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 we were in a bit of an unfamiliar situation, our first rollover did not go as planned. We lost shareholder value and profits were down. It seemed that we were unable to accurately predict the competitors’ decisions in order to plan appropriately for our own decisions. We sold out of our bikes and lost out on over 11 million in sales. Devising a more focused strategy and concentrating on figuring out the numbers and mastering the spreadsheets. However this doesn’t give us insight as to what the competitors will do and how it will affect our own performance. We decided to adopt a strategy that was impossible to fulfil due to the limited capacity and the high SCU requirements of adventure bikes which led to us selling out of bikes quickly. In hindsight, we should’ve been able to see that coming and only employ our initial strategy as a long term strategy and had a different strategy in order to set up our previous strategy. From here on I think we should really look at the numbers and the activities of the competition to closely monitor their decisions. From that we will be able to make more accurate predictions of what the competitors will do in the market and respond accordingly.

In the reading this week Peiperl (2001) suggested the notion that when - executives understand and manage around 4 inherent paradoxes – peer appraisal can take place without negative effects. One of the Paradoxes, the paradox of group performance: where focusing on individuals puts the entire group at risk. This made me think about my team and whether we can even focus on any individual as I believe that every group member is putting in the work and that our performance isn’t reflective of any one individual’s performance rather a collective oversight. We will probably gather to discuss possible responses to this rollover and it will be interested to see the results.


Peiperl, M. A. (2001). Getting 360° feedback rightHarvard Business Review, 79(1), 142--147


  1. I really liked this learning journal. It has a good structure, adherent to Daudelins framework and at the same time is is concise and covers the whole area. You have a good problem analysis and I like how you have included what your group was aiming for and also some things you should've done differently. You have also done well to include some possible solutions for the problem you are having. You have also done well to incorporate the readings into your work and you have been able to relate it to your own group experiences from the week. It is good that you chose one specific element and talked about that rather than just broadly covering the whole reading. Well done. 

  2. You have made a good attempt at your learning journal. However, your writing lacked depth as you failed to adopt a critical perspective and analyse your ideas with appropriate use of academic sources. For example, in the first paragraph you mentioned choosing a strategy which was impossible to fulfill. You could have elaborated and explained why this was the case and how your business model did or didn't align with this. Furthermore, you could have made use of previous readings on strategy and how such theoretical concepts tied in with your experience. One thing which added to the quality of your writing was the actionable takeaways you provided about monitoring your competitors and forecasting, and how this would help improve your decision-making based on your predictions. This met the last criteria for Daudelin's framework perfectly. In future, I would pay more attention to using theories which are more closely aligned with your learning experience for the week. Otherwise, good job!