It seems to always amaze me when the readings for the week represent an issue I have faced in the week prior within the Mike’s Bikes simulation. Week 9s reading by (Davenport, 2006) addresses the use of analytics and analysing the detail within all areas of the company. Therefore pretty much addressing the skill of understanding every single little detail of the organisation and the link between different aspects of departments. After weeks of Mike’s Bikes I can easily say achieving the task of analytical control is EXTREMELY hard. I guess this is why (Davenport, 2006) mentions how only a handful of organisations are able to pull of proficiency from this even though a high number of firms are embracing analytics.
Weeks and weeks have been spent, well so I thought, on analysing data entries and analysing what our competitors have been doing both in the past, present and future decisions. Why is it so hard to get it right? Now I’m not over dramatizing my point here. Analytical control is very hard – well for me and my group at least, as our share price has just decrease dramatically over the last three weeks. Are we doing something wrong? Is there a part of this analytic analysis we are missing? I really couldn’t tell you the answer to this, however if we are missing something I thought we would have realised a couple of weeks ago.
Across our team we have a wide range of skills, knowledge and backgrounds. We all major in different areas with management only really being our common skill. Going into the simulation I thought this would be a huge competitive advantage as different brains looking at different problems in different ways creating different solutions to problems. A couple weeks ago I didn’t think we had many problems. However after doing this weeks readings, I’m beginning to see the problems of lack of coherency in understanding the linkages between different departments and figures which help towards producing the final SHV.
How do we fix this issue so late into the simulation? Well I certainly aren’t one to give up easily. I pride myself on my hard working, dedicated personality whether it is within a university class or sports team. Growing up always playing sports I was faced with challenges of being in losing teams and I feel like my ability to push through and still work hard and persevere with my actions has rubbed off within the Mike’s Bikes simulation failure. Us as a team works hard, every week we meet for hours with a couple of hours spent on analysing our past weeks results, coming up with a plan to tackling the current week/rollover and then spending some time discussing how this is going to help up in future rollovers. However our time spent what I thought was “analysing” and developing a strategy doesn’t seem to be showing. All I can think of as a solution so late in the game is not to give up. Giving up with a week or so to go isn’t going to achieve anything or do our like 6 or so weeks of work any justice. Mike’s Bikes was hard but I guess that’s why we are made to do it. It’s a real life simulation which was a great introductory simulation to what it might be like out in the “real world”.
Overall even though we only have a couple of weeks left, trying to fix problems and consistently trying to figure out really what is wrong with your business and developing the skills talked about in (Davenport, 2006) is only going to further apply my knowledge across all areas of business and set me up in an advantageous position for my future job. The solutions to the disappointing results I feel just need to be focused around maintaining the good team work, communication, skills and decision making techniques we have developed over the semester. Just because our results don’t reflect the quality of work we put in, a change of mindset towards the game won’t help these results in any way. I feel this is the best solution to the problem and you never know what might happen in the rollover.