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

Reflecting over our performance from last rollover, our team took a serious hit financially, where we spent loads of cash and our profits had fallen considerably. I can easily analyse this problem according to Daudelin’s theory (1996). Our group was missing our CFO and hence a massive fault in our teams strategic decisions. We are so reliant on each person’s knowledge on a particular department, that if a member is missing on the day of the final decisions, our skills and effectiveness decrease as a team. We became confident in our decisions without bothering to pay attention to our overall expenditure. The team failed to take the time and care to calculate the exact figure and to the dollar certain decisions would impact. Instead we rather decided to round off to whole numbers, based on instinct and gut feel, pretending and conforming with one another that we knew what we were doing, rather than focus on quantitative tools.

This simulation is slowly starting to reveal just how much number crunching is actually required. It’s one thing to have a set strategy, even one that has been working really well, and another to analyse and tabulate data in order to create possible outcomes that achieve our goals. Davenport (2006) explains that employees hired for their expertise with numbers or trained to recognize their importance are armed with the best evidence and the best quantitative tools. He further states that this is why they make the best decisions. “In companies that compete on analytics, senior executives make it clear--from the top down--that analytics is central to strategy” (Davenport, 2006). Our CFO is proving instrumental in her hours tabulating the data and creating graphs to aid the decisions of our team. In this simulation, nothing can just be majorly changed without expecting a different outcome.

Based on our disappointment from last week we have decided to act in order to prevent a reeat rollover and dedicate additional time into our statistical analyses of the simulastion. We have also come to the realisation that we can only make decisions when our CFO is present. It is also a wakeup for the team that everyone’s department is important and even though we have an understanding of each department, we cannot pretend to be a professional in all of them.

 

References:

Daudelin, M. W. (1996). Learning from experience through reflectionOrganizational Dynamics, 24(3), 36--48

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

2 Comments

  1. What I'm finding difficult about commenting on your improvement with regards to the feedback I gave you in week 4 is that I provided feedback specifically on how to improve your week 4 journal, but I'm going to try my best to relate that feedback to this week's journal of yours (smile)

    Firstly, your journal was very easy to read and had a nicely flowing structure (as it also did in week 4)

    Seeing my review for your week 4, the one thing I addressed was suggesting that you be more specific and build upon your findings/beliefs. For example, you have concluded that you need your CFO throughout the entire decision making process and have justified why her expertise is necessary through Davenport's (2006) points. As we would all know, the CFO obviously plays a crucial role in this simulation but you did not discuss this assuming that everyone will understand upfront, in stead, you described your main problem without the presence of the CFO and how (through using Davenport (2006)) this can actually impact a business. So well done (smile)

    You have followed a few aspects of Daudelin's structure, such as identifying the problem and concluding with what you plan to do differently next time, however you have not formulated a few theories of how to settle the problem before deciding on the final step which would be a good idea to do in your summative (smile)

    Overall, good work (thumbs up)

  2. Hi Aron,

    Firstly, I was just a little taken by the extend your group goes with the simulation. It's made me realise the lack of effort our group, myself included puts into this "game". Your team is going through something that seems to be trending within most teams drawing close towards the end. In terms, of the roles, if your CFO isn't present, you should probably try and get the person with more of a financial background to take control rather than attempting to collaborate. As you have experienced, the confidence within one gets in the way and a consensus isn't entirely achieved. 

    In regards to week 4, its probably at the same level. Just make sure you proof read your future journals and especially the Summative Learning Journal.

    All the best with the rest.