IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v15y2004i3p216-235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

DSS Effectiveness in Marketing Resource Allocation Decisions: Reality vs. Perception

Author

Listed:
  • Gary L. Lilien

    (The Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Arvind Rangaswamy

    (The Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Gerrit H. Van Bruggen

    (Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Katrin Starke

    (The Smeal College of Business, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)

Abstract

We study the process by which model-based decision support systems (DSSs) influence managerial decision making in the context of marketing budgeting and resource allocation. We focus on identifying whether and how DSSs influence the decision process (e.g., cognitive effort deployed, discussion quality, and decision alternatives considered) and, as a result, how these DSSs influence decision outcomes (e.g., profit and satisfaction both with the decision process and the outcome). We study two specific marketing resource allocation decisions in a laboratory context: sales effort allocation and customer targeting. We find that decision makers who use high-quality, model-based DSSs make objectively better decisions than do decision makers who only have access to a generic decision tool (Microsoft Excel). However, their subjective evaluations (perceptions) of both their decisions and the processes that lead to those decisions do not necessarily improve as a result of DSS use. And expert judges, serving as surrogates for top management, have a difficult time assessing the objective quality of those decisions.Our results suggest that what managers get from a high-quality DSS may be substantially better than what they see. To increase the inclination for managerial adoption and use of DSS, we must get users to “see” the benefits of using a DSS. Our results also suggest two ways to bridge the perception-reality gap: (1) improve the perceived value of the decision process by designing DSSs both to encourage discussion (e.g., by providing explanation and support for alternative recommendations) as well as to reduce the perceived complexity of the problem so that managers invest more cognitive effort in exploring additional options and (2) provide feedback on the likely market/business outcomes of various decision options.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary L. Lilien & Arvind Rangaswamy & Gerrit H. Van Bruggen & Katrin Starke, 2004. "DSS Effectiveness in Marketing Resource Allocation Decisions: Reality vs. Perception," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 216-235, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:15:y:2004:i:3:p:216-235
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1040.0026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0026
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1040.0026?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Ramesh Sharda & Steve H. Barr & James C. McDonnell, 1988. "Decision Support System Effectiveness: A Review and an Empirical Test," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 139-159, February.
    3. Dennis H. Gensch & Nicola Aversa & Steven P. Moore, 1990. "A Choice-Modeling Market Information System That Enabled ABB Electric to Expand Its Market Share," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 6-25, February.
    4. Goodman, Jodi S., 1998. "The Interactive Effects of Task and External Feedback on Practice Performance and Learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 223-252, December.
    5. William K. Fudge & Leonard M. Lodish, 1977. "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Model Based Salesman's Planning System by Field Experimentation," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 8(1-part-2), pages 97-106, November.
    6. John A. Muckstadt & David H. Murray & James A. Rappold & Dwight E. Collins, 2001. "Guidelines for Collaborative Supply Chain System Design and Operation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 427-453, December.
    7. Robin M. Hogarth & Spyros Makridakis, 1981. "Forecasting and Planning: An Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 115-138, February.
    8. William H. DeLone & Ephraim R. McLean, 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 60-95, March.
    9. Stephen J. Hoch & David A. Schkade, 1996. "A Psychological Approach to Decision Support Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 51-64, January.
    10. Gerrit H. van Bruggen & Ale Smidts & Berend Wierenga, 1998. "Improving Decision Making by Means of a Marketing Decision Support System," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 645-658, May.
    11. Leonard M. Lodish & Ellen Curtis & Michael Ness & M. Kerry Simpson, 1988. "Sales Force Sizing and Deployment Using a Decision Calculus Model at Syntex Laboratories," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 5-20, February.
    12. Prabhakant Sinha & Andris A. Zoltners, 2001. "Sales-Force Decision Models: Insights from 25 Years of Implementation," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 8-44, June.
    13. Shelby H. McIntyre, 1982. "An Experimental Study of the Impact of Judgment-Based Marketing Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 17-33, January.
    14. Robert C. Blattberg & Stephen J. Hoch, 1990. "Database Models and Managerial Intuition: 50% Model + 50% Manager," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(8), pages 887-899, August.
    15. Dipankar Chakravarti & Andrew Mitchell & Richard Staelin, 1979. "Judgment Based Marketing Decision Models: An Experimental Investigation of the Decision Calculus Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 251-263, March.
    16. Mark S. Silver, 1990. "Decision Support Systems: Directed and Nondirected Change," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 47-70, March.
    17. Peter Todd & Izak Benbasat, 1999. "Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort, and Incentives on Strategy Selection," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 356-374, December.
    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. Sleep, Stefan & Gala, Prachi & Harrison, Dana E., 2023. "Removing silos to enable data-driven decisions: The importance of marketing and IT knowledge, cooperation, and information quality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. Ian Wilkinson & Louise Young, 2012. "Toward A Normative Theory of Normative Marketing Theory," Papers 1205.5821, arXiv.org.
    3. Chuan-Hoo Tan & Hock-Hai Teo & Izak Benbasat, 2010. "Assessing Screening and Evaluation Decision Support Systems: A Resource-Matching Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 305-326, June.
    4. Céline Bérard, 2010. "Complexité et décision participative : le cas du système de la propriété intellectuelle des innovations biotechnologiques," Post-Print halshs-00519036, HAL.
    5. Clayton Arlen Looney & Andrew M. Hardin, 2009. "Decision Support for Retirement Portfolio Management: Overcoming Myopic Loss Aversion via Technology Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1688-1703, October.
    6. Kayande, U. & de Bruyn, A. & Lilien, G.L. & Rangaswamy, A. & van Bruggen, G.H., 2006. "How Feedback Can Improve Managerial Evaluations of Model-based Marketing Decision Support Systems," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-039-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Ujwal Kayande & Arnaud De Bruyn & Gary L. Lilien & Arvind Rangaswamy & Gerrit H. van Bruggen, 2009. "How Incorporating Feedback Mechanisms in a DSS Affects DSS Evaluations," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 527-546, December.
    8. Dong, Weimin & Swain, Scott D. & Berger, Paul D., 2007. "The role of channel quality in customer equity management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(12), pages 1243-1252, December.
    9. Chi-Wen Chen & Marios Koufaris, 2015. "The impact of decision support system features on user overconfidence and risky behavior," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(6), pages 607-623, November.
    10. Lessmann, Stefan & Coussement, Kristof & De Bock, Koen W. & Haupt, Johannes, 2018. "Targeting customers for profit: An ensemble learning framework to support marketing decision making," IRTG 1792 Discussion Papers 2018-012, Humboldt University of Berlin, International Research Training Group 1792 "High Dimensional Nonstationary Time Series".
    11. Céline Bérard & L.M., Cloutier & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print hal-02128255, HAL.
    12. Korbinian Dress & Stefan Lessmann & Hans-Jorg von Mettenheim, 2017. "Residual Value Forecasting Using Asymmetric Cost Functions," Papers 1707.02736, arXiv.org.
    13. Dress, Korbinian & Lessmann, Stefan & von Mettenheim, Hans-Jörg, 2018. "Residual value forecasting using asymmetric cost functions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 551-565.
    14. Aksoy, Lerzan & Cooil, Bruce & Lurie, Nicholas H., 2011. "Decision Quality Measures in Recommendation Agents Research," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 110-122.
    15. Gudigantala, Naveen & Song, Jaeki & Jones, Donald, 2011. "User satisfaction with Web-based DSS: The role of cognitive antecedents," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 327-338.
    16. Céline Bérard, 2013. "Les démarches participatives en matière de politiques publiques : le cas de la propriété intellectuelle des innovations biotechnologiques," Post-Print halshs-00987945, HAL.
    17. Céline Bérard & Martin Cloutier L. & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print halshs-01666605, HAL.
    18. Luiz Moutinho & Paulo Rita & Shuliang Li, 2006. "Strategic diagnostics and management decision making: a hybrid knowledge‐based approach," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 129-155, July.

    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. Berend Wierenga & Gerrit H. Van Bruggen & Richard Staelin, 1999. "The Success of Marketing Management Support Systems," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 196-207.
    2. Lilien, G.L. & Rangaswamy, A. & Starke, K. & van Bruggen, G.H., 2001. "How and Why Decision Models Influence Marketing Resource Allocations," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-33-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    3. van Bruggen, G.H. & Smidts, A. & Wierenga, B., 2000. "The Powerful Triangle of Marketing Data, Managerial Judgment, and Marketing Management Support Systems," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2000-33-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    4. Lilien, Gary L. & Rangaswamy, Arvind & van Bruggen, Gerrit H. & Wierenga, Berend, 2002. "Bridging the marketing theory-practice gap with marketing engineering," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 111-121, February.
    5. Ujwal Kayande & Arnaud De Bruyn & Gary L. Lilien & Arvind Rangaswamy & Gerrit H. van Bruggen, 2009. "How Incorporating Feedback Mechanisms in a DSS Affects DSS Evaluations," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 527-546, December.
    6. Ninko Kostovski & Marjan Bojadjiev & Hari Lokvenec, 2017. "Decision Support Systems For New Project Development In Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industries," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 5, pages 4-14, October.
    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.
    8. Gelderman, Maarten, 1997. "Task difficulty, task variability and satisfaction with management support systems: consequences and solutions ˜," Serie Research Memoranda 0053, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    9. Kayande, U. & de Bruyn, A. & Lilien, G.L. & Rangaswamy, A. & van Bruggen, G.H., 2006. "How Feedback Can Improve Managerial Evaluations of Model-based Marketing Decision Support Systems," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-039-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Germann, Frank & Lilien, Gary L. & Rangaswamy, Arvind, 2013. "Performance implications of deploying marketing analytics," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 114-128.
    11. Darmon, Rene Y., 2002. "Salespeople's management of customer information: Impact on optimal territory and sales force sizes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 162-176, February.
    12. Gerrit H. van Bruggen & Ale Smidts & Berend Wierenga, 1998. "Improving Decision Making by Means of a Marketing Decision Support System," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 645-658, May.
    13. Bachler, Sebastian & Haeussler, Stefan & Momsen, Katharina & Stefan, Matthias, 2024. "Do people willfully ignore decision support? Evidence from an online experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2024 (Berlin): Upcoming Labor Market Challenges 302404, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. Althuizen, N.A.P. & Wierenga, B., 2003. "The Effectiveness of Case-Based Reasoning: An Application in Sales Promotions," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2003-053-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    15. Gelderman, M., 1995. "Factors affecting the success of management support systems: analysis and meta-analysis," Serie Research Memoranda 0020, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    16. Lurie, Nicholas H. & Wen, Na, 2014. "Simple Decision Aids and Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(4), pages 511-523.
    17. Arvan, Meysam & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen & Siemsen, Enno, 2019. "Integrating human judgement into quantitative forecasting methods: A review," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 237-252.
    18. Parker, Philip M. & Sarvary, Miklos, 1997. "Formulating dynamic strategies using decision calculus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 542-554, May.
    19. Charles Abramson & Imran S. Currim & Rakesh Sarin, 2005. "An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Information on Competitive Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 195-207, February.
    20. Chuan-Hoo Tan & Hock-Hai Teo & Izak Benbasat, 2010. "Assessing Screening and Evaluation Decision Support Systems: A Resource-Matching Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 305-326, June.

    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:inm:orisre:v:15:y:2004:i:3:p:216-235. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.