Thursday, January 5, 2017

40% down, 60% to go

Hey there.

I'm back.

As you can imagine, the end of P2 kept me pretty damn busy. Now that it is over and that I have been home for over a week already, it's time to wrap it up with a decent post.

So, what was P2 about? P2 included 7 classes or, to be fair, 6 classes and one little module:
·         Corporate Financial Policy (CFP)
·         Managerial Accounting (MA)
·         Managing Customer Value (MCV)
·         Organizational Behavior II (OBII)
·         Process and Operations Management (POM)
·         Principles of Strategic Analysis (PSA)
·         Practical Wisdom in Business (PWB) – 2-class module

CFP was a course in Finance, where we learnt about derivative securities (e.g. forwards, futures, options, and respective pricing and trading); corporate financing decisions, including choice of corporate structure, dividend policy, new security issues and share buy-backs; and applications of derivatives to corporate finance issues (e.g. convertible securities and real options). It was taught by our most brilliant, energetic and fast-paced professor so far – Pascal Maenhout –, and was one of the most demanding classes of the MBA so far. The pace was so high that this was the only class that did not grade class participation, as Pascal did not want to promote non-value added student interaction. The grading system was 25% for homework group assignments, and 75% for an open-book final exam.

Managerial Accounting, in turn, was a course focused in the use of financial and non-financial information for internal planning, decision-making and performance evaluation in modern firms. Although our MA professor (Gavin Cassar) was a cool guy – an Australian mate with a good sense of humor, wearing shorts to class and showing up at our house parties for a few drinks with the MBA candidates –, the class itself seemed to somehow lack organization and structure. Some of us left one or two MA classes without being sure if we had learnt a lot, as many topics were quite broad, subjective and related to common sense topics. However, studying for the exam helped (at least me) putting together all the most important topics learnt and structuring the main takeaways from this class. Anytime there is a closed-book exam, one gotta learning everything indeed. Grading for this class was 15% for class participation, 15% for group assignments (5 of them!), and 70% for a closed-book final exam.

Moving on to MCV… MCV was a class I was actually looking forward to. Although some people consider marketing to be too fluffy and/or qualitative, there’s something about it that has always attracted me. The current transition to customer centric and end-to-end business models, the power of big data, and the fact that there’s so much to explore in what concerns to customer needs and behavior, have made me increasingly curious about the marketing world. However, MCV was taught in a more traditional/ conservative/ old-fashioned manner than expected. The class motto was to cover “(1) the analysis of customers and customer markets, (2) the creation of value by developing superior products that address customer needs, (3) the optimization of all tactical activities to enable the product to profitably reach the target market, and (4) the measurement and monitoring of market performance”. It was a case-based class, the cases were pretty interesting and we even had one or two marketing simulations that gave us an overview of the relevant steps of the marketing process. Yet, it neglected the power of big data and how important the consumer is becoming to the companies of the future, the ones that are app-based and that rely on the customer inputs.
Grading was based on class participation (30% individual), a report from the first group simulation exercise, BrandPRO (15% group), the performance in the second group simulation exercise, MixPRO (5% group), and a final exam (50%). Not sure why, but I think I will only have a good grade in the class participation portion of the grade. The simulations went terribly for our group, and the exam was just… Weird!

OBII was a good surprise! It was definitely an upgrade from OBI, not only in terms of content, but also in terms of class dynamics and professor performance. OBII taught us how to be successful inside an organization – how to use power and politics, how to form coalitions, how to deploy culture to shape behavior, how to use informal networks and lead change, which incentives to use, which organizational structures to adopt, etc., etc., etc. The course included many cases and a few simulations, as well as groups and individual assignments that made us reflect upon previous experiences in which organizational topics did improve or deteriorate our professional and personal experience. It was dynamic, interactive, and fun. Heads up for Frédéric Godart for making our classes fun and really engaging, even without sharing his own point of view as many times as desirable (in my opinion). Grading was 35% participation, 30% an individual essay, 35% a final group exam. Yup, group exam – 4 hours to write a group essay, analyzing the main organizational problems of a specific organization, and recommending an implementation plan for its change. It was not easy, a bit stressful, but definitely an educative exercise in what concerns to group dynamics.

POM, POM, POM! POM was an Operations course focused in supply-demand mismatches. It was divided in two parts: business process analysis (inputs, rates, bottlenecks, throughput, operational expenses, uncertainty management, and so on), and supply chain management (namely the newsvendor model). The workload was quite high! Most classes required case preparation, a book (“The Goal” by E. M. Goldratt & J. Cox) had to be read, and there were 3 long group assignments, on top of a (very difficult) final exam. Grading was 20% for class involvement, 30% for homework (both group assignments and individual online polls regarding certain cases), and 50% for an individual final exam. That individual final exam was the most difficult we had at INSEAD so far, but studying for it was quite fun…

Last but not least, our Strategy class was much better than what I had imagined. I would dare to say that every strategic consultant like me was slightly skeptical regarding taking a class on strategy, as it could hardly go beyond what we do on a daily basis. However, it was useful in a few different ways. First, it taught us to stop neglecting strategic frameworks. Even if we (as strategic consultants) don’t want to apply strategic frameworks per se in the analyses we do to our clients, we should always be aware that there are plenty of useful tools out there and, most importantly, that each tool is supposed to answer only one question and, therefore, should only be used for one single purpose. This PSA class helped us get a more structured overview of all the existing strategic frameworks, and also of their specific purpose. Secondly, PSA made us think about the way we work, and allowed us to share with our non-consultant classmates and groupmates our experience in the field. And, to teach others on what we do and the best practices we apply, we ought to thoroughly think about what we do well, what we do wrong, how can we explain that in simple words, and how useful (or not) the different tasks of our job are. It also leads to other people questioning things that we’ve been taking for granted, making us want to adapt the way we do stuff and/ or convince them that we do things the right way.
PSA class dynamics were fun too. Our Professor Daniel Simonovich was a one-of-a-kind – very funny, very unique, and quite engaging. This was another case-based class, and the workload was quite intense too. On top of preparing a case for each class, we had a group project that consisted of a 20-slide presentation analyzing a specific industry (automotive, in our case), and there was the Master Strategist Day – a full Saturday at INSEAD, doing a micro-consulting project for a player within the automotive business, with groups competing against each other to select a finalist group to compete against other sections. Grading for this class was 20% class participation, 35% group project, 5% personal statement on lessons learnt, 10% group performance on Master Strategist day, and 30% individual report on Master Strategist day. Ufffffff, no exam but lots of work!

In the beginning of P2 we also had a 2-module class on Ethics called Practical Wisdom in Business. The Professor Niel Bearden is super famous at INSEAD for making everyone think about the kind of person they want to be, and which lifestyle they want to take. Not only for the content, but mainly for getting to know Niel, this micro class was worth taking too.

P2 was the last period that closed with a dreadful exam-week. We had the Master Strategist day on Saturday, finished classes on Monday, and had a one-day stop before exams started. There was the OBII group exam on Wednesday, the weird MCV exam on Thrusday, two exams on Friday (MA and the crazy difficult POM one), and, at last, the CFP exam on Monday.

Meanwhile, it was also time to say goodbye to my amazing group and section. I will miss them a lot.




Exhausted, I flew home on Monday late in the evening, and enjoyed Christmas, wedding prep and so on with the family for a bit over a week. It was great to be home but too rushy, too intense, too quick. At the moment, I am about to land in the Philippines with my Gorda. We will spend New Year’s here with some good friends before P3 starts and Gorda goes back to work.

Sorry for such a long absence and talk to you soon!



No comments:

Post a Comment