Wiki contents

Journals

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

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This week’s group meetings have been the most productive yet, in my opinion. Due to disappointing results previously, which I think was needed for our learning to progress both as individuals and as a group, we were a lot more in depth in our decision making, looking at the figures in the reports a lot more, especially in relation to costs.

 

The problem we are facing this coming week, is fine-tuning our decisions. We have corrected our problem from last time and gotten back to a surplus in profit, but in order for it increase further, there are certain areas in the simulation that if improved could really increase our profit further. In this weeks reading by Baghai & Viguerie the write about how a company’s growth strategy can get lost in the big picture, and in order to find growth there is a need to “look at markets and performance under a microscope” (Baghai & Viguerie, 2009, pg 88). This I think relates directly to what is talked about in the other reading. Davenport says, “In a time when firms in many industries offer similar products and use comparable technologies, business processes are among the last remaining points of differentiation. And analytics competitors wring every last drop of value from those processes” (Davenport, 2006, pg 100). So through looking at markets and performance with a microscope, analytics are used in order to identify these areas of potential growth, they are what set a firm with similar products competitors apart.

 

So as the solution to our problem this week, in order for our firm to be able to fine-tune our decisions to create a further growth in our profit, we must look at everything with a microscope. We need to identify areas in the reports that can be improved and also areas in the market that can be further exploited. I feel as though these two readings couldn’t have come at a better time for our group, as it always seems every week, the readings relate almost directly to the problems we are facing at that time. 

 

Baghai, M., Smit, S., & Viguerie, P. (2009). Is your growth strategy flying blind? Harvard Business Review, 87(5), 86---96.

Davenport, T. H. (2006). Competing on analyticsHarvard Business Review, 84(1), 98--107.

2 Comments

  1. As I found in week 4, you followed Daudelin's guidelines of reflection really well, starting with articulation of a problem, moving to analysis of the problem and formulation of a theory, then ending with identified actions. This is a key strength to your journals. However I feel this week as opposed to in week four your actions are a lot more concise. You applied how you are going to use your learning in the final paragraph in better depth which helped bring your journal reach a more satisfactory conclusion. In saying that, in week 4 I noted you length may be an issue and again this journal was rather short. By adding more depth and reflection into the second paragraph, you could have incorporated more of the Baghai and Davenport readings into your journal, perhaps mentioning Baghai's key effects on growth. This could in turn help you to apply your learning to a context outside of your Mikesbikes experience.

     

  2. Hey there, 

    This reflection was particularly relatable to me, with my own team struggling to properly control our costs. As Angus said earlier, I can see clear evidence of you following Daudelins guidelines of reflection. You outlined how you were going to make your lessons of your problem actionable, perhaps to work your way further up Blooms levels of taxonomy by talking about the challenges of looking at everything under a microscope. For example, this would take more time and perhaps this isn't feasible with everyone's busy schedule. I thought your writing quality was good and I couldn't see anything wrong with it.

    In terms of your progress from the last time I gave you feedback, I can see your referencing is now on point, with no apparent errors to me (other than not including a references title, which I am not entirely sure is compulsory here but probably wouldn't hurt to include). I also think you have contextualised the theory better with MikesBikes application. Overall, quite a good improvement!

    Good luck with the rest of your roll-overs