Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What is a Problem?
A problem is a system at unrest (Ackoff and Emery 1972). A system is anything (subject, object, property or
event) that is made of two or more parts. In this sense, everything in the universe is a system.
A market is a system. All products and services offered in the market are systems. A business that offers such
products and services is a system. Any of these systems could be at unrest at a given time - it is a business or
market, legal, social or environmental problem.
Governments, politics, laws and legislator bodies, economy, culture, religion, civilization and eras are systems
in the world. When they are at unrest, there are problems or they become problems.
A problem is a deviation from some standard or norm of desired performance (Stryker 1965/2001: 119).
Hence, problems should be distinguished from decisions. Decisions always involve a choice among various
ways of getting a particular problem resolved or a task accomplished.
Business today is problem resolution management. There are several major problems that have to be resolved
both at the global and national levels, the industry and corporation level and the internal departmental and
divisional/functional levels.
Any problem can be expressed in the following simple structure: P = f (X, Y), where X is a set of
controllable variables, Y is a set of uncontrollable variables, and f is the function that relates X to Y to generate
the problem P. In which case:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Step One: Problem description, identification and definition characterize P. The problem P occurs
whenever Y > X; that is, when uncontrollable variables dominate controllable variables.
Step Two: Problem Formulation identifies each variable in X and Y.
Step Three: Problem Specification specifies the relation of each variable in X to each variable in Y,
and relations within X, and relations within Y.
Step Four: Problem Resolution Alternatives Investigation: We investigate various alternatives that are
efficient in reducing uncontrollable variables Y in relation to controllable variables X, or which
increases the control ratio X/Y.
Step Five: Selection of the best among Problem Resolution-Alternatives evaluated under Step Four.
That is, the best resolution is that which maximizes {X/Y} over all X and Y.
Typically in SIP you handle Steps 1-5, and in BCP you explain to your client steps 1-5, and offer consulting
advise as to why steps 1-5 are correct, that your research method and methodology are valid, that your
questionnaire design was based on sound theory and hypotheses formulation-verification procedures, that your
data collection was valid, reliable, and objective, that your data analysis was technically thorough and valid, and
hence, that your conclusions are reliable, valid, dependable and objective, profitable and socially responsible.
When SIP and BCP are done professionally well and technically perfect, PP should follow.
Relevant knowledge high and knowledge certainty high: here the best decision-making approach is
rational, logical and deterministic. There is just one solution to the problem.
Relevant knowledge is high but knowledge certainty is low: here the best decision-making approach is
fine-tuning, artistic and nondeterministic. Business data and knowledge are rarely unequivocal. There
is one problem but with many possible solutions.
Relevant knowledge is low but knowledge certainty is high: we know very little about the causes of
cancer, but what we know we are quite certain about under present conditions. In other words, there
could be many connected problems even though in practice we treat them with some known solutions.
Here you follow a diagnostic or focused trial-and error approach. This is what doctors do when they
cannot pinpoint the patients problem: they try various medical regimes and converge on the one that
works best.
Relevant knowledge is low and knowledge certainty is low: for instance, we have very little knowledge
about global climate change, global pandemic diseases, global terrorism, and the like, and what we
know is hardly certain and mostly conjectural. Here we proceed by a pure trial-and-error approach of
experimentation and trial balloons. This approach often assumes no knowledge at all.
Rationalism is a deeply optimistic approach that assumes we have learnt all we need to know. Implicit in the
rational model of decision making is the assumption that decision makers have unqualified power and wisdom.
There is hardly any problem is business today that belongs to this first category. Most business problems
belong to the other three categories.
Currently, we need to know much more than ever before. Computers and search engines provide us with
abundant and often, relevant information. But information is not the same as knowledge. Without powerful
overarching explanatory schemes or theories, whatever knowledge there is in the mountain of data we daily
amass is often invisible. In short, the executives of today and tomorrow face continuing information overloads
but little growth in the amount of knowledge usable for most complex managerial decisions (Etzioni 2001: 48).
Since all decisions entail risks, decision-making almost inevitably evokes anxiety and fear strong emotions
that further cloud our decision-making process. Irving Janis and Leon Mann have addressed this problem in
their book, Decision Making. They describe certain patterns in decision making:
Etzioni (2001: 50-57) reviews other problem solving, decision-making models of the1980s and 1990s:
Incrementalism: a formal title for what is otherwise known as the science of muddling through; it does not
advocate moving towards a goal as much as moving away from trouble, trying various small maneuvers
without any grand plan or sense of ultimate purpose. Its weakness is that it is very conservative it
invariably chooses a direction close to the prevailing one. Incrementalist decisions are tentative and
remedial small steps taken in the right direction when the present course proves to be wrong. Often, they
end in drifting and in actions without direction.
Go-for-it Headlong Approach: it is also a counsel of despair like incrementalism, but is openly opposed to
reflection and analysis. Since many things are very difficult to predict, it calls on executives to rely on their
experience, intuition, and gut feelings, and whatever information is readily available, to forge ahead and
remake the world rather than seek to understand it, and then to commit. Such an approach, while
appealing to the self-image of certain executives, is fraught with danger and is likely to end in shipwreck
than in victory.
Adaptive decision making: also called humble decision making, this decision-making process implies
mixed scanning since it entails a mixture of shallow and deep examination of data for a focused
examination of a subset of most relevant facts and choices. This decision-making approach is an adaptive
strategy that acknowledges our inability to know what we need to know to make a good rational decision.
Mixed scanning makes the best use of partial knowledge rather than proceed blindly with no knowledge at
all. Doctors follow this route when they do not fully understand the patient or the disease. Based on partial
knowledge, they initiate a tentative treatment, and. if it fails, they try something else.
world where we must expect the unexpected, we need reserves to cover unanticipated costs and to respond to
unforeseen opportunities.
All the above are reversible decisions; they avoid over-commitment when only partial information is available.
Today, most corporations are becoming increasingly bureaucratic and political, even though most executives
may pretend their decisions are professional and technocratic, but rarely as political. For instance, young and
creative managers often come up with brilliant new product ideas and projects, but soon realize that they find
difficult to get top management support from vice presidents, division leaders and labor unions. Successful
decision-making strategies must necessarily include a place for cooperation, coalition building, and differing
personalities, perspectives, responsibilities, and powers (Etzioni 2001).
Right-Brain versus Left-Brain Dichotomy: Henry Mintzberg, professor of management at McGill University,
Canada, and a longtime proponent of intuitive decision-making, argues that our mind continuously processes
information that we are not consciously aware of, not only when we are asleep or dreaming but also when we
are wide awake. Hence, the sense of intuitive revelation (an aha experience) occurs when our conscious mind
finally learns something that our subconscious mind has already known. One explanation for this phenomenon
is to consider our brain as divided into hemispheres: the left brain for the conscious, rational, and logical
functions, and the right-brain for the subconscious, intuitive, and the emotional. Many executives have learned
to tap into their right-brain thinking capacities while jogging, daydreaming, listening to music, showering, and
the like.
But what makes the right-brain of some people so smart? Scientists are far from the answer to that question.
Seemingly, our brain is intricately linked to other parts of our body through an extensive nervous system as well
as through chemical signals (hormones, neurotransmitters, and modulators). Thus, some neuroscientists assert
that what we call the mind is really this intertwined system of brain and body. This explains why intuitive
feelings are frequently accompanied by physical reactions.
Antonio R. Damasio, a leading neuroscientist at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, has been studying
people who have suffered from brain damage to a specific area in their prefrontal cortices, where we process
secondary emotions, such as sorrow aroused through empathy (as opposed to primary emotions, such as fear
triggered by the sight of a large rattlesnake). Such patients retain their normal functions (e.g., language and
motor skills, attention, memory, intelligence) but have trouble experiencing certain emotions (in ability to
decide, making trivial information and decisions critical).
To explain this behavior, Damasio contends that decision-making is far from a cold, analytic process. Our
emotions and feelings play a crucial role by helping us filter various possibilities quickly, even though our
conscious mind might not be aware of the screening. Thus, our intuitive feelings guide our decision making
until our conscious mind is able to make good choices. So, just as an abundance of emotion (e.g., anger, fear,
anxiety) can lead to faulty decisions, so can its paucity.
Michael Eisner, ex CEO of Walt Disney Corporation, confesses that whenever he hears about a real good idea,
his body reacts in a certain way; he gets an unusual feeling in the stomach, in his throat or on his skin. The
sensation is like looking at a great piece of art for the first time. Balanced emotions are crucial to intuitive
decision making that is, emotions and intellect in balance then you have instincts that are proper (cited in
Hayashi 2001: 177-179).
Intuition and judgment as analyses frozen into habit: Nobel Laureate Herbert A. Simon, professor of
psychology and computer science at Carnegie-Mellon University, studied human decision making for decades
and concluded that experience enables people to chunk and classify information so that they can store and
retrieve it easily. For instance, out of the 50,000 significant patterns that grandmasters can figure out on a chess
board, they quickly chunk out a smaller number of possible offensive and defensive maneuvers that each cluster
of pieces might suggest. Experts see patterns that elicit from memory the things they know about such
situations. When we use our gut, we are drawing on rules and patterns that we cannot quite articulate.
According to Simon, even extremely sophisticated processes, such as a CEO deciding a merger or an
acquisition or a divestiture, can in principle be broken into patterns and rules. We are reaching conclusions on
the basis of things that go on in our perceptual system, where we are aware of the result of the perception but
not of the steps. Simon claims that intuition is merely those steps, that in-between mechanism that is
mysterious only because we do not yet understand how it works. What distinguishes intuitive executives is that
they have very good encyclopedias that are indexed, and pattern recognition is that index (Hayashi 2001: 181).
Truly inspired intuitive decisions seem to require an even more sophisticated mechanism: cross indexing the
ability to see patterns in disparate fields. The power of cross-indexing increases with the amount material that
can be cross-indexed. Says, Bob Lutz, ex-CEO of Chrysler that pioneered the Dodge Viper, a smashing
success, that the intuitive decision was a fruit of cross-indexing. I find that in general management, people
with varied and diverse backgrounds are, all other things being equal, going to be probably more valuable and
will learn faster because theyll recognize more patterns (cited in Hayashi 2001: 183). [A former Marine
fighter pilot, Lutz describes the decision process that launched Dodge Viper despite mounting criticisms. When
you are going too slow in an airplane, your aerodynamic drag builds up because the nose of your airplane is
positioned too high and actually you can get to the point where, even at full power, you cant get the plane to
climb anymore. So your only solution is to drop the nose and trade off some altitude to get speed. Similarly,
Chrysler in the late 1980s had lost so much momentum that it was in danger of stalling. To prevent that, the
conventional wisdom called for cost cutting to gain altitude. But Lutz knew better. Even though people
complained: You are slow and low and struggling for altitude; what an incredibly bad time to drop the nose
and dive some more by spending cash on a frivolous vehicle like the Dodge Viper. But the Dodge Viper gave
Chrysler the forward momentum it desperately needed, both internally and externally with the financial
community, the auto magazines, and all those constituencies that create the psychological climate in which your
company either prospers or does not.
Bob Pittman, president of America Online (AOL) also courts his intuitive skills by placing himself in unfamiliar
situations. Staring at market data, he says, is like looking at a jigsaw puzzle. You have to figure out what the
picture is. What does it all mean? Its not just a bunch of data. Theres a message in there. Every time I get
another data point, Ive added another piece to the jigsaw puzzle, and Im closer to seeing the answer. And,
then one day, the overall picture suddenly comes to me (cited in Hayashi 2001: 179).
systems thinking is twofold: a) variables complexity: the more the number of variables involved, the
more complex is the problem; b) dynamic complexity: the more the relationships between these
variables, and more the relationships change constantly, as often the case is, the more is dynamic
complexity. Hence, at this juncture, you may need variables scanning such as product scanning and
customer scanning to specify your problem better. [For a framework on Product Scanning and
Customer Scanning, see Appendix 2].
4. Problem-resolution Alternatives Investigation: Given problem identification, formulation and
specification, we now investigate various problem-resolution alternatives that might have occurred to us
during the previous three steps. In systems thinking, we do not solve problems, but only resolve
them; problem solutions are permanent, and there relate to simple problems where problem
formulations and solutions are known. But when problems are complex (that is, problems may be
formulated but solutions are not obvious), or unstructured (that is, problems cannot be formulated,
but we can guesstimate their possible resolutions) or wicked (i.e., problems have neither known
formulations nor resolutions), then we can only try to tame them with resolutions.
Problem resolution alternatives relate primarily to uncontrollable variables that involve aggressive
competition, uncertain or turbulent markets, economic chaos, new consumer lifestyles, new consumer
needs and demands, new regulatory challenges, new market opportunities, new product development
opportunities, new brand equity drives, new financial crises, new corporate frauds, political corruption
and bribery, and the like.
Solution-Hypotheses Formulation: In this connection, when resolution alternatives are not clear, we
may, based on good theory, need to speculate and frame various hypotheses regarding what would work
and what would not work in seeking better control over our uncontrollable variables. Do we need to
redesign the product? Do we need to re-bundle the product in terms of complementary accessories with
attractive prices? Will a new pricing strategy work? Will a new product promotion strategy be
effective? Will a new retailing strategy be needed? Will we need to explore new markets or new
customer segments hitherto underserved by us? Do we need to focus only on big lifetime-loyal
accounts? And so on.
Solutions-hypotheses-verification: Each solution alternative needs to be tested either by pre-test
marketing or test marketing experimental designs. Or, using survey designs we may investigate target
customer perceptions, feelings, emotions and attitudes about our resolution-alternatives, about our
products, product policies, retailing policies, pricing policies, promotion policies, consumer credit
policies, and so on. In which case, we need suitable survey questionnaires to be designed, constructed,
and pretested for reliability (using Cronbachs )and validity (face validity, content validity,
discriminant validity, convergent validity, nomological validity, and so on).
5. Best Resolution Selection: Based on observation-experimentation or solution-hypothesis verification
results from the previous step, we should be able to select or elect the best resolution alternative to
the original problem we started with. Thus, if we were testing different product price designs using
pretest marketing or test city marketing, then results should indicate which price or product mix design
is most effective in generating highest sales revenues. On the other hand, if we investigated target
customer perceptions or attitudes, then we should single which product or price design evoked the most
positive perceptions and attitudes. Either method would converge toward an optimal resolution
selection. At this stage we need to consider the cost and benefits of each resolution alternative and
choose the best. In case, your research based on Steps One through Five did not yield an optimal
solution, then perhaps you need to re-formulate the problem. That means, we go through steps 1-5
again. Good research is recursive, repetitive, and replicated.
2.
3.
4.
A problem that is truly a generic event, of which the individual occurrence is only a symptom. Most of the
problems executives confront belong to this category. For instance, most inventory situations are not
problems or decisions, but are just adaptations to a generic problem of purchasing or sales. A product
control and engineering group will typically confront hundreds of problems in a given month, great
majority of them being just symptoms of a major generic problem such as couplings in the pipes that
carry steam or hot liquids. The couplings holding the various lines together may have to be redesigned
to greater loads.
A problem which, while a unique event for the individual situation, is actually generic. For instance,
should a company accept the merger offer from a larger company or not? This is a unique problem or
non-recurrent situation. The same offer may never happen again given the company, its management,
and its board of directors. But the problem is really a generic that requires the general rules of due
diligence or consulting.
A problem is a truly exceptional event. For instance, the huge power failure that plunged Northeastern
North America from St. Lawrence to Washington DC in November 1965; the thalidomide tragedy that
led to the birth of hundreds of deformed babies in the early 1960s; or, the Bhopal crisis in India in
1986; the Katarina tsunami event that devastated the city of New Orleans in Louisiana, USA, in the late
1990s. All these were exceptional events with very low probability of occurrence (less than one in ten
million) that are rare. These unique problems require unique solutions.
A problem that is an early manifestation of a new generic problem. For instance, we know now that the
Northeastern power failure and the thalidomide tragedy were only the first instances of what, under
conditions of modern power technology and of modern pharmacology, are likely to become fairly
frequent occurrences unless generic solutions are found. Similar is the case of the 9/11 attack on
America and global terrorism.
Problems must be distinguished from their symptoms. For instance, Tom Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum
(2011: 7-10) in their latest book That Used to be Us: What went wrong with America, and How it can Come
Back, investigate the problem that currently America is declining and distinguish the decline from other
symptoms of decline such as terrorism or al-Qaeda, trade and budget deficits, national and international debts,
and energy and climate change (these are just symptoms beyond repair of a major generic problem). The main
cause of decline they argue is that America has stopped investing in education (that is, in educating the
workforce it needs), or admitting the energetic immigrants it seeks, or investing in the infrastructure it requires
(the problem of delayed maintenance is getting out of control), funding the research it envisions, or putting in
place the intelligent tax laws and incentives that its competitors have installed. A great country with enormous
potential, America is currently falling into disrepair, political disarray, and palpable discomfort about its present
condition and future prospects. America has not been able to fix its problems or reinvest in its strengths because
its political system has become paralyzed and its system of values has suffered serious erosion.
The problem in India is no different. Britain ruled the 19 th century, America dominated the 20 th century, and
now China is sweeping the 21st century leaving India behind. We are our own enemies. We are getting so much
less than we can, should, and must get out of our great and largest democracy.
Once a problem has been framed, classified as generic or unique, and categorized, defining the problem is
relatively an easy task. Pertinent questions in this regard are: What is this all about? What is pertinent here?
What is the key to this situation? And so on. For instance, the American auto industry did not define auto safety
precisely; they indulged in plausible and incomplete definitions. It was far more than any reluctance to spend
money on safety engineering; it was in understanding what auto safety was. Was it passenger safety from injury
during collision, from accidents caused by unsafe pothole-ridden roads or unlicensed drivers, during a tire bust,
during a gas explosion, during drunken driving, during road rage, during a car burglary, in sub-zero icy
conditions, during carbon monoxide emissions, or during over-speeding? Even to this day, the wicked problem
of auto safety remains imprecisely defined. Even though the ratio of accidents per thousand cars or per
thousand miles driven has been going down in USA, the total numbers of accidents and their severity have kept
creeping up. Accidents keep occurring despite safety laws and safety training. Besides designing safe cars,
USA is now engaged in making auto accidents themselves safe. That is, whereas cars have been engineered to
be safe when used correctly, they will also have to be engineered for safety when used incorrectly (Drucker
2001: 7-8).
In arriving at a complete definition of a problem, a good decision maker always tests for signs that something is
atypical or something unusual is happening, by asking questions such as: Does the definition explain the
observed events, and does it explain all of them? Check the incomplete definition against all facts, and throw
out a definition the moment it fails to encompass any of them. Or, think trough the problem again whenever
you see something atypical, when you find unexplained phenomena, or when the course of events deviates from
expectations, even in small details.
monopsony, or a dominant supplier problem? A minority supplier suppressed and harassed by dominant
suppliers? Converging industries? Converging markets? Converging trade zones? Converging continents?
Converging countries (e.g., EU)? Converging consumer lifestyles? Converging consumer values? Converging
consumer expectations?
Is it product-related? Is it cost-related (cost overruns, high wage, high salary, organizational slack, outdated
technology, )? Is it overpriced via gouging? Is there predatory pricing? Is there dumping? Is it quality
related? Is it technology related? Is it revenue related (low sales, market share erosion, low profits, low ROS,
ROM, ROQ, ROI, ROA, ROE)? Is it an outdated or obsolesced product? Does the product involve long
product cycles? Does the product involve very short life cycles via planned product or service obsolescence? Is
it a much needed, wanted or desired product and service? A new product that is new to the firm, or new to the
industry, or new to the country, or new to the world? Lack of product or service instructions and information?
A defective product? A harmful product? A confusing label or package? Confusing product or service
instructions? Are there any confusing product warranties and guarantees? Lack of adequate financing
programs? A confusing brand? A confusing product bundle? A confusing price bundle? Poor quality?
Confusing quality-surrogates via pricing, branding, bundling, advertising, promoting, and retailing? Converging
technologies? Converging industries? Converging core products? Converging core processes? Converging
products?
Is a legal problem? Does the product or service violate any written or unwritten law, ordinance, or contract
(e.g., antitrust, OSHA, equal access)? Does it violate any tort law such as deception, under-disclosure, overdisclosure or information overload, misleading, misrepresentation, negligence, or lack of due care? Does it
violate patent law? Is there any trademark infringement? Any trade law (GATT, WTO, NAFTA, and EU)
violation? Does the product or service violate consumer rights such as right to information, right to choice or
variety, right to safety, right to consumer education, right to complain, right to redress? Does it violate
individual, consumer and social privacy?
Is it environment-related problem? Does the product harm land, water, sea and air? Does it protect local and
social landscape? Does it prevent from ecological harm? Does it benefit ecology and ecosystems? Does the
product or service offend any social, national, cultural, religious, political, racial and ethnic sensitivities,
customs and mores? Does it undermine local communities, local businesses, local institutions and markets?
Does the product or service promote global inequalities of income, opportunity and entrepreneurship? Does the
product or service meet global lifesaving needs? Does the product or service eliminate or progressively
eradicate global poverty, hunger, health-hazards, homelessness, joblessness, illiteracy, crime and disease?
Regardless of industry, almost all companies are operating on faster evolutionary tracks and at greater risks
than ever before. In this context, a companys real core capability is its ability to redesign continually its value
chain and to reshuffle its structural, technological, financial and human assets in order to achieve maximum
competitive advantage. Nevertheless, competitive advantage is, at best, a fleeting commodity that must be won
again and again. That is, all players in the value-chain - producers, suppliers, employees, retail channels, and
customers are also seeking their own competitive advantage. This competitiveness makes every value-chain
dynamic. Organizations today must continually disintegrate and reintegrate in order to quickly and continually
assess which parts of their value chain are vulnerable, which parts are defensible, which corporate alliances
make the most strategic sense, and which competitive threats are deadly (Fine et al. 2002). In this value-chain
assessment process the value of the customer must be reinforced and recognized throughout the chain (Prahalad
and Ramaswamy 2000, 2003).
Conventional wisdom affirms that what a strategist should achieve is sustainable competitive advantage
(SCA). Cynthia A. Montgomery (2008: 59-60), professor of strategy at the Harvard Business School (HBS),
challenges this view. Although critically important, SCA is not the ultimate goal. SCA is a means to an end
and not an end in itself. Strategizing only in terms of SCA, mistakes the means for the end and missions
managers on an unachievable quest. SCA is essential to strategy but it is only a part of a bigger story, one
frame in a motion picture. Strategic advantage changes from time to time, even as the world, both inside and
outside the firm, changes not only in big, discontinuous leaps but also in frequent, smaller ones. Corporate
identities are changed not only by cataclysmic restructurings and grand pronouncements but also by strategic
decision after strategic decision, year after year, and CEO after CEO. An organic conception of strategy,
therefore, recognizes that whatever constitutes strategic advantage will eventually change. Thus, the very
notion that there is a strategic holy grail of SCA, that is, a strategy brilliantly conceived, carefully implemented,
and valiantly defended through time, is dangerous.
In general, major corporate and organizational management problems are (Set A):
We need to look into new markets, new products and new support systems;
We need to look into new industries, cross-industries and opportunities;
Hence, there is a need to realign our corporate resources with market opportunities;
Hence, we may need several major capital investments to be made;
There may be a need for corporate debt and equity restructuring for better leveraging;
There may be a need for refinancing and re-leveraging our businesses;
There may be a need for divestitures in relation to underutilized capacities;
There may be a need for market expansion via corporate mergers and acquisitions;
There may be a need for new market reach via joint ventures from the Bric countries;
There may be a new business venture to be identified, designed and strategized;
Hence, there may be a need to restate our corporate mission, goals and objectives;
We need to build corporate-wide innovation platforms for holistic growth;
We need to explore corporate-wide forgetting (unlearning), borrowing, and innovating;
We must develop corporate brand image and brand equity strategically;
There is a need for new corporate strategic alliances with our major competitors;
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
There is due process and justice regarding employees to be investigated and achieved;
There is a need for upgrading worker safety, security and privacy policies;
We need to refine our performance appraisal system division- and department-wide;
There is an organizational value and morale conflict to be resolved;
There is a lending policy to be reviewed since corporate borrowing capacity is weakened;
There is an imminent cash crisis with serious disability to make payroll and taxes;
There is, consequently, corporate distress and financial insolvency brewing;
We need major cost-containment and reducing cost-overrun policies and control;
We need strong revenue generating models, strategies and execution;
We need to reappraise our trade policies and trade credit strategies;
All these are typical corporate level problems that occur frequently and cyclically. Other organizational
operational and functional problems relate to (Set B):
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Old and new worker health and safety, security and privacy technologies;
Old and new labor and personnel appraisal processes and validation procedures;
Old and new materials quality assessment technologies;
Old and new production technologies;
Old and new product designing procedures;
Old and new ecology and sustainability policies and procedures;
Old and new legality, ethicality and morality concerns of hiring and firing processes;
Old and new product safety, security and law-compliance technologies;
Old and new materials, process and quality control technologies;
Old and new work-in-progress inventory management technologies;
Most of our Summer Internship Projects (SIPs) or Business Consultancy Projects (BCPs) may not involve
serious corporate problems from Set A. Often they may relate to problems in Set B. But even the little
problems that you may get to research are connected with the major ones listed under Set A and hence, need
serious and concerted research focus.
Both SIP and BCP have common starting points: Problem centered projects. SIP is primarily engaged in
problem identification, problem definition, problem formulation, problem specification, and secondary data
14
collection to situate the problem, primary data collection to throw further light on the problem and its solution
alternatives; problem-resolutions investigation and alternatives assessment, final problem resolution selection,
and final resolution consequences assessment. BCP reviews the problem, its investigative research, its alternate
resolutions, and accordingly advises the management on what solution to accept, why, and with what
consequences.
Identify almost all the relevant variables that cause the problem.
Categorize variables into controllable and uncontrollable from the companys viewpoint.
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with cost?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with pricing?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with quality?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with technology?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with employees?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with supplies and materials?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with exports or imports?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with suppliers?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with creditors, banks and shareholders?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with competition?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with market demand or glut?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with governments, laws and ordinances?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with globalization, outsourcing, and global
competition?
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
Categorize variables into controllable and uncontrollable from the consumers viewpoint.
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with pricing as perceived by the consumers?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with quality as perceived by the consumers?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with technology as perceived by consumers?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with convenience of saving time?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with convenience of saving energy?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with saving anxiety and worries?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with changing fads, fashions, and lifestyles?
To what extent are the uncontrollable variables associated with shifting demographics, sociographics,
psychographics, ergographics, ethnographics, or chirographics?
25)
Hence, correctly identify and formulate the main problem together with subsidiary or embedded subproblems. That is:
26)
Identify the various contexts the problem is nested or embedded in (e.g., economic, political, global,
technological, cultural, social and cultural).
27)
Understand the connections and ramifications (e.g., antecedents, determinants, concomitants, consequences)
of the problem on these contextual environments.
28)
Recognize the good or bad consequences of the selected alternative (i.e., best solution) on these contextual
environments.
At this stage, in order more completely to formulate your research problem, you may need to do your specific
industry scanning and target market scanning. Appendix 1 provides a framework for industry and market
scanning.
15
The contextual environment does beyond the domain of internal and external stakeholders. In a highly globalized and networked
world the contextual domain is ever expanding. It is a borderless world. Students should be taught to think globally. Local and
domestic problems have international and global connections and consequences.
Antecedents are factors and events that precede but influence the problem at hand.
Concomitants are factors and events that accompany and influence the problem at hand.
Determinants are factors and events that cause (are necessary and/or sufficient conditions) the problem.
Consequences are effects and outcomes that are causally connected to the problem or its selected solution.
If a problem is defined as a system at unrest or as a deviation from a standard or norm, then after
identifying and classifying the problem (Step One) and formulating the problem in terms of its major sets of
controllable and uncontrollable variables (Step Two), the third stage of problem specification involves searching
for real causes in terms of factors, determinants, antecedents, concomitants that bring about the unrest or
deviation in the system. Problem specification involves asking the relevant questions about every problem.
Problem specification investigates who did wrong, what went wrong, how, when, where, how often, with
whom, how and why? The more relevant questions you ask the right way with the right people, the more
complete is problem specification.
16
At this stage, in order more completely to formulate and specify your research problem, you may need to do
your specific product/service and customer scanning and target market scanning. Appendix 2 provides a
framework for product scanning and customer scanning.
A precise problem specification may involve a twofold descriptive inquiry of is and is not in relation to at
least eight classical investigative questions such as:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Who caused the unrest or deviation? Who did not cause it?
What did they do and what they did not do to bring about this unrest or deviation?
How did they do it and how not, such that it generated this unrest or deviation?
Where did they do it and where not, such that it generated this unrest or deviation?
When did they do it and when not, such that it generated this unrest or deviation?
With whom did they do it and with whom not, such that it generated this unrest or deviation?
How often did they do did it and how often not such that it generated this unrest or deviation?
Why did they do it and why not such that it generated this unrest or deviation?
The last set of questions that deal with why, why-not, and hence what, are more analytical than descriptive. All
eight questions specify the problem by contrast, and that may not be enough. We need further problem
specification by seeking differences as follows:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
What characterizes those who caused the unrest or deviation? What characterizes those who did not
cause it?
What characterizes what they did and what characterizes what they did not do in relation to this unrest
or deviation?
What characterizes how they did it and what characterizes how they did not do it relative to this unrest
or deviation?
What characterizes where they did it and what characterizes where they did it not in relation to this
unrest or deviation?
What characterizes when they did it and what characterizes when they did it not in relation to this
unrest or deviation?
What characterizes with whom they did it and what characterizes with whom they did it not in relation
to this unrest or deviation?
What characterizes how often they did it and what characterizes how often they did it not in relation to
this unrest or deviation?
What characterizes why they did it and what characterizes why they did it not in relation to this unrest
or deviation?
Table 2 captures all these relevant questions in relation to problem specification by contrasts and problem
specification by differences. In general, the cause of every problem is a change of one kind or other. This
change that causes the problem may not be so much in terms of contrasts as much as in terms of differences.
Hence, problem specification should specify more on the differences than on contrasts (Stryker 2001b).
Any change that causes the problem should explain all the contrasting features and characterizing differences in
Table 2. Failure to do may lead to a wrong cause or not the actual cause. That is, we must find a possible cause
that accounts for every fact in the specification list of Table 2. The Table 2 process may be long and arduous;
but it will stop us from prematurely jumping to a conclusion about the cause. In general, every contrast or
difference listed in Table 2 could be a possible cause of the problem, but more so the differences. Conversely,
you can test the possible cause against every facet of contrast and difference in the specification list of Table 2.
Often, the most likely cause turns out to be a change in a distinction plus a second distinction (Stryker 2001b:
139).
17
Identify almost all efficient ands effective alternatives to resolve the identified problem.
[See
Effectiveness of an alternative to resolve the problem relates to good means for realizing good
outcomes that are beneficial to all relevant stakeholders.
Efficiency concerns doing things rightly; but one could do wrong things rightly too.
Efficiency supposes thinking that maximizes benefits and minimizes costs.
Effectiveness, on the other hand, concerns doing right things rightly.
Effectiveness supposes critical thinking that maximizes benefits and minimizes costs to all
stakeholders.
Stakeholders within the company are employees, unions, suppliers, retail partners, other divisions and
departments.
Stakeholders outside the company are customers, creditors, brokers, media, shareholders and local
communities.
Present a good comparative analysis of all the identified alternatives in terms of:
a) Feasibility and viability;
b) Efficiency to resolve the main problem;
18
A prejudice implies a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known. It is a preconceived idea,
favorable, or usually, unfavorable, marked by a suspicion, intolerance or irrational hatred for other
races, creeds and occupations.
An assumption is more basic act of assuming a fact, property or event for granted without critically
assessing its accuracy and veracity, reliability and validity.
A presumption is a subset of assumption and implies taking something for granted or unjustifiably
accepting it as true, usually on the basis of improper evidence.
A supposition is the act of assuming something to be true for the sake of an argument or to illustrate a
proof. It is regarding something as true without actual knowledge, hence, often tantamount to
conjecture, guessing or mere imagination. In this sense, it is a subset of assumption.
Hence, select the best solution alternative given all your analysis above and provide convincing evidence and data to
support the selected best solution alternative.
At this stage of SIP, you may need to collect primary data from relevant market segments from your target markets
in order to better understand all four steps of problem research. This is a crucial stage where uncertainty,
ambiguity and ambivalence regarding your research problem may be clarified by directly contacting your target
customers. You need to design your survey research now, do some carefully questionnaire (QQ) designing and
pretesting. Appendix 4 has all the relevant details in this regard.
Assess the problem solution in terms of the goals and objectives that the problem failed to realize. Thus, does
the problem resolution:
Generate adequate and increasing sales revenues?
Generate adequate and increasing market shares?
19
Assess the problem solution in terms of the consumer and social goals and objectives that the problem failed to
realize. Thus, does the problem resolution:
Generate adequate and increasing consumer satisfaction?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer total experience?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer loyalty?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer lifetime loyalty and value?
Identify the legal (e.g., OSHA, EPA, FDA, FEC, CPSC, and DOJ) ramifications of the best alternative.
Legality relates to compliance or noncompliance to existing laws that apply to the selected alternative.
Thus, does the problem resolution: (each question can serve as a verifiable hypothesis for further research)
Generate increasingly decreasing consumer complaints?
Generate increasingly decreasing producer deceptions?
Generate increasingly decreasing producer negligence?
Generate increasingly decreasing consumer product liability?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer redress when harmed?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer safety?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer privacy?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer quality of life?
Generate increasingly decreasing consumer theft and crime?
Identify the relevant ethical issues (e.g., privacy, consumer rights, justice, fairness, equity, wage inequalities,
unjust structures) with respect to the selected alternative.
Ethicality goes beyond law to mores, customs, ethical codes, international agreements and imperatives.
Thus, does the problem resolution:
Generate increasingly decreasing consumer oppression and injustice?
Generate adequate and increasing social ecology?
Generate adequate and increasing environmental development?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer ethics and morals?
Generate adequate and increasing corporate social responsibility?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer social responsibility?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer justice?
Generate adequate and increasing social justice?
Generate adequate and increasing consumer distributive justice?
Generate adequate and increasing social distributive justice?
20
Study the moral (e.g., conscience, compassion, human rights and dignity, natural rights and duties, respect for
life, religious freedom) dimensions of the chosen alternative.
Morality relates to natural and positive, rights and duties of all internal and external stakeholders.
Examine the spiritual (e.g., inner harmony and peace, worldview and path, faith in humanity, hope, love, trust,
personhood, sacred parenthood, self-sacrifice and generosity) dimensions of the selected alternative on all
stakeholders.
Spirituality relates to uplifting and empowerment of the human spirit (personal and social) within and
without the organization. [See Steven Coveys Eighth Habit or Spiritual Intelligence (SQ). SQ
represents our drive for meaning and connection with the infinite. SQ is thinking with your soul. SQ
relates to the whole reality and dimension that is bigger, more creative, more loving, more powerful, more
visionary, and mysterious than the materialistic daily human existence]
Concluding Remarks
Two Schools of Thought
How do businesses advance knowledge, and create and capture value? Roger Martin argues that there are two
schools of thought responding to this question. One school of thought holds that the path to value creation lies
in driving out the old-fashioned practice of gut feelings and instincts, replacing it with strategy based on
rigorous, quantitative analysis, optimally backed by decision-support software. In this model, the basis of
thought is analytical thinking that combines deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning to declare truths and
certainties about the world. This model seeks knowledge and mastery through rigorous, continuously replicated
analytical processes. This model and the organizational culture that backs it privilege analysis over intuition
and mastery over originality. Judgment, bias, and variations are the enemies of this school of thought. If these
are vanquished, the school presumes, great decisions will be made and great value will be created.
The opposing school of thought is centered on the primacy of creativity and innovation. According to this
school analytical thinking has banished creativity, imagination and innovative management, has driven
creativity out of the product and services, and has doomed organizations to boring stultification. Great products
like iTunes, iPhones, Xbox, Dell, Intel and Toshiba spring from the heart and soul of a great designer (like Steve
Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Andy Moore); they are flashes and insights that surface, unencumbered by
analysis, quantitative research, survey designs or processes. This is the school of intuitive thinking, backed by
creativity, imagination, design thinking and innovation. This is the art of knowing without reasoning. This is
the world of originality and invention (Martin 2009: 6).
Table 4 captures the differences between these two opposing schools of thought. Neither analytical
thinking nor intuitive thinking is enough for driving innovations and capturing value. Instead of a dichotomous
approach to either analytical thinking that drives out intuition or intuitive thinking that drives out analysis,
Roger Martin (2009) proposes a combined approach that he calls design thinking for optimal business
performance. The most successful businesses in the years to come, argues Martin, will balance analytical
mastery and intuitive originality in a dynamic interplay of analytical reasoning and intuitive thinking. Design
thinking firms will stand apart in their willingness to engage in the task of continuously redesigning their
business. They will create advances in both innovation and efficiency the combination that produces the most
powerful competitive advantage.
All research needs focus: your research domain is either past/present or future, and your research focus is
problem versus non-problem orientation. Accordingly, we have a 2 x 2 research focus paradigm detailed in
Table 5. The predominant type and field of thinking within each of the resulting quadrants are also outlined in
Table 5. Both SIP and BCP involve problem centered research orientations, but their methodology is different.
SIP clearly falls in Quadrant One where the dominant method is Empirical Positivism (appeared in 1930s),
which is an inductive method characterized by the methodologies of empirical testability (verifiability/
falsifiability) via mostly quantitative Analysis. On the contrary, BCP falls under Quadrant Three where the
predominant method is Logical-Experimental, Experiential, and Hermeneutical Interpretationism (that has
emerged since 1995). Table 6 provides an historical development of research methods and their comparative
methodologies.
This methodology uses mixed methods qualitative and quantitative methods deductive-inductive methods
a multivariate approach that draws upon logic rather than probability embedded case studies that employ both
case design and survey design, and basic consulting research. Its dominant resource is social reality of data,
behavior, social interactions, narratives, oral traditions, and cultures. Its dominant inquiry is observing and
listening to people and registering their gestures, signs, symbols, proverbs, similes, parables, metaphors,
themes, humor, traditions and cultures; comparing peoples and their cultures. Its dominant outcomes are
engaging in different types of research practice methods are tools or lens (optics) to investigate several types
and kinds of research questions (See Table 6).
Bibliography
Ackoff, Russell L. and Emery F. E. (1972), On Purposeful Systems. Aldine Atherton, Chicago.
Bennis, Warren G. and Robert J. Thomas (2002), Geeks and Geezers: How Era, Values, and Defining Moments Shape Leaders. Boston:
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Bollier, David (1997), Aiming Higher. Chicago: Amacom.
Bossidy, Larry and Ram Charan (2002), Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. New York: Crown Business.
Cavanagh, Gerald F. (2006), American Business Values: A Global Perspective, 5th edition, Prentice-Hall.
Chaffee, John (1988), Thinking Critically, 2nd edition, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Childre, Doc and Bruce Cryer (1999), From Chaos to Coherence. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Christensen, Clayton M. (1997), The Innovators Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to ail, Boston: Harvard
Business School.
Collins, Jim and Jerry I. Porras (2002), Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. Harper Business.
Collins, Jim (2001), Good to Great. Harper Business.
Covey, Stephen R. (1989), The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Free Press.
Covey, Stephen R. (2004), The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. New York: Free Press.
De George, Richard T. (1995/1999), Business Ethics, 4th and 5th editions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Drucker, Peter F. (1999), Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York: Harper Business.
Drucker, Peter F. (2001), The Effective Decision, in Harvard Business Review on Decision Making, Harvard Business School Press,
pp.1-20. (Originally appeared in Harvard Business Review, January-February 1967).
22
Emery, Fred E. and Eric L. Trist (1973), Towards a Social Ecology. Plenum Press, London.
Etzioni, Amitai (2001), Humble Decision Making, in Harvard Business Review on Decision Making, Harvard Business School Press,
pp. 45-57. (Originally appeared in Harvard Business Review, July-August 1989).
Furman, Frida Kerner (1990), "Teaching Business Ethics: Questioning the Assumptions, Seeking New Directions," Journal of Business
Ethics, 9 (January), 31-38.
Gerstner, Louis V. (2002), Who Says Elephants Cannot Dance? (Inside IBMs Historic Turnaround). New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.
Hammarskjld, Dag (2001) Markings. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1991), Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science. Cincinnati, OH: SouthWestern Publishing Co.
Hunt, Shelby D. (2002), Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing. New York: ME Sharpe.
Loeher, Jim and Tony Schwartz (2003), The Power of Engagement. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Malhotra, Naresh K. and Satyabhushan Dash (2009), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 5th edition, Pearson, Prentice-Hall.
Mandela, Nelson (1994), Long Walk to Freedom. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Martin, Roger (2009), The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage, Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Press.
Montgomery, Cynthia A. (2008), Putting Leadership Back into Strategy, Harvard Business Review, (January), 54-60.
Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder (2002), Critical Thinking: Tools for taking Charge of your Professional and Personal Life, Financial
Times: Prentice-Hall.
Prahalad, C. K. and Gary Hamel (1990), The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review, 68:3, 7191.
Prahalad, C. K. and Venkatram Ramaswamy (2000), Co-opting Customer Experience, Harvard Business Review, 78
(January-February), 79-87.
Prahalad, C. K. and Venkatram Ramaswamy (2003), The New Frontier of Experience Innovation, MIT Sloan
Management Review, 44:4 (Summer), 12-19.
Rogers, Carl R. (1961), On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Stryker, Perrin (2001a), Can you Analyze this Problem? in Harvard Business Review on Decision Making, Harvard Business School
Press, pp. 97-112. (Originally appeared in Harvard Business Review, May-June 1965).
Stryker, Perrin (2001b), How to Analyze that Problem? in Harvard Business Review on Decision Making, Harvard Business School
Press, pp.113-142. (Originally appeared in Harvard Business Review, July-August 1965).
Wolman, Richard (2001), Thinking With Your Soul. New York: Harmony Books.
23
Typical Marketing
Research Questions
Typical Financial
Research Questions
Types of Research
Exploratory
Research
Descriptive Research
Causal Research
Ambiguous and
unstructured and
wicked Problems
Market Ambiguity
Uncertain or partially
defined Problems
Market Uncertainty
Market Certainty
Problem formulations
and solutions are
unknown
Concomitant and
circular variation of
causes and effects
Explore plurality of
causes and effects
working concomitantly.
24
Classical
Domain of
Inquiry
Problem Specification by
Contrasts
Is?
Is not?
Who?
What?
Where?
When?
With Whom?
How?
Problem Specification by
Differences
What is
What is
distinctive of
distinctive of
the Is?
the Is Not?
Why?
What characterizes
those who did?
What characterizes
what they did?
What characterizes
where they did it?
What characterizes
when they did it?
What characterizes
with whom they did
it?
What characterizes
how they did it?
What characterizes
how often they did
it?
What characterizes
why they did it?
Hence
What characterizes
the problem?
Hence
What characterizes
the cause that
caused the problem?
Hence
What characterizes
the cause that
caused the problemconsequences?
Hence
What is a solution?
What is not a
solution?
What characterizes
the solutions?
How Often?
25
What characterizes
those who did not?
What characterizes
what they did not?
What characterizes
where they did it not?
What characterizes
when they did it not?
What characterizes
with whom they did
not do it?
What characterizes
how they did it not?
What characterizes
how often they did it
not?
What characterizes
why they did it not?
What does not
characterize the
problem?
What does not
characterize the cause
that caused the
problem?
What does not
characterize the cause
that caused the
problemconsequences?
What does not
characterize the
solutions?
To Achieve
Right Ends or
Outcomes
Right
Wrong
Cunningness
Shrewdness
Worldliness
Examples:
Examples:
Fortitude, Courage
Compassion, Kindness
Fairness, Justice
Truth and Rectitude
Honesty and integrity
Balance and maturity
Collateral damage
Love to kill
Serve to dominate
Dieting to anorexia
Merger to kill competition
Acquisition to kill competition
Manipulation
Deception
Trickery
Wickedness
Vice
Evil
Examples:
Examples:
Villains courage
Murderers fortitude
Preemptive war
Stealing to donate
Lie to save ones life
Losing to win
Avarice, greed
Verbal or physical violence
Coveting neighbors goods
Coveting neighbors spouse
Conspiracy and murder
Exploitation and oppression
Exercise:
Using this fourfold critical thinking paradigm, where and why would you classify the following properties or events,
and with what consequences?
Severance pay, retirement benefits, street smarts, jobs outsourcing to reduce costs, child labor, sweatshops,
employing illegal immigrants, transferring outmoded technologies, forced obsolescence, planned obsolescence,
artificial shortages, market gluts, downsizing to improve efficiency but creating ghost towns, bait and switch,
deceptive ads, deceptive contracts, dumping, price war, predatory pricing, insider trading, round trip sales,
underdisclosure in ads, information overload or overdisclosure in media, hostile takeover, mergers, divestitures,
acquisitions, plant closing, declaring insolvency or bankruptcy, executive compensation, greenmail, golden
parachutes, and bribing.
26
Primary Goal
Primary driver of
value creation
Method
Methodology
Organizational
structure
Advantages
Disadvantages
Much sought
after outcomes
Enemies
Current
representative
companies
Current
representative
products and
services
Future Prospects
27
foraying,
28
Past and
Present
Non-Problem Centered:
Anomaly Centered;
Knowledge-gap centered;
Technology-gap centered
Creativity-centered;
Innovation centered;
Design thinking centered
Basic
Methodology of
Research
Inquiry
Logic of
Justification:
Seeking Explanation,
Understanding,
Prediction and Control
of Phenomena,
anomalies, conflicts,
truth, laws, norms,
principles, rules and
standards discovered
through the Logic of
Discovery
Problem identification,
Problem description,
Problem definition,
Problem formulation,
Problem specification,
Problem-resolutions-investigation,
Solutions-hypotheses-verification,
Observation-experimentation,
Best solution selection,
Best theory selection,
Best law-like generalization,
Best truth/norm/mores selection,
Solution-consequences-estimation,
Problem reformulation,
Intuition, insights,
Discussion, discernment,
Hindsight research,
Demographic analysis,
Economic analysis,
Sociographic analysis,
Psychographic analysis,
Ergographic analysis,
Ethnographic analysis,
Clicographic analysis,
Chirographic analysis,
Anthropological analysis,
Consensual analysis,
Retrospective analysis
Critical Thinking
Processes:
Design Thinking
Processes:
Creative thinking,
Imaginative thinking,
Innovative thinking,
Productive thinking,
Divergent thinking,
Lateral thinking,
New paradigm thinking,
New design thinking,
New methods thinking,
New methodology thinking,
Radical innovative thinking,
Disruptive innovative thinking,
Catalytic innovative thinking,
New process thinking,
New product thinking,
New services thinking,
New markets thinking,
New challenges thinking,
Logic of
Discovery:
The
Future
Problem-Centered:
Logical Empiricism:
29
Sociological
Experimentation and
Investigation:
Inter-subjectively
Certifiable, Agreeable,
Acceptable: Mostly Qualitative Analysis
Dominant
Method
Dominant Resource
Dominant Inquiry
Dominant
Outcomes
1907Logical
Positivism
(The Vienna
Circle)
Formal syllogistic
logic, critical
discussion,
observation and
experimentation
the analytic critical
design
Philosophy not as a
system of cognitions
and propositions, but
as a system of acts and
activities.
1930Logical
Empiricism
Quantitative
statistical methods
the Inductive Method
Survey Designseeking explanation,
understanding,
prediction and
control
Qualitative
experimental
methods the
deductive-inductive
method Case study
of behavior
Numerical-attitudinal
Data-to-Theory
development.
Observed-behavioral
data- to-Theory
development.
Anthropology,
Sociology,
Psychography,
Biography, sociogeography, and
ethnography.
Mixed methods
qualitative and
quantitative methods
deductive-inductive
methods a
multivariate
approach that draws
upon logic rather
than probability
embedded case
studies that employ
both case design and
survey design; basic
consulting research.
Analytical, synthetic,
inductive-deductive,
interpretive methods
1980Sociological
Experimentation
and Investigation
1995LogicalExperimental
Experiential
Hermeneutical
Interpretationism
2006 Social
Media
Phenomenological Research
Phenomenology, social
constructionism, socialepistemology and
Cultural-interactive
Analysis
30
Content analysis,
Conversation analysis, Narrative
analysis, Graphics analysis,
Value analysis
Event analysis
Culture of advocacy,
communication,
information-diffusion,
Value-adoption,
institutionalization,
and globalization
Industry
Scanning
Market
Scanning
What is the industry? What are its content, markets, and trade centers?
Is the industry a capital-intensive versus labor-intensive industry?
Is it a monopolistic versus duopolistic industry?
Is it an oligopolistic versus perfectly competitive industry?
Does it have pockets of industrial concentration?
What are the relevant cross-industries?
What industries does it depend upon for its trade or operations?
Is it a homogenous or heterogeneous industry?
Is it an old or versus new industry?
Is it a growing versus slowing or stagnant industry?
Is it an expanding or contracting industry?
Is it a divergent versus convergent industry?
Is it an inflationary or recessionary industry?
Is it an underutilized versus over-utilized industry?
Is it a regulated versus deregulated industry?
Is it a centralized versus decentralized industry?
Is it a domestic dominated industry or globally controlled industry?
Is it a corruption-free versus corruption-ridden industry?
Is it known for corporate fraud or corporate honesty?
Are the industry operations transparent versus opaque and deceptive?
Is there an industry ethics code or industry mores?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
What is the market? What are its contents, retail structures, and trade centers?
What is the market structure in terms of major competitors?
What is the market structure in terms of major market entry barriers?
What is the market structure in terms of competing design brands?
What is the market structure in terms of line extensions, me-too products?
What is the market structure in terms of product categories?
What is the market structure in terms of product accessories or supplements?
What is the market structure in terms of product substitutes?
What is the market structure in terms of promotions and media planning?
What is the market structure in terms of product prices and price regimes?
What is the price structure in terms of price cartels or collusions?
What is the market structure in terms of discount prices?
What is the market structure in terms of product-price bundles?
What is the market structure in terms of consumer credit?
What is the market structure in terms of product financing schemes?
What is the market structure in terms of product gluts, if any?
What is the market structure in terms of product dumping?
What is the market structure in terms of product warranties and guarantees?
What is the market structure in terms of product complaints and feedback?
What is the market structure in terms of product-consumer redress?
What is the market structure in terms of domestic regulation and legislation?
What is the market structure in terms of domestic foreign regulation and legislation?
What is the market structure in terms of foreign markets?
What is the market structure in terms of foreign trade zones?
What is the market structure in terms of multinational players?
What is the market structure in terms of globalization?
What is the market structure in terms of Internet markets or online markets?
31
32
Product
Scanning
Customer
Scanning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
33
Title
Executive
Summary
Major Contents
Remarks
One
Introduction
Two
Problem
Identification
Three
Problem
Formulation
Four
Problem
Specification
6.
Five
ProblemResolution
Alternatives
Investigation
Six
Survey
Questionnaire
Designing
and Data
Analysis
Best
ProblemResolution
Selection
Seven
Eight
References
Tables
34
Questionnaire Design
Given the nature of the research problem, you must first decide what type of survey research method you will use
among several known methods: e.g., door-to-door personal interviews, focused group interviews, telephone
interviews, computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI), internet interviews, e-mail surveys, self-administered
mail or internet interviews, shopping mall intercept interviews, electronic kiosk-based self-administered
questionnaire, and the like. Each survey research method has its own costs and benefits, advantages and
disadvantages, limitations and structures. Common concerns across all survey research methods are anonymity,
confidentiality, respondent safety and security, respondent privacy, time and space invasion, threatening or
discomforting questions, interviewer intrusions and compulsions, questionnaire length and complexity, question or
statement ambiguity, non-representative or over-representative samples, respondent non-cooperation, and the like.
Some of these concerns are captured in Appendix 4, Table 2.
35
A survey is only as good as the questions it asks. Questionnaire (QQ) design is one of the most critical stages in the
market survey research process. The art of QQ design needs much more than common sense, good grammar, and
good vocabulary. Relevance and accuracy are two basic criteria every QQ should meet. People must understand
the questions asked. Assuming that people will understand the questions asked in a QQ is a common researcher
error. A QQ is relevant if no unnecessary information is collected and only the information needed to resolve the
research problem is obtained. Hence, be specific about your data/information needs and have a rationale for each
item of information you seek. A QQ is accurate if the information obtained is reliable and valid. Hence, ask the
necessary information using simple, understandable, unbiased, unambiguous, unequivocal, and non-irritating
words. Design your QQ (e.g., structure, sequence, wording, length of items) such that you facilitate respondent
interest, motivation, cooperation and easy recall.
What to ask?
Basically, three factors determine what you ask?
1.
2.
3.
Given your clear SIP problem identification, classification, definition, formulation, specification, now
determine what information you need to ask from the target audience in order to make the problem
identification, classification, definition, formulation, specification, and alternatives investigation
clearer, more focused, and to better realize your research objectives.
Further, your choice of survey method in terms of personal interview, mall intercept, telephone
interview, mail self-administered QQ, or Internet survey, will further determine what, whom, how,
when, where, and why to ask certain questions and to avoid others.
Thirdly, the type of quantitative versus qualitative data analysis you plan to pursue will also partly
determine what you ask and observe, and under what numeric or alphanumeric form.
Open-ended response questions are free-answer questions. These are most beneficial in conducting exploratory
research, especially when the range of responses is not known. Open-ended responses may generate spontaneous
reactions and words and expressions that you could use in phrasing questions for the final close-ended
questionnaire. In contrast, the close-ended fixed alternative versions of the above questions are:
What do you know about Pepsi as a company? Very much [ ]; Average [ ]; Almost nothing [ ].
What do you think about Pepsi brands? Very good [ ]; Average reputation [ ]; almost unheard of [ ].
What comes to mind when you see this Pepsi advertisement? Superb [ ]; Average [ ]; Terrible [ ].
What would you suggest that Pepsi do for the coming year? Develop more brands [ ]; Stay as you are [ ].
Of course, close ended questions can be expressed in many ways, depending upon:
The typical scale measurement used (e.g., simple attitude scales, category scales, the Likert scale, semantic
differential scale, numerical scales, staple scales, constant-sum scales, graphic ratings scale, Thurstone
Interval scale, and so on). Much would also depend upon the measurement type (e.g., ranking, sorting,
rating, labeling, comparing) used.
36
If the QQ is based on a theoretical construct (e.g., worker satisfaction, product loyalty, total customer
experience), then the question items asked must be consistent, comprehensive and logical such that the
construct scale that emerges has both reliability (e.g., high Cronbachs alpha) and scientific validity (face
and content validity, criterion and construct validity, discriminant and convergent validity, and
nomological validity).
The means of data collection (e.g., telephone interview, personal interview, self-administered QQ) will
influence the question format and question phrasing. In general, question items for mail, Internet, and
telephone surveys must be less complex than those used for personal interviews. QQs for telephone and
personal interviews should be written in a conversational style.
37
Avoid Implicit Alternatives: An alternative that is not explicitly expressed among the options is an
implicit alternative. Making an implicit alternative explicit may increase accuracy and percentage of
responses. For instance compare these two questions: Do you like to fly when traveling short
distances? Versus Do you like to fly when traveling short distances, or would you rather drive? The
second question makes an implicit alternative (of question 1) explicit, and hence, the first question
would yield a greater preference for flying than the second question. When alternatives presented are
large in number, the alternatives at the end of the list have a greater chance of being selected. To
overcome this bias, the split ballot technique of rotating the order of alternatives should be used.
Avoid generalizations and estimates: Make questions specific, not general. Do not ask respondents to
estimate complex variables when you can do it as a researcher. Example: What is the annual per capita
expenditure on groceries in your household? To answer this accurately, a respondent would have to
recall monthly average groceries expenses and multiply by 12, or weekly groceries expenses and
multiply by 52, and then divide that number by the number of people in the household. Most
respondents do not like calculations nor are capable and accurate for doing them. Instead ask two
simple questions: What is the weekly (or monthly) expenditure on groceries in your household? How
many members are there in your household? You may then perform the necessary calculations yourself
(Malhotra and Dash 2009: 313-14.
Avoid ambiguous words and questions: We often use general words in questions such as often,
occasionally, regularly, frequently, many, good, fair, poor, and the like that may have different
meanings to different people. For instance: Do you read Forbes India frequently? [What is frequently:
twice, thrice, five, eight, or ten times a year?] A less ambiguous question would be: How many times
during a year do you read Forbes India? Or, Please indicate the number of times you read Forbes India
in a given year: 1-3 times [ ]; 4-6 times [ ]; 7-9 times [ ]; 10-12 times [ ].
Avoid burdensome questions: Some questions tax the memory too much. For instance: How many times
in your life did you fail to file for taxes? Do you recall auto commercials in the last IPL game? When
did you take your last aspirin?
Use filter questions for clarity: A filter screens out respondents not qualified to answer the sequential
questions. Thus, a filter minimizes asking non-applicable questions. For instance: Do you have a bank
account? If yes: Do you have check-cashing problems in Mangalore? If yes: Are these checkcashing problems to a specific bank in Mangalore? [The first two are sequential filter questions that
prepare the respondent for the more specific third question].
Ask questions about which the respondents are informed: Researchers should not assume that
respondents can provide accurate and complete answers to all questions. Often respondents may not be
informed, may not remember, or be unable to articulate certain types of responses. For instance, a
husband (whose wife does all grocery shopping) may not know or remember what brand, how often,
what quantity, and when soft drinks are bought for home use. Similarly, a wife (whose husband does
all the banking chores) may not be informed about or remember when the last check bounced or an
interest payment was overdue or a utility bill paid through the bank was overpaid.
Avoid the errors of omission, telescoping and creation: Omission is the inability to recall an event that actually
took place. Telescoping takes place when an individual compresses or telescopes time by remembering an event as
occurring more recently than it actually occurred. Creation error takes place when a respondent creates or
fabricates an event that did not actually occur. Example: What brands of soft drinks do you remember being
advertised last night on TV during the IPL Cricket game? An unaided recall to answer this question may suffer from
all three errors.
Concluding Remarks:
Check the format, layout, spacing and positioning, length and clarity of your QQ design. See Appendix 4, Table 3
for a complete QQ design checklist. All these factors have significant effect on your results, especially for self38
administered QQs. Print your QQ and check for spelling, grammar, punctuations, vocabulary, clarity and
interest. Get your companions or mentor to critique it. Pretest the QQ on a convenient sample of the target
audience.
39
Type of Errors
Random
Sampling
Errors
Source of
Errors
Sub-types of
Errors
Random
fluctuations in
elements selected
for a sample
Segmentation
errors
Non-response
errors
Deliberate or
unconscious
omission or inaction
Specification of Errors
Respondent
Errors
Deliberate
falsification or
Unconscious
misrepresentation
Response Bias
Systematic
Errors or Bias
(NonSampling
Errors)
Auspices Bias
Social Desirability Bias
Administrative
Errors
Data Processing
Errors
Wrong software
Software errors
Sample Selection
Errors
Biased sample
selection
Interviewer
Errors
Deliberate or
unconscious
Interviewer
Cheating
Manipulating
respondents or
faked
questionnaires
Manipulating responses or
doctoring data or filling empty
spaces deliberately skipped
40
Door-todoor
Personal
Interview
Mall Intercept
Personal
Interview
Telephone
Interview
Moderate to
fast
Fast
Very fast
Geographic
Flexibility
Respondent
Cooperation
Moderate
Low
Good
Excellent
Moderate to
low
Good
Questioning
versatility
Quite
versatile
Extremely
versatile
Moderate
Respondent
Probing by
Interviewer
High
Moderate
Multimedia
Possibilities
Audio-Visual
materials
could be used
moderately
Questionnaire
length
Mail Survey
Internet Survey
Instantaneous 24/7
Moderate to
high
Moderate: poorly
designed QQ will have
low response rate
Not versatile; QQ
requires highly
standardized format
Low unless through
follow-ups
Taped voices
Could be long
Audio-Visual
materials could
be used
moderately but
quickly
Moderate
Moderate
Item Non-response
rate
Respondent
Misunderstanding
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Low
Low
Average
Interviewer
Influence on
Answers
Interviewer
Supervision
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate to
high
Not applicable
Not applicable
Call-back or
Follow-up Ease
Cost
Difficult
Very difficult
High if
interviewer
taps phones
Easy
Highest
Respondent
Anonymity
Lowest
Moderate to
high
Low given open
malls
Low to
moderate
Moderate
Researcher-dependent
High
High unless
mall environment is not
supportive
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
High
Low to moderate
Response
Confidentiality
Respondent
Privacy/Security
Invasion
Ethics:
Interviewer
cheating
Researcherdependent
41
High
42
Instruction
Specify the
information needed
Specify the
Interviewing
Method
Determine the
content of individual
questions
Simplify and
motivate the QQ
Is the respondent adequately informed about what you are looking for?
If the required information is sensitive and important, then are several sequential and filter
questions needed to obtain the required information in an unambiguous manner?
Can the respondent remember and recall with ease?
Avoid the errors of omission, telescoping and creation.
Can the respondent articulate the required information?
Is the information sensitive? If so, place such questions at the end, and preface the questions
with an explanation and justification. Provide for response categories instead of asking for
specific figures.
Determine the
question wording
Determine the
question order
8
9
10
Pretest the QQ
43