Kolb learning styles Weve been doing a lot of case learning in class so Im going to try presenting in that manner

At university some friends and I started an engineering consulting company (3GEngineering.com.au) which picked up project work, mostly in the robotics/automation fields, for companies that wanted new or extended functionality for in-house products that they didnt have the expertise (or time) to do themselves. It was really good fun, we got involved with a bunch of interesting projects, from prototyping cars to robotic inspection units and a whole bunch in between. But it was project work, things might be busy for a month or two on a job then nothing for half a year, so a couple of years ago we decided to try our hands at an online store. Steady retail sales would augment the cyclical nature of project work (or so the theory went). So we had a meeting to figure out what we wanted to sell. Both guys were building houses at the time and being engineers, lighting was a key component of the build. In cupboard LED strips, under-bench lighting, recessed wall floods, we were deep into it. For those that havent been bitten by the Mmm Shiny! bug this is a very expensive pastime, in the order of a coke addiction but at least with something to show for it at the end (which isnt an eroded septum). Being the resourceful gents that we were we got some quotes locally and then, after recovering from the pricing shock, went online and found what we wanted, sourced direct from China for a third of the cost. After getting hold of some samples to QA we settled on 2 suppliers and bought enough lighting gear to illuminate a small town. Installation commenced and I can modestly say, it all looked brilliant (no pun intended). Lots of people commented and several asked to be hooked up and so we thought, Ah ha! Heres our retail store product. So we setup Brightify.com.au to import the gear and onsell to home users and tradesmen. We found a point of differentiation: if you buy it yourself from china, you have to cut it to length and solder it up yourself, with ours you specify the length and we prep it for you so all you have to do is remove the stick tape on the back and press it against the wall. And we were pleased with ourselves. All in all, about $20k invested in stock bought plus setting up the website and time and effort. 18 months later: 3 sales totaling just over $1000. Somewhat underwhelming is probably being a tad generous 3Gs was still rocking along so Brightify just got pushed into the too-hard basket and we focused on other things where we knew what was wrong and were motivated to fix it. So during this weeks marketing class our lecturer presented us with two models for value creation which really resonated with me. The first was the Traditional Physical Process Sequence which looks something like:

Basically it can be summarized as: get your product -> find someone to sell it to. Its been a successful model, historically its how a lot of stuff has been sold but the killer for this model is choice. It works really well when people dont have a choice (because youre the only widget seller in the area and they need a widget) but with the globalization of the marketplace and the internet giving us access to a range of sellers, like us with the LED lights, the buyer is no longer constrained by geography (there are exceptions to this, say where its more expensive to ship them than to buy them locally). And choice means that people generally wont just make-do with a product that doesnt meet their needs (especially if its an expensive product) because they can get something that suits them better. So the model that marketing is pushing the rest of the process chain towards is this one:

This one is more like: figure out who you want to sell your product to -> find out what they want -> make it and sell it to them. In my mind, the big difference is that the second process is driven by the consumers wants and needs, not the product. The product is just the vehicle. Its a big perspective shift for someone whos always been product driven but this is the kind of culture you want to build into a company that makes consumer goods, particularly ones that are susceptible to trends/fads. So back to the Brightify story. We assume that our customers (tradesmen, DIY-ers) want our product but we have no real evidence that they do. We also treat them all the same (ie: we havent segmented our customer market) so we have no idea how to advertise our product effectively to each specific market. So right now Im looking at this and cringing inwardly and wondering how I could have been so oblivious but to their credit, the other owners have looked at this and said Looks good in theory, but well believe it when we see the results. Well pony up another 10k for you to have another go at it. Show us that your MBA has taught you something

So thats my challenge: Ive got $10k to take what we have already at brightify and in in 12 months, build turnover to $100k. Any suggestions on what to do next? different Im foraying into adjacent areas such as Kolb learning styles (source: www.businessballs.com) Might as well begin with the beginning as David Kolb has theorised learning styles and experiential learning (1) which are at the cornerstone of learning loops and cycles. There are other authors upon which Kolb inspired his work but this is only a short visit to academic park. The theory here distinguishes four distinct learning styles:

Concrete experience (related to feeling); Reflective observation (watching); Abstract conceptualisation (thinking); Active experimentation (doing).

These learning styles are connected, in Kolbs theory, through the following cyclical sequence:

Kolb contends that every person uses the four learning styles in different ways depending on their progression on a maturity path that spans acquisition (of basic abilities and cognitive structures), specialisation (towards a specific learning style) and ultimately integration (where other learning styles are also expressed / used in work and personal life). But he also contends that we cannot use two styles simultaneously so we opt for either doing or watching and then either for thinking or feeling. At the intersection of these two dialectical sets of choices, Kolb places his theory of preferred learning styles, as shown in the table below: Doing (Active Experimentation AE) Watching (Reflective Observation RO)

Diverging (CE/RO), i.e. Accommodating (CE/AE), i.e. making links between different Feeling (Concrete Experience hands-on, intuitive, relying on approaches, interested in others information, group CE) brainstorming. Emotional, work focused group work-focused Converging (AC/AE), i.e. with Assimilating (AC/RO), i.e. a practical focus, interested in logical, concise, interested in technical problems/solutions, readings, lectures, analytical specialist/technological models applications

Thinking (Abstract Conceptualization AC)

This model has been elaborated on by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford. They relabelled the four preferred learning styles to use some labels that are more familiar to us: 1. Having an Experience (stage 1), and Activists (style 1): here and now, gregarious, seek challenge and immediate experience, open-minded, bored with implementation. 2. Reviewing the Experience (stage 2) and Reflectors (style 2): stand back, gather data, ponder and analyse, delay reaching conclusions, listen before speaking, thoughtful. 3. Concluding from the Experience (stage 3) and Theorists (style 3): think things through in logical steps, assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories, rationally objective, reject subjectivity and flippancy. 4. Planning the next steps (stage 4) and Pragmatists (style 4): seek and try out new ideas, practical, down-to-earth, enjoy problem solving and decision-making quickly, bored with long discussions. I think this model has a lot to be argued with any model that claims too quickly to show the truth is disputable, however useful that claim is to stimulate critical reviews and further researching limitations, gaps, edges of this theory.