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

The circumstances are only becoming more complicated. Gaining an advantage or outperforming other firms within a market is now more difficult than ever. Contributing to this limitation is saturation from many similar products. This leads to the question and the subsequent problem. How do we make PsiclePath and its products stand out? Avoiding the trap of creating an underperforming product in the bid to be innovative is crucial. Kim and Mauborgne (2002) compare strategic differences which lead to factors of competition. Although the scenario case study discussed is different from the simulation, the underlying idea of focusing on a factor that has a great effect on success is similar.

The problem presents itself despite PsiclePath’s SHV topping the charts. The take-over has led to a boost in SHV and is currently the primary contribution. Increasing PsiclePath’s SHV without relying on subsidiary SHV contribution is another matter.Taking note of the fact that good progress has many indicators and depends entirely on perception, a few observations were made. Slow growth of PsiclePath had been masked with the high SHV. Maintaining a high SHV is the main objective but growth cannot be neglected as the latter leads to the former. Analysis and questioning led to reasons for the slow growth. Focus had been on the major indicators of success. A change in decisions that we can make to promote growth would require a balance between risk, reward, and the impact on our SHV.

Davies and Easterby-Smith (1984) had suggested that development occurs best in an environment that is unfamiliar and new. Innovation is what is expected from our team and was considered the underlying idea behind our proposed solution. The solution is not as complex although it involves risk. The solution for slow growth was deemed compatible with our firm's overall strategy. Tackling the problem with my team required a look at the bigger picture after a step back. Gaining clarity and insight into both our strategy and that of other teams played its part of the solution. 


References

Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. (2002). Charting your company's future. Harvard Business Review, 80(6), 76–83

Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial work experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 169–182

2 Comments

  1. Hey Vincent,

    This was a very good learning journal this week.  I can see and relate to the problem you are having, making sure you don't loose SHV is very important, which can hinder risk taking.  I can see that your have used Daudelin's process and it is clear to me what your problem is and the solution you are proposing.  Also I thought references were nicely linked to the problems and solutions you have mentioned.

    A few small things to improve would to maybe go into a little more depth with your solution, for example how you would maybe adjust your strategy to exponentially increase SHV.  Also, just to make your journals a little easier to follow, maybe use subheadings in relation to Daudelin's 4-stages of learning, however this is just a suggestion.

    Overall, this was a really good learning journal and I wish you and your team all the best for your future rollovers.

    Cheers,

    Max.

  2. Evening Vincent, 

    Easily one of the most interesting and thought provoking journals I have read throughout this course. As a competitor it is interesting to see the thoughts behind PsiclePath's team.

    Not much to really improve on in my point of view, except for maybe subheadings in following Daudelin's unless it messes with the flow of your writing.

    Best of luck in future rollovers (although hopefully not as lucky as Rackk City Bikes (wink))