Wiki contents


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

It’s been an interesting week. Never have we put so much work into a rollover and never have we done quite so badly. I haven’t had to time to analyse completely what went wrong, but my initial thinking is something went very wrong with the market as well, as other companies is our world experienced a significant drop. Funnily enough, this week’s readings seem focus on analysis, which is rather serendipitous.

So my ‘problem’ is what processes can we as a team put in place to ensure this doesn’t happen again, and that help us rebuild our share price.  Both readings discuss at length the value of deep and detailed analysis, and I think we as a team do some very deep and detailed analyses. However where I think we can improve is in the breadth of our analyses. For example, we put a lot of analysis into our takeover bid, but we didn’t look deeply enough into the wider ramifications of this for our company. I think one key area we need to understand better is exactly how the share price is calculated. I feel as though there must be some sort of threshold concept here that I am just not getting. There is so much detail to this simulation and unlike the real world it is all completely quantifiable; the trick is just figuring out how. Davenport (2006, p. 107) asserts that many organisations that they identified as “aggressive analytics competitors” were “clear leaders in their fields”. Companies that don’t have an advantage built on cost can outperform their competitors through optimised business processes. This has certainly been our experience in our market, as we had a lower market share than our main competitor but we were much more profitable, perhaps because we analysed at a deeper level.

So my ‘tentative hypothesis’ for this week is that we need to expand the breadth of our analysis, as we are obviously missing things. I’ll have to ponder how to best do this from a process perspective, as I don’t want to have us put in an overly excessive amount of time in what is after all only a 20% assignment




Davenport, T. H. (2006). COMPETING ON ANALYTICS. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 98-107.


  • No labels


  1. I agree with you, I thought that the readings highlighted the problems quite well this week, as well as other weeks. However, with some of your sentences I didn't really quite understand what you were trying to portray, perhaps it would be a good idea to give a detailed explanation for your problem and what steps you have done to solve it.


  2. I think the drop also has a lot to do with takeovers, which I am sure will naturally improve in the next rollovers. Rather than saying that something went wrong with the market, I think you need to analyse what YOU and your team did wrong or could improve on as the market and demand is still there. You say you have never put in so much work and never done quite so badly. So what did you do differently from the previous weeks that resulted in this downfall? What work did you put in that was different to more successful weeks? You could compare and contrast the two outcomes in order to fulfill the learning criteria for the journals. I agree that the MikesBikes simulation is very detailed and sensitive which I also had trouble with, but how to calculate share price is something simple that you and your team mates can easily look up (google). You haven't really articulated what you have learned from your experiences and I would advise you to revise Daudelin's reflective learning model (as well as Bloom's taxonomy) to improve your next journal - it is a reflective learning journal after all, which I think will also help improve the flow of your journal.

  3. Hi Daniel, I know you already have two reviews but Peter has asked me to review our team. As this journal review is in the following week I will try to not allow myself to comment too much on how things actually turned out rather than what you have written.


    I feel as though you followed daudelins learning structure well, you identified your concerns as the strong decrease in Shv and analysed the potential reasons behind this. You also give a hypothesis toward the end about increasing our analysis but don't give examples of what you could specifically do. However, you do explain that you'll have to give it some thought due to the time restraints of this course.

    All in all a good journal, strong referencing but could use some more specific examples.

    Cheers, Jack.