IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/22695.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Beyond matrices and black-box algorithms: setting marketing priorities with marketing strategy conferences

Author

Listed:
  • Schilling, Martin S.
  • Schulze-Cleven, Paul J.

Abstract

With this paper, we introduce the Marketing Strategy Conference approach to set strategic marketing priorities effectively and allocate marketing-related resources accordingly. The system is based on managerial preference modelling with a decision model (analytical side) and communication-enhancing strategy conferencing (interactive side). After a review of alternative resource allocation frameworks, as over-the-thumb approaches, matrix-based analyses, statistical analyses or management science models, we analyse existing analytical, behavioural and organisational impediments to effective marketing resource allocation. Addressing some of this impediments, this papers outlines two Marketing Strategy Conference cases, which we carried out for the pharmaceutical, Schering Argentina.

Suggested Citation

  • Schilling, Martin S. & Schulze-Cleven, Paul J., 2007. "Beyond matrices and black-box algorithms: setting marketing priorities with marketing strategy conferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22695, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:22695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22695/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Jane E. Dutton & Susan J. Ashford & Regina M. O’ Neill & Erika Hayes & Elizabeth E. Wierba, 1997. "Reading the wind: how middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 407-423, May.
    3. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    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. Shanshan Hu & Xiangjun Cheng & Demin Zhou & Hong Zhang, 2017. "GIS-based flood risk assessment in suburban areas: a case study of the Fangshan District, Beijing," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(3), pages 1525-1543, July.
    2. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    3. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    4. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    5. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    6. Huang, Samuel H. & Keskar, Harshal, 2007. "Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 510-523, February.
    7. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    8. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    9. Tomislav Sunko & Marko Mladineo & Mirjana Kovačić & Toni Mišković, 2024. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Coast Guard Resource Deployment for Improvement of Maritime Safety and Environmental Protection: Case Study of Eastern Adriatic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, August.
    10. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    11. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    12. Joaquín Pérez, José L. Jimeno, Ethel Mokotoff, 2001. "Another potential strong shortcoming of AHP," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 8/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá., revised 01 Jun 2002.
    13. Jain, Bharat A. & Nag, Barin N., 1996. "A decision-support model for investment decisions in new ventures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 473-486, May.
    14. Kevin Kam Fung Yuen, 2022. "Decision models for information systems planning using primitive cognitive network process: comparisons with analytic hierarchy process," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1759-1785, July.
    15. K. Madan Shankar & P. Udhaya Kumar & Devika Kannan, 2016. "Analyzing the Drivers of Advanced Sustainable Manufacturing System Using AHP Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-10, August.
    16. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    17. Tavana, M. & Kennedy, D. T. & Joglekar, P., 1996. "A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 523-538, October.
    18. Tomasz Witold Trojanowski & Pawel Tadeusz Kazibudzki, 2021. "Prospects and Constraints of Sustainable Marketing Mix Development for Poland’s High-Energy Consumer Goods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-25, December.
    19. Rosenbloom, E. S., 1997. "A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 371-378, January.
    20. Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce
    • F3 - International Economics - - International Finance
    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance
    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    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:ehl:lserod:22695. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.