یکپارچه سازی تفکر استراتژیک و شبیه سازی در استراتژی بازاریابی : دیدن کل سیستم
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|2903||2012||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 6510 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Available online 3 October 2012
In contexts where competition is intense, growth is rapid, innovation is abundant, local conditions are idiosyncratic, and technological options are increasingly complex, the marketing manager needs to understand the dynamic forces that influence the structure of the industry in order to assess the market strategic value. The problems are made even more difficult when much of the information available is qualitative, not quantitative. In order to reduce endless complexities and produce manageable simplicities, the study proposes a workable systems methodology and a holistic frame of reference that allows managers to focus on relevant issues and avoid the endless search for more details, while drowning in proliferating useless information. This paper presents two cases illustrating systems approaches to marketing strategy and decision-making. The purposes are to contrast a qualitative mapping theory building approach and a quantitative group model building approach to help client groups think systemically about marketing dynamics, and to draw out implications for research and practice in marketing strategy.
In a complex environment both the system itself, considered as a subset of the environment, and the agents within the system influence the industry dynamics (Lane, 1995). Furthermore, time pressure, incomplete information, unknown feedback loops, organizational contexts, and selfish motivations strongly influence managerial decisions. Inadequate decisions and subsequent actions might lead to undesired results. The problems are made even more difficult when much of the information available is qualitative, not quantitative. Computer-based system modeling offers managers an alternative tool for decision support inquiry. A growing body of research evidence from cognitive science suggests that cognitive feedback (Eden, Jones, & Sims, 1983) can be used to enhance the quality of decision processes as well as decision outcomes (Balzer et al., 1989, Paich and Sterman, 1993 and Sengupta and Abdel-Hamid, 1993). In the decision-making literature, cognitive feedback refers to giving subjects in a decision-making experiment information about the true implications of a decision they made, in order to teach decision-makers how to do better. In this context, the term cognitive feedback refers to information about the relations between variables rather than performance outcomes (Balzer et al., 1989). Model-aided inquiry can help decision-makers comprehend the dynamics of the market and the potential shortcomings of existing or potential management actions. Modeling thus holds the potential to reduce an organization's risk of propagating or perpetuating flawed decisions (Kleinmuntz & Thomas, 1987). Modeling projects also hold the potential to clarify areas where additional research is most likely to help managers improve their understanding of system behavior. Thus, modeling projects can provide input useful in setting research priorities within an organization. This paper presents two cases illustrating systems approaches to marketing strategy and decision-making. The purposes are to contrast a quantitative group model building approach and a qualitative, cognitive mapping, approach to help client groups think systemically about market dynamics, and to draw out implications for research and practice in marketing strategy. The approaches draw on two generic systems methodologies, quantitative system dynamics modeling (Forrester, 1994, Richardson and Pugh, 1981 and Sterman, 2000) and qualitative systems thinking (Checkland, 1981, Flood and Ulrich, 1989, Senge, 1994, Wolstenholme, 1982, Wolstenholme, 1983, Wolstenholme, 1985, Wolstenholme, 1990 and Wolstenholme, 1999). One case uses a group modeling approach from the system dynamics consulting tradition (Andersen and Richardson, 1997, Otto and Struben, 2004, Richardson and Andersen, 1995, Vennix, 1994 and Vennix, 1996) and the other employs the strategic value assessment model from marketing (Fine, Vardan, Pethick, & El Hout, 2002).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The methodological frameworks described in this paper suggest approaches useful to allow the conversion of mental data to textual data. Clients (customers and practitioners) have rich stories to tell. These stories are in the form of mental models that do not exist on paper, and that, in fact, might even never be verbalized by the client. Models encourage examination of proposed management interventions and help define acceptable sets of management options carried forward through the policy process. Assumptions behind policy changes will be explicit and subject to additional evaluation and improvement. Modeling also leads to systematic identification of information deficiencies that can be addressed by research. One of the problems with the rich stories clients have to tell is how to separate the insights from extraneous or low leverage material. The applied system dynamics literature repeatedly claims that most people gravitate to low lever policies (Richardson, 1999). Forrester claims that even if people manage to find the high leverage points, they tend to push the lever in the wrong direction (i.e., building low-cost housing in decaying cities). All these characteristics give reason to believe that employing system thinking skills can help marketing managers to create better problem definitions and deeper understanding about the effects likely to result from alternative responses to those problems. System dynamics researchers with experience in group model building are aware of the many challenges of applying best modeling practices in a GMB context. Completing projects in a way that fosters client learning is easier said than done, and involves art as well as science. Vennix (1996) points out that participants in a successful group model building intervention often learn as much from the process of building a model as they do from running policy simulations using the completed model. If this is true, the process by which the modeling team involves a group is critical to project success. This paper discusses two projects that apply group model building techniques and qualitative mapping theory building and evaluate outcomes associated with the process. The insights and lessons learned along the way will be valuable to others seeking to use participatory modeling to advance deliberation about the management actions taken by individuals or collectively. These lessons also should be useful to marketing managers and researchers striving to apply system modeling tools in an adaptive impact management. The insights from the two cases make a contribution to the practice of using qualitative and quantitative system dynamics models as micro-world (Zagonel, 2002) for group deliberation about marketing management policy. Finally, This paper makes a contribution to the literature on system thinking and group model building as mutual persuasion, and helps marketing managers to ground their feedback theories in the information gathered through the textual data presented in them.