Wiki contents


2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

As the halfway point draws nearer, my scepticism increases. Knowing that our group marks lie in the hands of an online simulation is a crazy thought. So my confusion for this week lies in the reliability of the MikesBikes simulation, because how do we as students know that by manipulating certain figures and amounts we spend in various areas we will achieve the results we desire or deserve. And the answer is we don’t. There is no way to know exactly what will happen week to week, we can only put in the research and hope for the best, because a lot of our results as a time are derived from the decision made by our competitors. 

Although it is up to us as teams to put in the work and find out what figures and amounts need to be manipulated, how do we know for certain that the simulation might not suddenly decide it doesn’t like what it sees, even if we have gone to great lengths to derive formulas to work out what to change the Retail margin to or what to spend on Brand Awareness. My theory here is that a slight ‘glitch’ in the system can go unnoticed and although this may be uncommon for this particular programme there is no absolute way of knowing that the simulation might not overlook a decision made due a glitch in the system.  I no this may be an obscene hypothesis however in todays world we rely so heavily on technology we just expect things will always work out. My iPhone is the perfect example, as majority of the time it works perfectly and the end result is always great, however from time to time it suddenly decides to forget all brightness settings and complete dim the screen without even the touch of a button, or it may freeze on a snapchat. My main point is ‘glitches’ occur more than we realise in technology and that this heavy reliance on an online simulation for 20% of our grade is frightening.

With Rollover 3 complete it is becoming evident which firms entered the first few rollovers with all guns blazing, as they differ from the firms who approach each rollover with more of a long-term strategy. With my group originally looking like the firm that others may have seen as the underdogs (literally) and the firm that groups may have started to think about taking over, we were one of the few to have positive profits on rollover three and although we may not be anywhere near the top yet, as a group we are confident in our long term strategy and have high hopes for the future. But the learning doesn’t stop there. As the Chris Argyris reading states “success in the marketplace increasingly depends on learning”, (Argyris, C. 1991) and without giving away any of our strategies we are constantly trying to find new ways to improve our SHV, whether it be focus our attention in a particular area one week or try to think of a secret weapon to keep up our sleeves in case everything goes bottom up. In this aspect I feel we are constantly trying to learn more about the simulation, and in doing this it helps ease my uncertainty in the great reliance on technology in this assessment. Other thoughts I have had over the past week in regards to my group and efforts towards MikesBikes include; is the reason we have put a lot of time and research into each rollover due to our poor results in the practice rollover, and although we are trucking along quite nicely at the moment, are other groups that did well in the practice rollovers struggling because the practice rollovers were only 2 weeks thus only allowing a short term approach??



Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learnReflections, 4(2), 4--15


  1. Thanks Olivia for this piece.  I noticed that your last two journals were not peer reviewed and I wonder what happen here.  I think Peter should look into this.  Back to your piece, I enjoyed it and I thank you for your critical thinking surroundiing the MikesBikes simulation.  I know you may not think so but I feel that you have really looked at the Bloom Taxonomy reading with absolute ease:

    You identify that there could be a problem and the Bloom reading offers managerial concepts of your writing as a way forward.  You made mention of the technoloogy as possibly becoming a glitch in the simulation which is the first level of leadership in knowledge, and gaining an understanding as you have stated in manipulating numbers and research which is the comprehension level.  You have constantly questioned throughout your review for week 07 in the application level not in hopes for immediate answers but applying information in search of viable solutions.  You offer examples in analysing the use of your Iphone to arrive to a conclusion that you can see as a pattern or trend, and you're right, our society has become dependent on technology.  You then supply some synthesis with the Argyris reading to cement your train of thought in the new predictions you were able to draw on in this review.  Lastly, the evaluation is the sixth level of leadership where you include not only your learning but what your team is doing in the cultural skills required for this management course.

    I would be very interested in what you will write for this week's peer review.  I also like that you have written a lot which says to me that you are engaging with not only the readings, your learning, team discussions and taken on the challenge to write to pass this paper and very well.

    I have nothing extra to add but keep questioning everything like you do.  As Marketing Manager for Fusion Partnership, thank you so much for all your hard work and I am so please that you are hot, hot, hot with numbers.  Check out the lastest report from Peter labelled "Short and to the Point."  I have emailed this already. Good luck!!!


    1. Thanks Nga, this is awesome feedback, I really value it (smile)

  2. My first thought in providing personal feedback is, what on earth am I supposed to tell myself. Of course my first instinct is to try and critique this reflection, however it's a hard task since I posted a journal I was fairly happy with. In rereading over it now it seems a bit like a mind fart (it that's still a term). But isn't that a reflection, when you get everything you are thinking out on to the page without hesitation. Within this course I constantly find myself coming up with so many question which is good, especially since I am doing an accounting degree where everything is normally black and white, questioning myself like this, although it's annoying, it is in actually fact great exercise for my mind/brain. 

    In looking at the structure of my reflection from week 7 I personally was trying to follow Daudelin's suggested structure, mostly because that is what is recommended, however in reading others journals this week it is interesting to see others take on the Daudelin theory, and that I am not the nay person starting to hate this Daudelin person. i don't mind following the writing structure, I think the reason I don't like her is because every piece of feedback steams back to her and its starting to get a bit repetitive/annoying. I am one to learn from my mistakes, but how am i suppose to take others feedback on board when I am not always 100% sure with the feedback I give. I know its not true but I almost feel like its a "theres no wrong answer" type situation. 

    The feedback Nga has given above is extremely valuable to me and I can see the time and effort she has put into providing this feedback, I just query if the feedback I give displays the same impression on people. Overall looking at my piece now I can see a bit more of Blooms theory, and feel I still have work to do in trying to determine whether to intertwine Daudelin and Bloom in my work, focus on one of them, or write pieces from a different point of view, maybe looking into other sources of effective reflection writing....