To start this journal off, it must first be stated that we as a team rose to the challenge last week with our SHV increasing significantly with some blind luck, technological and conceptual skill and the power of our team. It has been mentioned in readings of previous weeks about the power of a team but it only really shows when the only defining difference between companies in the simulation is their team. This week however started almost immediately on a very different note than what would be commonly expected from a team that was doing well. In the first meeting, for the members that could make it, the discussion was targeted towards focusing our strategy, changing the business model and moving with the shifting sands of the market. The problem that we identified was firstly our large costs that had reduced our overall profitability. It was apparent it was a problem as we had foreseen warning signs in our competitor’s results. They had created an incumbent position as the dominating team in the market of China, but suddenly what was observed while scrimmaging through the previous rollover’s data was a decrease in profits that had surged over the previous years. As our strategy had been relatively similar to that of the top team it was clear that the market was changing and to make sure that we could escape the collapse, we had to develop a plan.
It is always remarkable to me that the readings prescribed for the week holds such relevance to the actions of our team for that week. As I only readings after the rollovers to effectively reflect upon our teams actions, the fact that our teams focus was an analytical one to first analyse our competitors positions, the markets shifts and a change of stages in the company life cycle makes Baghai, Smit & Viguerie (2009) an immensely relevant reading. Davenport (2006) suggests that many organisations that can be identified as ‘aggressive analytics competitors’ were clear leaders in their fields. It can be well assumed that to gain a strategic competitive advantage in this simulation, one must focus on being an aggressive analytic to overcome competitor’s actions. So from our analysis of the industry and our strongest competitors, we identified several significant changes that our firm wanted to focus on which primarily targeted the problems associated with immense costs as well as focusing our product range to avoid being spread to far like many of our competitors. From these actionable outcomes came the results of the rollover which saw our SHV rise another 10 points. This affirmed our previous analysis of the competitive environment, with special regards to the top competitor falling for the first time in SHV by 10 points. As soon as the results became available, a meeting took place on facebook, only preliminary sharing appraisal but then focused on analysing the valuable data from an extraordinary shift in our market. What could only be observed as competitors falling like houses of cards around us, there seems to be only two teams that were unaffected. Are we going to get stuck in a trap of overconfidence? From our informal meeting, it seems that there is greater fear that although we did not fall this week, there is no certainty we will not fall the next. It is a game of chance, strategy and luck. It will be our actions next week that will define our position in the market, but at least we have a good foot to stand on.
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 analytics. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 98--107.