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.