Wiki contents


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

As we are heading into week 09 and our second to last learning journal I get the sense that everyone is drained out over their second semester in 2014. I am one who is looking forward to a nice, long, relaxing holiday. However there is still plenty of work to be done first before that. This week our Mikes Bikes team has moved forward on the strategy we developed in week 8 (had to indulge in a new strategy in week 7 as our SHV was around $1). But then again is our “growth strategy flying blind?” We have definitely come along way as a group since the beginning of semester. We’ve had our challenges and have overcome them. Nonetheless as R&D director I have my own strategy for the final rounds that I would like to discuss with our team before Week 9s roll-over. What I have learnt this week is growth is granular, but most companies aren’t.  

The reading by Baghai, Smit, and Viguerie (2009) really got me thinking about our team’s strategy. With so many thoughts going through my mind I was wondering: had we chosen the right strategy from the start? How many potential strategies are there? What are our competitors’ strategy? How many strategies do we need? Is it too late to change our strategy now? And latter of the questions really got me thinking. Maybe I have come up with a new approach to gain market share and economic value in the last few roll-overs. Was it too late? I will find out.

After viewing previous roll-overs I could analyse that growth is granular: consisting of small gains or particles. However the reverse effect happens when growth declines, it jumps down quickly, real quickly as our team has seen. When our SHV did increase every time it was always less than $10, it felt good at the time but comparing to where all competitors sit now maybe it wasn’t the best. It also felt miniature compared to Solo Mikes Bikes and practise roll-overs as a firm. This is due to many factors, especially increase in competition. Our growth was steadily sitting at the granular stage!

Baghai et al. (2009) also go onto mention that “many great companies continue to measure, manage, and organize themselves on the basis of relatively aggregated data. These companies are likely to miss important shifts in their performance and their markets”, and I feel this is what has happened with my team due to many reasons. One of them being the quality and specs of our bike were not up to standards of competitors but this wasn’t realized until a few weeks ago. Since then our hypotheses has been tested in the market where we developed a new Adventure and Leisure bike where we have been to able increase sales due focusing on the market rather than all the data available (as noted above data can be a problem).

Apart from this testing method I feel that this is my last opportunity to prove to our shareholders we can be a highly attractive company and the next time I might have to do this is in my future career/ job.

Looking back, if this strategy works in the final few roll-overs then I will regret not coming up with is sooner. However I feel that this is the sense of weekly journals, readings, and team discussion. We are always learning what others are exposing to us.

Any way I look forward to discussing my new strategy with my team and hopefully it works out to be the best option where we see an opposite to a granular effect.

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


  1. It appears that in week 4 I have provided feedback specifically on how to improve week 4's journal. In trying to relate what I wrote you in week 4 to this week's journal of yours, I have gathered that I suggested you needed to give your own opinions on the readings and to also question the theories.

    While you have written a very strong journal, and have followed Daudelin's structure very well, i feel like you could still include your opinions here and there. For instance, what do you believe prevented you from thinking up of this new strategy from the start?

    It seems as though you agree with the author's theory, but is there anything about the theory that you don't agree with, given your experience this past week? Some questioning of the theory would be good as you write your summative, but overall you're doing a good job here, keep it up!

    All the best (thumbs up)

  2. It seems I mentioned in week 4 on that review that you can improve by using the appropriate in text citations, it is good to see that you have done that in this journal.

    Your journal is still of a high quality with an easy to read and clear style of writing. You followed Daudelin's structure well and addressed the literature and related it to your experiences also. To further improve though, I would suggest analysing and evaluating the readings critically so you get more perspectives on the theories and ideas presented in the readings and how they relate to your experiences.