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 weeks challenge was to find a way to bounce back from our epic fail which involved a reevaluation of our strategy.  Personally, I only understood our strategy after the first three rounds.  In our reevaluation, we found that although we did carry it out, we ignored what our competition was doing.  Our current situation showed that we had a bike in every market, while other firms had chosen to have multiple bikes in one segment and did not penetrate every market.  We had been looking at the market too broadly which didn't allow us to dominate any market, only taking away a percentage.

Baghai, Smit and Viguerie (2009) suggest specifying your market instead of having a broad view as this will show the true condition of it and reveal possible opportunities for growth.  Relating this back to mikes bikes, we were looking too broadly, we unintentionally aimed to release a new bike in every segment which in effect increased costs marketing wise while not really gaining enough market share to justify remaining.  

Having identified this mistake, I cannot really say whether there is any action I can take this late into it.  If I had more time, I would probably withdraw from certain unprofitable markets and concentrate on my most profitable markets.  To identify this however is more than seeing what brings in more profit margin, but rather how dominated is each market and how easy would it be to gain market share.  This again comes back evaluating the market more specifically.  But overall, it is definitely too late for this, so all I can do is possibly withdraw from markets, reinvest that money back into other bikes and hopeit is  all worth it for the final rollovers.

References

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

1 Comment

  1. Hi Stephanie,

    In reading my feedback I gave to you last time, my comments revolved around how you could into more depth with your use of theory and how you could have articulated your problem more clearly. I find myself thinking similar thoughts now as I did then. Overall, a good quality journal, but lacking depth. I don't see much improvement, but I definitely don't see that you've done anything worse. I still think you need to articulate your 'problem' more clearly, even as explicitly as saying "my problem for this week is...". It really helps to frame what you're writing about. In this journal, you are really only demonstrating the 'comprehension' (and hints of application) stage of Bloom's Taxonomy. You only take one point from the reading then relate it to you experience. Overall I think you just needed to write more and weave more theory into your discussion.