Before I write this learning journal for today I just want to preface it by saying that I intend to on Sunday morning edit this document to include some references to the readings. However as I have had to leave Auckland on an urgent basis to attend a funeral I am writing this from an Internet Cafe in New Plymouth so my time is limited.
A recurring theme and probably the greatest thing I have learnt through the Mikes Bikes program is that you should always take information given to you with a grain of salt. Throughout the simulation this has included pieces of advice from our own Peter Smith which included the below:
- Why are you only making two new bikes instead of maybe five.
- Have you considered entering two bikes into the same market.
- How about decreasing your inspection rate as you have invested in quality systems throughout the game , perhaps even to 0%.
Of course I understand Peter's position being that the simulation changes each year to present different complications/situations and can appreciate that each of these thoughts may have been beneficial in prior versions of the simulation. However on each of the above occasions our team ran tests in the single player mode and consulted the game guides, on each occasion the advice had good intentions, would not have produced positive outcomes.
This leads me to my problem for this week: Why weren't my estimates adding up quite right (more detail on this in the learning portfolio, once again to not help any teams out). This problem is to say that my inputs were not producing the outcomes I had anticipated. Upon a deep dive and analysis of single play rollover results I was able to find a flaw in the Mikes Bikes Advanced players manual. Although, I can't really blame myself for believing what the guide said (completely incorrect information) I should have realized things weren't adding up sooner. What this has taught me was two key things:
#1) Always check yourself and measure the accuracy of your own forecasting. This will enable you to notice if things aren't quite right.
#2) Don't take things at face-value, even if logic dictates that the information should be absolutely the law.
As a result of noticing this I have taken two actions:
%1) Going forward I have of course modified my inputs to reflect the actual procedure/logic of the simulation.
%2) Emailed Smart Sims directly with a quasi-complaint, this has since been replied to and SmartSims will be making a change to the player guide at some point. Although I will note, SmartSims did not really show as much concern or take as much ownership as I would have expected them to. It really helps to know the rules of the game you are playing but I guess sometimes you have to learn them yourself.
Going forward, what I will really take from this experience and apply to my future are the points outlined in #1 and #2. This is to be that I need to really take responsibility for ensuring my own inputs are getting the results I expect and really questioning WHY and investigating if things are not adding up. In the real world not all the information of how to do things will be handed to you on a plate and at times I may even be fed mis-information. It will ultimately be my responsibility to develop strategies to both recognise and address such cases so that they do not harm me as adversely (or even more so) than the incorrect information has inhibited my decision making within the simulation.
Thanks for reading and UP SUGMA