “Italia Brand” are clearly shown by an analysis of the international tourist flows coming to our country: if in 1970 Italy was in the first place in terms of attraction, in 2017 – according to the UNWTO data – Italy is fifth behind France, Spain, USA and China. You may think that the focus was more on the quality and less on the quantity (and therefore the expense) of the tourists, but numbers say that this did not happen in a significant way more than in other destinations.

The reasons are instead related to different fields, but fundamentally there is a strategic weakness about Tourism and the industries linked to it. If you take for example the Chinese market, among the most interesting both for the number and for the average receipt, Italy is behind the main European competitors for attractiveness. As underlined by Giuliano Noci (Vice Rector of the Chinese campus of the Politecnico di Milano) on the occasion of the Conference of the Digital Innovation in Tourism Observatory of 24 January (download the documents and videos of the Conference “The Italian Digital Way for the future of Tourism”), there was and there still is a lack of a medium/long-term strategy linked to different factors, among which:

  • the inability to give value to our brands (there is no evidence that one of our museums has been able to promote its brand like, for example, the Louvre in Paris did);
  • a structural deficit on connections (especially the aerial ones: Chinese people comes to Italy through other European cities)
  • the storytelling that promotes the territory through the audio-visual industry (mainly the cinema industry) primary vehicle of knowledge and learning for the Chinese (Swiss tourist resorts are the sets of some TV series distributed in China).

If there is a risk that Italy may lose its competitiveness, it could also happen that, due to the extraordinary assets available in our country, the Chinese will start to considerably invest to offer experiences and products to the millions of tourists and consumers looking for Italian contents. Nevertheless, this is already happening in other fields with the clothing or the sports industry.

And then we should add another question to the opening one (“Is Made in Italy forever?”), an equally concerning question: “Made in Italy… by whom?

Entrepreneurship in an interconnected world: now online the new issue of SOMeMagazine

SOMe Issue #2 has been released.

SOMe is the eMagazine of our School born to share stories, points of view and projects around key themes of our mission.

The title of this issue is “Being entrepreneurial in a high tech world“, in which we discuss the change of approach to entrepreneurship in an increasingly interconnected world, but also dealing with the most serious health crisis of the last century.

First we present an interview with Andrea Sianesi, President PoliHub, Innovation District and Startup Accelerator of Politecnico di Milano, who tells us how entrepreneurship is evolving in this scenario and how the role of incubators is changing.

We then deal with some specific elements – such as strategy, leadership and business models – with editorials by Federico Frattini, Antonio Ghezzi, Roberto Verganti.

Finally, we tell stories of Alumni who turned their ideas in successful business initiatives.

To read SOMe’s #2 click here.

To receive it directly in your inbox, please sign up here.

Previous issues of SOMe:

• # 1 “Sustainability – Beyond good deeds, a good deal?”
• Special Issue Covid-19 – “Global transformation, ubiquitous responses”

Entrepreneurial Strategy: how to navigate the new pandemic and digital normal

Entrepreneurship arises from the recognition of an explicit or hidden problem, often from exogenous shocks. But an entrepreneurial mindset is not enough: it needs an overall strategy, a framework and the tools to navigate this new pandemic and digital normal. In the end, it is a process based on a scientific and experimental approach.

 

Antonio Ghezzi, Associate Professor of Strategy & Marketing, Hi-tech Startups and Digital Business Innovation
School of Management Politecnico di Milano

 

Entrepreneurship is commonly defined as a constant search for new business opportunities.

What’s an opportunity? Opportunities can arise when exogenous shocks reveal competitive imperfections which leave some space open for intervention and action. They might also happen when resources and competencies, owned by you or some else, appear or acquire a new value (such as when they are recombined to deliver a new solution or when old problems are resolved in new ways). Sometimes, opportunities are created by visionary minds who challenge common assumptions or who see a light in the darkness.

How do you take advantage of an opportunity once it is discovered or created?

Taking advantage of an opportunity involves creating new organisations. These may be traditional new ventures or more highly innovative start-ups, which build viable business models around the business opportunities. Entrepreneurs must formulate an entrepreneurial strategy, by: defining their vision, mission and purpose; creatively analysing industries, looking within and outside traditional market boundaries using a Blue Ocean Strategy or using a lean start approach by designing innovative business models and validating them on the market by acquiring customer feedback through experimentation.

These are the main entrepreneurial steps, which make it a restless force that challenges and creates traditional industries, and constitutes the major growth thrust in mature economies like Italy’s.

What is the relationship between today’s mega trends and exogenous conditions and entrepreneurship? How do the “new normal”, born of a fast-spreading pandemic and a growing digitalisation trend, affect entrepreneurial action? And can entrepreneurial action help overcome current threats?

Entrepreneurship is born and naturally thrives in uncertain market conditions and turbulence. New ventures and start-ups either emerge from discontinuities or create them, through disruptive initiatives and business models. You need an entrepreneurial mindset when sailing troubled waters.

Entrepreneurship is about turning threats into opportunities. As a common saying goes, in entrepreneurship everything starts with “pain” which is the recognition of an explicit or hidden problem, that the entrepreneurial team strives to solve in an original and effective or efficient way. This is something we clearly experienced when investigating start-up responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Not only did several start-ups perform interesting pivots of their business models to restore viability, but others were created to help overcome the crisis.

Entrepreneurship constantly looks to design and bundle new tools into compelling value propositions that can rapidly scale. This is the case with digital technologies, which display a strategic and entrepreneurial side beyond their technological dimension and should be seen as enablers for new products, services, business models and whole industries.

Embracing an entrepreneurial mindset to catalyse entrepreneurial action and make it practical within an overall entrepreneurial strategy provides the framework and tools to navigate the new pandemic and digital normal. This applies to start-ups and innovative projects inside well-established organisations, where “intrapreneurial” endeavours are needed for business renewal.

At Politecnico di Milano’s School of Management, our close ties with the Italian and international startup ecosystem allow us to design theoretically sound as well as practice-oriented research, and convey its main takeaways into an enriching and action-learning teaching experience.

This theory-teaching-practice virtuous loop allowed us to address a key point often puzzling would-be entrepreneurs: entrepreneurship can be taught and learnt.

Entrepreneurship is not only about individual creativity and passion: it’s a process based on and sustained by an experimental and quasi-scientific approach that can be framed and transferred.

Will learning this process result in a bulletproof recipe for undisputable success? For sure it won’t. But whenever going through the famous – or better, infamous – startup’s Valley of Death, with failure rates as high as 90%, be knowledgeable of the right models and approaches will definitely come in handy.

 

Disruption? No, thanks. Innovation and Leadership in the New Normal

Whatever the post-Covid future, the new normal will require a fundamental change in the leadership of companies. What kind of mentality should leaders have to do business and innovation in a world that will be completely different? In a period in which the temptation will be to be increasingly competitive due to the scarce resources available, learning to share may be the only strategy that can guarantee survival.

 

Roberto Verganti, Professor of Leadership and Innovation
School of Management Politecnico di Milano, Stockholm School of Economics, Harvard Business School

 

Many executives wonder about a fundamental question: how to get ready for the “new normal”? How markets will look like when the main wave(s) of the Covid-19 pandemic will recede? How to redesign products, services and operations to address potential structural shifts?

The start line to rethink how we operate is getting close. Those who get ready now, will start with the right foot. Those who wait, will look like dinosaurs from an old era (though that era was just a few months earlier).

Magazines, futurists, consultants, organizations. Everyone is trying to picture how the scenario will look like as people open up their doors to a new normal life. And everyone agrees on two things: first, the world will look different than before. Second, this transformation will not be temporary. Even when Covid-19 will be fully defeated (and hopefully it will be), our attitude towards socialization, our openness towards the world, our need for health (and anxiety for new infections), will be radically different, for the bad, but also for the good.

Yet, as we move closer and try to get into the details of how life will look like, how markets and operations will work, the real challenge emerges: the phenomenon we are facing is so unprecedented, disproportioned, and swift that capturing the essence of what will happen is implausible. A simple figure to explain the rapidity and magnitude of the discontinuity: in March 2020 more than 7 million Americans have filed for jobless claims per week. This is about tenfold compared to what happened during the financial crisis in 2008. So, regardless to the intelligence and effort we invest to predict what will happen, we need to admit that the answer to the question “how the world will look like?” is: no one really knows. This is a bit of a dismay for the classic way we picture leaders (and experts), who are supposedly those who always know. Yet, in this context, “pretending to know” is the most dramatic mistake we could do.

Amy Edmondson illustrates in her book The Fearless Organization that when a person admits that she does not know, then she opens the doors to learning. To understand how to do business in the new normal the mindset we need therefore is not to guess how it will be, but to get prepared to learn.

How? Being the context completely new, we cannot rely on past experience. We will need to learn “on the fly” through continuous experiments and adaptation. There are two ways to experiment and learn: by competing (learning by trying) or by collaborating (learning by sharing).

Learn by Trying. This the classic way of learning. The purpose here is to learn by yourself in order to beat your competitors. In this approach, organizations compete by conducting different experiments. Each organization tries its own ideas, fail, learn, adjusts the direction, and iterate. As companies aim to disrupt their competitors, they do not share their findings and insights with other organizations, nor the data that fuel the learning. This implies that every time an organization has an idea, it needs to explore it by only relying on its own resources.

Learn by Sharing. In this approach organizations conduct again different experiments. They generate their own ideas and iterate. However, they share the data and findings of their experiments. Why? Because this way they can leverage the trials of other players. If an idea has already been tested, and fails, others can avoid this unpromising path and focus on other options. And if the idea succeeds, others can build on top of it, instead of having everyone starting from scratch. Of course, this path reduces distances among competitors. Disruptions with one big winner and many losers are less likely to happen. But the advantage, however, is that that this approach requires less resources (individual and collective) and less time to get to good solutions. This increase in overall productivity and speed facilitates the growth of demand for solutions, which fuels returns to each player. In other words, this mechanism of learning replicates the mechanisms of the prisoner’s dilemma: cooperation between players leads to higher yields than what players would earn if they would maximize their own individual returns.

Learn by Trying is the kind of learning that has been prized in the past decade by many innovation thinkers and epitomized by the motto “fail often to succeed sooner”. It worked as long as the environment changed rapidly but in a linear fashion, so that learning from one experiment could be applied to the next one without the context being changed dramatically meanwhile. The change we are facing now with Covid-19 is however discontinuous and unprecedented. If in this context everyone conducts experiment by itself, each player has not sufficient time to explore this uncharted space of solution and then iterate before the context evolves again.

To innovate in the new normal we need to learn by sharing. This strategy is the only one that can guarantee sufficient scope, speed and productivity of the experiments. In fact, data sharing enables a larger community of players to participate to the experiments, from a larger variety of settings. And the sharing of findings enables to avoid unproductive trials.

Learning by sharing is already practiced in scientific research connected to Covid-19. Foer example, PostEra, a start-up based in Santa Clara, CA, and London, UK, is coordinating a massive collaborative project, Covid Moonshot to rapidly develop effective and easy-to-make anti-Covid drugs. The focus of the project is to design inhibitors of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (the enzyme that enables the virus to replicate). The project leverages data shared by experiments conducted in a synchrotron radiation facility, Diamond Light Source, that has identified 80 fragments of molecules that might attach to the protease. A community of scientists and manufacturers use those data to design compound inhibitors, which are submitted through the PostEra website. The start-up then runs machine learning algorithms in the background to check for duplications and prioritize candidates for testing. More than 3’600 molecules designs have been submitted with only 32 duplications in the designs.

Shared learning is getting its way also in ordinary business not connected to Covid-19. Microsoft has recently launched an Open Data Campaign. The Open Data movement promotes the sharing of data, similarly to what Open Source does for sharing of software code. Microsoft will develop 20 new collaborations built around shared data by 2022, including, for example, publishing a Microsoft’s dataset around broadband usage in the US.

Note that shared learning does not imply that different players collaborate on the same idea or solution, like in consortia. On the contrary, organizations explore different ideas and experiments. This enables to explore the entire space of solutions. What is shared, instead, are the data that feed the experiments, and/or the insights and findings they generate.

Learning by sharing is built on a will to cooperate. Which is not easy to achieve. Especially in a period of scarce resources. The temptation is to look inward, and behave even more competitively, to secure the few things left, instead of focusing, collaboratively, on building more. What kind of culture and mindset will innovation leaders need to promote learning by sharing in their own organizations?

Whatever the future will look like, the new normal will require a fundamental change in the way we create innovation and lead our organizations. Whereas the innovation mantra of the pre-Covid era was to “disrupt competitors”, this is not really the moment to disrupt. This is rather the moment to collectively re-build a new economy and a new world. The real heroes, in business and society, will not be the disruptors, but those catalysts who will foster a cooperative mindset. Which, in innovation, it means to share data and learnings from the experiments everyone conducts. Organizations will need to try different competing ideas, but they will also benefit from sharing insights, in order to avoid unpromising avenues, improve collective productivity, and rapidly build a new society. Covid-19 is the moment of truth for leaders: where they can prove their authentic orientation to lead organizations around purpose and meaning.

The future of business schools between innovation and entrepreneurship

International business schools are competing in a situation which is undergoing a profound and rapid transformation. The need for increasingly specialised managerial training, competition from new players and building a more inclusive and sustainable future, requires a rethink of operating and business models.
What are the transformations required for greater entrepreneurship and innovative capacity of business schools?

 

Federico Frattini, Dean MIP-Graduate School of Business, Politecnico di Milano

 

International business schools are competing in a situation which is undergoing a profound and rapid transformation. This requires a thorough rethink of business schools’ “standard” business and operating models.

Some of the trends that have recently emerged are the shift in demand for managerial training from “general management” programmes to “specialist” programmes, and stronger competition in the management training market owing to the entry of new players. Consulting and executive search companies are expanding their service to include training for the development of human capital. New “edtech” players are entering the training market, and global technology giants (e.g. Microsoft, Google, Amazon) and increasingly seeing the training world as a possible new frontier to sustain their growth.
The demand for life-long learning services is growing rapidly, due to the fast obsolescence of skills that are learned in “standard” management training courses. Extra-curricular activities and what we call “campus life” are becoming increasingly important in students’ choices. Finally, there is a “crisis” of academic institutions’ social value as they swiftly lose reputation, especially in the eyes of the younger generations.

In addition to these transformations, there are others that have been profoundly accelerated by the consequences of the Coronavirus health emergency. Business schools need to redefine their purpose and clarify their contribution toward building a more inclusive and sustainable future. But they cannot delay the start of a deep digitisation of their processes, teaching methods and approaches.

Responding to these challenges requires a profound rethink of business schools’ business model. Some of the relevant changes that should be carefully considered by international business schools’ leadership include moving from “disciplinary” to “transversal” skills, including entrepreneurship, digital skills, sustainability, critical thinking. There needs to be a move from “separate from practice” training models to “hands-on” training based on a growing interaction with managerial and entrepreneurial practice. Undifferentiated approaches for training for “homogeneous populations of students” need to move to “customised” training, in a “one-to-one” perspective from “intermittent” and time-concentrated training to “on-demand” training, and continuously mixed with students’ professional activity and private life. We need to move from Face-to-face vs. digital training to “omnichannel” training models. The focus on the production of knowledge through research and its transfer through a portfolio of training products must change to the research and integration of knowledge available outside the business school boundaries (for example availability of high-quality training content on MOOCs – Massive Online Open Courses platforms).

These transformations have a scope and potential impact that clash with the “bureaucratic” culture of business schools, their consensus-building processes, and governance mechanisms that require time to approve decisions fail to meet the above conditions. It is essential for international business schools’ leadership to promote a transformation of organisational culture, processes, staff skills, and organisational structures for greater entrepreneurship and innovative capacity. This means borrowing the management solutions and approaches which business schools teach and applying them to their management models. For example, to manage “radical” innovation projects, which require profound changes to established routines and operating models (e.g. the launch of distance learning platforms, or life-long learning services enabled by digital technologies), many business schools are creating spin-offs to place these projects in a more agile and entrepreneurial organisational background. Many business schools are creating positions among their Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) staff to promote a process of continuous digital innovation and transformation of operations and training. Coopetition models in business schools are becoming widespread. These aim at reaching a higher critical mass and sharing the risks and costs that radical innovation projects entail (such as the development of innovative Learning Management Systems).

Many of these transformations will take time to manifest in the world of business schools, but they will be fundamental to sustain their competitiveness over time and ensure their survival.

Being entrepreneurial in a high-tech world

We talk with Andrea Sianesi, Executive Chairman PoliHub, Innovation District and Startup Accelerator Politecnico di Milano
Professor of Logistics and Production Systems Management, School of Management

 

Andrea, you are in charge of an incubator, so you embrace new business ideas which are still in development. What characteristics does a good entrepreneur have at this moment in history?

Firstly courage. This is the same answer I would have given before the Covid-19 crisis. Entrepreneurial initiative is a leap into the void and committing resources and time to develop ideas requires a cool head.
In addition to courage, I believe correcting one’s mistakes and make the most of the “obstacles” along the way is fundamental.

There is a need to have technical and technological knowledge about your enterprise. The entrepreneur who goes through PoliHub, has a solid technological expertise, but lacks business world knowledge. Entrepreneurs must be open to partnerships with other people who can bring complementary skills to the company, such as the ability to develop the market, or knowledge of the regulatory framework.
One must always be willing to get help.

PoliHub is a university incubator: why does the university need it?

The university ecosystem is a fundamental asset for those who want to do business. At Politecnico di Milano, we guarantee access to the business school, POLI.design and Cefriel innovation hubs, thousands of professors and researchers, laboratories covering engineering disciplines, and which are fundamental for transforming an idea into a product.

We are not just a place that hosts start-ups, we are unique compared to other incubators. In deep tech start-ups, it is necessary to carry out experimental activities in laboratories that are only found in universities, and there are companies that, following technological developments in different sectors, have detached some of their departments to join us. This allows them to work and interact with start-ups and have the same ease of access to the entire hub.

This makes the difference and the figures confirm it. Let me give you an example: Politecnico di Milano’s PoliHub, together with the Technology Transfer Office (TTO), manages the “Switch To Product” competition every year. This programme enhances the market value of innovative solutions, new technologies and business ideas suggested by students and graduates (up to three years after graduation), researchers, alumni and professors of Politecnico di Milano, offering financial resources and consulting services to support the development of innovation projects through technological validation and entrepreneurial acceleration. This year we saw a 20 per cent increase in applications. This is an incredibly significant growth, which gives us hope for an increase in new successful companies.

Covid-19 has turned the tables and changed boundaries and business ecosystems, with short or long-term effects, what have you noticed about this situation?

Recently we feared that the pandemic could wipe out the start-up world as they were unable to access forms of subsidy available to other business and professional categories. The problem is real: start-ups today find themselves in greater difficulty than companies that are already well established, but for the moment the system is holding up and showing encouraging signs.

An unexpected effect has been an increase in demand to access incubation services. There is a strong demand to enter the business world, perhaps due to the realisation that it is necessary to know how to get back into the game, even for those who have a well-established career, creating new income opportunities where job stability is lacking.

The demand increase for services comes not only from potential start-ups, but established companies, who decide to relocate to smaller and leaner offices located next to centres of excellence. This new trend is perhaps facilitated by the spread of smart working, which makes it easier to manage small offices than larger ones.

You are describing a scenario with different opportunities on the horizon. What are Polihub’s future plans?

The challenge for us is to find resources that can accompany the start-ups from the idea, and the university, with its resources related to European projects and grants, funds and investors willing to support them throughout their growth phase.

I like to picture the process as crossing a valley. Start-ups need a “bridge” between the two phases that allows them to have the necessary resources to make their idea interesting for investors.
For the idea to be interesting it needs to prove that it is solid and technically verified and has a target market.

Often the technical tests already require considerable investment and are lengthy. We are committed to making this “bridge” effective, and as short as possible, compared to the objectives.

Our future project is to find institutional investors and venture capital, but with a wide-ranging international approach and not just a domestic exposure for our start-ups.
We think with an international logic, not only financially, but using every asset made available by the global network of incubators of excellence.

We are certain that pooling these capabilities will enable us to make a real difference.

 

 

Tiresia Research Center among the winners of the EIC “Blockchains for social good” Award

 

Tiresia, the research centre on innovation, entrepreneurship and social finance of the School of Management of the Politecnico di Milano, is among the six winners of the European Commission’s EIC Horizon “Blockchains for Social Good” award, which will receive a total of 5 million euros for the application of Distributed Ledger technologies to face the major challenges of our society.

While the potential of blockchain technology has been tested in the financial field, its applications in the social and sustainability fields are still underdeveloped. The aim of the “Blockchains for Social Good” award is to support innovators and civil society in exploring the possible applications of blockchain technology for digital social innovation.

Tiresia is partner of the consortium led by Aalto University (Finland) which won in the “Financial inclusion” category, with the project GMERITS (Generalised Merits for Respect and Social Equality), which will be financed with one million euros.
GMERITS is a large-scale experiment to evaluate alternative economic structures, analysing the most effective governance schemes and different compensation models.

Tiresia’s role is to investigate the importance that data and technology can play as enablers of generation and impact management. In addition, it will be an assessor of the social impact generated by the experimental applications within the project.
The consortium also includes three social-tech business initiatives in Europe (REC in Barcelona, Me Sensei in Helsinki and Merits in Milan).

The award, launched with funds from the Enhanced European Innovation Council (EIC) is an integral part of the European Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative that supports innovators, entrepreneurs, SMEs and researchers to develop their ideas, through funding, networking and coaching activities, and to explore the potential of the Blockchain in new areas of application, in particular for identifying solutions to local and global sustainability challenges.