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

Last week, all members in our team reflected together to figure out our past mistakes, which was unwilligness to listen. We figured out the solution at the end which was to develop the patience to hear and understand other members' decisions in order to generate the constructive group discussion. We have sticked with this habit this week and it worked well; willingness to listen made many members in our team gain the confidence to speak up and present their personal ideas about the firm's development, and I could see many of us became more motivated and more willing to contribute their efforts. This is exactly linked to this week's Reading "Is Your Growth Strategy Flying Blind?", a firm must divides the responsibility among every small teams for the pursuit of fine granular opportunities to everyone. The team decided to split the tasks specifically and let everyone focus on their own tasks, but at the same time, each of us help and support the other members as well. As a result, everyone had the chance to fully present their personal ideas, our patience and humbleness helped us to listen to their ideas. Whenever there's disagreement, we would let every member to talk about their personal thoughts and providing the reasons of their decisions, this enabled our team to foster an effective discussion and come up with the ideas that satisfied everyone.

Everything seems went well throughout the week but our SHV wasn't that great!!! I didn't really pay too much attention on the reasons of our poor performance since I have many tasks from other paper, but I do feel that faliure has something to do with our firm's development strategies. According to the reading, the research showed that from 1999 to 2006, the correlation between firm's growth and sector growth rate increased for companies that had taken a granular approach to management and analyzed smaller slices. This reading made me suddenly wake up; in the past, many of us (include me) only looked at the key figures and information from financial statements, marketing reports and human resources reports and we frequently ignored the small, detailed information such as cost of SCU for every bike. Therefore, sometimes we would spend less money on the areas that have actually generated most of the revenue and spent the cash on those needless areas. This is why I must make my mind calm and develop the patience to focus on the detailed figures in order to find out what actually drag us behind. I learned that it is important to identify microsegments of customers, geographic regions, and production with the strongest market momentum. We must figure our which type of bike has strong market position and generate most of the revenue and profit and jettison those bikes that can only generate high finished good holding cost.

I think at this point, rather keep developing and launching the new bikes, it is wiser for our team to have a deep look on the advantages and disadvantages of our existing bikes. We only have three rollovers left and we cannot afford to make any "big lost" like two weeks ago. In fact, I really like an example from this week's reading, which was a large European manufaturer of personal-care product realized that divisional forecasts range from 1.6% to 7.5%, if we only look at the aggregated figures, then we will miss out the areas that has strong market position.

However, overall, I do love our weekly effort and team-collaboration, but again, this week's readings are the wake up call for all of us and I do believe we need to have few long hours, big team meetings in the coming week!!

1 Comment

  1. When I get to the end of your journal, I am left wondering what you are going to do differently. It sounds as if the plan is to "work harder" or to "try harder". That's because, having read your journal, I don't know what you are already doing. 

    As I understand it, you (and the team) have been focusing on the 'key' figures and not getting in deeper to the detail. It would be helpful to know why that was (clearly you thought your had a good work plan, or you wouldn't be doing it). Is that you're usual approach  or is it something you picked up from the rest of the team. 

    You have followed Daudelin's framework, but there is not enough detail for a read to judge how well you have done that, and as a consequence how good are your proposed actions (arising from your learning).

    If I am saying anything, it is that you need to provide more 'data' as explanation/illustration of what you mean.