Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 Les outils pour faciliter la prise de décisions en marketing stratégique Tatiana BOUZDINE-CHAMEEVA Professeur BEM Bordeaux Management School - Decision Management Performance [email protected] 1 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 Les outils pour faciliter la prise de décisions en marketing stratégique Résumé (FR): Le marché mondial devenant global sans frontières avance la question de priorités de valeurs pour les organisations. La quête des priorités, souvent inhérentes dans le marketing, exige une réflexion stratégique pour les actions marketing et plus de consensus qui est important pour l'engagement d'employés et managers. Les organisations font face aux défis d’une prise de décision en groupe pour décisions stratégiques en marketing. Notre objectif est de comparer les méthodes SSM, SC, SODA qui facilitent le travail de groupe dans un processus de prise de décision en mettant un accent sur leur valeur ajoutée pour les situations du marketing stratégique. Mots clés : marketing stratégique, modélisation marketing Facilitation tools for group decision-making process Abstract (EN): The globalized borderless world market has put forward the question of value priorities for organizations. This quest for the priorities, frequently inherent in marketing actions, requires strategic thinking in marketing decisions and more consensuses in decision-making style, as the commitment of management and employees becomes vital. Organizations start facing challenges of group decision-making for strategic marketing decisions. The purpose of our research is to identify the facilitation techniques developed for assisting this process and making it efficient. We present the three methods, SSM, SC and SODA emphasising their value added by interpersonal aspects of intellectual process imperative in strategic marketing. Key words: strategic marketing, modeling marketing 2 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 INTRODUCTION Marketing has always played a vital role in the strategic management process of a firm; failures in marketing cause serious problems in achieving goals established by a strategy plan of an organization. Over the last few years, we observe crucial changes in the world of strategic marketing decisions (Webster, 1997). The globalization process urges organizations to face the numerous ambitious tasks in creating value (see e.g. Herriot et al, 2002). It imposes new ways of thinking (Mattsson, 2008) by accelerating business exchanges on national and international levels, harmonizing and homogenizing world standards for products and services, pushing forward the innovative processes, revealing the collective awareness about ecological problems and social viability, questioning the sustainable development. Organizations are forced to a transformation, and the changes necessitate a collective response. This changing borderless world market, which enters into recession and severe economic crisis, harshly interrogates the value priorities of organizations (Trinquecoste, 2008). How to elaborate effective and coherent marketing actions and contribute into company’s profit within a market segment going through financial difficulties? Which priorities to prevail when reconsidering strategy marketing plan in the situation of a 15% monthly decrease of orders? The quest for the priorities, frequently inherent in marketing actions, requires strategic approach to marketing decisions and more consensuses in decision-making as the commitment of management and employees’ becomes vital. There appears a strong need for a collective action in strategic marketing decisions (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2000; Weerawardena, 2003). Organizations start facing challenges of group decision-making for strategic marketing decisions (Mattsson, 2008). The purpose of our research is to identify the facilitation techniques developed for assisting the group decision-making process in complex situations to make this process efficient and effective, compare them and recognize the value of these techniques for applications in strategic marketing decision settings. 3 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 CHALLENGES OF GROUP DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Group decision-making is known as a complex phenomenon which aims at coming to a judgment based upon the feedback of multiple individuals forming a group. Nowadays such process becomes a key component in a search for strategic marketing actions and in the functioning of an organization. Surowiecki’s book The Wisdom of Crowds (Surowiecki, 2005) argues that groups are remarkably intelligent and are often smarter than the smartest people in them. He further argues that wise “crowds” need to have diversity of opinion, independence of members from one another, decentralization, and a good method for aggregating opinions. He contends that if these four conditions are met, the collective intelligence of the group will produce better outcomes than several experts working independently. Active interactions and discussions within the group present an important stage in the decision-making process: different opinions confronting, various arguments sorting out (Kaner et al., 2007). Due to this dynamic view exchange, a shared vision on the discussed subject finally emerges. Active participation of group members in the discussion and their contribution into the final decisions become vital for their future commitment to the suggested actions. The process depends much on personal determination, complexity of the problem, group dynamics, leadership skills, and other rational and irrational factors (e.g. Luce et al, 1999). The success of the decision-making process is not just measured by an acceptable decision made. It is crucial that all participants that are involved in the process, participate in discussion, understand the arguments of others, share the decision made. The group must be sure that it has created a climate in which individuals feel they have been able to express their views and they have been listened. Then all members feel obligated to go along with the decision and implement it. However managers often like to believe that they are accomplished in the group decision-making processes though instead of achieving a consensus they often lead the group to situations such as decision-making by authority role or by lack of response. The better way to achieve consensus in these processes is to track how decisions are made and ensure that they are achieved by true consultation. This could be attained due to facilitation. Facilitation used in business and organisational settings is one of the well-developed practices in group decision-making processes to avoid such situations as mentioned earlier. 4 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 There exist numerous facilitation tools, methods and techniques developed for assisting the process and making it as efficient and effective as possible (e.g. Bens, 2005). We will present and compare the three methods, SSM, SC and SODA calling attention to their interpersonal aspects of intellectual process; we will also discuss the impact of using mapping as a facilitation tool to lend structure to the process of group decision-making. Strategic marketing actions are characterised (e.g. Aaker, 1992; Greenley et al., 2004; Hooley et al., 1998; Mattson, 2008) by numerous challenges (the firm values, the customer motivations, financial performance, impact on other firm’s function, etc.) and numerous uncertainties (e.g. Baker, 1996) needed to be handled (the market, the competitors, the risks, the profitability potential, etc.) in marketing actions. We will analyse how the presented tools could enhance the value priorities quest in organisations emphasising their value for strategic marketing settings. FACILITATING TOOLS Over the past two decades much research has been done on examining decisionmaking in groups in terms of a process and in terms of an outcome. There is a large body of literature written by organisational behaviour researchers on organising an efficient group work (e.g. Axelrod, 1976; Winch, 1995; Bloom, 2000; Schwarz, 2002; Kaner, 2007). Organisational research studies focus on elaborating different conceptual models of decisionmaking process like autocratic or by authority rule, majority (or plurality) versus collegial model, supportive versus a model by voting and others (for a review, see Winch, 1995). Facilitating group processes in a face-to-face meeting has been intensively explored by the specialists in the IS and strategic management fields. Many group decision–support systems (GDSS) and tools have been developed to assist and improve the decision-making process in different problem situations of business and organisational settings (see for example www.cbe.wwu.edu/gdn/ gdn.htm). These works serve a basis for our study of facilitation techniques applicable in strategic marketing context. The conventional stages of the decision process in a group (see Figure 1) are the following: framing the problem, gathering intelligence about the problem, coming to conclusion with a decision and learning from experience. Facilitation tools can help users at each step of the process and bring them to a best solution for the discussed problem. Some of the facilitating tools are interactive computer based systems. 5 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 Figure1. The stages of the group decision process (adapted from Russo, 2002). If we consider strategic marketing settings, the first and the very important stage is related to a correct formulation or framing the problem (Montgomery and Weinberg, 1991). At this stage, maximum aspects of the studying situation should be discovered. To come up with the best possible decision a group involved into the strategic marketing decision-making process must clearly define the priorities of values. Strategic marketing decisions are complex by their nature; they are based on the analysis of market and markets segments, customer interests, and the purchases process, on the examination of the company’s strengths and competences and perspectives in a long-term horizon. The aspects that will remain hidden or the values which will be left aside at this stage will not be considered during the further stages of the decision-making process; and the final strategic marketing decision could be handicapped in relations to these undetected aspects and unrevealed values. The second stage of the decision-making process in strategic marketing setting will focus on gathering information, or more generally speaking, gathering intelligence on the market and the firm interests, the general trends, customer needs and motivations, financial performance, the latest changes in customer base, etc. The diverging feature of this stage is important for getting a holistic picture of a problem. At the third stage of “Coming to Conclusions” in the strategic marketing decisionmaking, a diversity of opinions, decentralization and independence of members in a group (representing different units of the organizational structure) become vital for a final wellthought solution of marketing actions to be implemented. A role of facilitator or the use of facilitating tools at this stage could be fundamental. 6 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 The stage of “Learning from Experience” is important in terms of group learning. In a long-term perspective of an organisation, the scenarios analyzed by the group during the decisions-making process could help a group to make better decision in their future strategic marketing planning. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) Among the facilitation methods that are applied successfully in group settings for making decisions on managing complex situations, the main three methodologies attract our attention relating to specific characteristics of strategic marketing context. They are soft systems methodology (SSM), strategic choice (SC), and strategic options development and analysis (SODA) ( Eden and Ackermann, 2006). SSM, developed in 1981, is a way of dealing with problems, which contain numerous social, political and human activity components (Checkland and Scholes, 1999; http://sern.ucalgary.ca/courses/seng /613/F/grp4/ssmfinal.html). We consider that this methodology fits well to the strategic marketing decision settings. The methodology is divided into several stages. The first step concerns the finding out about the problem situation and presents an introduction into the problem area: Who are the stakeholders, key actors? How does the system function now? The next step focuses on expressing the problem situation through "rich pictures", worth by far several hundreds of words. It is an important stage in viewing the situation and producing root definitions. Here the focus is on different perspectives from which a group can look at this problem. An analogy is apparent with strategic marketing planning, which searches answers on traditional questions: What needs or problems cause customers to consider buying from our company? What improvement in the customer’s personal or business life can we unable or improve? Which customer market segments are attracted to our company or products? Which motivation or values lead people to decide for purchasing our products? What are the latest changes in our customer base? What are general trends affecting the general interests towards products like ours? It comes into sight that the SSM could be a useful tool at the first stage of Framing a Problem in a strategic marketing decision-making process. This facilitation tool will help to discover different views on the problem. The key point is to focus on meshing overall customer situations with an overall company direction, goals and priority values. 7 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 Getting the perception of what the system, or in our case, the organization, must do for each root definition, and building somehow a conceptual model of the situation, the group will move to the next stage in the facilitation process to a further comparison of the conceptual model with the real world. Comparing a rich picture and a conceptual model contributes to the identification of feasible and desirable changes: Are there ways of improving the situation? At the next step, a group works on recommendations for taking an action to improve the problem situation. Finally a group accomplishes a decision-making process with the ways of implementing the suggested changes. Strategic Choice (SC) tool The SC approach has proved to be extremely efficient in face- to -face workshops of a decision making group when the planned management of uncertainty plays a crucial role (Friend and Hickling, 1988; www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ dstools/choosing/strach.html). The focus of this approach is on planning situations whatever their timescale and whatever their substance. A methodology helps to move a group to agreeing how to handle the uncertainties, whether these are technical, political or procedural. The approach to a decision-making in SC is an incremental one, rather than one which looks at an end product of a comprehensive strategy at some future point in time. A framework presents an explicit balance between decisions to be made now and those to be left open until specified time horizons to be determined in the future. In our understanding, this describes the necessities of strategic marketing planning where some marketing actions should be planned in a closer timescale while other are dependent on numerous uncertainties that should be handled. As nowadays, the economic difficulties through which companies are going through because of the financial crisis, the SC facilitation tool appear to be one of the most appropriate for strategic marketing planning to be applied in such an uncertain market environment. Strategic options development and analysis (SODA) tool A decision-support tool of SODA, is a method developed for facilitating group decision-making work on strategic issues and complex problems (Eden, 1989; (www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/dstools/control/soda.html ) 8 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 SODA uses interviews and cognitive mapping to capture individual knowledge or view of an issue. A typical decision model structure in this approach facilitates negotiation about value/goal systems, key strategic issues, and option portfolios (see Figure 2). Figure 2. A typical decision model structure in SODA (from Banxia Ltd. "Decision Explorer http://www.banxia.com/demain.html ) As well as problem content, attention is paid to the affective, political, and process dynamics in the group. The strategic marketing planning passes through the three major stages (Doyle, 1994; Porter, 1996): situational analysis, marketing objectives and marketing strategies. These three stages correspond perfectly to the three levels of decision model in SODA approach: goals, objectives and options/actions available. The three questions asked for facilitation decisionmaking in SODA: “Where do we want to go? Why do we want to get there? How could we get there and achieve our objectives?” respond to the classic examinations of strategic marketing planning: “Where is the company now? Where does the company want to go? What should be done to achieve these objectives? How the suggesting marketing actions correspond to company’s goals, reflect company’s priorities and contribute to company’s values?” 9 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 SODA provides a group with a kind of an intellectual device, working with individuality and subjectivity as the basis for problem definition and creativity. The method is aimed more at small groups and focuses on developing high levels of ownership for a problem. Rich models generated by SODA manage the growing complexity along the decision-making process. Comparison of the presented facilitation tools Each of the methods is settled by data that are specific to the problem decision-making context. It is contrasted to conceptual decision-making models used by organizational behaviour and organizational development consultants. For the overall productivity of group decision-making process, these methods suppose and assure ample participation from members of a group that is helpful in constructing better agreements and coming to a consensus decision. Agreements constructed by a group are more likely to be implemented. The three methods are concerned of managing the resultant complexity along the process. This complexity derives from multiple perspectives; the attention to complexity seeks to avoid errors of the third kind—solving 'the wrong problem when one should have solved the right problem' as well as ensuring both procedural justice (Kim and Mauborgne, 1995) and procedural rationality. This feature makes these tools credible for applications in strategic marketing settings. The facilitation of an effective group process pays account to the power and politics recognizing that it is not only natural for different people to have different perspectives on a problem, but also that organizations are designed to encourage this (Shaw, 2006). The challenges of numerous ambitious tasks in creating value require the participation of different experts in strategic marketing – decision making process. This enables to obtain synergy of different perspectives in a final solution. The facilitation methods discussed above rely strongly on facilitations skills. The significance of facilitation skills in reaching agreements and coming to a consensus decision demand many different roles for a facilitation (Richardson and Andersen, 1995). These roles include the ability to manage process and content skills, as well as having sufficient flexibility and knowledge of the applied method to meet the group's needs (Eden and Ackermann, 2006). A wide range of research studies using the facilitation methods mentioned above can be illustrated by group decision-making in hospital management (Checkland, 2001); business process redesign (Ormerod, 1999); policy making for liquefied petroleum gas (Hickling, 10 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 2001); strategy development in wine sector (Bouzdine-Chameeva, 2006); technology-based solution to knowledge management problems (Edwards et al, 2005) and others. This rich variety of applications of facilitation methods proves their extreme utility for solving business and management problems of different nature in diverse group- decision-making settings. Few applications of facilitation tools in strategic marketing studies exist by now, they certainly merit being mentioned (Durrieu et al, 2006; Trinquecoste, 2005; Mattsson, 2008). USING MAPPING TO FACILITATE GROUP WORK Facilitating a process of decision-making supposes contributing structure and process to interactions in a group. By lending structure, it facilitates in getting a better perception of the problem, in reaching agreements, it helps in the functioning of the group, and finally in contributes strongly in the identification and resolution of problems, One of the effective tools widely used in facilitating for structuring a problem is mapping. Generally speaking, mapping focuses people on the concepts and links they use to make sense of their world. Managers get used to apply maps in several ways: as a diagnostic tool to focus attention on the root causes of a problem (Evans, 2005), for identifying the critical control points (the levers) for a system (Kaplan & Norton, 2004), to guide risk management and risk mitigation efforts (Card, 1998), for formulating and communicating strategy (Kaplan & Norton, 2004). Using mapping in strategic marketing planning is in some sense similar to using street maps which help to locate in space, in this case, in conceptual space, help figure out what directions to take, help visualise what pathways exist from here to there, where are free spaces, and crossroads and help understand how they should move to the established goal. In a more formal term, a map is "a visual representation; that establishes a landscape, or domain; names the most important entities that exist within that domain; and simultaneously places them within two or more relationships. “More complex maps and suggest options for movement and change" (Huff, Jenkins, 2001). When a facilitator is using a causal map as a problem-structuring tool, the preferred direction may emerge naturally from a process of negotiation (see an example of a causal map in Figure 3). 11 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 Figure 3. Example of a causal map A cognitive map presents an individual’s mental model of the relationships (causal or otherwise) among the elements of a system. Being used as a group decision-making facilitation tool, it contributes into shared understanding and into shared commitment of group members to the finale elaborated decision or plan of actions. In a group setting mapping can b used either during the group meeting or prior to a group meetings when individual maps of group members are collected and synthesized into a consensus causal map. Assisting the group-decision making process through eliciting and representing domain knowledge of individuals forming a group, and mapping this knowledge becomes one of prospective tools for strategic marketing settings. A broad range of research has investigated a collective perception reflected in a causal map using the ideographic approach (e.g. Eden and Ackerman, 1998; Brown, 1992; Verstraete, 1997, Cosette, 2003). Another large stream of researches based their studies referring to the nomothetic approach (e.g., Nadkarni and Nah, 2003; Sheetz and Tegarden, 2001). Following Tan and Hunter (2002) the idiographic approach “focuses on the subjective experiences of the individual and presents results in expressions and terms used by the individual” whereas the nomothetic approach “necessitates the use of a common set of elements and/or constructs to permit comparisons to be made.” 12 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 Several recent research studies suggest systematic procedures and methodologies that combine these two approaches in a group decision-making setting (Nadkarni and Nah, 2003; Scavarda, et al., 2006). An idiographic approach used for constructing a causal map is consent to capture unique, subjective knowledge and individual perception using in-depth interviews, and it is not bound by predefined variables. The obtained collective causal map can be validated further on by the use of nomothetic methods with a purpose to confirm a priori determined, widely accepted and generalized assumptions relating to a specific domain (Nadkarni and Nah, 2003). Numerous methodologies and software tools can be used for creating causal maps. The basic process for creating a causal map based on principles of content analysis is: defining the models and content (sources of data) to be examined; defining the content domain and variables of interest (to create a common language for a group and establish internal validity between the data and the group’s conceptualization of the data); data coding; establishing the reliability of the coding process and finally a tabulation of results in a visual map. A systematic procedure integrates both the idiographic and nomothetic approaches in eliciting, aggregating, comparing and validating the knowledge of individuals in a form of several consensus maps ( see Figure 4.). Figure 4. Stages of constructing a consensus causal map (based on Bouzdine-Chameeva, 2007). The idiographic approach is used to elicit and aggregate the individual knowledge of subject-matter experts and the nomothetic approach to validate the elicited knowledge in a form of a final consensus causal map. Such maps serve an excellent basis for starting a group discussion on making decision for strategic marketing planning. 13 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 FUTURE TRENDS There is an increasing need to develop a trans-disciplinary approach for facilitating group decision-making process in strategic marketing decisions. This should bring together marketing, social psychology and mathematics, strategic management and logic, human resources management in terms reward and costing systems, organization theory for observing power and politics issues, and information science in terms of visual interactive modelling to aid facilitation and provide breadth of modelling options. Future development of mapping tools and applications in strategic marketing could incorporate the possibility of identifying similar perceptions of individuals in a group and similar causality paths. This could facilitate a group-decision-making process contributing decision options to be presented for a further evaluation and inclusion into strategic marketing plans. Spatial mapping could yield segmentation and assist in a enhanced understanding of the nature of proximity in views of group members. Several possible paths could then be examined and proposed for a further implementation either in a consequent or a parallel way through specific marketing actions. CONCLUSIONS Being a key component in the functioning of an organization, its strategic development and organisational performance, a group decision-making process in strategic marketing settings could considerably gain in efficiency and effectiveness due to the existing facilitation methods, like SSM, SC and SODA. In some sense the three facilitation methods of groupdecision making process described above can be considered as intellectual devices for strategic marketing planning. They put emphasis on intellectual processes in which a group uses these methods to help with sense-making in the search for marketing decisions and actions. The three tools exposed in the paper can be used on each of the three first stages of the decision-making process – for framing the problem with an accent on the use of the SSM tool known for its strong perceptive features and conceptual model building, for gathering information, where the SM tool can be particularly useful due its capacity to capture uncertainties and at the stage of coming to conclusions, at which the SODA approach could has some preferences over the other presented tools as it allows to clearly define the priorities of values and align the suggested strategic marketing actions with these priorities. 14 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 The application of facilitation methods, GDSS tools and mapping techniques contribute structure and process of the group work, create a fruitful climate in which individuals express their views and are able to understand, share views and arrive at a collective vision reflected in a consensus decision (or in a consensus causal map). This is a final goal of a successfully accomplished group decision-making process in strategic marketing situations. REMERCIEMENTS J’adresse mes sincères remerciements au professeur Jean-Francois Trinquecoste qui a stimulé mon intérêt envers les domaines du marketing et motivé mes recherches sur la différence des approches utilisés pour les décisions stratégique et les décisions tactiques en marketing. Je voudrais aussi remercie le professeur Thierry Verstraete avec qui nos discussions ont enrichi mes connaissances des applications de la cartographie cognitive pour les études en stratégie. 15 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 REFERENCES Aaker D.A. (1992), Strategic Market Management, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Axelrod R. (1976), Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Baker M. (1996), Marketing strategy, In Warner, M. (Eds), International Encyclopaedia of Business and Management, Routledge, London and New York, 333-347. Bens I. (2005), Advanced Facilitation Strategies: Tools and Techniques to Master Difficult Situations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Bloom H. (2000), Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century. Wiley, John & Sons. Bouzdine-Chameeva T., (2006), Strategies of Bordeaux wine sector: comparison based on group decision-making, British Food Journal, 108, 4, 273-289. Bouzdine-Chameeva T. (2007), The ANCOM-2 Solution to support knowledge work, International Business Management, 1, 2, 12-19. Bowman C., Ambrosini V. (2000), Value creation versus value capture: towards a coherent definition of value in strategy, British Journal of Management, 11 1, 1-15. Brown S.M. (1992), Cognitive Mapping and Repertory Grids for Qualitative Survey Research: Some Comparative Observations, Journal of Management Studies, 29, 3, 287-305. Checkland P., Scholes J. (1999), Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley & Sons. Cossette P. (2003), Cartes cognitives et organisations. Les Editions d’Adreg, Laval, Canada. Doyle P. (1994), Marketing Management and Strategy, Prentice Hall International Limited, Hemel Hempstead. Durrieu F., Bouzdine-Chameeva T. (2006), Les cartes cognitives: méthodologie pour tester le positionnement d'une winerie à Bordeaux, In Actes de Colloque "Oenometrie-XIII", Bordeaux. Eden C. (1989), Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development, In Rational Analysis for a Problematic World', Jonathan Rosenhead (ed.) Wiley. Eden, C., F. Ackermann (1998), Making Strategy: A Journey of Strategic Management, Sage Publications, London. Eden C., Ackermann F. (2006), Where next for problem structuring methods, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 766–768. Edwards J.S., Shaw D., and Collier P.M. (2005), Knowledge management systems: finding a way with technology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 113–125. 16 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 Friend J. and Hickling A. (1988), Planning under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39, 11, 1067-1068. Greenley G.E., Hooley G.J., Broderick A.J., Rudd J.M. (2004), Strategic planning differences among multiple stakeholder orientations profiles, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 12, 163-182. Herriot P., Scott-Jackson W. (2002), Globalization, social identities and employment, British Journal of Management, 13 3, 249-57. Hooley G.J., Saunders J.A., Piercy N.F. (1998), Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning, Prentice Hall Europe, Hemel Hempstead. Huff A., Jenkins M. (2001), Mapping strategy, London, Wiley. Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi C. (2007), Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-making, Jossey-Bass. Kim W.C., Mauborgne R.A (1995), A procedural justice model of strategic decision making, Organization Science, 6, 44–61. Luce M.F., Payne J.W., Battman J.R. (1999), Emotional trade-off difficulty and choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 5,143-59. Mattsson, J. (2008), True Marketing: A Value Based Philosophy for Strategic Marketing, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16, 3, 175-188. Montgomery D.B., Weinberg C.B. (1991), Toward strategic intelligence, In Enis B.M., Cox K.K. (Eds), Marketing Classics: A Selection of Influential Articles, Allyn&Bacon, Boston. Montibeller G., Belton V. (2006), Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options—a review, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 779–791. Nadkarni S. and Nah F.F-H. (2003), Aggregated causal maps: an approach to elicit and aggregate the knowledge of multiple experts, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 406-436. Ormerod R.J. (1999), Putting soft OR methods to work: the case of the business improvement project at PowerGen, European Journal of Operational Research, 118, 1–29 Porter M.E. (1996), What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, Nov-December, 61-78. Richardson G., Andersen D.F. (1995), Teamwork in group model building. System Dynamics Revue, 11, 113–137. Russo J. E., and Schoemaker P. (2002), Winning Decisions, New York: Currency/Doubleday. Scavarda A.J., Bouzdine-Chameeva T., Goldstein S.M., Hays J.M., Hill A. V. (2006), A methodology for constructing collective causal maps, Decision Sciences Journa, 37,2,263-284. 17 Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009 Schwarz R., (2002), The Skilled Facilitator: A Comprehensive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches, Wiley, John & Sons. Shaw D. (2006), Journey Making group workshops as a research tool, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 830–841. Sheetz S. D. and Tegarden D. P. (2001), Representing managerial cognition using a group cognitive mapping system, Academy of Management Annual Meeting 2001. Surowiecki J. (2005), The Wisdom of Crowds, Anchor. Tan F.B. and Hunter M.G. (2002), The Repertory Grid Technique: A Method for the Study of Cognition in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 26, 1, 39-57. Trinquecoste J.F. (2005), Marketing, stratégie et rhétorique, Décision Marketing, 37, 3-5. Trinquecoste J.F. (2008), Marketing, éthique et responsabilité sociale: Mousquetaires du roi ou garde du cardinal, In "Responsabilité, éthique et logique marchande", Edition EMS Management & Societe. Verstraete T. (1997), Cartographie cognitive et accompagnement du créateur d'entreprise, Revue Internationale PME, 10, 1, 17-33. Webster F.E. (1997), The future role of marketing, In Lehman, D.R., Jocz, K.E. (Eds), Reflections on the Future of Marketing, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, 39-66. Weerawardena J. (2003), The role of marketing capability in innovation-based competitive strategy, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 15-35. Winch G. W. (1995), Developing consensus: reflections on a model-supported decision process, Management Decision, 33, 6, 22-31. 18