Reflection On Little Field Simulation

Feb4, our team name, represents fabulous 4 people who would perform well in the little field simulation to achieve a high rank and who would establish the trustful relationships that last even after the simulation. Before starting the simulation, our team members committed to improve both operations skills and virtual teamwork by clarifying action plan and assigning role and responsibilities. However, despite the fact that we created a decent action plan and process on the little field simulation exercise, we ended up with the result of lower than average in terms of both performance and member engagement.
The result was unexpected because our group dynamic was excellent at the beginning. To be specific, it was easy to design role and responsibility because our members were collaborative and supportive to each other’s

As described by Catherine Durnell Cramton, we clearly had difficulties due to dispersed collaboration. We failed to establish mutual knowledge because all members had different levels of interests in this exercise. Nef is the team member who did analysis and knew all about details about the little field simulation, but this knowledge could not have immersed to other members because it was difficult for all members to invest time in order to fully understand logics. Especially, some members in our teams had difficulty to manage their busy schedule including school works and professional working hours. The other reason we failed to establish mutual knowledge was attributed to the means of communication. It was not enough to enable our team to communicate in the real time because we were physically located far apart. At the critical moment when we made a final adjustment decision, Nef could not engage. Therefore, our team made a poor quality decision which dropped our ranking from 29th to 117th during the last 100 simulated