IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v69y2016i8p2849-2862.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making tough decisions competently: Assessing the value of product portfolio planning methods, devil’s advocacy, group discussion, weighting priorities, and evidenced-based information

Author

Listed:
  • de Villiers, Rouxelle
  • Woodside, Arch G.
  • Marshall, Roger

Abstract

This study test the efficacy of using tools proposed to increase effective decision-making (DM) by executives. Rather than serving to increase competency, management literature relevant to the study includes claims that product portfolio planning methods (P3M) and other proposals to use tools designed to increase the quality of decisions actually serve to increase incompetency versus using alternative planning tools or no planning tools. However, the designs in these studies have telling framing and structural limitations. The study here proposes improvements in testing of the core proposition that specific aids are effective in increasing the quality of decisions. This study includes alternative executive problem-solving, scenario-experimental, treatments and problem-solving by 150 individuals processing information in groups of four persons or as individuals. The findings provide independent evidence that executives' use of certain decision/planning tools within specific contexts helps to increase decision quality other than P3M. The findings of prior studies receive support in that the use of P3M in all contexts in the present study contributes high decision incompetence.

Suggested Citation

  • de Villiers, Rouxelle & Woodside, Arch G. & Marshall, Roger, 2016. "Making tough decisions competently: Assessing the value of product portfolio planning methods, devil’s advocacy, group discussion, weighting priorities, and evidenced-based information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2849-2862.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:8:p:2849-2862
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296315006955
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.054?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Armstrong, J. Scott & Brodie, Roderick J., 1994. "Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making: experimental results," MPRA Paper 81684, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Woodside, Arch G., 2012. "Incompetency training: Theory, practice, and remedies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 279-293.
    3. Schwenk, Charles R., 1990. "Effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 161-176, October.
    4. Green, Kesten C., 2002. "Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role-playing, and unaided judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 321-344.
    5. Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong, 2005. "Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 17/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    6. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2011. "Role thinking: Standing in other people’s shoes to forecast decisions in conflicts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 69-80.
    7. Lages, Martin & Hoffrage, Ulrich & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 1999. "Intransitivity of fast and frugal heuristics," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 99-49, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    8. Henry Mintzberg & James A. Waters, 1985. "Of strategies, deliberate and emergent," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(3), pages 257-272, July.
    9. Heath, Chip & Gonzalez, Rich, 1995. "Interaction with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality: Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 305-326, March.
    10. Schulz-Hardt, Stefan & Jochims, Marc & Frey, Dieter, 2002. "Productive conflict in group decision making: genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 563-586, July.
    11. Armstrong, J. Scott & Collopy, Fred, 1996. "Competitor Orientation: Effects of Objectives and Information on Managerial Decisions and Profitability," MPRA Paper 81676, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    13. Green, Kesten C., 2005. "Game theory, simulated interaction, and unaided judgement for forecasting decisions in conflicts: Further evidence," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 463-472.
    14. Todd, Peter M. & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2003. "Bounding rationality to the world," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 143-165, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cranmer, Eleanor E. & Papalexi, M. & tom Dieck, M. Claudia & Bamford, D., 2022. "Internet of Things: Aspiration, implementation and contribution," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 69-80.
    2. Theresa Eckert & Stefan Hüsig, 2022. "Innovation portfolio management: a systematic review and research agenda in regards to digital service innovations," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 187-230, February.
    3. Carmen González-Velasco & Marcos González-Fernández & José-Luis Fanjul-Suárez, 2019. "Does innovative effort matter for corporate performance in Spanish companies in a context of financial crisis? A fuzzy-set QCA approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 1707-1727, May.
    4. Iris Lorscheid & Matthias Meyer, 2021. "Toward a better understanding of team decision processes: combining laboratory experiments with agent-based modeling," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(9), pages 1431-1467, November.

    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. Woodside, Arch G., 2012. "Incompetency training: Theory, practice, and remedies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 279-293.
    2. Mike Metcalfe & Saras Sastrowardoyo, 2016. "Sense-making Innovative Systems: Prestigious MOOCs," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 437-451, May.
    3. Wright, George & Rowe, Gene, 2011. "Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, January.
    4. repec:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. J. Scott Armstrong & Philippe Jacquart, 2013. "The Ombudsman: Is the Evidence Sufficient to Take Action on Executive Pay? Reply to Commentators," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 602-604, December.
    6. Jan-Erik Vahlne & Jan Johanson, 2017. "From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(9), pages 1087-1102, December.
    7. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2015. "Simple versus complex forecasting: The evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1678-1685.
    8. Paula Jarzabkowski & Sarah Kaplan, 2015. "Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 537-558, April.
    9. Hanno Drews, 2008. "Abschied vom Marktwachstums-Marktanteils-Portfolio nach über 35 Jahren Einsatz? Eine kritische Überprüfung der BCG-Matrix," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 39-57, May.
    10. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2011. "Role thinking: Standing in other people's shoes to forecast decisions in conflicts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 69-80, January.
    11. Schuler, Benedikt Alexander & Orr, Kevin & Hughes, Jeffrey, 2023. "My colleagues (do not) think the same: Middle managers’ shared and separate realities in strategy implementation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    12. Sandra Waddock & Erica Steckler, 2016. "Visionaries and Wayfinders: Deliberate and Emergent Pathways to Vision in Social Entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 719-734, February.
    13. J. Scott Armstrong & Kesten C. Green, 2005. "Demand Forecasting: Evidence-based Methods," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 24/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    14. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00825217 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong, 2005. "Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 17/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    16. Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong, 2007. "The Ombudsman: Value of Expertise for Forecasting Decisions in Conflicts," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 37(3), pages 287-299, June.
    17. Önkal, Dilek & Zeynep Sayım, K. & Lawrence, Michael, 2012. "Wisdom of group forecasts: Does role-playing play a role?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 693-702.
    18. Ralf Wetzel & Frank E.P. Dievernich, 2014. "Mind the Gap. The Relevance of Postchange Periods for Organizational Sensemaking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 280-300, March.
    19. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2006. "Findings from evidence-based forecasting: Methods for reducing forecast error," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 583-598.
    20. Neil Bendle & Mark Vandenbosch, 2014. "Competitor Orientation and the Evolution of Business Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 781-795, November.
    21. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2003. "Discovery and communication of important marketing findings: Evidence and proposals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-84, January.
    22. Roger Marshall & David Bibby & Na WoonBong, 2013. "Making Sense of Complex Marketing Decision Systems: Decision System Analysis," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 12(2), pages 121-130, December.

    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:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:8:p:2849-2862. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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.