The paper "Team’ s Performance and Dynamics" is a perfect example of management coursework. The overall team performance over the simulation round can be outlined and described as satisfactory. On one hand, the team was based on a strategic assumption that a focus on the cost of goods reduction would increase organizational profitability. Therefore, the team focus was based on reducing these overall costs while increasing the overall market values. In its duties execution, the team applied an overall team collaboration approach to enhance performance and based its operation on an assumption that the members were committed and self-driven and there required no push to corporate.
In addition, as a move to improve future performance, the team intends to develop a social setup through which the game promotes increased social interactions and relations. Team Dynamics In regard to the team dynamics, I offer the argument that the decision making was inclusive. In this regard, the team leader allowed all the members an opportunity to contribute and offer their views on strategic simulated issues such as the target market ratios as well as on appropriate projects over the three years.
However, extensive involvement according to my views is that it led to a slow decision-making process and served as one of the reasons why my team never completed the third year simulation. Nevertheless, a motivational evaluation established that due to increased corporation and participation, the members were highly motivated and willing to proceed with the game into consecutive years into the future. Challenging Game Aspect One of the game aspects that I found as most challenging was the development of appropriate organizational projects. Personally, I am accustomed to the Australian market and culture and thus have minimal knowledge and perception of the global international business operating environment an aspect that was used to develop recommendations and their challenges.
However, through reliance on team members, I develop a wide-based knowledge of the operations of ventures in the international market. Peer Discussion A personal evaluation of the game findings establishes that the overall EBIT value is gradually declining. This, as can be evidenced, has declined from $492 million on year 1of the simulation to $389 million at the end of year 3.
This is despite the increasing organizational overall market share that as of year 3 was above 30%. Moreover, this is despite the increased share market value in the industry. Therefore, I personally argue that in order to compete in a highly competitive market, the company should focus on reducing its overall prices. This would, in turn, increase its total sales values, a virtue imperative in the development and enhancement of increased gross profit margins in the long run. On the other hand, the group overall evaluation noted findings similar to mine that despite the increasing market share and share market values, the overall organizational EBIT value was on the decline.
As such, some of the team members advocated that as an approach to mitigate this challenge, the organization should consider concentrating on a single products line. Therefore, the advocated for the narrowing down of the product based on the current diversification to a single product chain targeting a specific single market segment. Others also argued that an increased negation of the population segment over 36 years that have the largest potential consumers’ population was a major contributory factor that should be corrected in the business future.
Despite the different alternative approaches though which the current organizational challenge can be overcome, the team members findings had a convergence in that they agree o the major challenge and potential long term strategic implications of a declining EBIT in the company. Therefore, In my own view, my findings and appraisal on the overall game outcomes had a minimal difference with those of other group members and that any differences exhibited were rather tactical than fundamental.
However, in my view,
Al-Omiri, M. 2007, "A preliminary study of electronic surveys as a means to enhance management accounting research", Management Research News, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 510-524.
Ashby, A., Leat, M. & Hudson-Smith, M. 2012, "Making connections: a review of supply chain management and sustainability literature", Supply Chain Management, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 497-516.
Combe, I.A. & Botschen, G. 2004, "Strategy paradigms for the management of quality: dealing with complexity", European Journal of Marketing, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 500-523.
Ellinger, A., Shin, H., Northington, W.M., Adams, F.G., Hofman, D. & O'Marah, K. 2012, "The influence of supply chain management competency on customer satisfaction and shareholder value", Supply Chain Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 249-262
Lacey, R. & Morgan, R.M. 2009, "Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs", The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 3-13
Netzer, O., Lattin, J.M. & Srinivasan, V. 2008, "A Hidden Markov Model of Customer Relationship Dynamics", Marketing Science, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 185-204,309-310.
Niu, K., Miles, G. & Lee, C. 2008, "Strategic development of network clusters: A study of high technology regional development and global competitiveness", Competitiveness Review, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 176-191.
Szwejczewski, M., Lemke, F. & Goffin, K. 2005, "Manufacturer-supplier relationships: An empirical study of German manufacturing companies", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 875-897.
Wilson-Jeanselme, M. & Reynolds, J. 2006, "The advantages of preference-based segmentation: An investigation of online grocery retailing", Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 297-308.
Yang, J. 2012, "Identifying the attributes of blue ocean strategies in hospitality", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 701-720