Wiki contents

Journals

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

Going into the roll over for Mikes Bikes this week, I felt very confident with the decisions that were made. In fact, I was eager for the 5 o’clock rollover to happen as I felt like our SHV was going to skyrocket. However 5.05pm came around and our SHV did anything but that.

Checking the results for this week was frustrating especially because I felt we had made such good progress at the concluding end of the first half of semester. I wasn’t only annoyed that our SHV had dropped quite significantly, but also after looking at the reports my annoyance grew as I couldn’t figure out where we went wrong this week.

I decided to get my work out of the way Friday morning so after the rollover happened, I began to read the “Teaching Smart People How to Learn”. My initial thought about this reading was that it would be relatable to this week’s failure. Even after reading the first page I see what I had been doing wrong in regards to mikes bikes and analysing reports and decisions from previous years.

“Focus on correcting errors” … a major issue seen in organisations highlighted by (Argyris, 1991). After reading this sentence it was almost like a light bulb went off in my head. This was the exact problem I have been faced with not only for this week but for the entire simulation. Every week when analysing the reports and weighing up the differences between decisions of each year, I always looked at it in the way of “what went wrong.” This is the main problem. I feel like I have focused too much on the negative side to each rollover and trying to fix these problems e.g. the huge amount of idle time we can’t seem to get rid of or the quality being too low even though we are going for a high quality product in some markets. Until now I haven’t reflected on the flow on effects this might have caused which is likely to have built up for a number of weeks now and could have been the reason that our Mikes Bikes team has suddenly crashed. Why have I been focusing so much on the errors and not looking at the other end of the spectrum of highlighting the positives and the aspects of the simulation that have worked?

After reading (Argyris, 1991), I must admit it did make me feel a little better as this is a common problem within organisations as well as the feeling of annoyance that I was hit with. But how can I fix it? I feel like there are some short and long term solutions. A short term solution to this issue of focusing on the negative aspects of each rollover decision could be to go into the next analysis decision with an open mind and be wary of all aspects of the 2016 round and not just highlight areas where we went wrong. By this I mean looking at all reports and instead of seeing where we were disadvantaged in an area turn my focus to the broader aspects and what factors contribute to what and linking the pros and cons of each report together. This would create a more synergistic approach to our analysis. This short term solution would be great going forward and be the quickest more simplistic approach to take, however it wouldn’t require looking at previous rollovers up until the most recent and following the same steps. Thinking back on rollovers, there are a number of big factors/numbers that have been changed from round to round, so I feel a more long term solution which would create a better understanding of how our SHV came to be what it was in each year would be to look at each individual year and analyse what went well and what went badly and then creating a spreadsheet or qualitative analysis over what were the changes that always led to benefits and simultaneously for negatives. As the CFO of the bike company, I do take full responsibility for these changes and take full blame for a lack of synergy and collective view being applied in the past.

I have decided to look back and make judgements on all reports and highlight areas of concern and areas of excellence and try to come to terms with just what key factors and figures contributed to this. Although this process will be done after this journal is completed, I hope after I have achieved this task I am able to identify why our SHV for this round significantly went down.

After I have hopefully recognised areas that need greater attention to detail, I will try and implement effective communication towards all team members (not just the CEO), in order to create effective and efficient team performance in the future.

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

2 Comments


  1. Hey Chloe (wink)

    I think you point out good points within our team, I hadn't thought of it that we always focus on the negative points of what we are doing wrong rather than the positive. I think this is something we can definantley work on as a team. It's interesting to read your perspective on why we went wrong as a team, I thought it may have been for other reasons as well. Overall you have written a really sound journal and in my opinion I can see you have followed Daudelin's approach to reflection of the week. A couple of improvements for next time would be to create four suscinct paragraphs, what I mean by this is for example your first few paragraphs where you are identifying the problem i.e. Paragraph 1,2,3...I think you could combine these together as they all relate (same with the last two paragraphs). This is how I tell if someone has tried to follow Daudelin by have four strong paragraphs. However, these are only minor details as I can tell you have analysed and applied the reading to your journal and overall written a strong learning journal this week with some really great points.

    P.S. What is "hult"? (big grin) See you next week!

  2. Hey Chloe really good learning Journal it is clear you have a good grip of what is expected in terms of application of the initial readings on learning processes. The flow and grammar side of your work is also very good. I liked how you went through the readings and learning processes step by step. Not much to improve on but perhaps join a few of the paragraphs together to make more chunky ones.