IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aes/icmbdj/v2y2016i1p82-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulation Business Games in the Research of Marketing Managers’ Decision Making Process

Author

Listed:
  • Marcin Awdziej

    (Kozminski University)

  • Jolanta Tkaczyk

    (Kozminski University)

Abstract

Wierenga (2011) argues that simulation business games are suitable research method to develop knowledge of how marketing managers make their decisions. This area of research in marketing is still underdeveloped. The quality of these decisions is single most important factor determining how successful marketing management of a company would be. Marketing decision making process and its results are determined with vast number of factors, such as consumer behaviour, competitive reactions, state of the economy or relationships with intermediaries. The interrelationships between these factors are complex and not easy to understand, which implies high levels of risk and uncertainty of any decision to be made. Even if marketing managers have access to information and understand necessary relationships between the key market factors, the final decision is always made by a marketing manager, who must identify the central problem, make appropriate analysis within limited timeframe, formulate strategy and propose its implementation. However, little is still known what leads to good or bad decisions, and our understanding of the underlying processes is very limited. Better understanding of how marketing managers make their decisions is crucial to develop appropriate support tools and systems. Complex cognitive processes are very difficult to be researched with traditional empirical methods, such as surveys or interviews. Simulation business games allow observation and measurement of decision makers in “known environment”, which is controllable and complex enough to emulate real life decision making process. Dickinson et al. (2004) argue that simulation business games not only allow investigation of complex phenomena, but also study of their development in different timeframes, as they recreate realistic conditions on emotionally involving experimental setting. The aim of this paper is therefore to provide an in – depth, critical analysis of possibilities and limitations of simulation business games as research method to investigate decision making process of marketing managers. The concept, limitations and potential of simulation business games are identified in this article. Selected proprietary simulation business games are compared to identify their potential and applicability to conduct experimental research of how marketing managers make long and short term decisions. Simulation business games, although criticised for limited mundane realism and validity, are useful research instruments, allowing investigation of complex decision making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcin Awdziej & Jolanta Tkaczyk, 2016. "Simulation Business Games in the Research of Marketing Managers’ Decision Making Process," International Conference on Marketing and Business Development Journal, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 2(1), pages 82-90, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:aes:icmbdj:v:2:y:2016:i:1:p:82-90
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mbd.ase.ro/RePEc/aes/icmbdj/2016/ICMBD_V2_2016_28.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leeflang, P.S.H. & Wittink, Dick R., 2000. "Building models for marketing decisions: past, present and future," Research Report 00F20, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    2. Matthias Benz & Stephan Meier, 2008. "Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 268-281, September.
    3. Rashi Glazer & Joel H. Steckel & Russell S. Winer, 1992. "Locally Rational Decision Making: The Distracting Effect of Information on Managerial Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 212-226, February.
    4. repec:dgr:rugsom:00f20 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    6. Charles R. Schwenk, 1982. "Why sacrifice rigour for relevance? A proposal for combining laboratory and field research in strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 213-225, July.
    7. Wierenga, Berend, 2011. "Managerial decision making in marketing: The next research frontier," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 89-101.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Albers, Sönke, 2012. "Optimizable and implementable aggregate response modeling for marketing decision support," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 111-122.
    2. Joel H. Steckel & Sunil Gupta & Anirvan Banerji, 2004. "Supply Chain Decision Making: Will Shorter Cycle Times and Shared Point-of-Sale Information Necessarily Help?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(4), pages 458-464, April.
    3. Zhao, Yingshuai & Zhao, Xiaobo, 2015. "On human decision behavior in multi-echelon inventory management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 116-128.
    4. Wierenga, Berend, 2011. "Managerial decision making in marketing: The next research frontier," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 89-101.
    5. Risselada, Hans & Verhoef, Peter C. & Bijmolt, Tammo H.A., 2010. "Staying Power of Churn Prediction Models," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 198-208.
    6. Potters, Jan & Stoop, Jan, 2016. "Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 26-33.
    7. Pastore, Erica & Alfieri, Arianna & Zotteri, Giulio, 2019. "An empirical investigation on the antecedents of the bullwhip effect: Evidence from the spare parts industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 121-133.
    8. Berry, D. & Naim, M. M., 1996. "Quantifying the relative improvements of redesign strategies in a P.C. supply chain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 181-196, December.
    9. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    10. Towill, Denis R. & Zhou, Li & Disney, Stephen M., 2007. "Reducing the bullwhip effect: Looking through the appropriate lens," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1-2), pages 444-453, July.
    11. Fischbacher, Urs & Schudy, Simeon & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2021. "Heterogeneous preferences and investments in energy saving measures," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    12. Oliva, Rogelio, 2003. "Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(3), pages 552-568, December.
    13. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    14. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    15. Ma, Yungao & Wang, Nengmin & He, Zhengwen & Lu, Jizhou & Liang, Huigang, 2015. "Analysis of the bullwhip effect in two parallel supply chains with interacting price-sensitive demands," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(3), pages 815-825.
    16. Arno Riedl & Paul Smeets, 2017. "Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 72(6), pages 2505-2550, December.
    17. Rich, Karl M. & Ross, R. Brent & Baker, A. Derek & Negassa, Asfaw, 2011. "Quantifying value chain analysis in the context of livestock systems in developing countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 214-222, April.
    18. Meier, Stephan & Sprenger, Charles, 2010. "Stability of Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 4756, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. repec:dgr:rugsom:98b27 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Li Chen & Hau L. Lee, 2012. "Bullwhip Effect Measurement and Its Implications," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 771-784, August.
    21. Adam, Marc T.P. & Astor, Philipp J. & Krämer, Jan, 2016. "Affective Images, Emotion Regulation and Bidding Behavior: An Experiment on the Influence of Competition and Community Emotions in Internet Auctions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 56-69.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    simulation business games; marketing decisions; decision making process;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aes:icmbdj:v:2:y:2016:i:1:p:82-90. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lucian Onisor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.