This week’s rollover (particularly the decision making process) was, I guess, the most interesting ever because my team started considering a number of different and (incredibly) unique ways to improve our company performance without changing our goal or strategy. I could feel other members’ passion for our firm and was surprised at their ability to come up with a stunning idea. One of readings in this week about how to seize the opportunities to grow or improve performance seemed quite beneficial for our firm to realize whether or not our decision making has been truly appropriate. I think that our decision making and growth strategy has been accurate but our way of growth seems a bit different from what competitors are currently doing. In my opinion, this is not an issue but such difference cannot be ignored.
First, according to the reading “Is your growth strategy flying blind? (Baghat, 2009)”, a more granular approach is required to enable a firm to grow. In terms of understanding market potential, I think that my team members have enough capability to assess segments and markets and our strategy to increase market share seems to be recognized as a precise manner (Baghat, 2009). On the other hand, however, our competitors are good at sizing up by the other way such as acquisitions. Considering the density of market entry of firms in the country we are operating in, I reckon that it is fairly hard to find or guess the market segment which has the best potential because what we think is the best may be the same or similar to other firms’ expectation. Ironically, too much guessing will usually lead us and competitors to the same direction (I don’t know why though…). In this situation, acquisitions seem really good way to gain the source of growth with low risks of such guessing war and, in that sense, some of competitors are currently doing well and seem talented enough for us to compete with.
What I still do not know is how much those different sources of growth make a difference in performance between my firm and competitors. As I mentioned, acquisitions seem critical but critical way or idea sometimes includes more risks in terms of costs in particular. In MikesBikes, firms can takeover a firm to gain more market potential but there is the possibility that such potential cannot cover the costs because potential is just potential. Therefore, my team needs to consider whether or not other firms can take an advantage from the takeover and, if so, to what extent they can. Depending on our thoughts about those questions, we need to come up with more precise plan to beat them.
Overall, this week’ journal was quite interesting and clearly indicated that our company and competitors’ action in the last couple of rollovers were appropriate and different approaches have made our competition much more interesting. Now that we just only have two weeks to go in terms of MikesBikes simulation so I really hope that those following team activities will lead us to our long term goal
Baghai, M., Smit, S., & Viguerie, P. (2009). Is your growth strategy flying blind? Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 86---96.