Metric system? It depends!

The title is kind of an inside joke with me because I remember being in high school (a long, long time ago) and being told that we (the US) would be converting to the metric system in the not too distant future.  Here we are thirty-something years later and we still see inches, feet, miles, etc.  Of course, we’re talking about a different metric system in marketing, but I find it amusing.  I also find amusing Prof. Spotts continuous use of “It depends!”  One of my favorite quotes from my undergraduate mentor and thesis advisor, Dr. Norman Collins, Jr., was that you could answer almost any question with “it depends,” but then you had to dig for and find the required information or make assumptions to correctly and completely answer the question.  Although my undergraduate degree (’95) is in Engineering Technology, it wasn’t offered by the College of Engineering at the University of Delaware.  It was actually through the College of Agricultural Sciences (now called the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources).  The first time I met Dr. Collins, I thought he was a janitor because of the way he was dressed.  Ah, assumptions!  I regret not keeping in touch with him because he passed in 2007 and I do consider him one of the top three teachers/professors in my life.

So what metrics have we chosen?  Since I am on the team that was available for the live class, we got to choose.  Looking at the results, our choice did not give us any advantages based on the results so far.  In fact, I’m pretty sure one metric had our team ranked last in the class.  Our challenge is gaining ground based on the actions we defined in our marketing plan.  Maybe our choice of metrics was based on what we already knew we were lacking.  Choosing metrics which accentuate what you are good at can be a recipe for disaster.  There is also the trap of “tell me how you will measure me and I’ll tell you how I’ll perform.”  This can also be a recipe for disaster, as managers manipulate real performance around performance indicators.  The metrics chosen should be objective enough so as not to allow manipulation, but should also show you that you are moving toward your goals and mission. 

 
We are supposed to also comment on three other classmate’s blogs, different from our choices last week and not our teammates.  That doesn’t leave a lot to choose from in a class this size, but… So far, Mindy is the only available classmate who has posted a blog this week (and I know I am one of the worst offenders at posting as late as possible).  She provides a good analysis of why teamwork can be important, the diversity of opinions that need to be considered.  Conflict without confrontation can be extremely helpful in a team setting.  Equally, groupthink can be disastrous.  I also haven’t commented on Abhishek’s blog, yet, even though I have enjoyed reading several of his posts.  He maintains structured and organized responses to prompts and providing the required information and/or assumptions made when providing his answers.  I’ve been holding off commenting on Justin’s blog, even though I do like the way he ties College Football into every post with relevance to the course work presented.  I’m hoping to add a little football theme (specifically, playbooks) to my last blog post for this class.

My experience, so far, with PharmaSim has been interesting, but, after listening to Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” I’m wondering how much the simulation is based on real probabilities or what the creators’ opinions are.  My concern here is actually based on a concern that we ran into with our simulator at Vermont Yankee.  The simulator was showing almost full DC voltage (125VDC) on our batteries after a simulated loss of AC power for more than two hours.  My calculations show that DC voltage would be about 110VDC, based on the assumed loads on the batteries.  This gives the false impression that nothing needed to be done to restore AC power to our battery chargers.  Fukushima has shown us otherwise and this anomaly was pointed out by the NRC to us two years prior to the Fukushima incident.  So, needless to say, I’m kind of sensitive to simulations which are not based on complete, or even assumed, reality.  I pointed out my concerns about the “automatic” expansion of operations when capacity utilization reached 110%, which is already an impossible accomplishment in the nuclear power industry.  100% is 100%.  There is no more without a major investment in a new plant or power uprate.  PharmaSim assumes you can sell more than you can produce, which is a common complaint about "marketing" people from "engineering" and "production" people.