Wiki contents

Journals

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

This week our team prioritised Mike's Bike over all other obligations since we realised the amount of work we need to put into it is huge should we want to get out of the bad situation that our firm was in. After hours of intense discussion, we managed to get the problems sorted and came up with a few different solutions. To be completely honest, this was the first time I really felt that every single member was engaged. At certain points of the meetings, discussion turned into arguments even from the less vocal members of the team. I see this as a good thing since it shows that all members are willing to express themselves and voice out their opinions instead of holding back. It is very important to be heard when you work in a team. This has been emphasised by the course structure which includes a peer review at the end. As a result, we did the best we could do for this roll-over and got all the predictions correct. I said "we did the best we could do" instead of "we did well" since we are still not out of the danger zone yet and still have to make many changes.

According to Davenport (2006), a firm's sources of strength include the right focus, the right culture, the right people, and the right technology. This is applicable to our team's performance largely. For example, this week we managed to put our focus in the right direction and executed neatly with the presence of all members, leading us to the results that we expected. We have also developed some kind of culture within our group, making it much easier to work together now than the first few weeks. Technology has been our friend since day one since we made full use of emailing and facebook to communicate effectively, saving us so much time in comparison to actual meetings. I strongly believe we got the right people in the team. Each of us knows our own department well and cooperate like a team with a high level of tranparency.

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

1 Comment

  1. Hi there,

    In terms of the structure, I am not sure you have followed Daudelin’s framework for learning accurately. You articulation of the problem is a little vague. Was the problem, the amount of work you needed to put it to get out of the ‘bad situation’? Since you do not really follow the articulation of the problem, I find it hard to identify the anyalysis of the particular problem. In future you should really try focus on one concrete experience you have had to follow the suggested framework which will help you as a person learn and grow. I am unable to connect to you review of your journal in week four but if I remember correctly, I gave similar advise on structure which I still feel you don’t not follow very well. I think I also mentioned something about skimming the readings and the effect of this. While you thought this was necessary and as to whether you still do this as a part of your study I do not know. I would however like to comment that in the readings it does in fact talk about “sources of strength include the right focus, the right culture, the right people, and the right technology” though their definitions of these seem to be a little different to the examples of how your team executes these. I think a more thorough evaluation of the readings would allow you to interpret these better.

    When referring to Blooms taxonomy, I feel that you haven’t quite reached those higher levels of the pyramid. You have knowledge of the readings but the extent of your knowledge does not really show through your journal. You make an attempt to apply it but you could further analyse the meaning of the reading and how this affects your team to try reaching those higher levels of analysis. By incorporating more readings you could perhaps reach synthesis as it would allow you to formulate complex ideas and solutions to matters of your group.

    Finally, in terms of the grammar and spelling, it really does reduce the quality of your journal. Your sentences should be broken down in parts of your journal to improve the clarity of what you are trying to say. In places I found that I had to read the sentences multiple times in order to make sense of it. Spelling is something which I myself don’t get right all the time but reading through even once would pick help eliminate some of them. Worlds like “transparency” could have been fixed through the use of spell check.  I hope this has been helpful. I have tried to be constructive as possible as summative journals are due soon so best of luck with that.