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

This week our team made a huge decision, we did a takeover to create what peter has labelled as a maga-firm. This week’s decision involved an incredible amount of analysis, determining which of the firms were best to take over. This is where I am feeling the problem lay for this week. We did extreme amounts of analysis into which of the firms to take over, but we never stopped to decide whether a takeover was a good idea at this stage at all. We had planned for the last few roll over’s to orientate ourselves towards having the resources available to do a takeover, and we all launched into who we would take over this roll over, rather than first analysing if we could or should do a takeover, and what the potential effects of the takeover would be. Needless to say when the roll over occurred and we looked at the results, we were shocked at how out SHV had plummeted. I personally thought there was something wrong with how I had opened the application, was I in the single player on accident? How was it possible for the SHV to drop by over 50%? Sure enough, when checking again, that is what had happened. Looking back at the process we took, we had depth of analysis, however we didn’t have breadth. It is suggested by Davenport (2006) that both breadth and depth are required for decisions, which is where the problem lay for us. We did a huge amount analysis into our competitors, considering where they were in the market and where their potential lay for a takeover. We didn’t do any analysis to decide if now was a good time to do the takeover, instead our analysis was based on who we should take over. This means that our analysis had depth in who to take over, however lacked breadth in terms of considering the whole decision.  In trying to understand this problem more, the reason for this lack of depth can potentially be attributed to not having 2 members of our team present at the meeting this week. This is most likely part of the problem as having more people present means that more thoughts are raised and both more breadth and depth can be achieved. This would result in more breadth which we seem to have lacked this week. In terms of going forward, our team will need to make an effort to make sure we have more breadth in our analysis and consider more areas when making decisions.



Davenport, T. H. (2006). COMPETING ON ANALYTICS. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 98-107.




  1. Hi Jennifer, I can see that your journal has improved quite a bit since week 4. In week 4 I said that you needed to further question your thoughts. At the time you said you were struggling with your teams need for strategy and role focus and I asked you to question whether you personally had a strategy  for your own role and to question whether your team shared the same concern. It is good to see that you have taken that on board and further analysed your journal by questioning your thoughts. You did this by questioning whether your team was ready for the take over at all and you also questioned what the impact of the takeover could be. You have done a good job in still following Daudelin's framework by identifying your problem to be that the takeover led to a drop in shareholder value and you believe the reason for this was that two members of your team were absent which prevented more concerns or questions being raised before the takeover. You also apply the readings to your journal quite well. However, for next time you may like to maybe define concepts from the reading a bit before you apply them, so that someone with no knowledge of the concept can gain a better understanding when they read your application. For instance briefly defining breadth and depth analysis. Also while you did raise some very good questions in your journal, it would be interesting to hear your answers to those questions. Did you think your team was ready for the takeover, if not did you raise this concern with your team? What do you think the impact of the takeover will be? Answering the questions you raise may help you reach the higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. Overall, I enjoyed reading your journal, it was very interesting and it was quite easy to read. Good luck for next weeks journal.

  2. Hi Jennifer, I liked this journal, it was a genuine flow of thoughts which is what I think journals should be all about. In terms of Daudlin's structure I believe you followed it well!, You clearly stated your problem, followed logical reasoning behind this problem and you stated you what you could do to overcome the issue.

    Overall this was a well structured journal and I wish you all the best for your next one

  3. Comparing your reading journal from week 4 to now, you can see a great improvement. You have followed Daudelins framework well, ticking off his stages in a nice flowing manner which i feel you did a lot better this week than in week 4. As for Blooms Taxonomy, you are doing well and reaching a high level but i feel as if it is lacking in some areas and i definitely agree with Zaynahs comment above, by reflecting over those questions she mentioned in you're next journal it will most likely improve that area of your journal! i really enjoyed reading your journal, it was well put together and flowed nicely making it a lot easier to read.