This post contains an update.

Like many great rivers, the Delaware has multiple identities: water supply for New York City, habitat for native fish populations and flooder of riverside hamlets. Historically, four states have vied for specific claims on the river’s water supply. New York City’s summertime dam releases have posed some of the most challenging problems for river management over the past 30 years, and caused political and environmental tension.

That changed in October 2007. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) implemented a plan called Flexible Flow Management Policy (FFMP) based on research from Peter Kolesar, a professor emeritus in the Decision, Risk and Operations Division. His work, done in collaboration with scientists and fish experts from the Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited and Delaware River Foundation, has been nominated for this year’s Franz Edelman Prize. The award ceremony takes place April 18–20, 2010.

The Commission’s FFMP policy is based on Kolesar’s adaptive inventory control research, which expresses the dam releases as a function of the storage in the reservoirs and the season of the year. In the two years since the plan has been in place, estimates place the economic benefit at $163 million annually in fishing and boating income and potential flood mitigation. (Read more about the research in Ideas at Work.)

The plan has potential for other water and river management systems, especially in the Southeast where officials from Georgia and Florida have been fighting for years over water allocation from Lake Lanier and the Tennessee River. The Delaware River case could help solve their conflict and key players from the DRBC have already made visits to Atlanta to share knowledge.

“The benefit of what we did — to bring disputing parties into agreement and our analysis — were breakthroughs,” Kolesar says, whose interest in the river originated with his fly-fishing experience in the Catskills. He says the combination of factors — from the scientific research and involvement of conservationists to local politics — made the success of the FFMP unique. “The whole package is now a possible model for other disputes.”

Photo credit: Flickr/Chris Martino

The future of poverty eradication lies in the private sector, says Nancy Barry, president and CEO of Enterprise Solutions to Poverty. Barry, former CEO of Women’s World Banking, created the venture to mobilize corporations and entrepreneurs to engage millions of low-income people to build competitive business models. In an exclusive interview with Columbia Business School at the 2009 Social Enterprise Conference, Barry highlighted the ways in which U.S. and European multinational companies can learn from emerging markets.

“In [companies’] engagement they are still skating on the surface,” she said in the video interview. “Their traditional business models and ways of working are getting in their way. They need to actually learn from emerging markets and entrepreneurs how to build decentralized distribution systems. The beauty of decentralized systems is that the mom-and-pops of this world actually are the poor people. If you figure out a way how to add value to that mom-and-pop, which is your distribution system, you are helping that family make more money and you are selling more products.”

View more videos from the 2009 Social Enterprise Conference.

Mark Cohen on retail
The luxury bubble will continue to deflate, and only those truly special brands with real brand equity will recover; value players like Walmart, Target, Kohl’s, etc., will see renewed strength. The middle market of poorly differentiated specialty and department stores that lack a clear fashion and value strategy will continue to struggle, and it is unlikely that retail sales will retrace their pre-recession levels until 2011.

Cliff Cramer on the healthcare industry
Consolidation will be a major theme in 2010 as insurers and hospitals seek additional leverage in contract negotiations and pharmaceutical companies explore transformational mergers to broaden product lines, strengthen geographic breadth (emerging markets) and manage earnings in response to major patent expirations in the near term.

Brett Gordon on marketing and technology
Intel will face continued legal pressure from the Federal Trade Commission and the New York attorney general’s office for its alleged anti-competitive practices despite the $1.25B settlement with AMD in November 2009. Online newspapers and other media outlets will test new revenue generation models in a last ditch attempt to stay afloat. Monetization strategies for online video (e.g., Hulu, YouTube) will get serious attention from firms seeking to lure back advertising dollars with more advanced technology.

Paul Ingram on management
Organizational culture will enjoy a renaissance. Firms will increasingly recognize that shared values can attract and retain employees to the company and that the common orientation of a strong culture allows coordinated responses to unforeseen and emerging challenges. In the next year and beyond, organizations with strong cultures will outperform others, and leaders will focus on building those cultures.

Wei Jiang on the economy
As much as we think that we learned from the crisis, new bubbles are already forming thanks to the easy monetary policies around the world. In particular, the weak dollar has fueled a massive rally in 2009 in a wide range of risky assets — equities, commodities and emerging markets — through carry trades. We are facing the danger of a recurring asset bust in the coming years if and when the dollar reverses.

Jonathan Knee on the media industry
The inexorable fragmentation of media will continue in 2010, Comcast’s acquisition of NBCU notwithstanding. This trend will have no impact, however, on the persistent and irrational fears of regulators, politicians and the public that the global markets for media may fall under the control of a handful of malevolent moguls at any moment.

Homepage photo credit: Bart Hiddink

Stereotypes and bias can affect judgment in the subtlest of ways. New brain imaging research shows just where these biases are experienced deep within grey matter.

“My colleagues and I were interested in determining how the brain responds when people are ‘put on the spot’ by decisions that could make them appear racially biased,” says Malia Mason, assistant professor of management who studies decision-making and the neuroscience of social perception. She will be co-hosting a symposium on diversity and leadership later this month at Columbia Business School.

Mason and her co-authors, Michael Norton, Joe Vandello, Andrew Biga and Rebecca Dyer, looked at how the brain helps people manage decisions that others might interpret as discriminatory. The researchers measured their white participants’ brain activity while they decided which of two individuals was more likely to have certain traits (e.g., gentle, intelligent, Canadian). On some trials participants were asked to decide between two white candidates, on other trials the particpants had to make a judgment involving a white and an African-American candidate.

“The results revealed that the brain’s alarm — the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a cortical region that detects conflicts or uncertainties — is triggered when people have to choose between a black and a white candidate,” Mason says. “Importantly, this occurs regardless of the relevancy of the trait or characteristic in question. The sound of the ACC alarm was just as loud when people decided who was Canadian as when they decided who was intelligent.”

Having to choose between a black and white candidate was also associated with activity in brain regions that support concentration (the dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex or DLPFC) and flexible responding (the lateral orbital frontal cortex or LOFC). Like the brain’s alarm (the ACC), these regions were recruited even when participants’ decisions could not be taken as evidence that they harbored stereotypical beliefs. These findings suggest that the judgmental context itself — having to choose between a white and a black participant — sets off a cascade of events and signals the need to proceed with caution and care, to inhibit stereotypical beliefs, and to consider how a decisions will be interpreted by others, says Mason.

“The good news is that people appear to be sensitive to social injustices and highly motivated to seem egalitarian,” says Mason. “Unfortunately, these findings also suggest that egalitarian aspirations alone do not lead to social colorblindness. The challenge is to help people unlearn beliefs with a dubious basis. Our results suggest that brute inhibition of stereotypes is a lot of work for the brain.”

The Program on Social Intelligence and the Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Center for Leadership and Ethics are hosting the research symposium “Inclusive Leadership, Stereotyping and the Brain” on September 18, 2009. Learn more about the symposium and register for the event here.

Images courtesy of Malia Mason

	From left to right: Prof. Yusheng Zheng, Wharton School and Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, paper award winner Guoming Lai and Prof. Fangruo Chen.

Channel stuffing can lead to all kinds of distortions and ultimately hurts the long-term value of a company. So what are the incentives for a manager to engage in the practice? That was the winning topic for the Best Paper Award at this year’s Conference of the Overseas Chinese Scholars Association in Management Science and Engineering (OCSAMSE), which took place in Shanghai in July.

The conference was sponsored by Columbia Business School’s China Business Initiative, which is part of the Chazen Institute for International Business. OCSAMSE is the only organization representing overseas Chinese scholars in management science and engineering. The conference series was focused on integrating theory and practice and panelists discussed supplier relationship, supply chain and operations management.

Professor Fangruo Chen awarded the research prize to Guoming Lai and Lin Nan from David A. Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University and Laurens G. Debo from University of Chicago Booth School of Business for their paper “Manager Incentives for Channel Stuffing with Market-Based Compensation.”

The winning paper authors suggest that managers find real earnings management more attractive in the wake of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. However, managers also now face more “real” constraints, such as bounds on physical inventory and often their interests are not aligned with long-term stakeholders. The results create three effects that drive the manager’s incentives for channel stuffing.

Other speakers at the conference included Dr. Weihua Ma of China Merchants Bank, Qinghou Zong of the Wahaha Group, Weimin Sun of Suning Appliance Co. Ltd., Steve Graves of M.I.T. and Mike Pinedo of New York University Stern School of Business.

Photo courtesy of Mei Xue

With at least 2,000 car dealerships from Chrysler and GM slated to close this year (and more than 1,000 dealerships overall that closed last year), the existing American dealership model is in crisis. The closings appear to underscore just how over-extended — and over-stocked — the U.S. dealership system has become. One of the fatal flaws for dealerships has been an inefficient distribution network.

My research, conducted with my colleague Gérard Cachon at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, shows that the current structure of the U.S. brands’ dealership network led to inefficiencies in the distribution system. These inefficiencies add to the total distribution cost, which accounts for 30% of the price of a new car.

A major inefficiency is the pattern of holding inventory — an important part of the distribution cost. Most of the vehicles in the U.S. are purchased directly from dealer stock and holding inventory is expensive, especially when credit is scarce as it is now. The graph below illustrates important differences in the monthly days-of-supply for Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota.

The popular press suggests that 60-day supply is the ideal level of inventory for the auto industry. This is, in fact, the industry average, but the figures show that Toyota is consistently below that benchmark while Chevrolet and Ford are usually above it (other brands of Ford and GM also show a similar pattern). Overall from 2000 to 2004, Chevrolet held about 130,000 more vehicles in inventory relative to Toyota (300,000 compared to 170,000 units), even though the two brands sold about the same number of vehicles in the U.S.

The huge number of GM dealerships explains most of this difference in inventory performance. As of 2007, Chevrolet had around 4,000 dealerships compared to 1,200 Toyota dealerships. That means that an average Toyota dealership sells three times as many vehicles.

Source: Automotive News 2007 Yearbook

Due to economies of scale, managing inventory for a Chevrolet dealership is much more costly than for Toyota. In general, dealerships from domestic manufacturers carry substantially more days of supply. Consequently, they require more cash to operate, their inventory is less fresh and they tend to have more overstock at the end of the model year, which in turn leads to more rebates. All of this translates into higher distribution costs and lower profits for the dealer.

How could U.S. auto dealerships be improved? Reducing the number of dealerships can do several things.

First, it will reduce cannibalization between dealerships, increasing average sales per dealership. Dealers can take advantage of economies of scale in the distribution process and have more frequent deliveries and lower safety stocks, thereby reducing the amount of inventory held without hurting (and possibly improving) customer service. It also helps to keep a fresher stock to better match customer preferences and to lower markdowns at the end of the season.

All of this leads to a more profitable dealership and a more efficient distribution network. Higher dealership earnings can be used to invest in better showrooms and better training of the sales force, which can improve customer service and further boost revenues.

Photo credit: never a safe second

How can managers prepare for the less beneficial outcomes of practicing fairness?

According to the research of Professor Joel Brockner, both staff and management alike benefit when a firm makes a strong commitment to practice fairness. While there are some barriers to implementing fair process, Brockner says, it’s undeniable that firms that do so consistently see higher levels of employee commitment and productivity and that their employees report more job satisfaction and less stress — which makes overcoming those barriers a worthwhile investment. His research is featured in the most recent Ideas at Work.

But fairness can come at a cost.

“If people feel that the process was handled fairly regarding a decision that they will not be happy with, such as the loss of a job, or the failure to get a promotion, there is less resentment directed toward to the organization,” he says. “But the potential risk is there is more self-blaming and more low self-esteem.”

The tenure system illustrates the dilemma of process fairness. “When someone is turned down for tenure, the last thing they want to hear is what a fair process it was because then they feel like ‘OK, I got what I deserved.’ If they got what they deserved and the outcome is bad then they may feel badly about themselves.”

Brockner’s advice to managers? “The negative consequences of fair process don’t mean you should forego fairness. Practice fairness but also be aware that people may end up feeling badly about themselves and take additional action to counteract it.”

For example, Brockner and his co-authors recently found that people who engage in corporate-sponsored volunteer activity often feel more committed to the organization, precisely because the act of volunteering reaffirms their sense of self.

“There is a conundrum when you dole out unfavorable outcomes. If you are fair, people blame themselves, if you are unfair, then they blame you. So beware — you’ve got work to do as a manager either way.”

Learn more about Professor Brockner’s research in Columbia Ideas at Work, where he outlines the keys to process fairness and offers guidelines to help firms make hard decisions in a fair way. Read more about (download file) his research on the downside of process fairness.

Photo credit: Eric Lemoine

The fate of General Motors could mean tricky political business for Toyota, says Professor Hugh Patrick, faculty director of the Center on Japanese Economy and Business. Patrick is moderating a panel event tonight about the two automakers.

“The downsizing of GM opens economic opportunities for Toyota in the U.S. market, but it may also create serious political risks for Toyota’s market share, now a little under 20%, goes to 25% or 30%,” Patrick says. “Job creation is a major political as well as economic issue in the U.S., and there almost certainly will be various pressures on Toyota to assemble more vehicles in the U.S. and to purchase more parts and components in the U.S. — and to import fewer from Japan.”

William Holstein, author of Why GM Matters: Inside the Race to Transform an American Icon and panelist at tonight’s CJEB event, says the government’s recent actions have ignored the progress the company has made, such as absorbing lean manufacturing lessons from Toyota through the companies’ joint venture, NUMMI.

“Rick Wagoner was leading an ambitious restructuring plan at GM and there was very real chance that he was going to be successful in doing this by 2010,” Holstein says. “The Obama administration completely ignored the very substantial progress Wagoner had made with changing the cost structures of the company, changing its manufacturing process, revitalizing its car design and investing in the future of the lithium-ion battery.” (See Holstein’s related op-ed in the New York Times.)

As the government reportedly considers a Good GM/Bad GM plan, could Toyota itself be a contender to purchase a piece of the auto manufacturer?

“My guess is that Toyota will not be interested in purchasing GM or any significant part of it,” says Patrick. “Toyota’s cars already compete very well with GM’s in the U.S. market, and there might well be considerable political exposure for Toyota emanating from such purchases.”

The Center on Japanese Economy and Business presents “Two Behemoths in a Troubled Industry: Toyota and GM” tonight from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m.

Photo credit: Ahren D.

This post contains an update.

Retailers have been stunned by how abrupt the change in the economy has been and that it has happened across all strata of consumers. It is most pronounced in the luxury sector. As recently as seven or eight months ago, luxury thought that it was invulnerable, but that is not true.

Many luxury customers are aspirational and are vulnerable to downturns in the economy. The core customer with essentially unlimited disposable funds may no longer find it fashionable to behave as they had in the past. Irrational exuberance may not return and people may not seek to live beyond their means, choosing a more conservative lifestyle. Now, the customer is saving for the first time in many years, and this recession will leave a lasting mark on consumer behavior.

Jobs, confidence are lacking
Retailers are one of the largest sectors of the economy. They are very large employers. When business declines, retailers stop hiring. Layoffs soon follow. We’re seeing this across the country. Laying off large numbers of people creates a cascade of breakage. This impacts consumer confidence; everyone knows someone who was laid off. Stores begin to close. That is very visible. At the end of the day, if people don’t have jobs, there is no recovery and that’s the end of it. The consumer has to be viable, which means jobs and a rise in confidence. Many people with viable jobs become increasingly fearful of losing their employment. We’ve gone from irrational exuberance to irrational fear.

It’s good to be different
This downturn creates powerful opportunities for organizations to emerge if they can successfully differentiate themselves. Retailers with notable products and services can create enormous energy and value. Two examples are Apple and Amazon. Apple has a highly differentiated product and a selling environment at retail that is incomparable. Their market share will continue to climb as long as they continue to satisfy their customers’ needs and wants. Amazon aggregates assortments of merchandise in an on line setting that is the best in the world and continues to acquire more and more market share. They invested in an esoteric device, the Kindle, and surprise! It looks like a $1.4 billion business next year.

On the other hand, retailers with little or no forward strategy like the department stores, who have been playing out a “Last Man Standing” end game have little likelihood of future success and vitality. Layoffs in this sector are a tragic and ineffective expression of survival. You can’t use reductions in force as a strategic blueprint. It creates enormous disruption and leads to more crises downstream.

Good news for the shopper
Currently there is an enormous excess of inventory in many retailers supply chains because of recent extreme and unanticipated shortfalls in sales. These excesses will have to be liquidated. Retailers are dumping inventory, canceling what they can and avoiding buying forward product. In the next year we’re going to see fewer stores, less inventory overall in stores and less discounting because of less inventory. Prices will come down because consumers will expect more value and will be less willing to play the high-low game as they have in the past.

This economic downturn, recession if you will, is likely to continue for at least 12 to 18 months and maybe longer. I believe that when it is over the retail landscape will be very different than it is today.

UPDATE (2/25/09): Follow up from the Retail & Luxury Goods Conference. Keynote speaker Robert Burke said, “I don't think the department stores are completely dead and I don’t believe luxury is over. … It became overused and ambiguous terminology.” View the complete video (part 1, part 2) of his speech. -CN

Photo credit: Christopher Chan

Models pose a paradox. They hold the key to extraordinary profits but can inflict destructive losses on a bank. Because a model entails a complex perspective on issues that are typically fuzzy and ambiguous, they can lock traders into a mistaken view of the world, leading to billionaire losses. Can banks reap the benefits of models while avoiding their accompanying dangers?

Our research suggests they do, and shows how. We conducted a sociological study of a derivatives trading room at a large bank on Wall Street. The bank, which remained anonymous in our study, reaped extraordinary profits from its models — but emerged from the credit crisis unscathed. For three years, we were the proverbial fly on the wall, observing the traders with the same ethnographic techniques that anthropologists used to understand tribesmen in the South Pacific. We identified a set of managerial procedures, which we call “reflexive modeling,” that lead to superior model development. (View the complete study)

The key to outstanding trades, we found, lies outside the models. It is a matter of culture, organizational design and leadership. The bank that we observed introduced reflexivity in every aspect of its organization. From the junior traders to the supervisors, everyone at the bank was ready to question their own assumptions, listen for dissonant cues and respect diverse opinions.

How? As many have already suggested, individuals certainly matter. The bank hired people with a healthy dose of humility and an appreciation for the limits of their smarts. This often meant opting for older traders rather than younger hotshots.

But the key to the bank’s reflexiveness did not just lie in individuals. By reflexiveness we don’t mean super-intelligent traders engaged in some heroic mental feat, splitting and twisting their minds back on themselves like some intellectual variant of a contortionist. Reflexivity is a property of organizations.

The architecture of the bank, for instance, was crucial. The open-plan trading room grouped different trading strategies in the same shared space. Each desk focused on a single model, developing a specialized expertise in certain aspect of the stocks.

To see why this was useful, think of a stock as a round pie. Investors on Main Street often eat the pie whole, with predictably dire consequences. The professionals that we saw, by contrast, sliced stocks into different properties. Each desk was in charge of a different property, and the different desks then shared their insights with each other. This could happen in a one-minute chat between senior traders across desks or in an overheard conversation from the desk nearby. This communication allowed traders to understand those aspects of the stock that lay outside their own models — the unexpected “black swans” that can derail a trade.

Sharing, of course, is easier said than done. The bank made it possible with a culture that prized collaboration. For instance, it used objective bonuses rather than subjective ones to ensure that envy did not poison teamwork. It moved teams around the room to build the automatic trust that physical proximity engenders. It promoted from within, avoiding sharp layoffs during downturns.

Most importantly, the leadership of the trading room had the courage to punish uncooperative behavior. Bill, the manger of the room, made it abundantly clear that he would not tolerate the view, prominent among some, that if you’re great at Excel, “it’s OK to be an asshole.” And he conveyed the message with decisive clarity by firing anti-social traders on the spot — including some top producers.

In other words, the culture at the bank was nothing like the consecration of greed that outsiders attribute to Wall Street. We refer to it as “organized dissonance.”

Our study suggests that a lack of reflexivity — that is, the lack of doubt on the part of banks — may be behind the current credit crisis. We are reminded of infantry officers who instructed their drummers to disrupt cadence while crossing bridges. The disruption prevents the uniformity of marching feet from producing resonance that might bring down the bridge. As we see it, the troubles of contemporary banks may well be a consequence of resonant structures that banished doubt, thereby engendering disaster.

This blog post was coauthored with Professor David Stark, chair of the Department of Sociology at Columbia University and author of The Sense of Dissonance (Princeton University Press, 2009). Please visit Professor Daniel Beunza’s blog Socializing Finance to learn more about his research on the social studies of finance.

Photo credit: Daniel Beunza

In 2009, change is not just a buzzword — it’s a top priority for many organizations and individuals. And according to Professor Eric Johnson, major change need not be difficult or expensive. Often, Johnson says, change can start by simply looking at how an organization — or a consumer — utilizes default settings.

“There are many defaults that affect you, and you don’t even realize it,” says Johnson. “An unchecked box is a default.”

Research by Johnson and Daniel Goldstein of the London School of Economics has shown that default settings have the power to affect change on a wide range of issues, from consumer purchases to organ donations. Take the example of buying a new car. A customer completes an online car configurator and is shown features that match her preferences, such as the option for a sporty three-spoke steering wheel with a high-horsepower engine. These adaptive defaults serve to align product and consumer as closely as possible. In a different study, a default for organ donation can account for a 16-50% increase in transplantations performed in a country, they found.

However, in addition to changing a desired outcome by checking or un-checking a box, a default also promotes change in user behavior.

“Defaults change the way you look at choices. It is as if you owned the default, and you have to decide what are the advantages and alternatives,” says Johnson.

In a recent article in Harvard Business Review, Johnson, with co-authors Goldstein, Andreas Herrmann and Mark Heitmann, discuss how to best design defaults. The first thing to consider is who is designing them.

“[Default settings] are a decision that is strategic and goes to the bottom line,” says Johnson. “But the decision is too often made by the IT person or the person doing the page design. It is an essential characteristic of a Web site. It’s part of a larger view that site architecture has a large influence over consumer behavior and that’s not something most firms and consumers anticipate.”

And that decision making need not require any overhead, says Johnson. “The beauty of defaults is that they can be changed by simply editing a couple of lines of HTML.”

To learn more about Professor Johnson’s research on defaults, see “Defaults make a difference” in Ideas at Work.

Dateline: London

I think to really understand the ramifications of what happened, you just had to be there. At London’s Heathrow Airport that is.

On Thursday March 27, I took British Airways’ (BA) day flight from JFK to Heathrow. On Saturday I was due to talk about customer value to a group of high-level strategic account directors at a global software company. I planned to tell them that success in value delivery would guarantee customer satisfaction and enable them to retain and grow their customers, increase profits, and lead to greater shareholder value. I relaxed in my Club World backward-facing seat and concentrated on the task ahead.

On Thursday evening I landed at Terminal 4; little did I know what was unfolding at Terminal 5.

Terminal 5 was BA’s long-planned new $8.6 billion state-of-the-art facility at Heathrow. CEO Willie Walsh was on hand at 4 a.m. when the first flight arrived early from Hong Kong.

After that, everything went downhill. In a word, BA’s baggage-handling operation failed. Apparently, the system had functioned well in a 2,000-passenger test, but could not handle the 40,000 who that day crowded into the terminal.

By the following mid-week, BA had cancelled over 300 flights, 40,000 pieces of baggage had been separated from their owners (many sent overland to Italy for resorting), and thousands of passengers did not reach their destinations. To make matters worse, Britain’s aviation regulator reacted swiftly to stranded passengers’ complaints that BA failed to provide hotel rooms, in possible breach of European Union requirements.

In a stroke of genius, the Terminal 5 debacle occurred just three days before an open-skies agreement between the U.S. and Britain came into force. In addition to increased competition from European airlines flying from the U.S. to continental destinations, BA would now have new U.S.-based competitors at Heathrow. Continental, Delta and Northwest Airlines each offered flights on day one. Some analysts’ estimates of BA’s losses from canceled flights, additional costs, and reduced future bookings approached $100 million; Goldman Sachs downgraded BA shares to sell.

So what lessons can we learn from BA’s experience?

First, service businesses are tough to manage. Operations occur with the customer in close proximity and problems are quickly highly visible — very different from a factory making products.

Second, sophisticated systems are great when they work, but when they fail, disaster is close behind.

Third, when you put in sophisticated systems, test, test and then test again; it may take time and it may cost money, but consider the alternative!

Fourth, customer satisfaction depends on the difference between expectations and performance. BA had so hyped its new terminal that any failure hurt even more.

As for me, when I arrived back at terminal 4 on Saturday afternoon, British Airways could not get me on their JFK flight. The agent sent me to Virgin Atlantic where I gratefully accepted one of the few remaining Premium Economy seats to Newark. The counter clerk cheerfully phoned New York so I could change my car service pick up and I headed for the gate. As I was boarding, the gate clerk told me there was a change — an upgrade to Upper Class. Thank you Sir Richard!

Footnote: The following Wednesday, British supermodel Naomi Campbell was reportedly taken off a Los Angeles-bound BA flight and arrested. Apparently Campbell became agitated when told one of her two bags had been misplaced.

You can find Noel Capon’s new marketing planning workbook, The Virgin Marketer, and his textbook, Managing Marketing in the 21st Century, at www.mm21c.com.

This the final stop on the “Pre-MBA World Tour,” organized by John Shoaf '10 and members of the class of 2010.

At 5:30 a.m., we arrived on the market floor in time for the opening bell, which, to be precise, is an old-fashioned hand bell, rung by an auctioneer standing on a small stool.

We were at Tokyo’s famous Tsukiji Fish Market, perhaps one of the few places in a developed country where business is transacted quickly and efficiently without the aid of technology.

Every day before dawn, frozen tuna of all sizes arrive at the market and are spread across the floor of a warehouse. Buyers called “middlemen,” who wear special numbered hats, inspect each fish and take notes on quality, internally calculating value.

The auction commences as the auctioneer calls out the number painted in red ink on each fish and announces the opening bid. The middlemen use a gesture called “Teyari” to inform the auctioneer of their respective bids. The final price of each fish takes merely seconds to determine.

After each lot of fish is auctioned, assistants arrive with hand-pulled wooden carts. The fish are loaded onto the carts and moved to a nearby stall in the market for processing. The fish are then cut, packed and shipped to retail establishments around Japan.

Japan’s Central Wholesale Market Law of 1923 laid the groundwork for the country’s wholesale market system. Unique in the world, the law requires that prices be fixed on the basis of an auction regardless of the quantity of goods involved in the transaction. The law restricts transactions in the markets in order to maintain impartiality. According to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the role of the Central Warehouse Market is to stand between producers and consumers, promote the smooth distribution of perishables and contribute to a stabilized diet through fair and speedy transactions between wholesalers and jobbers in clean and functional facilities.

It was refreshing to see that there still exists a public market built solely on human-to-human interaction. While technology has certainly changed business for the better, we on the Pre-MBA World Tour were reminded that business is fundamentally about people and, very often, speed to market. When participants in a transaction meet face-to-face, a personal bond forms and a sense of trust emerges. People, unlike machines, can exhibit raw emotion, feelings and perspectives, allowing us to adapt to our surroundings and strategically intuit things that machines are incapable of comprehending.

All this begs the question, what might technology-reliant markets learn from the human-to-human model? Some insight can be gleaned from specialist-style auction markets, such as the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. These markets allow for the personal interaction and expert judgment that is often cited by proponents as helping to maintain orderly markets, especially under extraordinary conditions. Most importantly, technology-reliant markets should learn that technology exists in order to aid people, not the other way around.

As we increasingly rely on technology to put business practices into effect, how can we retain the best elements of human-based systems in order to sustain optimal efficiency? In our zeal for acquiring newer and faster technologies, are we also losing something?

CBS Professors Nelson Fraiman and Medini Singh recently offered their views on the pace of economic development in Uruguay to the newspaper El Observador (download pdf of article here), addressing how the country could increase its levels of productivity and innovation in order to rival global competitors.

Calling Uruguay “stuck in time,” Fraiman and Singh asserted that the mindset of Uruguayan entrepreneurs has to change in order for the country to catch up to the rapid pace of development in other emerging nations, particularly India and China.

“Unlike India or China, here I don’t see hunger in the people,” Fraiman said. “Uruguayans are content, and that can be a problem.”

Both Fraiman and Singh said that Uruguay’s small geographic size should not hold it back, and proposed that if local entrepreneurs could optimistically embrace change and let go of a compulsion towards conformity, the country would be able to take advantage of limitless possibilities.

The only challenge now is to identify which business activity to focus on in order to distinguish Uruguay from other emerging nations and add unique value to the global market.

Fraiman proposed that Uruguay could exceed competitors in offering knowledge-based services, and Singh said he believes that it’s necessary for the country to focus on technical education in management and technology, “because this is what the world needs today.”

This discussion came out of a workshop to Uruguayan entrepreneurs last month on “Strategy and Operational Excellence for Global Competitiveness.”

Taking organizational service to the next level is not just about executing key strategic goals. According to Professor Awi Federgruen, companies need to focus more on considering the relationship between strategic options and operating cost.

“It is challenging but relatively easy to come up with planning approaches that will take out the organizational fat to reduce operational costs for given strategic goals,” Federgruen told the FT in a BearingPoint podcast. “But what is much more challenging and ultimately much more important for most organizations is to understand how the required operating costs interact with the strategic goals of the company.”

Within a corporate landscape that’s becoming more and more competitive in terms of the quality, accuracy and timeliness of services provided, organizations need to take a step back and weigh the implications of certain initiatives to the bottom line.

“Those tradeoffs between operating costs and strategic goals are not easy to figure out . . . and yet [they’re] something that organizations should indeed stay awake about, because without having a good understanding about what indeed the revenue implications are of strategic choices . . . one may be missing the big picture,” Federgruen said.

What challenges does your organization face in thinking about strategy choices in terms of operating cost — and do you agree that the task deserves greater attention?