Vdoc - Pub - Principles of Marketology Volume 2 Practice

Principles of Marketology, Volume 2
Practice
Hashem Aghazadeh
Principles of
Marketology, Volume 2
Practice
Hashem Aghazadeh
University of Tehran
Tehran, Iran
ISBN 978-1-137-57980-5 ISBN 978-1-137-54833-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54833-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015019821
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprint-
ing, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other
physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, com-
puter software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover image © A. T. Willett / Alamy
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Nature America Inc.
The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.
To my diligent father,
Khodaverdi Aghazadeh
To my compassionate mother,
Hajar Hajiloo
To my wise and entrepreneur wife,
Dr. Mina Mehrnoosh
Preface
Ultimately marketology as a ‘science of market’ terminates

the identity crisis of marketing.
Market-related theoretical and practical problems in a business context were

the key issues that encouraged me to write Principles of Marketology. In this
book, marketology is perceived as a theory and practice of market in a business
context. It also shows that marketology can be regarded in a social, as well as
a business, context.
From a theoretical perspective, the book represents marketology as a perva-
sive concept that can ensure business competitive success in creating and deliver-
ing superior value to key stakeholders as complementary to marketing, market
research and other market-related concepts. From a practical perspective it con-
siders the hyper-function of marketology as a dynamic system that accomplishes
business competitive success and performance management by supporting mar-
ket-related decisions and actions of business by providing market data, infor-
mation, knowledge, intelligence and insight (DIKII) and serving identification,
generation, dissemination, exploitation and evaluation (IGDEE) in the form of
marketology organizational contribution (MOC) relying on marketology orga-
nizational design (MOD) and marketology organizational behavior (MOB). The
book presents practical tools and techniques to assist those in business in practic-
ing the hyper-function of marketology across their enterprise. Finally, it maps the
future of marketology, thus concluding an integrative handbook on marketology.
It became clear to me while writing this book that the concept of market-
ing and, more generally, the issue of market have serious philosophical and
practical problems/causes for debate both in business and beyond business
contexts—far more than I have investigated here. The hyper-function of marke-
tology, which has been re-formed and represented as a theoretical and practical
solution to such problems of marketing, may not be sufficient and should be
expanded and developed further (Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Sato 1959, 1960;
vii
viii Preface
Komatsu 2006). In this regard, first, several problems of marketing (mostly

theoretical) are reviewed in brief based on related literature; then a framework
is advised for more deepening in this matter and paving the way for building
marketology theory (beyond marketing, beyond business, and beyond practice).
Marketing Identity Crisis

After much time and extensive academic and professional debate, the question
continues to be asked whether marketing is an art or a science, and it has yet to be
answered decisively. Some believe it is not a science because a unique marketing
theory has yet to be developed, marketing does not conform to the basic charac-
teristics of a science, marketing studies could not fulfill the objectives of science;
and marketing men have not looked to evolve a science of marketing. Biggadike
(1981) claims that marketers are not scientists who build theory but technicians
who solve problems at the brand or product level. By contrast, others believe that
marketing has many—though not all—of the requisite characteristics of a science.
Marketing, which is rarely regarded as a philosophy, may be an art (with technical,
professional and applicative aspects), discipline (the academic side of the subject)
or science (a body of knowledge of distribution). The technical aspects of market-
ing are now a distinct field of study and application which is characterized more
as a trade or profession than a science. In fact marketing mostly seems to be an art
in which the findings of many sciences, such as economics (in particular), man-
agement, sociology and psychology are applied (Brown 2001; Demirdjian 1976;
Bartels 1968, 1974, 1976; Biggadike 1981; Ketchen and Hult 2011; Hutchinson
1952). Initially it was economic theory that provided explanations to guide deci-
sion-making for business and government actions. By the mid-1950s, marketing
had become the main philosophy of business management. However, it had no
strong theory to define such philosophical grounding adequately and the theo-
retical developments were so limited that later it was claimed that marketing is not
a science, and so it faced an identity crisis (Halbert 1964; Bartels 1944, 1951a;
Morgan 1996). This lack of clear identity persists and should be resolved by build-
ing marketing theory and shaping marketing science (Brown 2001; Demirdjian
1976; Bartels 1951a, 1965, 1974; Halbert 1964; Morgan 1996; Biggadike 1981;
Ketchen and Hult 2011; Hutchinson 1952; Converse 1945).
Building Marketing Theory

Marketing by having many of the requisite characteristics of a science as well
as through the emergence of social interests in marketing beyond its tech-
nical aspects now seems prepared more than ever to build unique theories
and to be regarded as a science. An appropriate marketing theory and science
should comprise systematically related themes, laws and principles with empiri-
cal testability; should be developed in terms of its scientific content, managerial
perspective and meta-theoretical foundations; and should consider business/
management, economics, psychology, sociology and other social science pro-
fessions (Bartels 1941, 1951b, 1962, 1970; Drucker 1954; Morgan 1996;
Preface ix
Kotler and Sidney 1969; Hult 2011; Johanson and Vahlne 2011; Ketchen and
Hult 2011; McCarthy 1960; Layton 2011; Keith 1994; Deng and Dart 1994;
Levitt 1960, 1984; Bennett and Cooper 1981; Houston 1986; Kotler 1972;
Enis 1973; Foxall 1989; Grönroos 1990; Mueller-Heumann 1986; Ferrell and
Lucas 1987; Baligh and Burton 1979; Narver and Slater 1990; Jaworski and
Kohli 1993; Kohli et al. 1993; Alderson and Cox 1948; Harris 1996a; Jones
and Monieson 1990; Law 1984; Webster 1988; Day and Wensley 1983).
To improve theory-building for marketing it would be helpful to note that
marketing is a context-driven discipline: the context is changing drastically so
the well-accepted principles and laws of marketing should constantly be ques-
tioned and challenged and consequently updated (Sheth and Sisodia 1999;
Webster 1992a, b). Marketing theory can be viewed from three perspectives:
the theory of marketing (explains marketing), the theory in marketing (explains
phenomena that marketing is concerned with) and the theory with marketing
(contains marketing when explaining something else). Marketing is related and
based on a combination of other disciplines and sciences: philosophy, econom-
ics, psychology, sociology, politics and public policy, law, management, finance,
production, engineering and so on. All of these should be taken into account as
sources for a building marketing theory (Ludicke 2006; Moyer 1967; Fisk 1967;
Adler 1967; Halbert 1964, 1965; Parsons and Toby 1977; Parsons 1951, 1971;
Marx 1946; Habermas 1984; Durkheim 1933; Luhmann 1995; Hughes 2005;
Alderson 1954; Fullerton 1988; Wilkie and Moore 2003; Alderson and Cox
2006; Bartels 1965; Sidorchuk 2015; Drucker 1954; Bagozzi 1984; El-Ansary
1979; Morgan 1996; Raymond and Barksdale 1989; Dixon and Diehn 1992;
Lazer 1967; Dholakia et al. 1987; Brownlie et al. 1994; Hunt 1971, 1983,
1994, 1993; Peter 1992; Anderson 1982; Howard 1983; Hunt et al. 1981;
Zaltman et al. 1982; Deshpande 1983; Sheth et al. 1988; Cox and Alderson
1950; Howard and Jagdish 1969; Hotchkiss 1938; Fisk and Donald 1967).
Definitions of Sciences/Disciplines Related to Marketing and Marketology
Sociology: Sociology is “the study of society; a social science involving

the study of the social lives of people, groups, and societies; the study of
our behavior as social beings, covering everything from the analysis of
short contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study
of global social processes; the scientific study of social aggregations, the
entities through which humans move throughout their lives; an overarch-
ing unification of all studies of humankind, including history, psychology,
and economics” (ASA 2016).
Psychology: Psychology is a science of the psychic, mind, behavior, soul
and conscious; it “is the study of the mind and behavior. The discipline
embraces all aspects of the human experience—from the functions of the
(continued)
x Preface
(continued)
brain to the actions of nations, from child development to care for the
aged. In every conceivable setting from scientific research centers to men-
tal healthcare services, the understanding of behavior is the enterprise of
psychologists” (APA 2016).
Economics: Economics as a discipline is “the study of scarcity, the study of
how people use resources, or the study of decision-making”. “Economic
study ranges from the very small to the very large.” Economics is “a
much broader discipline that helps us understand historical trends, inter-
pret today’s headlines, and make predictions for coming decades. One of
the central tenets of economics is that people want certain things and will
change their behavior to get those things—in other words, people will
respond to incentives.” “The study of choices by individuals … is called
microeconomics.” “The study of governments, industries, central bank-
ing, and the boom and bust of the business cycle is called macroeconom-
ics. Much of economics involves using data gathered by governments,
businesses, or in the laboratory to test hypotheses about whether a cer-
tain program, event, or incentive will have the expected effect. Another
branch of economics focuses on using economic theory to make predic-
tions about how people and markets will behave” (AEA 2016).
Technology and information technology: Technology as a science
of craft is the knowledge of techniques, processes, skills and methods
used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment
of objectives (Wise 1985; Arthur 2011; Wright 1996; Goggin 1980;
Teich 1972; Marquit 1995). Information technology (IT) as an aca-
demic discipline which encompasses all aspects of computing technol-
ogy is “concerned with issues of users and meeting their needs within
an organizational and societal context through the selection, creation,
application, integration and administration of computing technologies”
(ACM 2008).
Marketing and marketing research: “Marketing is the activity, set of
institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and
exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and
society at large” (AMA, Approved July 2013). “Marketing research is the
function that links the consumer, customer, and public to the marketer
through information—information used to identify and define market-
ing opportunities and problems; generate, refine, and evaluate marketing
actions; monitor marketing performance; and improve understanding
of marketing as a process. Marketing research specifies the informa-
tion required to address these issues, designs the method for collecting
information, manages and implements the data collection process, ana-
lyzes the results, and communicates the findings and their implications”
(AMA, Approved October 2004).
Preface xi
Marketing, Marketing Men and Market Research

to Be Renamed: Marketology and Marketologist
The concept of marketing has been changed in many ways, including the fol-
lowing: distribution of products, economics of distributive enterprise, man-
agement of the distributive process, distributive managerial decision-making,
social process, and a generic function applicable to both business and non-
business institutions. The following challenging questions about marketing
identity have yet to be answered clearly:
• Is marketing a specific function with general applicability or a general

function that is specifically applied?
• Is the identity of marketing determined by the subject matter dealt with
or by the technology with which the subject is handled?
• Is marketing the application of certain functions, activities or techniques
to the dissemination of economic goods and services, including the satis-
factions they provide?
• Is marketing the application of those functions and techniques to the dis-
semination of any ideas, programs, or causes—non-economic as well as
economic, non-business as well as business?
Thus it is clear that the identity of marketing is still in crisis. To define a

dignified identity for marketing as a scientific field which contemplates both
economic and non-economic fields of application, perhaps marketing needs
another name (Bartels 1974).
Much like marketing, which has yet to be determined a science, there
is no pervasive consensus on the position of people who work in the field
of marketing. Using the term “marketing man” might imply that one sells
some kind of good/service. Rarely is the term understood as professional,
as with “physician” (as a medicine man) or “lawyer” (as a law man). When
considering marketing as a profession, the proposed alternatives to “mar-
keting man” include “marketor”, “marketer”, “marketist”, “marketrician”,
“marketmetrician”, “mercatus” and “marketologist” (Millican 1964; Bartels
1959).
Bartels (1959) proposed “marketologists” as the title for people who are
engaged in the development of scientific aspects of marketing and who assist
in solving marketing problems (Bartels 1959), similar to sociologists, who
attempt to contribute to solving social problems.
In response to the questions “Is marketing a science or an art?” and “Is
marketing a technology/business activity or a social process?”, Demirdjian
(1976) suggested that marketing should be categorized into two types: “mar-
ketology”, a conceptual science that studies marketing as a social process; and
“marketry”, an art (applied technology) that applies the knowledge generated
by marketology to the activities of business and non-business organizations
(Demirdjian 1976).
xii Preface
Regarding the current drastic changes as well as predictable future trans-

formations in the business environment, it has been ascertained that existing
market and marketing research concepts and methodologies seem not to be
effective and adequate in meeting the informational needs of business decision-
makers. Thus the market research academicians and professionals are being
encouraged to overhaul the market research concept and technology by look-
ing for new terms/concepts to describe future market research that will be
more compatible with changing conditions (Moran 2010; Aghazdeh 2016;
Buzzell 1963; Taylor 1965).
“Marketology” seems to be the best alternative because it not only takes into
account all attributes of market research, both conceptually and practically, but is
also very timely, consistent with the ever-changing conditions of business.
It should be noted that the matter of marketing not being considered a
science remains because marketologists are introduced to develop marketing
science, which is basically grounded in a business context and is fundamentally
considered to be a practical subject.
Marketing Paradigms and Schools of Thought
The concept of marketing can be examined in three paradigm spectrums: posi-

tive—normative; profit—-nonprofit; and micro–macro. While marketing has
mostly been identified as a practical/experiential field (based on the positiv-
ism paradigm), marketing scholars have been asked to consider relativistic,
constructionist and normative paradigms too (Kotler and Sidney 1969; Hunt
1976a, b, 1990, 1991a; Laudan 1977; Phillips 1987; Manicas 1987; Suppe
1977; Deshpande 1983; Lowe et al. 2004; Tadajewski 2014).
Marketing thought may be a technical/managerial process (focus: technol-
ogy, economic behavior and conventional marketing principles); a behavioral
process (focus: non-economic, non-business motivations and human behavior
patterns); and a social process (focus: cultural orientation of business in rela-
tion to other social institutions, organizations and values) (Bartels 1965, 1988;
McMaster 1996; Huber 1990; Serpa 2000; Akgün et al. 2007; Peppers and
Rogers 2011; Kumar and Reinartz 2012; Bartels and Roger 1977; Buttle and
Maklan 2015; Iriana and Buttle 2007; Clark 1922; Maynard and Theodore
1939; Rewoldt 1954; Jayachandran et al. 2004).
The major marketing schools of thought have been classified as marketing
functions, marketing commodities, marketing institutions, marketing manage-
ment, marketing systems, consumer behavior, macromarketing, exchange and
marketing history (Shaw and Jones 2005; Mela et al. 2013; Shaw 1995; Shaw
and Tamilia 2001).
Marketing is for making decisions by people engaged in marketing in busi-
nesses. Marketing decision may be impacted by economics, IT, psychology,
artificial intelligence (AI), analytics, big data, cloud computing, research
methods and so on; it may also affect marketing management performance
(Wierenga 2008a, b).
Preface xiii
In addition to being a concept and a philosophy, marketing is an organiza-

tional function. Implementation of marketing within an organization depends
on its interaction with variables of organizational design and behavior, which
can be examined by a construct called the “degree of implementation of the
marketing concept” (Baligh and Burton 1979).
Synergies between organization theory and marketing can be considered in
three respects: description, prediction and explanation. Marketing as an applied
field does well in describing relationships and in predicting outcomes, but not
so well in providing theoretical explanations (Dubin 1978; Kerlinger 1986; Auh
and Merlo 2012; Hunt and Lambe 2000; Morgan et al. 2000; MacInnis 2011;
Morgan and Turnell 2003; Sinkula et al. 1997; Raphael and Parket 1991).
Rethinking Marketing
Several basic problems of marketing include: absence of original contributions
of marketing discipline to the strategy dialog, focus of marketing practice on
dysfunctional relationships and exclusive concentration of marketing academi-
cians on quantitative methods. To resolve such problems, marketing should be
viewed as an academic and professional discipline with responsibilities to society,
marketing students, practitioners and academicians; a marketing theory should
be developed with a focus on effective relationship, cooperation and value co-
creation; and marketing should accept qualitative methods based on relativ-
ism, constructionism and subjectivism paradigms (Day and Wensley 1983; Day
1992; Priem 1992; Hunt 1990, 1991a, 1992, 1993, 1994; Alderson 1965,
1957; Webster 1992a, b; Desai et al. 2012; Rust et al. 2010).
From Marketing to Marketology
At the time of dominance of marketing philosophy it seemed sufficient for

businesses to deal with markets to answer their key executive concerns and to
respond to the requests of their stakeholders (specifically customers). Later it
became inadequate, so marketing orientation was replaced as a better philoso-
phy for business, and this soon gave the way to market orientation as a more
complete business philosophy. While market orientation still seems workable, it
became insufficient for businesses to deal successfully with the drastic changes
in and challenges of the modern business world (Slater and Narver 1994a;
Shapiro 1988; Park and Zaltman 1987; Wrenn 1997; Farrell 2002; Felton
1959; Ferrell et al. 2010; Savitt 1980; Woodruff 1997).
Therefore a contemporary and comprehensive business philosophy is hugely
necessary to help businesses to better deal with ever-changing markets. That is
nothing other than “marketology”, which is explored theoretically in Volume
1 and explained practically in this second volume.
In this regard, after more than 70 years as a result of drastic changes, the well-
known quote of Drucker (1954, pp. 37–40) “There is only one valid definition
of business purpose: to create a customer … Therefore, any business enterprise
xiv Preface
has two—and only two—basic functions: marketing and innovation” (cited in

Trout 2006) should be recast as “there is only one valid definition of business
purpose: to create value. Therefore, any business enterprise has two—and only
two—basic functions: marketology and netovation. Marketology represents a
business philosophy and netovation refers to networking and innovation.”
Concept of the Market: Stuck in the Middle
There is no doubt that “the market” is a key issue that is essentially rooted
in economics and marketing. The concept of economics has been developed
to embrace more theory and macro factors (society, governments and indus-
tries) and less practice and micro factors, without enough focus on theorizing
about the market. By contrast, the concept of marketing has been expanded to
consist of more practice and micro elements (enterprise, consumer and com-
petitor) and less theory and macro factors, without sufficient concentration on
theorizing about the market (Converse 1945; Carroll 1993; Dobbin and Baum
2000; Araujo et al. 2010; Rust et al. 2010; Tucker 1974; Hunt 2013; Isoraite
2009b; Rudd and Morgan 2003; Wilkinson and Young 2013; Kotler 2011;
Winer 2014; Wilkinson and Young 2013).
In this way, as shown in Figure P.1, the concept of the market has been stuck
in the middle without being theorized in depth and adequately. This is why the
concept has been trapped in a theoretical or philosophical crisis.
Economics
Theory and Macro
Market
Pracce and Micro
Markeng
Figure P.1 The concept

of the market stuck in the
middle of economics and
marketing
Preface xv
As far as the subject of market almost has been bounded/limited/confined

to the marketing, the concept of market has been expected to be theorized
comprehensively in marketing field (as marketing science or theory). But as a
matter of fact marketing has not been developed enough as science or theory,
whereas it could do as marketing practice within business context.
The concept of marketing was initially generated within an economic and
business context from a practical point of view as a practice or technology
without a philosophical and theoretical foundation, and it has been developed
as an art or technology to resolve the operational and practical problems of
enterprises in dealing with economic and market issues.
This manner of appearance and its largely practical development and per-
formance have resulted in some philosophical challenges to the concept of
marketing: it is not known as a science, there is no distinct theory of market-
ing, marketing is not a discipline, marketing is not a philosophy, marketing
exists in an identity crisis, marketing should be renamed and marketing basi-
cally lies on economic science. In this regard, marketing has been known as a
practice, a technology, a profession, an art and so forth (Maklan et al. 2015;
Bakken 1953; Dawson 1971; Goldstucker et al. 1974; Hunt 2010, 2013,
2015; Sweeney 1972; Tucker 1974; Isoraite 2009b; Shugan 2002, 2006;
Uslay et al. 2009; Peter and Olson 1983; Lehmann et al. 2010; Desai 2011;
Friedman 2007; Anderson 1994; Lowe et al. 2004; Jones 2013; Tadajewski
2014).
Theoretical Imperfection of Marketing

Some marketing scholars have frequently attempted to extend and gener-
alize the concept of marketing beyond a business context to a social con-
text; as well as beyond practice to theory as a discipline, philosophy or
science. They have struggled to provide a substantial theory of marketing.
But the fact is that reviewing related literature and the research background
in this regard reveals that these efforts have not been influential and suc-
cessful enough in contemplating marketing as a science and philosophy
with a strong theoretical foundation. What seems worse is the failure of
such endeavors even to consolidate marketing as a philosophy of business
whereas it is mostly accepted as a business practice rather than a business
thought foundation.
In comparison with other fields such as sociology, psychology, economics
and management, which are now established sciences on the one hand and
embrace substantial practical solutions and subsidiaries in their specialized
fields on the other hand, such scientific/theoretical/philosophical imperfec-
tions of marketing can perhaps be traced back to its origin and manner of
expansion. The origin of marketing was in a business context to resolve prac-
tical problems of enterprises in operations dealing and interacting with the
xvi Preface
market, such as producing, distribution, sales, pricing and advertising. In fact

the solutions provided by marketing in different arenas were basically practi-
cal but not philosophical. For instance, the advice to businesses has included
improving product quality (product orientation); enhancing sales skills and
capabilities (sales orientation), taking customer needs/benefits into account
in addition to company profits/benefits (marketing orientation), consider-
ing social concerns/benefits (societal marketing orientation), utilizing IT/
digital/electronic infrastructures in marketing (relationship marketing and
electronic marketing orientation), integrating whole offerings to the mar-
ket/customers and instead capturing satisfactory returns (value-based mar-
keting orientation) and, recently, creating value by contemplating consumers
as whole humans with a mind, heart and spirit (marketing 3.0) (Rudd and
Morgan 2003; Wilkinson and Young 2013; Kotler 2011; Wilkie and Moore
2007; Hult et al. 2011; Maklan et al. 2015; Bakken 1953; Chintagunta et al.
2013; Slater et al. 2011; Aghazadeh 2016; Ardley 2011; Simon 1984; Easley
et al. 2000; Burton 2001; Dixon 2011).
Marketology Theory: Beyond Marketing,

Beyond Business and Beyond Practice
After lengthy investigations, research and other efforts by scholars, marketing
is still known as a practice rather than a theory or a science; and the market and
marketing do not possess philosophical, scientific and theoretical foundations
acceptable for scholars in and out of the marketing filed. The fact is that more
attempts of scholars to save marketing from its identity crisis and theorize it as
a science seem ineffective according to their current assumptions (as a market-
ing concept, practical content and in a business context). Continuing efforts
to theorize marketing raise the concern that marketing can never take a theory
and become a science.
Now the key question that should be answered is: How can the concept
of marketing remove such philosophical entanglement and find a theoretical
foundation as a science?
The history of astonishing scientific advances reveals that the solution in
such a case of an entangled identity crisis and scientific skepticism about a field
(like marketing) is creating a scientific revolution and creative destruction of
the conventional way of thinking in the intended field.
Hence this challenging question should be answered in three ways (con-
cept, context and content). “Concept” represents the considered founda-
tion (marketing or marketology); “context” refers to the grounds on which
marketing/marketology is defined and operates (business or social); and
“content” depicts the perspectives of marketing/marketology (theoretical or
practical).
In this regard the philosophical patterns of marketing/marketology as illus-
trated in Figure P.2 can be classified as follows:
Preface xvii
Concept and Content
Marketology
Marketing
(beyond marketing)
Theoretical Theoretical
Practical Practical
(beyond practice) (beyond practice)
Business context
1. 3. 5. 7.
Marketing Marketing Marketology Marketology
PBC TBC PBC TBC
Context
(beyond business)
Social context
2. 4. 6. 8.
Marketing Marketing Marketology Marketology
PSC TSC PSC TSC
Figure P.2 A framework for philosophical patterns of marketing/marketology
• Marketing philosophical patterns

–– marketing practice in a business context (marketing PBC);
–– marketing practice in a social context (marketing PSC);
–– marketing theory in a business context (marketing TBC);
–– marketing theory in a social context (marketing TSC).
• Marketology philosophical patterns
–– marketology practice in a business context (marketology PBC);
–– marketology practice in a social context (marketology PSC);
–– marketology theory in a business context (marketology TBC);
–– marketology theory in a social context (marketology TSC).
Therefore a straightforward and honest response to the abovementioned

controversial question is that the intended market/marketology theory and
science can be built and developed by relying on a framework which should
be characterized by beyond business context (general/social context); beyond
marketing concept (concept of marketology); and beyond practical content
(theoretical content).
In accordance with the background literature, the concept of marketing has
been generated based on the marketing PBC pattern (with a very high degree
of success), has been expanded on the basis of the marketing PSC pattern
(with a high degree of success), then has been attempted to be theorized as a
xviii Preface
arketing TBC pattern (with a low degree of success), and to be developed

m
and completed scientifically and philosophically as a marketing TSC pattern
(with a very low degree of success).
According to some background literature and the materials in volumes 1
and 2, the concept of marketology has been constructed and reformed based
on a marketology PBC pattern (comprehensively), has been expanded on the
basis of a marketology PSC pattern (to some extent), has been theorized as a
marketology TBC pattern (largely), and has been accomplished scientifically
and philosophically as a marketology TSC pattern (just noted).2
As a consequence it can be concluded that the appropriate way in which
the concept of marketing can be released from the philosophical involvement
and become an acceptable science is by building and developing marketology
theory in a social context (as marketology TSC: beyond marketing, beyond
business context and beyond practical content).
It is interesting to note that in a beyond-business (social) context remark-
ably wide philosophical/theoretical commonalities can be found between the
intended marketology theory/science and the established sciences, such as
sociology, psychology, economics and management (known by dignified theo-
retical bases). However, the concept of marketing in a business context did not
have this much commonality (Dawson 1971; Goldstucker et al. 1974; Hunt
2015; Vorhies et al. 2011; Sheth et al. 2000; Desai 2013; Chintagunta et al.
2013; Slater et al. 2011; Converse 1945; Carroll 1993; Dobbin and Baum
2000; Araujo et al. 2010; Rust et al. 2010; Ardley 2011; Simon 1984; Easley
et al. 2000; Burton 2001; Dixon 2011; Chatterjee and Lilien 1986; Friedman
2007; Anderson 1994; Lowe et al. 2004; Jones 2013; Tadajewski 2014; Winer
2014; Wilkinson and Young 2013; Wilkinson and Gray 2007).
It should be kept in mind that arguing these kinds of points about marketing
and marketing theory is never intended to diminish them or to disregard their
valuable contributions and practical solutions for better market-based manage-
ment of the companies in a business context. Rather, the debates aim to enrich
the concept of marketing and its theoretical foundations, philosophical bases
and scientific acceptance both within and beyond business (social) contexts.
In fact, they strive to address the continuing challenge of its identity crisis and
arguments about marketing theory, science and philosophy.
While there is not enough space in this book to explain marketology theory
in a social context, I hope to build on the discussion of the theory and science
of marketology in future scientific works.
Bibliography
ACM. (2008). Information technology. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from https://www.acm.org/education/curricula/
IT2008%20Curriculum.pdf
AEA. (2016). Definition of economics. American Economic Association (AEA). Retrieved
at April 10, 2016, from https://www.aeaweb.org/resources/students/what-is-
economics
Preface xix
Aghazadeh, H. (2015, October). Strategic marketing management: Achieving superior

business performance through intelligent marketing strategy. Procedia—Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 207, 125–134. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815052945
Aghazadeh, H. (2016). Principles of marketology, volume 1: Theory. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., & Keskin, H. (2007). Organizational intelligence: A structuration
view. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), 272–289. Retrieved
at March 25, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810710740137
Alderson, W. (1954). Problem solving and marketing science, the Charles Coolidge Parlin
memorial lecture. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from https://marketing.wharton.
upenn.edu/mktg/assets/File/problem_solving_and_marketing_science.pdf
Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action: A functionalist approach
to marketing theory. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.
Alderson, W. (1965). Dynamic marketing behavior. Homewood: Irwin.
Alderson, W., & Cox, R. (1948). Towards a theory of marketing. Journal of Marketing,
13, 137–152.
Alderson, W., & Cox, R. (2006). Towards a theory of marketing, chapter 3 in Wooliscroft
Ben, Tamilia Robert D. and Shapiro Stanly J. A twenty-first century guide to
Aldersonian marketing thought. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer
Science and Business Media.
AMA. (2016). Definition of marketing and marketing research. American Marketing
Association (AMA). Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from https://www.ama.org/
AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx
Anderson, M. L. (1994). Marketing science: Where’s the beef? Business Horizons, 37(1),
8–16. Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0007681305802216
Anderson, P. F. (1982). Marketing, strategic planning and the theory of the firm.
Journal of Marketing, 46(Spring), 15–26.
APA. (2016). Definition of psychology. American Psychological Association (APA).
Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from http://www.apa.org/support/about-apa.
aspx?item=7
Araujo, L., Finch, J., & Kjellberg, H. (2010). Reconnecting marketing to markets.
New York: Oxford University.
Ardley, B. (2011). Marketing theory and critical phenomenology. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, 29(7), 628–642. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/02634501111178668
ASA. (2016). Definition of sociology. American Sociological Association (ASA). Retrieved
at April 10, 2016, from http://www.asanet.org/about/sociology.cfm
Auh, S., & Merlo, O. (2012). The power of marketing within the firm: Its contribution
to business performance and the effect of power asymmetry. Industrial Marketing
Management, 41(5), 861–873. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019850111001490
Bagozzi, R. P. (1984). A prospectus for theory construction in marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 48(Winter), 11–29.
Bakken, H. (1953). Theory of markets and marketing. Madison: Mimir.
Baligh, H. H., & Burton, R. M. (1979). Marketing in moderation—the marketing con-
cept and the organisation’s structure. Long Range Planning, 12(2), 92–96.
Bartels, R. (1941). Marketing literature—development and appraisal. PhD dissertation,
The Ohio State University, Columbus.
xx Preface
Bartels, R. (1944). Marketing principles. Journal of Marketing, 8, 151–157.

Bartels, R. (1951a). Can marketing be a science? Journal of Marketing, 15, 319–328.
Bartels, R. (1951b). Influences on the development of marketing thought: 1900–1923.
Journal of Marketing, 16(1), 1–17.
Bartels, R. (1959). Sociologists and marketologists. Journal of Marketing, 24, 37–40.
Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1248845
Bartels, R. (1962). The development of marketing thought. Homewood: Irwin.
Bartels, R. (1965). Marketing technology, tasks, and relationships. Journal of Marketing,
29(1), 45–48. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/1248781
Bartels, R. (1968). The general theory of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 32, 29–33.
Bartels, R. (1970). Marketing theory and metatheory. Homewood: Irwin.
Bartels, R. (1974). The identity crisis in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 38, 73–76.
Bartels, R. (1976). The history of marketing thought (2nd ed.). Columbus: Grid.
Bartels, R. (1988). The history of marketing thought (3rd ed.). Columbus: Publishing
Horizons.
Bartels, R., & Roger, J. (1977). Macromarketing. Journal of Marketing, 41, 17–20.
Bennett, R. C., & Cooper, R. G. (1981). The misuse of marketing: An American trag-
edy. Business Horizons, 24, 51–61.
Biggadike, E. R. (1981). The contributions of marketing to strategic management.
Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 621–632.
Brown, S. (2001). Art or science? Fifty years of marketing debate. The Marketing
Review, 2, 89–119. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.cfs.purdue.
edu/richardfeinberg/csr%20331%20consumer%20behavior%20%20spring%20
2011/readings/marketig%20as%20science.pdf
Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Whittington, R., & Wensley, R. (1994). The new marketing
myopia: Critical perspectives on theory and research in marketing—introduction.
European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 6–12.
Buttle, F., & Maklan, S. (2015). Customer relationship management: Concepts and tech-
nologies. New York: Routledge.
Buzzell, R. D. (1963, January–February). Is marketing a science? Harvard Business
Review, 41, 32–34.
Carroll, G. R. (1993). A sociological view on why firms differ. Strategic Management
Journal, 14(4), 237–249. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.4250140402/abstract
Chatterjee, K., & Lilien, G. L. (1986). Game theory in marketing science uses and
limitations. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3(2), 79–93.
Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/0167811686900121
Chintagunta, P., Anderson, D. H., Hauser, J. R., Raju, J. S., Srinivasan, K., & Staelin,
R. (2013, January–February). Marketing science: A strategic review. Marketing
Science, 32(1), 4–7. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://pubsonline.informs.
org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mksc.1120.0763
Clark, F. E. (1922). Principles of marketing. New York: Macmillan.
Converse, P. D. (1945). The development of the science of marketing: An exploratory
survey. Journal of Marketing, 10, 14–32.
Cox, R., & Alderson, W. (1950). Theory in marketing. Homewood: Irwin.
Dawson, L. (1971). Marketing science in the age of aquarius. Journal of Marketing, 35,
66–72.
Preface xxi
Day, G. S. (1992). Marketing’s contribution to the strategy dialogue. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 20(Fall), 323–330.
Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1983). Marketing theory with a strategic orientation. Journal
of Marketing, 47(Fall), 79–89.
Demirdjian, Z. S. (1976). Marketing as a pluralistic discipline: The forestalling of an
identity crisis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4(4), 672–681. Retrieved
at March 30, 2016, from http://web.csulb.edu/~zdemirdj/Earlyp/Marketing%20
as%20a%20Pluralistic%20Discipline.pdf
Deng, S., & Dart, J. (1994). Measuring market orientation: A multi-factor, multi-
item approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 10(8), 725–742. Retrieved at
March 15, 2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02672
57X.1994.9964318
Desai, P. S. (2011). Marketing science: Marketing and science. Marketing Science,
30(1), 1–3. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/227442572_Marketing_Science_Marketing_and_Science
Desai, P. S. (2013). Marketing science replication and disclosure policy. Marketing
org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mksc.1120.0761
Desai, P. S., Bell, D., Lilien, G., & Soberman, D. (2012). The science-to-practice initia-
tive: Getting new marketing science thinking into the real world. Marketing Science,
31(1), 1–3. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://pubsonline.informs.org/
doi/abs/10.1287/mksc.1110.0697?journalCode=mksc
Deshpande, R. (1983). Paradigms lost: On theory and method in research in market-
ing. Journal of Marketing, 47(Fall), 101–110.
Dholakia, N., Firat, F., & Bagozzi, R. (1987). In F. Firat, N. Dholakia, & R. Bagozzi
(Ed.), Philosophical and radical thought in marketing (pp. 375–384). Lexington:
D.C. Heath.
Dixon, D. F. (2011). Wroe Alderson’s marketing behaviour and executive action
inserted into Reavis Cox’s marketing theory course at Wharton 50 years ago. Journal
of Historical Research in Marketing, 3(1), 10–28. Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17557501111102382
Dixon, L. M., & Diehn, D. (1992). The challenged marketing concept: A repositioning
strategy for a concept in the decline stage. In C. T. Allen, T. J. Madden, & American
Marketing Association Staff (Eds.), Marketing theory and applications (pp. 432–
440). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Dobbin, F., & Baum, J. A. C. (2000). Introduction: Economics meets sociology in
strategic management, Book series: Advances in strategic management, volume 17—
economics meets sociology in strategic management (pp. 1–26). Retrieved at March
30, 2016, from http://scholar.harvard.edu/dobbin/files/economics_meets_
sociology_in_strategic_management.pdf
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper & Row.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory development. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
Easley, R. W., Madden, C. S., & Dunn, M. G. (2000). Conducting marketing science:
The role of replication in the research process. Journal of Business Research, 48(1),
article/pii/S0148296398000794
El-Ansary, A. I. (1979). The general theory of marketing revisited. In O. C. Ferrell,
S. W. Brown, & C. W. Lamb (Eds.), Conceptual and theoretical developments in mar-
keting (pp. 399–407). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
xxii Preface
Enis, B. M. (1973, October). Deepening the concept of marketing. Journal of

Marketing, 37, 57–62.
Farrell, M. (2002). A critique of the development of alternative measures of market
orientation. Marketing Bulletin,13, Article 3. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from
http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V13/MB_V13_A3_Farrell.pdf
Felton, P. A. (1959, July–August). Making the marketing concept work. Harvard
Business Review, 37, 55–65.
Ferrell, O. C., & Lucas, G. H. (1987). An evaluation of progress in the development of
a definition of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(3), 12–23.
Ferrell, O. C., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, G. T. M., & Maignan, I. (2010). From
market orientation to stakeholder orientation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
29(1, Spring), 93–96. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from https://global.broad.
msu.edu/hult/publications/jppm10.pdf
Fisk, G. (1967). Marketing systems: An introductory analysis. New York: Harper and
Row.
Fisk, G., & Donald, F. D. (1967). Theories for marketing systems analysis. New York:
Harper and Row.
Foxall, G. (1989). Marketing’s domain. European Journal of Marketing, 23(8), 7–22.
Friedman, D. (2007). Discussion: Market theories evolve, and so do markets. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(2), 247–255. Retrieved at April 10, 2016,
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268106002757
Fullerton, R. (1988). How modern is modern marketing? Marketing’s evolution and
the myth of the “production era” Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 108–125. Retrieved
at March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251689
Goggin, P. A. (1980). Technology and man: The nature and organization of technology in
modern society. Exeter: Wheaton.
Goldstucker, J. L., Barnett, A. G., & Danny, N. B. (1974). How scientific is marketing?
MSU Business Topics, 22, 35–43.
Grönroos, C. (1990). Marketing redefined. Management Decision, 28(8), 5–9.
Habermas, J. (1984). The philosophical discourse of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Halbert, M. (1965). The meaning and sources of marketing theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Halbert, M. H. (1964). The requirements for theory in marketing. In R. Cox,
W. Alderson, & S. J. Shapiro (Eds.), Theory in marketing (pp. 17–36). Illinois:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Hotchkiss, G. B. (1938). Milestones in marketing. New York: Macmillan.
Houston, F. S. (1986, April). The marketing concept: What it is and what it is not.
Journal of Marketing, 50, 81–87.
Howard, J. A. (1983). Marketing theory of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 47(Fall),
90–100.
Howard, J., & Jagdish, N. S. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John
Wiley.
Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on
organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management
Review, 15(1), 47–71.
Hughes, R. (2005, December 5–7). Broadening the boundaries: The development of mar-
keting thought over the past sixty years. ANZMAC (Australia and New Zealand
Marketing Academy) 2005 conference: Strategic Marketing and Market Orientation,
School of Business, University of Western Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia.
Preface xxiii
Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.anzmac.org/conference_

archive/2005/cd-site/pdfs/17-Strategic/17-Hughes.pdf
Hult, G., & Tomas, M. (2011). Toward a theory of the boundary-spanning marketing
organization and insights from 31 organization theories. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39, 509–536. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11747-011-0253-6
Hult, G., Tomas, M., Mena, J. A., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2011). Stakeholder
marketing: A definition and conceptual framework. Academy of Marketing Science
Review, 1, 44–65. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/art
icle/10.1007%2Fs13162-011-0002-5
Hunt, S. (1971). The morphology of theory and the general theory of marketing.
Hunt, S. D. (1976a). The nature and scope of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40,
17–28. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://sdh.ba.ttu.edu/JM76%20-%20
Nature%20and%20Scope.pdf
Hunt, S. D. (1976b). Marketing theory: Conceptualizations of research in marketing.
Ohio: Grid Publishing.
Hunt, S. D. (1983). Marketing theory: The philosophy of marketing science. Homewood:
Irwin.
Hunt, S. D. (1990). Truth in marketing theory and research. Journal of Marketing, 54,
1–15. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251812
Hunt, S. D. (1991a). Modern marketing theory: Critical issues in the philosophy of mar-
keting science. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co.
Hunt, S. D. (1991b, June). Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research:
Toward critical pluralism and rapprochement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18,
32–44.
Hunt, S. D. (1992, April). For reason and realism in marketing. Journal of Marketing,
56, 89–102.
Hunt, S. D. (1993, April). Objectivity in marketing theory and research. Journal of
Hunt, S. D. (1994). On rethinking marketing: Our discipline, our practice, our meth-
ods. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 13–25. Retrieved at March 30, 2016,
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569410057263
Hunt, S. D. (2010). Marketing theory: Foundations, controversy, strategy, resource-
advantage theory. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Hunt, S. D. (2013). A general theory of business marketing: R-A theory, Alderson, the
ISBM framework, and the IMP theoretical structure. Industrial Marketing
Management, 42, 283–293. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.scien-
cedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019850113000217
advantage theory. New York: Routledge.
Hunt, S. D., & Lambe, J. C. (2000). Marketing’s contribution to business strategy:
Market orientation, relationship marketing and resource-advantage theory.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(1), 17–43. Retrieved at February
25, 2016, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2370.00029/
abstract.
Hunt, S. D., Muncy, J. A., & Ray, N. M. (1981). Alderson’s general theory of market-
ing: A formalization. In B. M. Enis & K. R. Roering (Ed.), Review of marketing
(pp. 267–272). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
xxiv Preface
Hutchinson, K. D. (1952). Marketing as a science: An appraisal. Journal of Marketing,

16, 286–293.
Iriana, R. M. M., & Buttle, F. (2007). Strategic, operational, and analytical customer
relationship management: Attributes and measures. Journal of Relationship
Marketing, 5(4), 23–42. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from http://www.tandfon-
line.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J366v05n04_03
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993, July). Market orientation: Antecedents and con-
sequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.
Jayachandran, S., Hewett, K., & Kaufman, P. (2004). Customer response capability in
a sense-and-respond era: The role of customer knowledge process. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 219–233. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1177%2F0092070304263334
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (2011). Markets as networks: Implications for strategy
making. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 484–491. Retrieved
at February 20, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s11747-010-0235-0
Jones Brian, D. G. (2013). Pauline Arnold (1894–1974): Pioneer in market research.
Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 5(3), 291–307. Retrieved at April 10,
2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHRM-01-2013-0001
Jones, B., & Monieson, D. D. (1990). Early development of the philosophy of market-
ing thought. Journal of Marketing, 54, 102–113. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252176
Keith, R. (1994). The marketing revolution. Journal of Marketing, 24, 35–38.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Marketing and organization theory:
Opportunities for synergy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 481–
483. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s11747-011-0259-0
Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market
orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(4), 467–477. Retrieved at March 15,
2016, from http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/x/jxb14/JMR/JMR1993-
4-467.pdf
Komatsu, H. (2006). An introduction to the theory of hyperfunctions. In Conference at
Katata (1971): Hyperfunctions and pseudo-differential equations (Lecture Notes in
Mathematics series, Vol. 287, pp. 3–40). Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0068144
Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36, 46–54.
Kotler, P. (2011). Philip Kotler’s contributions to marketing theory and practice. In
N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research: Special issue—marketing legends
(Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, pp. 87–120). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/
doi/abs/10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008007
Kotler, P., & Sidney, J. L. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 33, 10–15. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/1248740
Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. (2012). Customer relationship management: Concept, strat-
egy, and tools. Berlin: Springer.
Preface xxv
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Law, P. J. S. (1984). The literature of marketing. In K. D. C. Vernon (Ed.), Information
sources in management and business (pp. 269–282). London: Butterworth.
Layton, R. A. (2011). Towards a theory of marketing systems. European Journal of
Marketing, 45(1/2), 259–276. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/03090561111095694
Lazer, W. (1967). Philosophic aspects of the marketing discipline. In E. J. Kelly &
W. Lazer (Eds.), Managerial marketing: Perspectives and viewpoints (pp. 718–724).
Homewood: Irwin.
Lehmann, D., McAlister, L., &Staelin, R. (2010). Sophistication in research in market-
ing (Working paper). New York: Columbia University.
Levitt, T. (1960, July/August). Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, 45–56.
Levitt, T. (1984, February). Marketing and its discontents. Across the Board, 42–48.
Lowe, S., Carr, A. N., & Thomas, M. (2004). Paradigmapping marketing theory.
European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 1057–1064. Retrieved at April 10, 2016,
Ludicke, M. (2006). A theory of marketing: Outline of a social systems perspective. Doctor
of Business Administration Dissertation, University of St. Gallen, Graduate School
of Business Administration, Economics, Law and Social Sciences (HSG), No. 3169,
Publisher: DUV, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from
http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3169/$FILE/
dis3169.pdf
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
MacInnis, D. J. (2011, July). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 75, 136–154. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://
msbfile03.usc.edu/digitalmeasures/macinnis/intellcont/61237675-1.pdf
Maklan, S., Knox, S., & Ryals, L. (2015). Extending the marketing concept. (Cranfield
School of Management Working Paper, SWP 1/02). Retrieved at March 10, 2016,
from http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/research/docu-
ments/swp102stanmaklanetal.pdf
Manicas, P. T. (1987). A history of philosophy of the social sciences. New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Marquit, E. (1995). Philosophy of technology, encyclopedia of applied physics (Vol. 13,
pp. 417–29). Weinheim: VCH Publishers. Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from http://
www.tc.umn.edu/~marqu002/techphil.html
Marx, K. (1946). Capital. New York: Everyman’s Library.
Maynard, H. H., & Theodore, N. B. (1939). Principles of marketing. New York:
Ronald.
McCarthy, E. J. (1960). Basic marketing: A managerial approach. Homewood:
Irwin.
McMaster, M. D. (1996). The intelligence advantage: Organizing for complexity.
Newton: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mela, C. F., Roos, J., & Deng, Y. (2013). Invited paper—a keyword history of market-
ing science. Marketing Science, 32(1), 8–18. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from
http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mksc.1120.0764
Millican, R. D. (1964). Is a marketing man just a marketing man? Journal of Marketing,
28, 8–9.
xxvi Preface
Moran, R. (2010). Insight’s future: From market research to strategic insight. StrategyOne.
Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://www.strategyone.com/documents/
InsightsFutureBrochure.pdf
Morgan R. E., Thorpe E. R., & McGuinness, T. (2000). The contribution of marketing
to business strategy formation: A perspective on business performance gains. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 8(4), 341–362. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09652540010003672
Morgan, R. E. (1996). Conceptual foundations of marketing and marketing theory.
Management Decision, 34(10), 19–26. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749610150658
Morgan, R. E., & Turnell, C. R. (2003, September). Market-based organizational
learning and market performance gains. British Journal of Management, 14, 255–
274. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=447304
Moyer, M. S. (1967). Changing marketing systems. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Mueller-Heumann, G. (1986). Toward a professional concept for marketing. Journal of
Marketing Management, 1(3), 303–313.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from
O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Tushman, M. L. (2004, April). The ambidextrous organization.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from https://hbr.
org/2004/04/the-ambidextrous-organization
O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past,
present and future (Harvard Business School (HBS) Working Paper). Retrieved at
January 10, 2016, from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/
O’Reilly%20and%20Tushman%20AMP%20Ms%20051413_c66b0c53-5fcd-46d5-
aa16-943eab6aa4a1.pdf
Park, C. W., & Zaltman, G. (1987). Marketing management. Orlando: Dryden Press.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: The Free Press.
Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Parsons, T., & Toby, J. (1977). The evolution of societies. Englewood Cliff:
Prentice-Hall.
Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (2011). Managing customer relationships: A strategic frame-
work. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Peter, J. P. (1992). Realism or relativism for marketing theory and research: A comment
of Hunt’s scientific realism. Journal of Marketing, 56(April), 72–79.
Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (1983). Is science marketing? The Journal of Marketing,
47(4), 111–125. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www2.psych.ubc.
ca/~schaller/528Readings/PeterOlson1983.pdf
Phillips, D. C. (1987). Philosophy, science, and social inquiry. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Priem, R. L. (1992). Industrial organization economics and Alderson’s general theory
of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(Spring), 135–142.
Raphael, J., & Parket, I. R. (1991). Commentary: The need for market research in
executive decision making. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 6(1/2),
15–21.
Raymond, M. A., & Barksdale, H. C. (1989). Corporate strategic planning and corpo-
rate marketing: Towards an interface. Business Horizons, 32(5), 41–48.
Preface xxvii
Rewoldt, S. (1954). Frontiers in marketing thought. Bloomington: Bureau of Business

Research, Indiana University.
Rudd, J. M., & Morgan, R. (2003). Editorial: Marketing strategy: A history of the next
decade. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(3 (Special issue: Marketing strategy: A
history of the next decade)), 161–164. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0965254032000133430
Rust, R. T., Moorman, C., & Bhalla, G. (2010, January–February). Rethinking
marketing, spotlight on reinvention. Harvard Business Review, 1–9. Retrieved at
March 30, 2016, from https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~moorman/Publications/
Rethinking%20Marketing.pdf
Sato, M. (1959). Theory of hyperfunctions I. Journal of the Faculty of Science, University
of Tokyo, Sect. 1, Mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, 8(1), 139–193.
Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dspace/
bitstream/2261/6027/1/jfs080104.pdf
Savitt, R. (1980). Historical research in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 44, 52–58.
Serpa, L. F. (2000). Epistemological assessment of current business intelligence arche-
types. Competitive Intelligence Review, 11(4), 88–101.
Shapiro, P. B. (1988, November–December). What the hell is market oriented
(pp. 119–125). Harvard Business Review. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from
https://hbr.org/1988/11/what-the-hell-is-market-oriented
Shaw, E. H. (1995). The first dialogue on macromarketing. Journal of Macromarketing,
15(1), 7–20.
Shaw, E. H., & Jones, D. G. B. (2005). A history of schools of marketing thought.
Marketing theory, 5(3), 239–281.
Shaw, E. H., & Tamilia, R. D. (2001). Robert Bartels and the history of marketing
thought. Journal of Macromarketing, 21(2), 156–163. Retrieved at March 30,
2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235362901_Robert_
Bartels_and_the_History_of_Marketing_Thought
Sheth, J. G., Gardner, D. M., & Garrett, D. E. (1988). Marketing theory: Evolution and
evaluation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (1999). Revisiting marketing’s lawlike generalizations.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 71–87 Retrieved at March 30,
2016, from http://rajsisodia.com/raj/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Revisiting-
Marketing_s-Lawlike-Generalizations.pdf.
Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sharma, A. (2000). The antecedents and consequences
of customer-centric marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1),
55–66. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, http://rajsisodia.com/raj/wp-content/
uploads/2012/07/The-Antecedents-and-Consequences-of-Customer-Centric-
Marketing.pdf
Shugan, S. M. (2002). The mission of marketing science. Marketing Science, 21(1),
1–13. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/
pdf/10.1287/mksc.21.1.1.162
Shugan, S. M. (2006). Editorial: Fifty years of marketing science. Marketing Science,
25(6), 551–555. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://pubsonline.informs.
org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mksc.1060.0251
xxviii Preface
Sidorchuk, R. (2015). The concept of “value” in the theory of marketing. Asian Social
Science, 11(9), 320–325. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.ccsenet.
org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/47176/25513
Simon, H. (1984). Challenges and new research avenues in marketing science.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1(4), 249–261. Retrieved at April 10,
2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167811684900156
Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based
organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305–318. Retrieved at February 25, 2016,
from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1177/0092070397254003
Slater, S. F., Olson, E. M., & Carol, F. (2011). Business strategy, marketing organiza-
tion culture, and performance. Marketing Letter, 22, 227–242.
Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Sweeney, D. J. (1972). Marketing: Management technology or social process? Journal
of Marketing, 36, 3–10.
Tadajewski, M. (2014). Paradigm debates and marketing theory, thought and practice.
Taylor, W. J. (1965). Is marketing a science? Revisited. Journal of Marketing, 29, 49–53.
Teich, A. H. (Ed.). (1972). Technology and man’s future. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Trout, J. (2006). Peter Drucker on marketing. Forbes. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from
http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/30/jack-trout-on-marketing-cx_jt_
0703drucker.html
Tucker, W. T. (1974). Future directions in marketing theory. Journal of Marketing, 38,
30–35.
Uslay, C., Morgan, R. E., & Sheth, J. N. (2009). Peter Drucker on marketing: An
exploration of five tenets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 47–60.
Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%
2Fs11747-008-0099-8
Vorhies, D. W., Orr, L. M., & Bush, V. D. (2011). Improving customer-focused
marketing capabilities and firm financial performance via marketing exploration
and exploitation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 736–756. Retrieved
at March 20, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11747-
010-0228-z
Webster, F. E., Jr. (1988, May/June). The rediscovery of the marketing concept.
Business Horizons, 31(3), 29–39.
Wikipedia. (2016a). Ambidextrous organization. Wikipedia. Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambidextrous_organization
Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2003). Scholarly research in marketing: Exploring the
“4 Eras” of thought development. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(2, Fall),
116–146. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/
jppm.22.2.116.17639
Wilkinson, I. F., & Gray, D. M. (2007). The production and consumption of marketing
theory. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 15(1), 39–52. Retrieved at April 10,
2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441358207700289
Wilkinson, I. F., & Young L. C. (2013). The past and the future of business marketing
theory. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 394–404. Retrieved at March 30, 2016,
Preface xxix
Winer, R. S. (2014). The impact of marketing science research on practice: Comment.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(2), 142–143. Retrieved at April 10,
Wise, G. (1985). Science and technology. OSIRIS, 1, 229–246. Retrieved at April 10,
2016, from http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/368647
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153. Retrieved at March
30, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02894350
Wrenn, B. (1997). The market orientation construct: Measurement and scaling issues.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5(3), 31–54. Retrieved at March 25,
2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10696679.1997.11
501770?journalCode=mmtp20
Wright, T. R. (1996). Technology systems. South Holland: Goodheart-Willcox Company.
Zaltman, G. M., LeMaster, K., & Heffring, M. (1982). Theory construction in marketing.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Contents
Introduction xxxix
1 Marketology Organizational Architecture (MOA) 1
2 Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) 35
3 Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB) 171
4 Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC) 291
5 Future of Marketology (FOM) 391
6 Handbook of Marketology (HOM) 477
References 497
Index 583
xxxi
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Components of business building blocks (BBB) 4

Figure 1.2 Levels of business competitive success 6
Figure 1.3 The hyper-function of marketology 7
Figure 1.4 Practical roles of marketology regarding business building
blocks (BBBs) 9
Figure 1.5 The standard marketology canvas (SMC) 12
Figure 1.6 An enterprise’s functional texture; marketology is highlighted 14
Figure 1.7 Marketology organizational architecture (MOA) mapping
within an organization 15
Figure 1.8 Perspectives on MOA (Note: There are two perspectives on
defining the components of MOA within the components of
an organization’s BBBs. In accordance with perspective A,
marketology is considered to be an immature function and its
design, behavior and contribution are organized as part of the
entire organization; while based on perspective B, marketology
is regarded as a mature function and its design, behavior and
contribution are structured independently but aligned with
the BBBs) 16
Figure 1.9 The marketology organizational design (MOD) canvas
(Note: This figure demonstrating marketology organizational
design (MOD) is extracted from Figure 1.5 in which the whole
picture of marketology organizational architecture (MOA)
was mapped) 17
Figure 1.10 The marketology organizational behavior (MOB) canvas
(Note: This figure demonstrating MOB is extracted from
Figure 1.5, in which the whole picture of MOA is mapped) 18
Figure 1.11 The marketology organizational contribution (MOC) canvas
(Note: This figure demonstrating MOC is extracted from
Figure 1.5, in which the whole picture of MOA is mapped) 19
Figure 1.12 Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC)
analysis framework 22
Figure 1.13 Intense link between marketology and BOD/BOB based
on MCMC 24
xxxiii
xxxiv List of Figures
Figure 1.14 MMM: Examining links between marketology and components

of the BOD and BOB 25
Figure 1.15 Marketology Status Analysis Matrix (MSAM): Components of
MOD and MOB and total marketology within organization 27
Figure 1.16 Marketology and organization relationship perspectives
diagram (MORPD) 28
Figure 1.17 Marketology and organization relationship directions
(Note: The links are shown as following (1) from O2M;
and (2) from M2O) 29
Figure 1.18 Marketology and organization directional effects matrix
(MODEM)29
Figure 1.19 Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM): Comparing interlinks
of marketology and BOD and BOB of a firm with best practice
companies (BPC) or rivals of the industry/market 31
Figure 1.20 Marketology impact assessment matrix (MIAM): Examine the
mutual interactions of marketology organizational architecture
(MOA) and the entire business organization 32
Figure 2.1 Galaxy of marketology 40
Figure 2.2 Mapping marketology along with management levels and roles
in an organization 41
Figure 2.3 Distribution of marketology’s products across managerial levels 42
Figure 2.4 Marketology throughout an organization: autonomous or
merged (Note: The black circles show the status of marketology
within an organizational structure. The big black circle represents
an autonomous unit of marketology; the small black circle inside
the white circle indicates marketology merged with other
organizational units) 45
Figure 2.5 The pros and cons of the marketology organization styles 47
Figure 2.6 The profile of the federated marketology organization 50
Figure 2.7 Principle components of a MMC 54
Figure 2.8 MMC: market-related products and services 55
Figure 2.9 MMC within organization 57
Figure 2.10 Process of launching MMC 58
Figure 2.11 CSFs of MMC 60
Figure 2.12 The MMC structuring, reporting method, and pertaining risks 61
Figure 2.13 Hierarchical Model of Cultural Dynamics (HMCD) 66
Figure 2.14 Organizational culture and its relationship with behavior
and performance 67
Figure 2.15 Political games and pertaining intentions 77
Figure 2.16 The classifications of marketology users within enterprise 80
Figure 2.17 Marketology people: 3E groups 82
Figure 2.18 The skills required for a MMC 84
Figure 2.19 Dispersion of marketology-based skills throughout organization
in accordance with DBMR level of organizational functions 86
Figure 2.20 Hierarchy of Business Competencies (HBC) 91
Figure 2.21 Marketology assets 92
Figure 2.22 Comparing capability and competence 94
Figure 2.23 Organizational competencies classifications 95
List of Figures xxxv
Figure 2.24 Linking distinctive competencies to SSS/SCS through SCA 96

Figure 2.25 Marketology budgeting tactics pertaining to its structuring
pattern100
Figure 2.26 Marketology capabilities 101
Figure 2.27 Clusters of marketology competencies 103
Figure 2.28 Business process types 112
Figure 2.29 The components of a business model canvas: focused on
value proposition 114
Figure 2.30 The components of value proposition canvas 114
Figure 2.31 The key components/steps of business model/process 115
Figure 2.32 Key features of effective business process management 116
Figure 2.33 Evolution of IT application in an organization 124
Figure 2.34 Relationship between marketology and technology within
organization128
Figure 2.35 Organizational creativity behavior model 134
Figure 2.36 Interconnection between creativity, change and innovation 135
Figure 2.37 Organizational change agents 136
Figure 2.38 Organizational communication and leadership (Note: It should
be noted that in this book communication and culture are
considered as subcomponents of organizational design; and
similarly leadership and performance are considered as
subcomponents of organizational behavior) 147
Figure 2.39 Business interactions focus: external-effectiveness versus
internal-efficiency150
Figure 2.40 Organization design requirements: external/strategic and
internal/operational152
Figure 2.41 MOD canvas: completion of pieces 156
Figure 3.1 “Exinternal” or “envinternal” business analysis (combination
of external and internal business analysis) 176
Figure 3.2 Layers/levels of “exinternal” or “envinternal” business analysis 177
Figure 3.3 External and internal factors and stakeholders of marketology 187
Figure 3.4 Corporate governance within business ecology 195
Figure 3.5 Corporate governance as corporate strategic management 197
Figure 3.6 BusiTech-driven marketology governance (BTMG) approach 203
Figure 3.7 Challenges of marketology governance: building balance 206
Figure 3.8 Governing approaches of BICC and MICC/MMC 208
Figure 3.9 Organizational matters that require decisions 210
Figure 3.10 Business decision-making and action-taking style and process 213
Figure 3.11 Categorization of decision-making models/approaches 214
Figure 3.12 Organizational decisions and actions (ODA) in relation
to marketology 217
Figure 3.13 Strategic marketology framework (SMF): consistent with
MOA and aligned with BBB 224
Figure 3.14 Marketology strategy contribution on business value
and performance 230
Figure 3.15 Key functions of effective marketology strategy within an MMC 233
Figure 3.16 Marketology strategy: bridging the gaps 234
Figure 3.17 Marketology and strategy 237
Figure 3.18 Business value perspectives 244
xxxvi List of Figures
Figure 3.19 The logic of optimum balanced value (OBV) 247

Figure 3.20 Optimum balanced return on value (OB-ROV) 249
Figure 3.21 Market-related informational needs of business decision-makers
and action-takers 250
Figure 3.22 Perspectives of examining organizational effectiveness 255
Figure 3.23 Effective business performance management relying
on marketology 256
Figure 3.24 Business success through PBPM & IBPM 260
Figure 3.25 Marketology critical success factors (CSFs): driving and
restraining forces 262
Figure 3.26 Marketology and “value and performance” 263
Figure 3.27 Marketology organization behavior (MOB) canvas: completion
of pieces 267
Figure 4.1 Layers/levels of marketology organizational contribution (MOC) 296
Figure 4.2 Marketology organizational contribution (MOC) components 298
Figure 4.3 MOC dynamics 300
Figure 4.4 MOC: business-based contributions 301
Figure 4.5 MOC: marketology-based contributions 310
Figure 4.6 MOC: marketology products (market DIKII) and services
(IGDEE)318
Figure 4.7 Dynamics of market DIKII and IGDEE services 319
Figure 4.8 MOC versus market/marketing research 321
Figure 4.9 Business stakeholders 325
Figure 4.10 Business stakeholder analysis (engineering) matrix 326
Figure 4.11 Competitors typology based on market-product 337
Figure 4.12 Competitor response profile (Porter’s four corners model) 342
Figure 4.13 Matrix for company analysis by stakeholders: an out-of-context
evaluation360
Figure 4.14 Marketology organization contribution (MOC) canvas:
completion of pieces 372
Figure 5.1 World megatrends from now to 2030–2050 395
Figure 5.2 Top 10 CIO technology priorities 396
Figure 5.3 Gartner top 10 strategic technology trends 397
Figure 5.4 Top 10 CIO business priorities 398
Figure 5.5 IT-enabled business trends and corresponding requirements 400
Figure 5.6 Information asset valuation models 405
Figure 5.7 Business analytics maturity 408
Figure 5.8 Summary of factors for future of business 411
Figure 5.9 Business intelligence (BI) maturity models 414
Figure 5.10 Predictions and future trends of BI 415
Figure 5.11 Generations of business intelligence (BI) 416
Figure 5.12 Future of marketing: predictions, challenges, and changes 419
Figure 5.13 Meta-trends of marketing (from traditional to modern marketing) 420
Figure 5.14 Formation of marketing 3.0: stimulus, problems and solutions 421
Figure 5.15 Responsibilities of marketing profession and corresponding
requirements422
Figure 5.16 Market-related competencies 423
Figure 5.17 Future of market research: trends, solutions, and substitutes 424
Figure 5.18 Changing consumer trends 427
List of Figures xxxvii
Figure 5.19 Questions and changes for the future of business 435
Figure 5.20 Evolution of enterprise information systems: from MIS to
Marketology438
Figure 5.21 Marketology maturity 439
Figure 5.22 Approaches of marketology and decision-making interaction 441
Figure 5.23 Cloud Marketology Canvas (CMC) 445
Figure 6.1 Handbook of Marketology (HOM): Content 478
Introduction
Hitherto the origin and foundation, definition and theory, process and sys-
tem, and analysis factors and framework of marketology have been discussed
in general and on business grounds. Hereinafter the hyper-function of mar-
ketology should be taken into account in practice and action within an enter-
prise/organization. Although the practical issues of marketology can be used
at different levels of person, group and family; enterprise; industry; nation,
region and global, in this book the main focus of marketology’s practical
issues will be mainly at the enterprise level. However, other levels will not be
ignored.
It is widely accepted that in today’s real and practical business world and
turbulent environment, competitive market businesses and dynamic organi-
zations must be sufficiently flexible and agile in their decisions and actions
to achieve sustainable superior success (SSS) at the highest level, sustainable
competitive success (SCS) at the second-best position, or at least normal
competitive success (NCS) to survive in the marketplace. However, some
businesses may not be able to attain these levels, and even fail to achieve a
competitive position.
To achieve success and avoid failure in practical fields of work, firms
should be able to conduct business performance management (BPM)3
appropriately, relying on their business building blocks (BBBs), including
business organizational design (BOD) and business organizational behavior
(BOB). In this regard both BOD and BOB should be enabled and supported
effectively through strong organizational functions and subsystems such as
strategy, marketing, IT, management information systems, production and
finance. For this purpose a core competency that is external/market and
internal oriented, cross-functional and beyond organizational hierarchy,
wide scoped and scaled, market related, data driven, future oriented, ana-
lytics based, business based and technology based is essential. It must also
able to support business decisions and actions by providing market-related
informational products and services constantly. In other words, a multidex-
xxxix
xl Introduction
trous (rather than ambidextrous4) core competency is needed by businesses

to ensure their sustainable success (either superior or competitive).
It is interesting to note that so-called the multidextrous core competency
of an enterprise is nothing more than the hyper-function of marketology as an
organizational subsystem. Marketology provides useful market-related informa-
tional products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE)5 to the executives and
market-related decision-makers and action-takers with which they can make
more effective decisions and take more efficient actions. Thus the hyper-function
of marketology should be contemplated from a comprehensive view, set up in
Business Success (SSS/SCS)
Business performance management (BPM)
Business Organizaonal Design Business Organizaonal Behavior

(BOD) (BOB)
Business building blocks (BBB)
Marketology Strategic Management (MSM)

Funcons other than marketology
Funcons other than marketology
Marketology Organizaonal Contribuon (MOC)
Marketology
Marketology
Organizaonal
Organizaonal
Behavior (MOB)
Design (MOD)
Marketology organizaonal architecture (MOA)
Organizaon/Enterprise
Environment/Market
Figure I.1 Marketology-driven business performance canvas

Introduction xli
an integrative manner, managed strategically and performed effectively to ensure

business competitive success through supporting business decisions and actions.
For this purpose the marketology-driven business performance canvas
(MDBPC) is designed to map the key contributions of marketology to real-
izing business success, as illustrated in Figure I.1.6 In this regard, fulfillment of
business success (SSS or SCS) relies on effective BPM, which in turn requires
influential BBBs, and contains BOD and BOB. In accordance with MDBPC,
all of these (BPM, BBB, BOD and BOB) can be supported by marketology
strategic management (MSM), relying on marketology organizational architec-
ture (MOA) comprising MOD, MOB and MOC.
The framework of this book is shown in Figure I.2. In fact, this volume
shows how to practice the hyper-function of marketology in a business context,
how to deploy it within a business organization and how to utilize it through-
out the enterprise to achieve business success.
As illustrated in Figure I.2, based on the theoretical background of marke-
tology covered in Volume 1,7 in this volume the applied subjects and issues of
the hyper-function of marketology are discussed in its six chapters:
1. Marketology Organizational Architecture (MOA)

2. Marketology Organizational Design (MOD)
3. Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB)
4. Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC)
5. Future of Marketology (FOM)
6. Handbook of Marketology (HOM)
It should be noted that in this volume the discussed subjects, issues and
materials will be examined from a practical viewpoint using different tools and
techniques outlined in boxes entitled Marketology in Practice (MIP). To dis-
tinguish the practical parts of MIP from other materials, the heading of each
MIP box will contain the following items:
1. Marketology 2. Practical Tools and Techniques

in practice
(MIP) 3. Subjects and issues
(No.)
1. Marketology in practice title and number (black background);

2. Title of the practical tool/technique used (gray background);
3. Related subject/issue or any related expression (white background).
The most frequently used technique in MIP is the Marketology FOCUS

Box, which applies to a practical review of the discussed subjects and issues. The
guidelines for practicing the issues and subjects in the Marketology FOCUS
Box are as follows:
xlii Introduction
Marketology FOCUS Box: Guidelines
This is a practical technique for reviewing and analyzing the discussed

subjects and issues and comprises the following steps:
1. Form groups of students (in a class) or colleagues (in an organization)

composed of three or five members.
2. Organize a leader and select a name/label for your group.
3. Consider a case or subject for investigation and analysis.
4. Understand, discuss and work on the issue as a team.
5. Set out a report, present it to the class/organization and carry out
an evaluation.
Note that FOCUS is an abbreviation made up from the initial char-

acter from each of these five steps. In accordance with the Marketology
FOCUS Box guidelines, readers are asked to practice FOCUS in their
own organization or for any intended case organization.
For the convenience of readers, these guidelines are mentioned in every

MIP where the Marketology FOCUS Box is used.
A number of other tools and techniques are recommended for use in
MIP throughout this volume. The guidelines for using these techniques are
explained in the relevant sections. Some of the tools are used within the chap-
ters and some are provided at the end. Also at the end of each chapter, read-
ers are asked to conduct a practical case study regarding the investigated and
practiced subjects and issues.
While this volume is intended to address the practice of marketology, along-
side the applied materials some useful theoretical contributions are included.
All those involved in marketology—business executives and analysts, decision-
makers and action-takers of organizations—can facilitate and accelerate their
adoption of the tools and techniques of MIP in the real world of business by
using “business simulation” with a focus on simulating the practices of marke-
tology mentioned here. The framework of this book (Principles of Marketology,
Volume 2: Practice) including 6 chapters is shown in Figure (I.2).
Introduction xliii
Ch. 6- Handbook of Marketology (HOM)
Ch. 5- Future of Marketology (FOM)
Ch. 4- Marketology Organizaonal Contribuon (MOC)
Ch. 2- Marketology Ch. 3- Marketology

Organizaonal Organizaonal
Design (MOD) Behavior (MOB)
Ch. 1- Marketology organizaonal architecture (MOA)
Organizaon/Enterprise
Environment/Market
Figure I.2 Framework of this book
Notes
1. Market DIKII and IGDEE services are explained in more detail in Ch. 1.
2. For more information, see Aghazadeh (2016), ch. 3.
3. In the business literature, performance management may take different
names: business performance management, business strategic manage-
ment, corporate performance management, enterprise performance
management, strategic enterprise management and so on.
4. “Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization’s ability to be
efficient in its management of today’s business and also adaptable for
xliv Introduction
coping with tomorrow’s changing demand. It requires the organizations

to use both exploration and exploitation techniques to be successful”
(Wikipeida 2016a, “ambidextrous organization”; O’Reilly III and
Tushman 2004, 2013). In this regard the multidextrous core compe-
tency (e.g. marketology) represents a core competency that takes multi-
aspect utilizations and values for organization.
5. The market-related informational products refer to market data, infor-
mation, knowledge, intelligence and insight. The market-related infor-
mational services represent identification, generation, dissemination,
exploitation and evaluation of the products throughout the organiza-
tion. In order to use a summarized type of them and prevent repetition
of them in this book the abbreviation of market DIKII is used instead of
mentioned market-related informational products; and the abbreviation
of IGDEE service is used instead of mentioned market-related informa-
tional services.
6. Many functions, including those outside marketology (e.g. marketing,
management information systems, finance and production) can contrib-
ute to business competitive success by enabling BBBs and assisting
BPM. Considering the subject and concentration of this book, the focus
is on a novel practice called “hyper-function of marketology”.
7. The first volume comprises six chapters: (1) Achieving Business Success
through Marketology; (2) Definition and Evolution of Marketology; (3)
Sphere of Marketology; (4) Marketology System; (5) Business, Market
and Competitive Analysis; (6) Business, Environment and Market
Analysis Framework. For more information, see Aghazadeh (2016).
CHAPTER 1
Marketology Organizational Architecture

(MOA)
Chapter Learning Objectives

In this chapter the following topics are discussed:
–– Marketology-driven business performance canvas (MDBPC)
–– Business sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS)
–– Business performance management (BPM)
–– Business building blocks (BBB)
–– Business organizational design (BOD)
–– Business organizational behavior (BOB)
–– Hyper-function of marketology
–– External versus internal marketology
–– The practical roles of marketology in business building blocks
–– Marketology strategic management (MSM)
–– Marketology organizational architecture (MOA)
–– MOA and enterprise alignment
–– Marketology organizational design (MOD)
–– Marketology organizational behavior (MOB)
–– Marketology organizational contribution (MOC)
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Marketology Organizational

Architecture (MOA)
Marketology FOCUS Boxes
MIP 1-1: Marketology-driven business performance canvas (MDBPC)

MIP 1-2: Marketology organizational architecture (MOA)
© The Author(s) 2017 1

H. Aghazadeh, Principles of Marketology, Volume 2,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54833-7_1
2 H. AGHAZADEH
Practical Tools and Techniques (for Chaps. 2 and 3):
• Marketology FOCUS Box

• Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) analysis
framework
• Marketology match matrix (MMM)
• Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
• Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram
(MORPD)
• Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)
• Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
• Marketology impact assessment matrix (MIAM)
• Case study
1.1 Introduction
In this chapter, as a preliminary to Chaps. 2 and 3, and in accordance with
the marketology-driven business performance canvas (MDBPC), business
building blocks (BBBs), including business organizational design (BOD)
and business organizational behavior (BOB), are considered as levers to
accomplish business sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS)
and business performance management (BPM). Marketology is regarded
as a hyper-function that enables businesses to better arrange BOD, con-
duct BOB, manage business performance and achieve business success.
For this purpose, the hyper-function of marketology contributes to both
external and internal marketology by providing market data, information,
knowledge, intelligence and insight (DIKII) and identification, generation,
dissemination, exploitation and evaluation (IGDEE) services to support
market-related decisions and actions.
In the following the standard marketology canvas (SMC) is introduced as
an integrated and comprehensive collection of the components of the hyper-
function of marketology and their dynamic interactions to support businesses.
Marketology strategic management (MSM) and marketology organizational
architecture (MOA), including marketology organizational design (MOD),
marketology organizational behavior (MOB) and marketology organiza-
tional contribution (MOC), are explored and illustrated in alignment with
organization.
The subjects explored and issues raised in this chapter are reviewed practi-
cally in the Marketology FOCUS Boxes.
MARKETOLOGY ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHITECTURE 3
Finally, the practical tools and techniques for practicing the subjects and
issues addressed by Chaps. 2 and 3 are introduced.
1.2 Business Success and Performance Management

For a business organization or an organization with significant business activi-
ties, the competency of business performance management (BPM) can ensure
the achievement of organizational goals and business SSS/SCS. BPM/busi-
ness strategic management (BSM) is identified as a broad approach and a set
of managerial, analytical and business processes that enable an organization to
perform its activities (particularly business activities) efficiently and to achieve
the targets and goals (particularly those of business) more effectively.
In today’s competitive business environment and market, organizations
frequently encounter ever-changing internal situations and external condi-
tions. In such tight circumstances in order to deal successfully with the mar-
ket, a competitive business organization has to manage its business processes
and performance intelligently in a manner that can deliver superior value
to key stakeholders sustainably, and in return capture satisfactory value for
itself. Running a business successfully in such dynamic, complex and tur-
bulent circumstances requires comprehensive (with integrated components),
intelligent/insightful and agile BPM. The comprehensiveness of BPM can
be ensured by embracing the BBBs, which are interrelated and integrated.
BPM can become intelligent and insightful through marketology by provid-
ing market DIKII relying on IGDEE services in running BBBs. Accordingly,
making influential and effective decisions and taking correct and efficient
actions regarding BBBs can ensure the organization’s agility, and its accom-
plishment of business success and performance management (Neely 2009;
Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Rowe and Boulgarides 1992; Radcliffe 2007,
2012; Ballard et al. 2006; Aguinis 2012; Chandler and Ulrich 2016; Franz
and Kirchmer 2013; Dumas et al. 2013; Jeston and Nelis 2013; BPMSG
2005; IBM 2005; Bogdana et al. 2009; Burton et al. 2006b; Marr 2015b;
McDonald and Christopher 2003; Porter 1998a; Rowe and Mason 1987;
Leszinski and Marn 1997).
1.3 Business Building Blocks

BBBs as essential pillars of BPM include BOD and BOB. Different models and
classifications have been presented to demonstrate the elements of BBBs. For
instance, the main components of the Gartner business intelligence (BI), ana-
lytics and performance management framework include (Chandler et al. 2011;
IBM 2010; Davenport 2006; Ekerson 2007; Skyrius et al. 2013):
–– People embracing consumers/users, producers/analysts and enablers/
IT staff;
–– Process contemplating business and decision processes, analytic pro-
cesses and information infrastructure processes;
4 H. AGHAZADEH
–– Technology (applications and tools) involving business process applica-

tions (performance management and transaction processing), analytics
applications (standalone and embedded business process applications),
BI capabilities (platform/tools and embedded in analytic application)
and information infrastructure (application data mart, enterprise data
warehouse [EDW], extract transform load [ETL], data federation and
data quality).
Regarding the range of elements, from a comprehensive and integrated
view the main components of BBBs are shown in Figure 1.1 divided into two
groups: the components of BOD and those of BOB (Olszak 2014; Radcliffe
2007, 2012; Toit and Muller 2004; IMA 1996a; Stewart and Rogers 2012;
Courtney 2001; Jacoby 2006; Scott and Bruce 1995; Turban et al. 2007).
Business sustainable superior success (SSS/SCS)
Business Performance Management (BPM)
Business Organizaonal Behavior (BOB)
- Governance - Business analysis

- Strategy - Value proposition
- Stakeholders (internal & external) - Performance
Business Organizaonal Design (BOD)
- Structure - Process
- Culture - Technology
- People - Innovation
- Asset - Communication
Business Building Blocks (BBB)
Figure 1.1 Components of business building blocks (BBB)

As shown in the figure, BOD refers to components such as structure,

culture, people, assets, processes, technology, innovation and communi-
cation through which the context of working is prepared for managing/
leading an organization. BOB as a complementary component represents
factors such as governance, strategy, dealing with stakeholders (internal and
external), business model, value and value proposition, and performance
through which the organization is managed/led relying on the prepared
organizational context.
It should be noted that the abovementioned components are the principle
ones and each may include many subcomponents. For example, items such
as leadership and management at the strategic, tactical and operational lev-
els, and setting vision, mission, strategic goals, themes, directions, orientation
and so on are included in the governance component. As another example,
items such as business environment (macro and micro), market and internal
scanning, external and internal stakeholders’ analysis and defining the interac-
tion style with them are incorporated into the stakeholder component (Neely
2009; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Rowe et al. 1984, 1992; Radcliffe 2007, 2012;
Ballard et al. 2006; Aguinis 2012; Chandler et al. 2016; Franz and Kirchmer
2013; Dumas et al. 2013; Jeston and Nelis 2013; BPMSG 2005; IBM 2005;
Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Skyrius et al. 2013; Strategyzer 2015a, b;
Leszinski and Marn 1997).
1.4 Business Competitive Success

No doubt the key purpose of BPM is business success. It is worth bearing in
mind that business success is not an absolute concept and in the practical busi-
ness world it exists as different kinds or at different levels. At the highest level
it can be SSS, at the second-best level it can be SCS and at the lowest level it
can be NCS. Below the NCS level is not considered failure rather than success.
The levels of business success are shown in Figure 1.2.
As shown in Figure 1.2, SSS refers to the top position that the leaders of
an industry possess within a marketplace above their rivals for a relatively long
time. SCS represents the position that a group of companies in an industry
own within a marketplace, below the leaders but above many of their rivals
for a medium amount of time. NCS refers to the positions that the majority
of companies in an industry have within a marketplace, below many of their
rivals but above those that are failing. Most businesses attempt to climb up
through the business success levels to achieve the best possible position. In
this regard marketology can be very useful (Neely 2009; Aghazadeh 2015,
2016; Aguinis 2012; HBR 2006, 2013a; Chandler et al. 2016; Franz and
Kirchmer 2013; Dumas et al. 2013; Jeston and Nelis 2013; IBM 2005;
Brousseau et al. 2006).
6 H. AGHAZADEH
Sustainable superior success

(SSS)
Sustainable compeve success

(SCS)
Normal compeve success

(NCS)
Figure 1.2 Levels of business competitive success
1.5 Hyper-Function of Marketology
The effective functions of a business should contribute to its realizing its SSS/
SCS by facilitating the achievement of sustainable and dynamic competitive
success. Similarly, marketology as a hyper-function supports a business in
achieving SSS/SCS by providing market DIKII relying on IGDEE services
to assist its market-related decision-making and action-taking so as to offer a
superior value proposition to its key stakeholders.1
To better handle their BBBs and then better realize their business process
and performance management, enterprises require assistance in creating and
sharing market DIKII throughout the organization at all managerial levels. It
cannot be done by a single functional unit of organization; rather, it should be
tackled via teamwork and the participation of different units from across the
organization in the form of a hyper-function of marketology. Within this struc-
ture the core function which is directly responsible for marketology should be
integrated both vertically (upward and downward) and horizontally (forward
and backward) with other organizational functions, departments, units, posi-
tions, committees and so on (Ballard et al. 2006; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016;
Gilboa 2010; HBR 2006, 2013a; Raffaldi et al. 2012; Scott and Bruce 1995;
Schank et al. 2010).
The hyper-function of marketology is illustrated in Figure 1.3 as the
integration of the core/central function of marketology with other related
functions at the higher, lower and same organizational levels both vertically
and horizontally.
Upper level
Core/central funcon Hyper-funcon
funcon
of marketology of marketology
Upward
integraon
Same level Backward Forward Same level

integraon integraon
funcon funcon
Downward
integraon
Lower level
funcon
Organizaonal pyramid
Figure 1.3 The hyper-function of marketology
It should be noted that among organizational functions, and different from

the hyper-function of marketology, the core/central function of marketology
is specific organizational practices which may be dedicated to or responsible for
the procedural tasks/affairs and inter-functional coordination of marketology
throughout the organization by given units/departments at the top, middle or
lower levels. In Figure 1.3 the core/central function of marketology is consid-
ered to be responsible for a middle-level organizational unit/department. In
other words, it may play the role of secretariat or office for the hyper-function
of marketology.
Marketology is more than a single organizational function at a given posi-
tion or level of the business structure. In fact it consists of different functions
in different places and at different levels across the organization. Hence hyper-
function seems to be the concept that best fits the attributes of marketology and
its functionality throughout the organization. It should be kept in mind that
the functional perspective is just one view of marketology, whereas it should be
8 H. AGHAZADEH
considered from multiple and various perspectives, such as structure, process,

strategy, technology, analytical and philosophical (Sato 1959; Jacoby 2006).
As a result of utilizing the hyper-function of marketology, the executives
of an enterprise will be able to make effective decisions and take efficient
actions for better and more insightful management of business processes and
performance, and thereby accomplish SSS/SCS. This will lead enterprises
to attain an optimum balanced value (OBV) through which they can create
and deliver superior value to their key stakeholders and in turn capture satis-
factory Return on Value (ROV) for themselves (Chernev 2014; Kaplan and
Norton 1992, 1993, 2001; Kaplan 2010; Day 1990; Lopez 2014; BSI 2015;
Doyle 2009; Osterwalder et al. 2015; Webster 1997, 2008; Best 2012; Turner
and DeVaughn 2008; Aghazadeh 2016; McDonald and Christopher 2003;
Strategyzer 2015a, b; Leszinski and Marn 1997; Arrow and Lind 2003; Best
and Valence 1999; Emerson 2003).2
1.6 External Versus Internal Marketology

Similar to marketing and market orientation, which have internal and exter-
nal facets, marketology can have two such facets too. A type of marketology
that deals with the interior of an organization to enhance its acceptance and
penetration throughout the operation is identified as “internal marketology”.
A type of marketology that deals with the exterior to help the organization to
achieve better and more intelligent dealing with (deciding and acting) the envi-
ronment and the market can be called “external marketology” (Rodrigues and
Pinho 2012; Greene et al. 1994; Lings 1999; Lings and Greenley 2009; Piercy
1995, 1998; Avlonitis and Giannopoulos 2012; Aghazadeh 2015; Salter and
Narver 1994b; Day 1994; Bansal et al. 2001; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b;
Kotler and Keller 2015; Webster 1997).
1.7 Practical Roles of Marketology

Regarding Business Building Blocks
To succeed in an ever-changing competitive market and business environment
among constantly developing business organizations, more than being able to
make effective business decisions an enterprise should be able to take efficient
business actions. In this, marketology should play significant role—,of course
practically rather than just theoretically. The role of marketology in supporting
an enterprise to perform intelligently and insightfully regarding business build-
ing blocks is illustrated in Figure 1.4.
As Figure 1.4 shows, marketology can play an influential part in assisting the
enterprises to working on the BBBs in dealing with the business environment
and market.
Business Business
Organizaonal Organizaonal
Design Behavior
(BOD) (BOB)
Enterprise
Environment
Marketology
Figure 1.4 Practical roles of marketology regarding business building blocks (BBBs)
Without appropriately launching and establishing marketology within an

organization it is difficult to generate and exploit market DIKII for running
the BBBs and improving business performance. In other words, marketol-
ogy in accordance with its practical functions should be able to recognize the
market-related informational needs of key audiences (i.e. decision-makers and
action-takers) and then provide useful market DIKII to ensure the right deci-
sions and actions regarding the BBBs of an enterprise. To this end the BBBs
of an enterprise and their components should be identified clearly and then
marketology’s interactions and impacts on them should be analyzed (Toit
and Muller 2004; IMA 1996; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Andrew et al. 2007;
HBR 2006, 2013a; Aghazadeh 2008; Jacoby 2006; Power 2009; Rowe and
Boulgarides 1983; Rowe and Mason 1987; Turban et al. 2007). The BBBs
of an enterprise and their relationship and interaction with marketology are
described below.
10 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in Marketology FOCUS Box

practice (MIP)
(1-1) Marketology-driven business performance canvas (MDBPC)
Guideline (FOCUS)
Form groups of students (in class) or colleagues (in organization) composed of 3 or 5 members
Organize a leader and select a name/label for your group
Consider a case or subject for investigation and analysis
Understand, discuss and work on the issue as a teamwork
Set out a report, present it to the class/organization and do an evaluation
Discussion: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained
above
above, practice FOCUS for the following issues:
1. Marketology-driven business performance canvas (MDBPC);
2. Business performance management (BPM);
3. Business building blocks (BBBs);
4. Business sustainable SSS/SCS;
5. Hyper-function of marketology;
6. Practical roles of marketology regardings BBBs;
7. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and the coach/professor/mentor, then close
the
the discussion.
1.8 Marketology Strategic Management (MSM)

MSM refers to the capability of managing marketology and accomplishing its
effectiveness,3 success and support for business competitive success within an
organization relying on marketology building blocks (MBBs) or MOA.4 The
MOA involves the principle components of MOD, MOB and MOC, as well as
their interactive relationships in leveraging MSM.
MSM as a core competency can be regarded as a group of managerial, ana-
lytical, IT-based and market-related processes throughout the organization
(strategic, tactical and operational levels) that empower the market-related
analysts and executives (both senior and junior) to make more effective deci-
sions and take more efficient actions. Such vital achievements relying on MSM
can result in the success of marketology in performing its absolute and affiliate
functions.5
Then marketology performance can be managed, and succeed by relying on
its organizational architecture across the enterprise. Contemplating the abso-
lute and affiliate functions of marketology which have been debated previ-
ously in volume one of this book (chapter 4), both MSM and MOA should
be viewed from two interrelated perspectives: (1) marketology as an absolute
hyper-function or subsystem of an enterprise, and (2) marketology as an affili-
ate hyper-function which supports the enterprise’s market-related decisions and
actions. In this way MSM should be managed and MOA should be arranged
on two levels. At the first level the key concern is attaining marketology suc-
cess, while at the second and upper level the key issue is business success, which
can be achieved as a result of the support that marketology provides to BBBs
and BPM (Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Radcliffe 2012; Ballard et al. 2006;
Chandler et al. 2016; Franz and Kirchmer 2013).
1.9 Marketology Organizational Architecture

(MOA)
The fact is that the MBBs and their components of MOD, MOB and MOC
separately are only static group of elements without influential roles and effects.
In this regard MSM cannot be performed appropriately and cannot support the
accomplishment of business competitive success unless MBBs are considered
dynamic, systematic, integrative and purposeful through which the principle
components, including MOD, MOB and MOC, are arranged and managed to
work in coordination (Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016).
Such spiritualization of MBBs and making dynamic links between the prin-
ciple components of MOD, MOB and MOC can be defined as MOA. Hence
MOA is a dynamic capability through which MOD is arranged and con-
nected to MOB; MOB is formed and enforced relying on MOD; and ulti-
mately MOC is produced on the basis of MOD and MOB (Aghazadeh 2008,
2015, 2016).
Therefore, as illustrated in Figure 1.5, the MOA in the form of a SMC has
three main parts: MOD, MOB and MOC. The MOD is a contextual part
which provides the grounds for working/behaving; the MOB is a managerial
part which presents the manner of working/behaving to achieve the organiza-
tion’s goals; and the MOC is the consequential part which provides the out-
comes of MOD and MOB (Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016).
As shown in Figure 1.5, the MOD as a contextual piece of marketol-
ogy within an organization includes the main elements of structure, culture,
people, assets, processes, technology, innovation and communication. The
MOB as managerial piece of marketology within an organization involves
the main components of governance, strategy, business analysis, stakehold-
ers (internal and external), value and performance. The MOC as a con-
sequential piece of marketology within an organization contains the main
contributions of business- based, marketology-based, market DIKII and
IGDEE services.
It should be noted that MOD, MOB and MOC are only the major group-
ings of elements; each of them may contain more detailed elements. For
instance, innovation, which is one of the main components of MOD, consists
12 H. AGHAZADEH
Figure 1.5 The standard marketology canvas (SMC)

of detailed elements such as creativity and change; governance, which is one of

the main components of MOB, comprises detailed factors such as leadership,
management and vision; and marketology-based, which is one of the main
components of MOC, comprises elements such as value proposition, stake-
holders, requests, presentation, product and services (Aghazadeh 2008, 2015,
2016; Piercy 1997).
1.10 Marketology Organizational Architecture

and Enterprise Alignment
It is helpful to know how to utilize marketology throughout an enterprises to

ensure its success in the competitive market and business environment. Thus
the MOA within an organization should be drafted precisely. Since marketol-
ogy is considered to be an organizational subsystem, its settlement within an
enterprise can be likened to organizational architecture/design.
Previously, different models have been developed to map static, dynamic, eco-
logical models of organization design and so on. In static organization designs
the leadership is positioned at the center to orchestrate the other key factors
(e.g. strategy, structure, system and culture) for facilitating the achievement of
organizational effectiveness (e.g. star model [Galbraith 1995] and McKinsey
7-S model [Waterman et al. 1980]). In dynamic models, instead of orchestrated
factors the organization design is viewed as a transformation process in which
the strategy is a key input and business performance is a key output. In fact
the leadership steers the performance via strategy relying on the other factors
such as structure, culture, process, people and technology (e.g. six-box model
[Weisbord 1976] and causal model [Burke and Litwin 1992]). In ecological
models, each organization is surrounded and influenced by its specific environ-
ment. The organization can also influence its environment through education,
employment, lobbying and so forth (e.g. fractal web model [McMillan 2002,
2006] and holonic enterprise model [Ulieru and Este 2004]).
Among all organization designs, the dynamic models seem to be most
appropriate for shaping MOA. To become successful, marketology needs its
own proper organizational architecture to be well placed within the organi-
zation and to be compatible with the enterprise, and also requires essential
changes to the main organization architecture/design (Kilmann et al. 2010;
Varadarajan 2010; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004, 2013; Homburg et al. 2000;
André 2007; BSI 2015; Burton et al. 2006a; Piercy 1997; Hatch and Cunliffe
2006; Dauber et al. 2012).
MOA will be effective if it can be formed in accordance with the components
of the principle organs of the enterprise’s organizational body (e.g. finance,
marketing, IT and business) with an emphasis on market-related components.
For this purpose the integrated elements of the boundary-spanning market-
ing organization which are detailed here can be helpful: networks (internal,
vertical, inter-market and opportunity networks), stakeholders (primary and
14 H. AGHAZADEH
secondary stakeholders), customer value-creating processes (product develop-

ment, customer relationship and supply chain processes) and marketing activi-
ties (inside-
out, outside-in and boundary-spanning activities) (Stewart and
Rogers 2012; Hult et al. 2011; Hult and Tomas 2011; Olson et al. 2005;
Achrol and Kotler 1999; Johanson and Vahlne 2011; Anderson et al. 1994;
Day 1994; Srivastava et al. 1999; Lee et al. 2015; Maltz and Kohli 2000; Slater
et al. 2011; Piercy 1998; Achrol 1997; Cespedes and Piercy 1996; Kotler and
Armstrong 2013; Webster 1997).
Therefore it can be understood that the organizational architecture of an
enterprise is composed of different parts and functions. One of the signifi-
cant parts can be the hyper-function of marketology. As shown by Figure 1.6,
marketology as a hyper-function is considered to be a core component of an
enterprise’s functional texture.
In accordance with Figure 1.6, marketology as a core function and a central
department interacts with other organizational functions and sections such as
marketing, IT/systems, BI, strategy, finance, human resources (HR), customer
relationship management (CRM), operations and production. Marketology as
a hyper-function and a hybrid department collaborate with other functions and
departments in an enterprise.
Regarding marketology as a key subsystem of a whole organization sys-
tem, and in accordance with the holographic principle in physics (Bousso
2002) which may be contemplated in an enterprise too, the components of
Marketology organizational architecture (MOA) (including MOD, MOB and
MOC) can be considered the same as those of BBBs (including BOD and
BOB). Regarding the key components of BBBs, those of MOA can be mapped
in the form of an octagon, as depicted in Figure 1.7.
As shown in Figure 1.7, similar to the components of BBBs, the key ele-
ments of MOA are aligned with those of the organization, as summarized below
(Chandler et al. 2011; IBM 2010; Olszak 2014; Radcliffe 2007, 2012; Toit and
Muller 2004; IMA 1996a; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Piercy and Cravens 1995):
Marketology:
Core function/
Central department
Marketology:
Hyper-function/
Hybrid department
Figure 1.6 An enterprise’s functional texture; marketology is highlighted

Governance &
Strategy
business analysis
Environment &
Communication
Technology &
Assets &
People
Organization
Business environment & market
Figure 1.7 Marketology organizational architecture (MOA) mapping within an

organization
• MOD aligned with BOD:
– structure; – processes;
– culture; – innovation;
– people; – technology;
– assets; – communication.
• MOB aligned with BOB:
– governance; – performance;
– strategy; – stakeholder (internal and external) interaction;
– value; – environment and business analysis.
16 H. AGHAZADEH
• MOC aligned with business success and performance management incor-

porate the business-based and marketology-based outcomes.
The hyper-function of marketology is defined as a significant hyper-function

within an organization. It should be noted that the way of defining the com-
ponents of MOA can differ when marketology is an established unit/function
within an organization rather than when it is not a settled department and its
functions are scattered across and being conducted by different units within an
enterprise.
This means that in accordance with the maturity of marketology within
an organization the MOD, MOB and MOC may vary in their maturity
stages. For example, in the primary stages of maturity the concerns of the
MOA may be focused on basic issues (e.g. data-gathering tools), whereas
in later or more evolved stages of maturity the priorities may emphasize
advanced solutions (e.g. how to integrate the generated market DIKII and
provide IGDEE services to decision-makers). Then at the time of arrang-
ing the MOA, its situation, background, influence and maturity should be
considered.
As depicted in Figure 1.8, the components of MOA can be defined based
on two perspectives: independent or a part of the components of the BBBs of
an organization.
Marketology
A) ‘a part of’ perspecve organizational B) ‘independent’ perspecve
architecture
(MOA)
Business building blocks dimensions
Figure 1.8 Perspectives on MOA (Note: There are two perspectives on defining the
components of MOA within the components of an organization’s BBBs. In accordance
with perspective A, marketology is considered to be an immature function and its
design, behavior and contribution are organized as part of the entire organization; while
based on perspective B, marketology is regarded as a mature function and its design,
behavior and contribution are structured independently but aligned with the BBBs)
In the next section the components of marketology design, behavior and

contribution are briefly discussed. However, they will be explained in more
detail in later sections.
1.11 Marketology Organizational Design (MOD)

MOD as a principle component of MOA has been considered a contextual
piece of the SMC within an organization. The main components of MOD are
shown in Figure 1.9 and include structure, culture, people, assets, processes,
technology, innovation and communication.6
Marketology
Organizaonal
Contribuon (MOC)
Technology
Communicaon
Asset
Culture
Process
People
Innovaon
Structure
Figure 1.9 The marketology organizational design (MOD) canvas (Note: This figure
demonstrating marketology organizational design (MOD) is extracted from Figure 1.5
in which the whole picture of marketology organizational architecture (MOA) was
mapped)
18 H. AGHAZADEH
1.12 Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB)

MOB as another principle component of MOA has been considered a mana-
gerial piece of the SMC within an organization. As a summarized expres-
sion the MOB represents the governance framework of marketology through
which all internal and external factors are incorporated, internal and exter-
nal stakeholders are regarded, functioning directions are defined, strategies
and programs are formulated and executed, and value and performance are
fulfilled relying on components of MOD. The main components of MOB
are shown in Figure 1.10 and include governance, strategy, business envi-
ronment analysis, stakeholders (internal and external) interaction, value and
performance.7
Marketology
Organizaonal
Contribuon (MOC)
Marketology
Organizaonal
Design (MOD)
Organizaon/Enterprise and internal stakeholders
Business environment, market and external stakeholders
Figure 1.10 The marketology organizational behavior (MOB) canvas (Note: This fig-
ure demonstrating MOB is extracted from Figure 1.5, in which the whole picture of
MOA is mapped)
1.13 Marketology Organizational Contribution

(MOC)
MOC as another main component of MOA has been considered a conse-
quential piece of the SMC within an organization. As a summarized expres-
sion the MOC refers to the outcomes of marketology through which market
DIKII are produced and provided relying on IGDEE services to decision-
makers and action-takers to support their accomplishment of business suc-
cess and performance movement. The main components of MOC are shown
in Figure 1.11 and include business-based and marketology-based, market
DIKII and IGDEE services.8
Marketology
Organizaonal
Design (MOD)
Figure 1.11 The marketology organizational contribution (MOC) canvas (Note: This
figure demonstrating MOC is extracted from Figure 1.5, in which the whole picture of
MOA is mapped)
20 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
(1-2) Marketology organizational architecture (MOA)
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Marketology strategic management (MSM);
2. Marketology organizational architecture (MOA);
3. Marketology organizational architecture (MOA) aligned with organization;
4. Marketology organizational design (MOD);
5. Marketology organizational behavior (MOB);
6. Marketology organizational contribution (MOC);
7. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and the coach/professor/mentor, then close
the discussion.
Marketology in Practical Tools and Techniques

practice (MIP)
(Chapters: 2&3) Subjects and issues
The practical tools and techniques used in the Marketology in Practice boxes in this chapter
and in Chaps. 2 and 3 are as follows:
- Marketology FOCUS Box
- Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) analysis framework
- Marketology match matrix (MMM)
- Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
- Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD)
- Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)
- Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
- Marketology impact assessment matrix (MIAM)
- Case study
To avoid explaining the above mentioned tools and techniques more than
once, they are described in detail below (apart from Marketology FOCUS Box,
which was described in the Introduction).
22 H. AGHAZADEH
1.14 Marketology Coverage, Manifest and

Contribute (MCMC) Analysis Framework
The hyper-function of marketology in the form of its architecture acts within an
organization. This means that marketology should work with other parts and func-
tions interactively throughout the organization. Specifically, the MOD should be
formed and developed aligned with BOD and considering the interactions all over
the organization. Similarly the MOB should be managed and handled consistent
with BOB and regarding interplay across the entire the organization. It should be
understood that in accordance with a dynamic perspective the MOD and MOB
have interactive links with BOD and BOB across the organization. Therefore it
seems necessary to develop a comprehensive and universal framework to facilitate
unified examination of the inter-relationships and interactions between compo-
nents of MOD and MOB with BOD and BOB throughout the organization.
To this end the inter-relationships between marketology (MOD and MOB) and
business (BOD and BOB) can be seen as the MCMC analysis framework com-
prising the dimensions of coverage, manifest and contribute in Figure 1.12.
Organizaonal Design (BOD) &

Organizaonal Behavior (BOB)
Organizaonal Design (MOD) &
Organizaonal Behavior (MOB)
Manifest
Business
To
Marketology
From
Marketology
Organizaon
Figure 1.12 Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) analysis

framework
In accordance with the MCMC analysis framework, links between marketol-

ogy and given components of BOD (structure, culture, people, process, asset,
technology, innovation and communication) or BOB (governance, strategy,
business environment analysis, external/internal stakeholder, value and perfor-
mance) can be examined based on the dimensions of coverage, manifest and
contribute9:
–– With coverage, the MOD and MOB are covered and defined within
the organization according to the BOD and BOB as full, moderate or
scarce coverage.
–– With manifest, the hyper-function of marketology in the form of an
established organizational subsystem demonstrates its own MOD
and MOB apart from but related to those of other functions/units
within the organization. Depending on the strength and power of the
MOD and MOB, such an appearance can be a full, moderate or scarce
manifestation.
–– With contribute, the hyper-function of marketology in line with
MOD and MOB contributes to the BOD and BOB through-
out the organization in an effective manner aligned with organi-
zational goals, strategies and success as full, moderate or scarce
contribution.
As mentioned above, the intense link between marketology and the compo-
nents of the BOD and BOB based on the MCMC analysis framework can be
placed in scarce, moderate or full positions as shown in Figure 1.13. In this way
the hyper-function of marketology may be covered, be manifested or contrib-
ute fully, moderately or scarcely.
1.15 Marketology Match Matrix (MMM)

Regarding the aspects of the MCMC analysis framework, the inter-
relationships between marketology and components of the BOD and BOB
can be examined both qualitatively and quantitatively through MMM, as
illustrated in Figure 1.14.
1.16 Marketology Status Analysis Matrix (MSAM)

For the hyper-function of marketology to be implemented effectively
within an organization it should have its own influential identity, orga-
nization design and behavior. This means that the components of MOD
must be formed to enable MOB to work strongly throughout the
organization.
Unlike traditional and established organizational functions such as mar-
keting and strategic planning, or contemporary functions such as BI, and
24 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology
Coverage
Scarce
Moderate
Full
Components of BOD or BOB
Organizaon
Environment
Figure 1.13 Intense link between marketology and BOD/BOB based on MCMC
electronic commerce/business/marketing, the hyper-function of marketol-

ogy has not yet achieved a standard status within organizations. It is thus
good to know the current status of marketology within an organization and
try to enhance it.
For this purpose, as shown in Figure 1.15, the MMM can be useful to pro-
vide a good assessment of the acceptance (need) and penetration (maturity)
rate of the components of MOD (structure, culture, people, assets, processes,
technology, innovation and communication) and MOB (governance, strategy,
external/internal analysis and stakeholder analysis, value and performance)
within an organization. In this matrix the intended components of MOD or
MOB can be scored as high, middle and low. By forming the matrix and scor-
ing the dimensions of acceptance and penetration, three modes of status can
be identified for each component of MOD and MOB: A (strong), B (fair) and
C (weak). The overall status can be calculated easily for total marketology by
finding the average of the components’ scores.
Marketology Total
Coverage Manifestation Contribution
Weight: Weight: Weight: Weight (100%)
Score Sum Score Average

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
- Structure
- Culture
Organizational design dimensions
- People
- Asset
- Process
- Technology
- Innovation
- Communication
Sum
Total
Average
- Governance
Organizational behavior
- Strategy
- Stakeholder analysis
dimensions
- Business analysis
- Value proposition
- Performance
Sum
Total
Average
Note: AS: absolute score; WS: weighted score. AS can be a score within a continuum {0 ≤ AS ≤ 9}. WS is calcu-
lated by multiplying each AS in related weight
a
Note that here just the main components of BOD and BOB are referred to inside the matrix. In other words in
Chap. 2 the detailed elements of the components of BOD as well as in Chap. 3 the detailed elements of the
components of BOB will be investigated with a MMM
Figure 1.14 MMM: Examining links between marketology and components of the
BOD and BOBa
Marketology Match Matrix: Guidelines10

1. The weight of each aspect (coverage, manifestation and contrib-
ute) can be determined within the range 0–100%. It should be
remembered that the total weight for three aspects must not
exceed 100%.
26 H. AGHAZADEH
2. There are two types of scores: absolute and weighted. The abso-
lute score (AS) of the abovementioned aspects, which should be
written in the AS columns of Figure 1.14, can be determined
along a score continuum of 0–9 as {0 ≤ AS ≤ 9} embracing three
main score ranges, including full (F) {9 ≥ AS (F) > 6}, moderate
(M) {6 ≥ AS (M) > 3} and scarce (S) {3 ≥ AS (S) ≥ 0}. The
weighted score (WS) of the abovementioned aspects which
should be written in the WS columns can be calculated by multi-
plying the determined weight for each aspect in the determined
AS for each aspect.
3. In the last two “Total” columns the sum and average of the AS and
WS for each element (e.g. elements of people attributes) and for
each dimension (e.g. people as a dimension of organization design)
can be calculated.
4. Likewise the sum and average of the AS and WS for each aspect
(e.g. coverage, manifestation and contribute) and for marketology
can be calculated.
5. In accordance with the total sum and average scores of each com-
ponent (e.g. structure, culture, governance and value) it can be
determined to what extent each component and total BOD or
BOB are linked with the hyper-function of marketology. In this
way it can be judged whether each component and total BOD and
BOB have a full, moderate or scarce connection with marketology
in an organization.
In accordance with Figure 1.15, students of marketology should prepare

and practice an improvement plan to empower the status of marketology
and the components of MOD and MOB within their organization. Certainly
the improvement plan of the components of MOD and MOB can be for-
mulated and conducted in various ways, depending on the identified current
and future situation. For example, when the identified status is 3 (weak), the
required strategy and plan could be quite different compared with when the
status is 1 (strong). For this purpose the person/body in charge of marketol-
ogy (e.g. a dedicated officer or committee) should be able to exploit oppor-
tunities and avoid threats, form strategies, tactics, programs and resources,
and also conduct activities aligned with BOD and BOB in an integrative
manner.
H
2 (fair) 1 (strong) 1 (strong)
Acceptance
M
3 (weak) 2 (fair) 1 (strong)
L
3 (weak) 3 (weak) 2 (fair)
L M H
Penetration
Figure 1.15 Marketology Status Analysis Matrix (MSAM): Components of MOD

and MOB and total marketology within organization
1.17 Marketology and Organization

Relationship Analysis
Generally, marketology can be related to all over the organization, as with dif-
ferent hierarchical levels; vertical, horizontal and diagonal directions; and formal
and informal styles. The relationships between marketology and the organization
can be examined on two levels: strategic as perspective, and tactical as direction.
1.17.1 Marketology and Organization Relationship

Perspectives Diagram (MORPD)
At a strategic level and in accordance with MORPD, as illustrated in Figure
1.16, the perspectives on the relationship between marketology and organiza-
tion are considered to be parasol, pillar and pipeline:
–– Parasol: From this perspective the components of MOD and MOB
are located under the umbrella of the components of BOD and BOB
at two levels: overall and specific. In terms of overall placement, mar-
ketology is considered to be somewhere in the BOD or BOB pinned
to other organizational functions. As specific placement it is located
within the organization adopting its own autonomous design and
behavior. BOD and BOB can play a driving or restraining role for the
development of MOD and MOB within the organization.
28 H. AGHAZADEH
Parasol
Combinaon A
Combinaon B
Pipeline Pillar
Combinaon C
Figure 1.16 Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD)
–– Pillar: From this perspective the components of MOD and MOB are
considered to be key pillars of marketology. To develop a component,
first the status of marketology and the intended component within
the organization should be determined. Second an improvement plan
should be created and operationalized to form, complete or develop
the component and total marketology. The plan and related actions
should be aligned with the overall attributes of organization, consis-
tent with the maturity of marketology, coordinated with other com-
ponents of MOD and MOB, compatible with the available resources
and guided by good marketology governance. Hence regarding mar-
ketology as a hyper-function with virtual borders, the pillar perspective
focuses on the matters inside such a domain.
–– Pipeline: From this perspective, marketology (like components of MOD
and MOB) links to the organization’s other parts/functions, interacts
with internal and external of organization (inside and outside),11 and pro-
vides market DIKII and IGDEE services to target audiences throughout
the business to facilitate or accelerate making effective decisions and tak-
ing efficient actions.
–– Combined perspective: The above perspectives are not completely sepa-
rate. Some businesses may adopt a combined perspective containing all
three, each one to a given extent. Also, a business in developing various
components of marketology (MOD or MOB) may take different com-
binations of perspectives. As depicted in Figure 1.16, a business may
adopt combination A (in which the dominant perspective is parasol,
then pillar and pipeline), or combination B (in which the dominant
perspective is pillar, then pipeline and parasol) or combination C (in
which the dominant perspective is pipeline, then pillar and parasol).
1.17.2 Marketology and Organization Directional Effects Matrix

(MODEM)
At a tactical level, as shown in Figure 1.17, the directions of the relationship
between marketology and organization are considered in two ways: (1) from
organization to marketology (O2M); and (2) from marketology to organiza-

tion (M2O).
In light of the defined directions of O2M and M2O, the mutual influences
of organization and marketology on each other can be both positive and nega-
tive. Such mutual effects can be considered in the form of MODEM), as illus-
trated in Figure 1.18. In accordance with this matrix the mutual effects of
O2M M2O
M2O
M2O
Marketology
O2M
O2M
O2M M2O
Organizaon
Environment
Figure 1.17 Marketology and organization relationship directions (Note: The links
are shown as following (1) from O2M; and (2) from M2O)
O2M
+
+- ++
DM DM
- +
M2O
-- -+
DM DM
Figure 1.18 Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)

30 H. AGHAZADEH
organization and marketology can be considered as four main direction modes

(DM): DM++, DM+–, DM–+, and DM– –. It should be noted that based on each
identified direction mode, specific strategies can be adopted by students of
marketology and executives of organizations.
As shown in Figure 1.18, O2M can be either positive/driving or negative/
restraining. Links from M2O can be positive/supportive (confirmation and
companion; and facilitation and acceleration), false/distorting or negative/
discouraging:
–– With supportive confirmation and companionship marketology agrees
(formally and informally) with decisions and consequential actions and
then paves the way to accompanying the execution of decisions with
conducting the actions.
–– With supportive facilitation and acceleration the hyper-function of
marketology facilitates and accelerates effective decision-making and
efficient action-taking. For this the required mechanisms are prepared
to deliver market-related products (i.e. market DIKII) and to provide
required services (i.e. IGDEE) to target audiences.
–– With distorting interaction the market DIKII and IGDEE services
that are provided by marketology may be incorrect (either inten-
tionally or unintentionally), hence the decisions made and actions
taken will be wrong and the organization may be diverted from its
correct way of success. In this regard students of marketology and
organization management should be aware of the robustness of

marketology and the correctness of the provided market DIKII and
services.
–– With discouraging interaction marketology not only does not support
but also resists the realization of organization decisions and actions. In
such a case, marketology formally or informally contradicts the organi-
zation’s decisions and consequential actions and does not operational-
ize them. In this way it may prevent or decelerate decision-making and
action-taking. In this regard the students of marketology and manage-
ment of the organization should first recognize the problem and the
reasons for disagreement, then try to solve the problems and remove
the barriers to reaching a consensus.
1.18 Marketology Benchmark Matrix (MBM)

Links between marketology and the BOD and BOB can be benchmarked by
comparing a given firm with the best-practice companies (BPCs) within the
industry or the market. It is obvious that the BPCs may be or may not be
the firm’s rivals. Such benchmarking can be achieved using MMM, as illus-
trated in Figure 1.19. This matrix should enable business/market analysts and
executives to precisely compare links between marketology and components of
BOD and BOB with the BPCs or rivals in the industry or market. In this way
Marketology Total Score Average

Coverage Manifestation Contribution Elements Dimension (…)
Firm BPC1 BPC2 Firm BPC1 BPC2 Firm BPC1 BPC2 Firm BPC1 BPC2 Firm BPC1 BPC2
-Structure
Business organizational Business organizational design
-Culture
-People
-Asset
(BOD)
-Process
-Technology
-Innovation
-Communication
-Governance
-Strategy
behavior (BOB)
-Stakeholders
-Business & Environment
-Value proposition
-Performance
Aspects
Total Firm
Score
Average Marketology BPC1
BPC2
Note: The scores should be defined within this continuum: 9 ≥ AS ≥ 0
Figure 1.19 Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM): Comparing interlinks of mar-

ketology and BOD and BOB of a firm with best practice companies (BPC) or rivals of
the industry/market
senior executives can easily locate the probable gaps between their business and
BPCs. Hence they will be able to effectively decide how to successfully launch
and handle the hyper-function of marketology throughout their organization
regarding the components of BOD and BOB by exploiting the strengths of
competitors and avoiding their weaknesses.
1.19 Marketology Impact Assessment Matrix (MIAM)

In accordance with numerous debates about marketology in this chapter and
in Chaps. 2 and 3, in the closing section of examining the interaction of MOA
(MOD+MOB) with business organization, it would be helpful to review the
main issues investigated and draw conclusions about their interactive influence
and effectiveness. For this purpose MIAM, as illustrated in Figure 1.20, can be
used to evaluate and judge the mutual interactions of MOA or total marketol-
ogy and the entire business organization.
This matrix consists of four main parts:
1. Links between marketology and entire business organization (BOD +

BOB) of a given firm benchmarked with BPCs of industry/market;
2. Perspectives of interaction between marketology and entire business
organization (BOD + BOB) of a given firm;
3. Modes of direction between marketology and entire business organiza-
tion (BOD + BOB) of a given firm;
4. Status of marketology within entire business organization (BOD + BOB)
of a given firm.
32 H. AGHAZADEH
Figure 1.20 Marketology impact assessment matrix (MIAM): Examine the mutual
interactions of marketology organizational architecture (MOA) and the entire business
organization
1.20 Case Study: Guidelines

1. Consider a given company/organization in which you may have access
to primary or secondary data about its organization, business, strategy
and market in general, and specifically the components of BOD, compo-
nents of BOB, marketology system, components of MOD, and MOB,
and other useful data. If you have no such access to usable data you can
imagine a company/organization.
2. Conduct the following analyses on your case using the available data,
individually or in a group:
–– Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) analysis;
–– Marketology match matrix (MMM);
–– Marketology Status Analysis Matrix (MSAM);
–– Marketology and organization relationship perspective diagram
(MORPD);
–– Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM);
–– Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM);
3. Review the debates and draw conclusions about the case study regarding
those issues investigated;
4. Prepare and present a case report to target audiences.
1.21 Conclusion
Considering the issues described and discussed in this chapter, it can be con-
cluded that:
• Business SSS/SCS is a significant measure to achieve. In this regard busi-

nesses attempt to exchange OBV by creating and delivering superior
value to their key stakeholders and in turn capture satisfactory ROV for
themselves.
• In accordance with the MDBPC, BPM is the underlying basis for

achieving business SSS/SCS, which can be leveraged by BBBs, including
BOD and BOB.
• The hyper-function of marketology enables businesses to better arrange
BOD, conduct BOB, manage business performance and achieve SSS/SCS
as both external and internal marketology by providing market DIKII
and IGDEE services to support market-related decisions and actions.
• The SMC is an integrated puzzle of the components of marketology and
their dynamic interactions to support business success and performance
management by enforcing MSM.
• The SMC is akin to MOA, including MOD as a contextual piece, MOB
as a managerial piece and MOC as a consequential piece in an alignment
with BBBs, and business success and performance management.
• The subjects and issues raised by this chapter can be reviewed practically
and then practiced in using the Marketology in Practice Boxes.
• The subjects and issues covered by Chaps. 2 and 3 can be practiced using
the practical tools and techniques introduced and described in this chapter.
1.22 Summary
1. In this chapter the following issues have been discussed in detail:
–– Business success and performance management
–– Business building blocks
–– Business competitive success
–– Hyper-function of marketology
–– External versus internal marketology
–– practical roles of marketology regarding business building blocks
–– Marketology strategic management
–– Marketology organizational architecture
–– Marketology organizational architecture and enterprise alignment
–– Marketology organizational design
–– Marketology organizational behavior
–– Marketology organizational contribution
2. The issues and subjects covered by this chapter have been reviewed prac-
tically and practiced in the Marketology in Practice Box.
3. Towards the end of this chapter the practical tools and techniques that
can be used to practice the subjects and issues in Chaps. 2 and 3 are
introduced and described.
A Glance at the Next Chapter

In Chap. 2 the MOD and its components are described and practiced in
detail. Then in Chap. 3 the MOB and its components are described and
practiced in detail.
34 H. AGHAZADEH
1.23 Discussion Questions

Discuss and practice the following issues with your colleagues or classmates
(with an emphasis on a specific business, enterprise or organization):
Marketology in Practice: Marketology Organizational Architecture

Notes
1. The term “hyper-function” was applied for the first time by Sato Mikio
(1959) in “Theory of Hyperfunctions I”, Journal of the Faculty of
Science, University of Tokyo, Sect. 1, Mathematics, astronomy, physics,
chemistry, 8, 1: 139–193.
2. For more information about OBV and ROV, see the discussion of
“value” in ch. 3.
3. Marketology management may take different names: marketology per-
formance management, marketology process management, MSM and
marketology system management. In this book, MSM is used as equiva-
lent to and instead of all others, see Aghazadeh (2016, ch. 4).
4. MBBs, which are conceptualized as an adaptation of BBBs, are consid-
ered to be interchangeable with MOA. While MOA contains the com-
ponents of MBBs and their interrelationships, in this volume MOA will
be used as a comprehensive concept which embraces MBBs.
5. For more information about absolute and affiliate functions of marke-
tology, see Aghazadeh (2016, ch. 4).
6. The components of MOD will be discussed in ch. 2 and each piece of
the above puzzled figure will be covered.
7. The components of MOB will be discussed in ch. 3 and each piece of
8. The components of MOC will be discussed in ch. 4 and each piece of
9. The dimensions of coverage, manifest and contribute are also known by
different names.
10. In order to avoid repetition in next chapters and sections (in which the
components of BOD and BOB will be investigated in detail), this guide
of using marketology match matrix (MMM) won’t be expressed again
under the matrix. Obviously one in needed case to review this guidance
can back and see this explanation.
11. As internal and external marketology.
CHAPTER 2
Marketology Organizational Design (MOD)

In this chapter the following topics are discussed in eight sections:
–– Structure
–– Culture
–– People
–– Processes
–– Assets
–– Technology
–– Innovation
–– Communication
The detailed learning objectives of each will be represented in its related
section in this chapter.
2.1 Introduction
In Chap. 1 the marketology organizational architecture (MOA) was mapped
from a practical point of view on a figure in puzzled form called standard
marketology canvas (the SMC, with three main pieces: (1) marketology orga-
nizational design (MOD) as a contextual piece; (2) marketology organizational
behavior (MOB) as a managerial piece; and (3). marketology organizational
contribution (MOC) as a consequential piece. As mentioned in that preliminary
chapter, the three pieces will be discussed in Chaps. 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
This chapter covers the first piece of standard marketology canvas (SMC)—
MOD—which is explained in practical terms in the aforementioned eight sec-
tions. Note that these sections are also the pieces of the MOD canvas.
In each section, first the subject is described generally within a business
organization context and then it is explained within a marketology context.
The Marketology in Practice Boxes offer exercises that can be tackled using

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54833-7_2
36 H. AGHAZADEH
the applied tools and techniques of marketology supplied. The last part of each
section one piece of the MOD canvas is completed.
Issues that are not applicable to be practiced during the chapter are exer-
cised in MIP at the end of the chapter in a cumulative and integrative manner.
In fact at the end of this chapter a third of the SMC is completed as its first
main piece (MOD). The next two main pieces (MOB and MOC) will be com-
pleted at the end of Chaps. 3 and 4, respectively.
2.2 Structure
In this section the following topics are discussed:
–– Organization
–– Organization design or structure
–– Organization design
–– Organization structure
–– Galaxy of marketology structure
–– Mapping marketology regarding organizational hierarchy
–– Pitfalls of marketology structuring
–– Marketology structure: autonomous versus merged
–– Marketology structure: enterprise-wide versus departmental
–– Centralized marketology structure
–– Decentralized marketology structure
–– Hybrid or federated marketology structure
–– Divisional marketology team (DMT)
–– Market data management team (MDMT)
–– Business intelligence competency center (BICC)
–– Market intelligence competency center (MICC)
–– Marketology management center (MMC)
–– Principle components of a marketology management center
–– Products and services of a marketology management center
–– Marketology management center within an organization
–– Launching a marketology management center
–– Critical success factors (CSFs) of a marketology management center
–– Marketology organizational design (MOD) canvas: piece of structure is
completed
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Structure

–– MIP 2-1: Organization design and structure
–– MIP 2-2: Marketology structure
–– MIP 2-3: Marketology management center
MARKETOLOGY ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN 37
MCMC & MMM

–– MIP 2-4: Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute
(MCMC) analysis framework
–– MIP 2-5: Marketology match matrix (MMM)
2.2.1 Organization
An organization is a group of people who work together in a structured
and coordinated manner to accomplish a set of goals. Organizations can be
not-for-profit or profit seeking. The major groups of both external and internal
stakeholder of an organization and their main expectations are as follows (Daft
2012, 2016; Robbins and Judge 2012, 2015; Griffin 2013):
–– Employees: supervision, payment, and satisfaction;
–– Customers: high-quality products, special services and value;
–– Creditors: fiscal responsibility and creditworthiness;
–– Government: fair competition, obedience to laws and regulations;
–– Union: benefits and employee pay;
–– Community: contribution to community affairs and good corporate
citizenship;
–– Suppliers: revenue from purchases and satisfactory transactions;
–– Owners and shareholders: financial return;
–– Media: transparency and information-sharing;
–– Channel: commission, payment, validation and a continued tie.
Organizations can be classified based on different criteria, as follows (Daft
2012, 2016; Robbins and Judge 2012, 2015; Griffin 2013):
–– Size: micro, small and medium, family-owned, large, multinational or
giant1;
–– Scope of activity: local, national, international, regional, multinational
and global;
–– Profit seeking: for-profit and non-profit;
–– Economic sector: private, cooperative, semigovernmental and public
(government)-owned;
–– Affiliation: public or governmental and non-governmental;
–– Number of businesses: single, multiple or holding (parenting).
2.2.2 Organization Design or Structure

Organizational design and structure have been used interchangeably in the
related literature and references. In this book and chapter they are pre-
sumed to be distinct. In fact the design of an organization system or sub-
system such as marketology is considered to be its main and comprehensive
framework which incorporates the organizational structure along with many
other elements, such as culture, people, processes, resources, information,
38 H. AGHAZADEH
technology, innovation, change and decision-making (Gibson et al. 2012;

Hatch and Cunliffe 2006, 2013; Griffin 2013, 2014; Mintzberg 1971, 1979,
1980, 1992; Griffin and Moorehead 2013; Daft 2012, 2016; Robbins and
Judge 2012, 2015; Griffin et al. 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Kotter 1995,
2015; McCourtie 2013).
2.2.3 Organization Design
The early models of designing organization are bureaucratic (based on a legiti-
mate and formal system of authority) and behavioral (based on human relations,
work groups and interpersonal processes). Good preparation can lead to good
execution of strategy or any other project within an organization. At the time
of initializing or developing a new issue, process or system such as marketology
within an organization, several key dimensions that should be contemplated are
organization environment, culture, technology, structure and design, strategy,
decision-making, power, change and innovation, control, conflict and learning.
While this list of dimensions can be endless, those mentioned seem to be the
vital ones that should not be ignored (Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Waterman
et al. 1980; Toit and Muller 2004; Piercy and Cravens 1995; McMillan 2006;
Lee et al. 2015; Kilmann et al. 2010; Hult and Tomas 2011; Galbraith 1995;
Day 1994; Burton et al. 2006a; Homburg et al. 2000; Katz 2009; Hicyilmaz
2011; OnStrategy 2014).
2.2.4
Organization Structure
The design of an organization system or subsystem such as marketology is
considered to be its main and comprehensive framework, incorporating the
organizational structure along with many other elements, such as culture,
people, processes, resources, information, technology, innovation, change
and decision-making. Organizational structure is the layout that represents
the pattern of people and functions integrated into an organization. It is a
hierarchical pattern of jobs in an organization. This structure shapes indi-
vidual, group and organizational behavior. The structure in the form of ann
organizational chart assists the organization to perform well and achieve
its goals. Models of organizational structure include mechanistic, organic
and contingency. The contingency organizational structure focuses on the
significance of the structure’s fit to the external conditions and internal
situation, including strategy, size, technology, environment and manage-
ment decisions. The typology of organizational structures may be located
on a continuum from vertical (characterized by control, efficiency, stability
and reliability) on one side to horizontal (characterized by coordination,
learning, innovation and flexibility) on the other. Different types of orga-
nizational structure along such a spectrum starting from the vertical side
and ending on the horizontal side can be positioned respectively by simple,
functional (U-form), cross-functional teams and integrators, bureaucracy,
conglomerate (H-form), divisional (M-form) and matrix structures as tradi-
tional organizational structures; horizontal, hybrid (combination of two or

more of the basic designs), virtual, boundary-less, network, learning orga-
nization and international business organization as contemporary organi-
zational structures (Gibson et al. 2012; Hatch and Cunliffe 2006, 2013;
Waterman and Phillips 1980; Toit and Muller 2004; Daft 2012, 2016;
Robbins and Judge 2012, 2015; McMillan 2002, 2006; Lee et al. 2015;
Kilmann et al. 2010; Hult 2011; Galbraith 1995; Day 1994; Piercy and
Cravens 1995; Katz 2009; Hicyilmaz 2011; OnStrategy 2014; Burton et al.
2006a; Homburg et al. 2000; Griffin 2013, 2014; Griffin and Moorehead
2013; Griffin et al. 2013).
2.2.5 Galaxy of Marketology Structure

To be influential in business success, the hyper-function of marketology should
be run by a networked organizational team which is directed by a small group
of seniors as a secretariat and performed by scattered people and an expanded
group of juniors throughout the organization. This means that marketology
as a subject which is somewhat related to many functions/units should not be
organized as a single organizational function. Rather it should be structured in
relation to and collaboration with different functions across the organization.
However, all functions are not equally relevant to marketology.
Several groups of individuals or units in an organization may be involved in
marketology either directly or indirectly. Certainly the groups that are more
directly related to it are more responsible for running marketology. These
groups may be in strategic and/or tactical and/or operational levels through-
out the organization.
Then for a more realistic structuration of marketology within an organiza-
tion it would be fruitful to group organizational units based on the extent of
their relevance to marketology.
Thinking of an organization as a galaxy and marketology as the earth2
(NASA 2016), the networked structure of marketology in cooperation with
other functions throughout the organization can be seen as the “galaxy of mar-
ketology”, which can be envisaged as three main layers: marketologosphere,
markosphere, businosphere, as shown in Figure 2.1.
As displayed in Figure 2.1, marketology is located at the center of the gal-
axy, the marketologosphere is placed as the first and nearest structural layer
over marketology, the markosphere is positioned in the second and the busino-
sphere is the third and farthest structural layer:
–– Marketology is the central and secretariat delegates who are mainly
responsible for creating collaborations, inter-functional coordina-
tion and networks; and, accordingly, governing the hyper-function of
marketology.
–– The marketologosphere is the organizational units and functions with
greatest relevance and similarity to marketology, such as strategy, mar-
keting communication, sales, CRM, BI, IT, and product and brand
40 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology
Marketologosphere
Markosphere
Businosphere
Figure 2.1 Galaxy of marketology
management. This group of people, functions and units is involved in a

high level of collaboration with the marketology networked structure.
–– The markosphere is the organizational units and functions with a
medium-level connection and likeness to marketology, such as pur-
chasing, procurement, HR and manufacturing. This group of people,
functions and units experiences moderate cooperation with the marke-
tology networked structure.
–– The businosphere contains the organizational units and functions with
the weakest relations with and similarity to marketology as mainte-
nance, administration, security and legal departments. This group of
people, functions and units has limited partnership with the marketol-
ogy networked structure.
The executives of marketology and organization should try to consider and
employ the best collaborative opportunities in building and governing marke-
tology’s network structure across the organization (NASA 2016; Daft 2016;
Mintzberg 1971, 1979, 1980, 1992; Robbins and Judge 2015; Hatch and
Cunliffe 2013; Griffin 2014; Lee et al. 2015; Toit and Muller 2004; Gibson
et al. 2012; Luthans et al. 2015; Kotter 1995, 2015).
2.2.6 Mapping Marketology Regarding Organizational Hierarchy

Regarding the impacts and benefits of marketology in improving business pro-
cess and performance management, different individuals, groups and depart-
ments of an organization may play different roles pertaining to the business
processes and performance by employing marketology in different ways. They

may take the roles of strategic/senior executives, tactical/middle management
or operational/line-of-business (LOB) supervisors. They may use marketology’s
informational products (market DIKII) or services (IGDEE) to decide, plan
or act on improving BPM. The outputs/products of marketology (specifically
market data) as well as being used in market-related issues, decisions, plans and
actions may be employed for other organizational concerns (e.g. process and
information management) or business systems (e.g. CRM, enterprise resource
planning [ERP],3 HR and IT). Mapping and positioning of the roles/functions
and required products of marketology along with the organization hierarchal
pyramid and managerial levels is shown on Figure 2.2 (Hall 2000; Greene 1988;
Miller 1999; Gilad and Gilad 1986; Stewart and Rogers 2012; McGonagle and
Vella 1999; ACI 2015; IMA 1996a; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Lee et al. 2015;
Robbins and Judge 2015; Toit and Muller 2004; Gibson et al. 2012; Daft 2016).
In accordance with Figure 2.2, at the operational level the market data is
needed to ensure appropriate actions, at the tactical level the market information
is required for efficient planning, and at the strategic level the market knowledge
is essential for good decision-making. It should be mentioned that this does not
mean that the operational managers of an enterprise do not care about market
intelligence (MI) and insight, or that senior executives at the strategic level do
not consider market data and information, or that tactical managers do not take
market data and intelligence into account. Accordingly, from a network point of
view the managers at all organizational levels should think about probable appli-
cations for all market-related informational products of marketology and then
conclude by using those that are most suitable in their decisions and actions. A
practical distribution of marketology’s product (market DIKII) across the mana-
gerial levels of an organization is shown in Figure 2.3 (Lee et al. 2015; Piercy and
Cravens 1995; Ballard et al. 2006; Homburg et al. 2000; Hatch and Cunliffe
2013; OnStrategy 2014; Griffin 2013; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015; Robbins and
Judge 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Toit and Muller 2004; Daft 2016).
Management level Role/function Marketology output/product
Decision Market knowledge/

Strategic/senior
making intelligence/insight
Tactical/middle management Planning Market information/knowledge
Operational/line-of-business
Acting Market data/information
(LOB)
Figure 2.2 Mapping marketology along with management levels and roles in an
organization
42 H. AGHAZADEH
Strategic level
Taccal level
Operaonal level
Figure 2.3 Distribution of marketology’s products across managerial levels
However, this is a normal/standard mapping of marketology on organiza-

tional hierarchy and it does not necessarily mean that the market data at the
strategic level or the market knowledge at the operational level cannot be used.
Another key point is that effective business decisions cannot be made just by
relying on market knowledge. Rather, MI/insight can complete the puzzle
and ensure insightful decisions and accordingly business performance success.
An overview of Figure 2.3 shows that all products of marketology can easily
be used at all levels of an organization but to different extents at different lev-
els. Thus market data is mainly used at the operational level, market informa-
tion and knowledge are employed equally, and MI/insight are mostly applied
at the strategic level. The products of marketology depends on the needs of
the clients/audiences (i.e. business analysts, senior executives or operational
managers) and can be used all over the organization at strategic, tactical and
operational levels. However, frequently the market data is used at the opera-
tional level and the MI/insight is used at the strategic level. By the way, there
are no determined limitations to the operational level’s use of market insight or
for the strategic level’s use of market data (Aghazadeh 2016; Lee et al. 2015;
Piercy and Cravens 1995; Ballard et al. 2006; Hall 2000; Greene 1988; Miller
1999; Gilad and Gilad 1986; Stewart and Rogers 2012; McGonagle and Vella
1999; ACI 2015; IMA 1996a, c, d; Homburg et al. 2000; Toit and Muller
2004).
2.2.7 Pitfalls of Marketology Structuring

While structuring marketology is a significant issue in an enterprise, it may
encounter the barriers described below, which should be avoided by executives
and delegates of marketology.
Marketology as a Single Function Taking the abundant practices of mar-

ketology throughout the organization via its diverse and contingent forms
of organizing into account, it can be concluded that marketology plays a
more crucial role in business process and performance management than a
single organizational function and so it can be considered a hyper-function.
Irrespective of the form of organizing, the marketology unit(s) should be
careful not to take a one-dimensional view through which one component
of the business environment/market (e.g. competitor or customer) may be
given strong consideration at the expense of neglecting other significant
components that should also be noticed, because these other factors may
impact business performance and competitiveness. The key components that
should not be ignored in generating market information/intelligence are
macro-environmental factors, technology, customers, competitors, suppliers
and distributers (channel).
Marketology’s Products as Tangible Assets While the main purpose of mar-

ketology is producing and providing market information (data, information,
knowledge, intelligence and insight), at the time of organizing marketology it
should be noticed that information as an intangible asset or capital of the orga-
nization has exclusive features unlike those of other capital. Despite the value
of tangible assets, just as financial capital is connected to its amount, the infor-
mation does not have inherent value—its value is obviously linked to its utiliza-
tion and actuation by the organizational delegates in making effective decisions
and attempting to achieve business success. Notwithstanding the structuration
manner of marketology, several obstacles may arise in the process of creating
and transferring market information to key clients, such as duplication of activi-
ties, miscommunication, incompatibilities, conflicts, data overloading, delays
and deficits. What can prevent or reduce these potential obstacles against mar-
ketology is building coordination between its activities and other departments
in the steps of MI providing process throughout the organization in dealing
with target clients (Robbins and Judge 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Aghazadeh
2008, 2015; Hall 2000; Greene 1988; Miller 1999; Gilad and Gilad 1986;
Toit and Muller 2004; Stewart and Rogers 2012; McGonagle and Vella 1999;
IMA 1996a, c, d; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016).
44 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
(2-1) Organization design and structure
Guideline (FOCUS)
Understand, discuss and work on the issue as a team work
Discussion: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained above,
practice FOCUS for below issues:
1. Organization;
2. External and internal stakeholder of organization;
3. Organization design and structure;
4. Marketology, organization, stakeholders, design and structure;
5. Galaxy of marketology structure (marketology, marketologosphere, markosphere
and businosphere);
6. How to map marketology upon organizational hierarchy (distribution of
marketology's product across managerial levels);
7. Pitfalls of marketology structuring (marketology as a single function; marketology's
products as tangible asset);
8. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor,
then close the discussion.

Le side Right side
Marketology shaped Marketology as a self-

within organizaonal unit governing unit in different
in different levels organizaonal levels
Figure 2.4 Marketology throughout an organization: autonomous or merged (Note:

The black circles show the status of marketology within an organizational structure. The
big black circle represents an autonomous unit of marketology; the small black circle
inside the white circle indicates marketology merged with other organizational units)
2.2.8 Marketology Structure: Autonomous Versus Merged

Marketology can be structured either in a self-governing department/network
(separate from other units/departments) or merged with other departments at
different organizational levels. As depicted in Figure 2.4, it may be organized
as an autonomous unit (right side) or merged with other units (left side) at
different organizational levels.
When marketology is mixed with other units, depending on the extent of
combination it can be in two patterns: common or apart of. In common form
the resources, priorities and management of a merged unit are divided in
roughly 50:50 proportions between marketology and its other function. When
46 H. AGHAZADEH
arketology is part of an organizational unit it takes a small part (around 30%) of

m
the unit’s resources, priorities and management. If marketology is incorporated
with other units, the strategy or marketing or departments like them may be the
most relevant and suitable candidates for placing marketology (Toit and Muller
2004; Hall 2000; Greene 1988; Workman et al. 1998; Miller 1999; Gilad and
Gilad 1986; Daft 2016; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Ballard et al. 2006; Homburg
et al. 2000; Hult 2011; Griffin 2014; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Stewart and Rogers
2012; McGonagle and Vella 1999; ACI 2015; IMA 1996a, c, d; Lee et al. 2015).
2.2.9 Marketology Structure: Enterprise-Wide Versus Departmental

Similar to BI,4 marketology can be structured in various ways within different
organizations (e.g. enterprise-wide or department-based). In general the orga-
nizing styles of marketology can be placed in a continuum from decentralized
at one end to centralized at the other, and federated or hybrid in the middle.
This contingent organizational spectrum can be used by different enterprises
through which each enterprise can select the most appropriate style for its mar-
ketology structuration. The pros and cons of the mentioned marketology orga-
nizations are summarized in Figure 2.5.
Contemplating the key internal and external factors that usually affect the
organization of a company or a function/department (e.g. environment/
market condition, company size, hierarchy, management style, business process
and model, target audiences and their necessary MI), the appropriate struc-
ture for marketology within an organization may take these forms: centralized,
decentralized and hybrid/federated (Greene 1988; Miller 1999; Gilad and
Gilad 1986; Griffin 2014; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Stewart and Rogers
2012; Lee et al. 2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Daft
2016; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Ballard et al. 2006; Homburg et al. 2000).
2.2.10 Centralized Marketology Structure

Marketology as an organizational centralized division most commonly reports
to senior executives who utilize marketology themselves, pave the way for its
exploitation by other managers and take responsibility for supporting it. While
all other organizational departments can transfer their useful data to such a
concentrated unit, marketology can decrease extra work in this regard and
facilitate the gathering and sharing of market data in a coordinated manner.
In this way monitoring markets, and providing and storing market informa-
tion/intelligence, will be the responsibility of one organizational unit called
marketology, which can easily process and transfer the necessary market infor-
mation to the audiences in other units. Therefore the market information can
be circulated around the hierarchies straightforwardly and decisions can be
made effectively mostly through committees or councils (Workman et al. 1998;
Toit and Muller 2004; Hall 2000; Greene 1988; Miller 1999; Gilad and Gilad
1986; Griffin 2014; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Daft 2016;
Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Ballard et al. 2006; Homburg et al. 2000; Hult
2011; Galbraith 1995; Day 1994; Piercy and Cravens 1995).
Figure 2.5 The pros and cons of the marketology organization styles
2.2.11 Decentralized Marketology Structure

In this type of organizing the function of marketology is conducted by staff
in multiple units throughout the company. They provide the necessary market
information/intelligence for the target clients in several organizational depart-
ments/levels (scarcely strategic and mainly tactical and down). Regarding the
voluminous data and complicated data-exchanging routes, it is information
and communication technology (ICT) that enables the companies to build a
decentralized structure for the function of marketology.
It should be noted that in such a decentralized way of organizing, and con-
sidering the scattered delegates of marketology throughout the enterprise and
48 H. AGHAZADEH
their dispersed services to diversified units, the key issue is crafting effective
coordination between the agents and unifying the market information/intel-
ligence that they should present to their target users. However, these kinds
of relation and dependency can figure out interpersonal or interdepartmental
MI networks which allow smooth communications among the linked compo-
nents. In this regard the core functions of the focal marketology body seem
to be assigning the representatives, determining the necessary MI, target audi-
ences, and preparing required and supports. In other words, it plays a signifi-
cant administrative role rather than conducting operational functions, which
are done by the staff. As a consequence of this manner of structuration, several
problems may be encountered in the enterprise: replication of endeavors related
to preparation of market information/intelligence (due to separated efforts of
each organizational unit), incoordination, incongruence, and incompatibility
(within the delegates of marketology and in dealing with other units as users
of market information/intelligence) (ACI 2015; IMA 1996a, c, d; Aghazadeh
2008, 2016; Lee et al. 2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Gibson et al. 2012;
Daft 2016; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Ballard et al. 2006; Homburg et al.
2000; Hult 2011; Galbraith 1995; Day 1994; Piercy and Cravens 1995).
2.2.12 Hybrid or Federated Marketology Structure

The hybrid or federated form is a mix of centralized and decentralized structure
of organizing marketology which incorporates the characteristics of both shapes.
There are different individuals and diversified units from operational to tactical to
strategic levels in organizations that need market information/intelligence which
should be supplied by the marketology function with various compositions and
via diverse methods adapted to target clients’ requisition. It means that the mar-
ketology structure should have enough flexibility to be able to respond the diver-
sified demands for market information/intelligence throughout the enterprise
simultaneously! For such a situation the hybrid/federated type of organizing is
the best fit which can provide the needs of clients in customized method. The
fact is that according to the federated marketology structuring style building
constructive integration among top-down, bottom-up, enterprise, and divisional
marketology is accounted a challenging issue in organizations whereas they all
should be put together instead of being apart. For this end a network of relation-
ships across the organization structure, multi-layered governing architecture,
and compound reporting connections are required remarkably (Workman et al.
1998; Toit and Muller 2004; Hall 2000; Greene 1988; Miller 1999; Gilad and
Gilad 1986; Griffin 2014; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Stewart and Rogers
2012; McGonagle and Vella 1999; ACI 2015; IMA 1996a, c, d; Lee et al. 2015;
Robbins and Judge 2015; Gibson et al. 2012).
2.2.13 Divisional Marketology Team

The divisional marketology within a business unit embraces a divisional mar-
ketology team (DMT) containing business/market analysts (e.g. marketing,
sales, product, financial, or operations analysts) and dedicated marketology
professionals (e.g. report writers and ETL5 developers). The team is managed
by a divisional intelligence manager with assists of marketology relationship
manager. Consequently, the divisional marketology is provided relying on the
interactive working of all members of the team; in addition the team may lever-
age enterprise marketology staff when necessary to complete their team.
The enterprise marketology team (EMT) consists of both BI and ETL
developers. They are usually expert in running a tool, data modeling, proj-
ect management, data and systems administration, and quality assurance. The
EMT manages the data warehouse, the metadata storage and the BI semantic
layers; and also all the BI systems (such as database, BI server, ETL server and
metadata repository). The enterprise marketology staff may be loaned out to
the business units as needed to fill in divisional intelligence teams/projects.
Therefore, the federated marketology skeleton within the organization may
embrace these main teams: marketology council team6 (include marketology execu-
tive committee, marketology working committee), EMT and DMT. The key func-
tions of such structure may be done by the scattered delegates entire the corporate
involve: board of directors, director of marketology, relationship managers, divi-
sional intelligence managers or decision-makers, lead analysts, analysts, centralized
marketology staff, dedicated marketology professionals, and so on.7 It should be
noted that conducting manner and composition of the whole marketology orga-
nization and each enterprise or divisional marketology may vary by changing the
size and attributes of the enterprise or divisions. By the way a descriptive profile
of the federated marketology organization is illustrated in Figure 2.6 (Eckerson
Wayne 2013; Toit and Muller 2004; Piercy and Cravens 1995; Ballard et al.
2006; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Gilad and Gilad 1986; Stewart and Rogers
2012; McGonagle and Vella 1999; ACI 2015; IMA 1996a, c, d; Hicyilmaz 2011;
OnStrategy 2014; Hall 2000; Greene 1988; Miller 1999; Daft 2016; Robbins and
Judge 2015; Griffin 2013; Gibson et al. 2012; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; McMillan
2006; Katz 2009; Kilmann et al. 2010; Galbraith 1995; Hult 2011; Day 1994;
Burton et al. 2006a; Homburg et al. 2000; Workman et al. 1998; Lee et al. 2015).
2.2.14 Market Data Management Team

There is no doubt that obtaining verified sets of data which is acquired or even
produced both internal and/or external to the enterprise and also appropri-
ately managing these data (like data gathering and analyzing, DW, data marts,
stores and databases, data modeling, and metadata management) are consid-
ered the foundations for working and success of any information or intelligence
management functions such as market and BI/insight and marketology.
Depends on the characteristics and priorities of each company these func-
tions of managing market data can be conducted differently in the marketology
management center (MMC) of various organizations. Apparently, these tasks
should be performed by professional persons or units as market data manage-
ment team (MDMT) in organizations. While MDMT can play crucial role in
supporting enterprise information management strategies and capabilities for
a broad range of functions and units throughout the organization, it also can
effectively pave the way for success of market and BI/insight and marketology.
50 H. AGHAZADEH
Component Composition Role/function Description
- Directing and policy making

Marketology - Similar to the board of directors of a
Board of directors or senior strategic marketology initiatives
council (as company
executives, and director of - Deciding on projects to build,
governance - Critical to the success of any marketology
marketology technologies to buy, processes to
committee) program.
implement, and definitions to use
- Meetings: monthly or quarterly
- Director of marketology - Funding marketology projects - Authority to fund projects and approve
Executive Committee
- Business unit (divisional) - Deciding the marketology data definitions.
decision makers definitions - Clear vision to transform the business
- marketology relationship - Facilitating marketology using data.
managers practices - Data strategy and roadmap of projects to
achieve goals.
Committees of marketology council
- Recommending marketology
- Meetings: weekly
projects
- At least 25% of the time of business unit
- Developing definitions
members is dedicated to this
- Director of marketology - Defining data elements
- Running tactical marketology programs
- Divisional intelligence - Determining standards for
Working Committee
- Aligning divisional projects

managers (lead analysts) conducting marketology projects
- Managing platform and technology issues
- marketology Relationship - Troubleshooting tools
- Preventing DMT to be inverted into
managers - Planning and overseeing
information silos.
- Project manager marketing programs
- Examining the overlaps of proposed
- Organizing internal
projects with existing ones and concluding
training/conferences for DMT
on expand, merge, or scrap it.
members
Figure 2.6 The profile of the federated marketology organization
The MDMT in order to assist market and BI and marketology process entire
the enterprise may play these significant roles: defining data management archi-
tecture, designing data usage pattern, building and running databases, obtaining
and diffusion of metadata, enhancing data quality, and managing data circulation.
The MDMT may be structured in diverse forms like being located within
organizational unit(s) linked to market and BI (such as MMC), being scattered
across different organizational units (such as IT, operation, finance, business,
marketing, etc.), or being positioned as a specific unit, team, or committee.
Definitely there is no single best way of architecting the MMC and MDMT
within organization, therefore every enterprise should recognize and assign a
specific style of organizing which best suit its needs and situation (Homburg
et al. 2000; Workman et al. 1998; Lee et al. 2015; Eckerson Wayne 2013; Toit
and Muller 2004; Piercy and Cravens 1995; Ballard et al. 2006; Aghazadeh
2008, 2015, 2016; Gilad and Gilad 1986; ACI 2015; IMA 1996a, c, d;
Hicyilmaz 2011; OnStrategy 2014; Hall 2000; Greene 1988; Miller 1999;
Stewart and Rogers 2012; McGonagle and Vella 1999; Daft 2016; Robbins
and Judge 2015; Griffin 2013; Gibson et al. 2012; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013;
McMillan 2006; Katz 2009; Kilmann et al. 2010; Galbraith 1995; Hult 2011;
Day 1994; Burton et al. 2006a; Wikipedia 2016i-SQL, Wikipedia 2016d-ETL).
2.2.15 Business Intelligence Competency Center

While the exploitation and governing any useful phenomenon in an organiza-
tion requires skilled people and competent team, the BI is the same whereas its
proper application and governance need an appropriate team and organization
as business intelligence competency center (BICC).
The BICC as a cross-functional organizational team assists and facilitates
the effective usage of business analytics, information, intelligence and insight
all over the organization through certain tasks, roles, responsibilities and pro-
cesses. Then utilization of BICC can result in several benefits for an orga-
nization: enhanced usage of BI, satisfaction of BI users, speed and quality
of decision-making, understanding of BI value, consistency of decisions and
actions, and reduced conflicts between managers and workers, and costs of
staff and software.
The BICC’s structure may take diversified forms such as centralized, decen-
tralized, hybrid/federated, divisional, functional, matrix, project, team, net-
work, virtual, etc. in organization as insource architecture or may be outsourced.
2.2.16 Market Intelligence Competency Center

Similar to BI the marketology as a hyper-function that provides market DIKII
to the target audiences throughout organization is regarded vital for enterprises
because of assisting them to achieve success through making effective decisions
and taking efficient actions. Therefore, a good governance manner and com-
petent team are required to shape, lead, conduct and complete the plans, pro-
grams and tasks of the hyper-function of marketology all over the enterprise.
The BI may be viewed from two perspectives: broad and narrow. As broad
view BI is like marketology since as narrow view BI is the same as MI. Taking
MI into account the above-mentioned governance manner and managing team
can be entitled as market intelligence competency center (MICC). But con-
sidering the marketology as the main stream the required governance manner
and managing team will be entitled marketology management center (MMC).
Although both MICC and MMC can be helpful for enterprises but regarding
the purpose of this manuscript the MMC is more fruitful. However by defini-
tion the MMC embraces the MICC and when talking about MMC the MICC
is covered too. Depends on the type of marketology’s structure such manag-
ing team (MMC) can be centralized in a unit, scattered to different units or
semi-centralized (to some extent centralized and to some extent scattered). In
semi-centralized manner the marketology is basically centralized but several
52 H. AGHAZADEH
delegates are assigned and positioned in the significant units mostly related to
the market issues (like strategy, marketing, market research, CRM, research and
development [R&D], etc.) (Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Toit and Muller
2004; Piercy and Cravens 1995; Ballard et al. 2006; Gilad and Gilad 1986;
Stewart and Rogers 2012; Daft 2016; Robbins and Judge 2015; Griffin 2013;
Gibson et al. 2012; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; McMillan 2006; Katz 2009;
Kilmann et al. 2010; Galbraith 1995; Eckerson Wayne 2013; McGonagle and
Vella 1999; ACI 2015; IMA 1996a, c, d; Hicyilmaz 2011; OnStrategy 2014;
Hall 2000; Greene 1988; Miller 1999; Hult 2011; Day 1994; Burton et al.
2006a; Homburg et al. 2000; Workman et al. 1998; Lee et al. 2015).

practice (MIP)
(2-2) Marketology structure
Guideline (FOCUS)
Discussion: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained above, practice
FOCUS in your intended case for below issues:
1. Marketology structure: autonomous versus merged;
2. Marketology structure: enterprise-wide versus departmental: centralized, decentralized, hybrid or
federated marketology structure;
3. Divisional Marketology Team (DMT);
4. Market Data Management Team (MDMT);
5. Business Intelligence Competency Center (BICC);
6. Market Intelligence Competency Center (MICC);
7. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, then close the
discussion.
2.2.17 Marketology Management Center

Marketology is concentrated on how to create and use market DIKII to obtain
efficiency and effectiveness on business performance management from both
financial and nonfinancial perspectives. The MMC can be considered as an
influential organizational structure for governing and performing marketol-
ogy initiatives that incorporates groups of people with interrelated areas of
knowledge, skills, experiences, and expertise majorly focused on business, mar-
ket, strategy, IT and analytics. This structuring form may take different names
and titles in different enterprises such as BI/MI department, BI/MI center
of practice, BI/MI community, BI/MI center of excellence, BI/MI center of
knowledge, BI/MI community of practice, BI/MI technology services, data
mining and information delivery, marketology department/unit, and so on.
Today businesses are exposed to numerous inside and outside issues and
problems. Amongst they encounter several significant challenges such as: mar-
ket dynamics, urgency of quickly decision-making and reacting, decreasing
capital and operational costs, increasing risks, enhancing quality of services,
new service/product development, hunting new opportunities, improving
efficiencies, and raising alignment. These environmental and internal chal-
lenges of businesses force them to contemplate the formal, informal or com-
bined governance of MMC within their organization to be highly transparent,
proficient, and effective in decision-making and action-taking. The main pur-
pose of MMC governance is playing influential role on ensuring success of
business process and performance management through supporting decisions
and actions. Accordingly the MMC can help businesses to provide superior
business value through a consistent set of marketology strategies, standards,
initiatives, and deployment of market-related informational products (market
DIKII) relying on people, technologies, and processes entire the enterprise
(Leidner and Elam 1995; Kamel et al. 2012; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Eckerson
Wayne 2013; Toit and Muller 2004; Piercy and Cravens 1995; Ballard et al.
2006; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Daft 2016; Robbins and Judge 2015; Griffin
2013; Gibson et al. 2012; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; McMillan 2006; Katz
2009; Kilmann et al. 2010; Galbraith 1995; Hult 2011; Day 1994; Burton
et al. 2006a; Homburg et al. 2000; Workman et al. 1998; Lee et al. 2015).
2.2.18 Principle Components of a Marketology Management Center

A MMC as depicted in Figure 2.7 is considered as a mixed organizational
structure composing of business, market, analytics and IT delegates.
Regarding above figure it can be implicated that the mainstream of MMC is pro-
ducing and providing business and market related informational products (market
DIKII), conducting useful analytics (environment, internal, business, market and
technology analysis) and applying the proper technologies in different stages (such
as identifying needs, gathering and analyzing data, transmitting information, etc.).
Therefore the key practices of MMC throughout the enterprise can be
defined as BI/MI programing, generating and delivering; data acquisition and
54 H. AGHAZADEH
Figure 2.7 Principle

components of a MMC
stewardship; training, technical support and advanced analytics; vendor inter-

actions management; and so on.
In fact the MMC paves the way for effective use of market and BI/insight
and marketology to support the enterprise market and business decisions,
strategies, tactics and actions. Accordingly it can bring following benefits for
enterprises: enhanced application of BI/MI and marketology, pace of decision-
making, satisfaction of BI/MI and marketology users, perception of BI/MI
and marketology value; and reduced costs of staff and software.
The MMC beyond a function and as a cross departmental part (or hyper-
function) of an organization comprises diversified range of users, professional
business analysts, IT experts, applicable resources, and practical technology
or tools. Such organizational principle component (i.e. MMC) should aid the
firm (particularly the managers) to perceive and put the MI and insight to
better market and business thoughts, decisions, and actions. Then accomplish-
ing such purpose requires the MMC to design an entire strategic plan, deter-
mine the priorities of market and BI and performance management, instate the
requirements, and work accordingly. The MMC’s key performance indicators
(KPIs) and directing issues must be compatible with the market and business
objectives of enterprise (Howson 2008; SAS 2005; Zeid 2006; Leidner and
Elam 1995; Kamel et al. 2012; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Eckerson Wayne 2013;
Toit and Muller 2004; Ballard et al. 2006; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016;
Stewart and Rogers 2012; ACI 2015; IMA 1996a, c, d; Hicyilmaz 2011;
OnStrategy 2014; Daft 2016; Robbins and Judge 2015; Griffin 2013; Gibson
et al. 2012; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Katz 2009; Day 1994; Burton et al.
2006a; Homburg et al. 2000; Workman et al. 1998; Lee et al. 2015).
2.2.19 Products and Services of a Marketology Management Center

The MMC in order to ensure effective market-related decisions and efficient
market-related actions throughout the enterprise as illustrated in Figure 2.8
should be able to provide useful market-related (market DIKII) and services
Figure 2.8 MMC: market-related products and services
(IGDEE)8 for target audiences all over the enterprise (decision-makers and
action-takers).
As shown in above figure the MMC as organizational office of the hyper-
function of marketology prepares market-related informational products and
services to the senior executives and line managers. However the MMC to
be influential in this regard should be able to work with other organizational
units in a compatible manner (Skyrius et al. 2013; Davenport 2006; Wierenga
et al. 2008; Olszak 2014; Moorman and Rust 1999; Howson 2008; SAS 2005;
Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Zeid 2006; Leidner and Elam 1995; Kamel
et al. 2012; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Eckerson Wayne 2013; Toit and Muller
2004; Ballard et al. 2006; Stewart and Rogers 2012; ACI 2015; IMA 1996a,
c, d; Hicyilmaz 2011; OnStrategy 2014; Day 1994; Burton et al. 2006a;
Homburg et al. 2000; Workman et al. 1998; Lee et al. 2015).
2.2.20 Marketology Management Center Within an Organization

An important question that should be answered precisely is what the best posi-
tion for the MMC within organizational structure? The rough response is that
there is no singular “best” place for MMC in organization indeed. Its foremost
56 H. AGHAZADEH
location within the corporation may differ from company to company and
industry to industry in accordance with the factors internal and external to
the organization. It may be placed within the department that plays strategic
role and has intensive effects for overall business process and performance
management. Obviously the department which is best suited to embrace the
MMC may vary in different enterprises and even in one enterprise but in dif-
ferent times or conditions. The candidate departments may be strategy, busi-
ness, marketing, IT, R&D, finance, and/ or operation in which the MMC
works under supervision of head of the department and reports to it.
While in many enterprises the market and BI/insight may be employed as
an island merely to support a specific application like ERP, business process re-
engineering (BPR), CRM, BPM, supply chain management (SCM), enterprise
risk management, etc.; in fact many other firms utilize market and BI/insight
to ensure their business success by boosting the effectiveness of decisions and
efficiency of actions through establishing the MMC. By this way the market
and BI/insight provision task of an organization become enhanced from an
IT-focused functional unit to a mixed IT and market/business focused cross
functional unit (i.e. MMC) which is aimed at collaboratively creating and pre-
senting market and BI/insight widely entire the organization. It should be
noticed that without constructive cooperation across organizational units the
MMC will not prosper satisfactorily.
Finally, the MMC designs and executes a strategic plan for effective deliver-
ing of market and BI/insight and information management, determines and
fulfills the stipulations (soft and hard), assists the organization realize how to
exploit market and BI/insights for business decisions and actions properly.
Considering the mentioned factors that impact the organizing form of the
MMC, as illustrated in Figure 2.9 its structure within an organization may be
in one of these models:
1. A subdivision of IT or marketing department (parallel with other divi-

sions under supervision of the chief information officer [CIO] or chief
marketing officer [CMO])
2. A part of operations/finance/marketing department (upper than other
divisions under supervision of the chief operating officer [COO]/chief
finance officer [CFO]/CMO)
3. Distributed MMC (as a division/part/function diffused entire the orga-
nization within different departments separately and specifically with
some connections)
4. Virtual MMC (as division/part/function diffused entire the organiza-
tion within different departments employing scattered agents leading by
a core unit)
While every enterprise has its own organizational characteristics, perspec-

tive, culture and design in one hand and there is no “one size fits all” approach
on the other hand; then the MMC structure should be fitted with the needs,
culture and other attributes of an enterprise. However, the tactics that can be
CIO/CMO
MICC/MMC as Dep.1 Dep.2 MICC/MMC
marketing or IT
... ... ... ...
department
COO/CFO/CMO
MICC/MMC as part of MICC/MMC
operations/ finance/
Div.1 Div.2 Div.3
marketing department
Enterprise: board/CEO
Part of MICC/MMC
Distributed Consultant
Part of MICC/MMC
MICC/MMC throughout
the enterprise
Dep. 1 Dep. 2 Dep. 3
Part of MICC/MMC Part of MICC/MMC Part of MICC/MMC
MICC/MMC

Markeng Finance IT
Virtual MICC/MMC
... ... ...
Figure 2.9 MMC within organization
advised generally for ensuring the success of MMC in different organizational

contexts are: small beginning, strategic thinking, and systematic facilitating.
In order to construct influential MMC the fundamental issues that should be
considered include: standards management; educating, consulting and supporting;
alignment of data and IT governance and market/business strategy; communi-
cating and IT relationship management; market research; enterprise architecture;
agent relationship and analyst interaction; and product and brand management
(Eckerson Wayne 2013; Toit and Muller 2004; Ballard et al. 2006; Skyrius et al.
2013; Davenport 2006; Wierenga et al. 2008; Olszak 2014; Moorman and Rust
1999; Howson 2008; SAS 2005; Day 1994; Burton et al. 2006a; Homburg
et al. 2000; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Zeid 2006; Leidner and Elam 1995;
58 H. AGHAZADEH
Hicyilmaz 2011; OnStrategy 2014; Workman et al. 1998; Lee et al. 2015; Kamel
et al. 2012; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Stewart and Rogers 2012; ACI 2015).
2.2.21
Launching a Marketology Management Center
There is no doubt that the MMC can be fruitful to facilitate the utilizing BI
and MI/insight for better decision-making, business strategy forming, busi-
ness process and performance management and then ensure achieving business
objectives and success in an enterprise. Therefore the critical concern of senior
executives of organizations should be effective establishing a MMC within the
firm. Despite considering the intrinsic differences of enterprises no two MMC
may ever be quite similar, but as displayed in Figure 2.10 the common pro-
cess of launching the MMC in every corporate can be summarized as IPIE
(Initializing, Planning, Implementing and Evaluating) in form of below steps:
1. Initializing MMC: defining vision, target business, strategy, and value

proposition of MMC
2. Planning MMC: performing GAP analysis, inventory assessment of
BI/MI and marketology projects and skills, and maturity examination;
laying out roadmap; gaining enactment of executives; and specifying
priorities, technologies, standards, methodologies, and needed
competencies.
Inializing
Evaluang MMC Planning
Implemenng
Figure 2.10 Process of launching MMC

3. Implementing MMC: assigning roles and responsibilities to the dele-

gates; exerting change management practices; training/consulting the
staff; and preparing work environment and climate
4. Evaluating MMC: reviewing the MMC functions, projects and perfor-
mance; getting feedbacks of MMC; grounding the MMC for new/next
projects and BI/MI and marketology initiatives; customizing MMC
scope and functions to the required extent.
The fact is that MMC works well in tactical level for handling BI/MI
and marketology initiatives across the enterprise but its effectiveness for run-
ning BI/MI and marketology in strategic level face challenging issues yet
(Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Zeid 2006; Leidner and Elam 1995; Kamel
et al. 2012; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Hicyilmaz 2011; OnStrategy 2014; Day
1994; Burton et al. 2006a; Homburg et al. 2000; Workman et al. 1998;
Lee et al. 2015; Eckerson Wayne 2013; Toit and Muller 2004; Ballard et al.
2006; Skyrius et al. 2013; Davenport 2006; Wierenga et al. 2008; Olszak
2014; Moorman and Rust 1999; Howson 2008; SAS 2005; Stewart and
Rogers 2012; ACI 2015).
2.2.22 Critical Success Factors of a Marketology Management Center

The success of MMC within an enterprise can be ensured by considering
the significant factors like: approach of shaping MMC; support of senior-
executives; communicating MMC all over the enterprise; taking MMC as part
of the business; applying good governance framework; better understanding
of future business needs; enhancing the analytical capabilities; funding sup-
port; etc.
Critical success factors (CSFs) of MMC as illustrated in Figure 2.11 include
readiness of enterprise, adoption of users, promoting MMC and funding
MMC. Below these requirements are explained:
Readiness of Enterprise The key issue for loading MMC within organization
appropriately is to examine the enterprise’s readiness and maturity for utilizing
the MMC considering its current and desired status and also BI/MI infrastruc-
ture. Accordingly, the MMC may be:
–– Focused in IT, or finance, operations, and specific business unit (work-
ing closely with the IT teams)
–– Centralized at a corporate head office, or positioned as networks of
regional and divisional IT, market and business stakeholders.
Anyhow it should be mentioned that the main objective is to pave the
way for implementing, supporting, and managing BI/MI and marketology
(expected to be predictable, repeatable, and consistent).
60 H. AGHAZADEH
Readiness Adopon Promong Funding managing

of of users MMC MMC risks of MMC
enterprise
Figure 2.11 CSFs of MMC
Adoption of Users Achieving the objectives of MMC requires the users’

adoption which in turn can be obtained by contemplating these key success
factors: creating technology standards; converging IT, market and business
users; providing accessibility and product management; and ensuring timely
and trusted information.
Promoting MMC In order to enhance the acceptance and penetration of

MMC within the organization and encourage people/units to participate more
with MMC and use more BI/MI and marketology, the notion of the signifi-
cance of BI/MI and usefulness of MMC should be communicated and shared
via strong communication strategy across the enterprise. For this, the MMC
and BI/MI should be showcased through illustrating value, communicating
success, and sustaining the flow of running. Enterprises can boost the value
of solutions (e.g. MMC, BI and MI) by developing and performing the train-
ing programs adapted with users preferences. The training types can be public
classroom, online, onsite, conferences, vendor, and one-on-one training.
Funding a Marketology Management Center Regarding the MMC as a

vital structure within organization, its proper working significantly depends on
preparing the needed resources (specifically funding) sufficiently and timely.
There are several models of funding involve: self-funding (early stage MMC
funding), shared service chargeback, and centrally funded central service.9
Managing Risks of a Marketology Management Center The crucial task of

a MMC is the concluding step of presenting the generated business and MI/
insight to the target clients. It means that an effective reporting manner can
play substantial role in the success or failure of MMC. As Figure 2.12 shows
the MMC may be positioned unsuitably in the organizations and confront risks
which should be recognized and moderated or managed rigorously.
Place in organization
Reporting method Pertaining risk
architecture
directly to the senior executives becoming disconnected

Too high (exalted)
or board of directors from the real world
Indirectly and delayed to the

Too low (down): within a losing its overarching
senior directors, but directly and
specific unit view
rapidly to the line managers
Figure 2.12 The MMC structuring, reporting method, and pertaining risks
Facilitating and cultivating the influential utilization of business and MI/

insight and marketology all over the corporation is a consequential matter that
can be undertaken by a MMC as a cross-functional organizational team/unit
with required certain roles, functions, processes, and activities. The MMC team
to be effective and successful should embrace at least these areas of knowledge
and skill: IT, strategy, market, business, and analytics.
The MMC is aimed at ensuring the effective exerting of market and busi-
ness information/intelligence for better decision-making, action-taking and
raising the return on investment (ROI) of marketology. It can play a vital role
in realizing corporate’s strategic change and performance through enabling
the key persons or units to utilize market and BI for proactive decisions and
actions. In addition, the MMC can pave the way to take the advantage of
learning and experience curve by saving, transferring and sharing the mar-
ket and business information/intelligence and best practices throughout the
organization. The MMC for fulfilling its core responsibilities of assisting the
enterprise to become flexible and agile, have to be adapted with organiza-
tional cultures/subcultures, catalyze interactions across organizational units,
and improve analytic capabilities, training and consulting the target audi-
ences on understanding and undertaking MI and BI/insight (Boyer et al.
2010; Dresner et al. 2002; Wierenga et al. 2008; Olszak 2014; Aghazadeh
2008, 2015, 2016; Howson 2008; SAS 2005; Kamel et al. 2012; Cognos-
IBM 2009a, b; Eckerson Wayne 2013; Skyrius et al. 2013; Davenport 2006;
Stewart and Rogers 2012; ACI 2015; Hicyilmaz 2011; OnStrategy 2014;
Hall 2000; Day 1994; Burton et al. 2006a; Lee et al. 2015; Kotter 2015;
Wikipedia 2016b-BICC).
62 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
Marketology Management Center (MMC)
(2-3)
Guideline (FOCUS)
above, practice FOCUS in your intended case for the following issues:
1. Marketology Management Center (MMC);
2. Principle components of MMC;
3. Products and services of MMC;
4. MMC within organization;
5. Launching a MMC;
6. CSFs of MMC;
7. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, then

close the discussion.
2.2.23 Marketology Organizational Design Canvas:

Piece of Structure Is Completed
Regarding the descriptive explanations about structure it can be illustrated
in Figure 2.4110 that the ‘structure’ as one piece of MOD canvas become
completed and located.
Marketology in Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) analysis

practice (MIP)
Structure
(2-4)
Guideline: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained in
previous parts, practice MCMC in your intended case for below issues about structure:
1. Coverage of marketology structure by organization/business structure?
2. Manifestation of marketology structure within organization/business?
3. Contribution of marketology from organization/business structure?
4. Fulfill a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and close
the discussion.
64 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in Marketology match matrix (MMM)

practice (MIP)
Structure
(2-5)
Guideline: examine interlinks between marketology and structure in below matrix
Marketology Total
Coverage Manifestation Support

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Structuring
2. Organic vs. static structure
3. Vertical vs. horizontal structure
4. Virtual and network structure

BOD: structure
5. Contingent structuration
6. Structure and technology
7. Structure and environment
8. Structure and organization inside
9. Structure and management decisions
Sum
Total
Average
Note: The equivalents of letters or abbreviations of this figure are as: (AS) stands for Absolute Score, and (WS) stands
for Weighted Score. AS can be a score within this continuum {9 ≥ AS ≥ 0}, WS is calculated by multiplying each AS
in related weight
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of MCMC analysis framework; and MMM analyze the
relationship between marketology and the structure as a key component of BOD.
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: organic versus static structure,
vertical versus horizontal structure, virtual and network structure,contingent structuration, structure
and technology, structure and environment, structure and organization inside, structure and
management decisions, etc.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and the structure:

2.3 Culture
–– Organizational culture
–– Organizational culture dynamics
–– Organizational culture functions
–– Organizational culture power and change
–– Organizational subculture and climate
–– Business orientations and culture
–– Market-oriented culture
–– Marketology culture and climate
–– Supporting organizational culture and climate
–– Culture and climate within the hyper-function of marketology
–– Marketology organizational design (MOD) canvas: piece of culture is
completed
Marketology in practice: Culture

Marketology FOCUS Box
–– MIP 2-6: Marketology culture and climate
MCMC & MMM
–– MIP 2-7: Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute MCMC
analysis framework
–– MIP 2-8: Marketology match matrix MMM
2.3.1 Organizational Culture
Edgar H. Schein has defined the culture of a group as “a pattern of shared basic
assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adap-
tation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered
valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive,
think, and feel in relation to those problems” (2010: 17). Organizational culture
as the behavior and pattern of perceiving, thinking and feeling of humans within an
organization includes the organization’s vision, values, norms, systems, symbols,
language, assumptions, beliefs, habits, communication ways, stories, narratives,
myths and metaphors, stereotypes, rituals, symbols, customs, heroes, taboo, pat-
terns, artifacts, subculture and so on (Sulkowski 2012; Hofstede et al. 1990, 2010;
Brown and Brooks 2002; Ravasi and Schultz 2006; Schrodt 2002; Schein 2010;
Deal and Kennedy 1999, 2000; Kotter and Heskett 1992; Needle 2004; Griffin
2013; GE Capital 2012; Tsai 2011; Robbins and Barnwell 2007; Katherine 2015;
Aghazadeh 2008; Slater et al. 2011; O’Donnell and Boyle 2008; Tharp 2009a, b;
Bush and Middlewood 2013; Madu 2012).
About organizational culture different perspectives, frameworks, models and
classifications have been presented. Some important categories are: integration, dif-
ferentiation, and fragmentation (Jackson 2011; Kappos and Rivard 2008; Martin
66 H. AGHAZADEH
2002); macro-culture or micro-culture (Eunson 2013); networked, communal,

fragmented, and mercenary (Goffee and Jones 1996); competing values model
(CVM): clan, adhocracy, market, and control cultures (Quinn and Rohrbaugh
1981; Quinn and McGrath 1985; Quinn 1988; Quinn and Spreitzer 1991);
model of national culture11 (Hofstede et al. 2010); organizational culture index:
bureaucratic, innovative and supportive culture (Wallach 1983); fatalism, hierar-
chism, individualism and egalitarianism (Jackson 2011); adaptability, involvement,
mission-based and consistency (Denison and Mishra 1995); and so on.
2.3.2 Organizational Culture Dynamics

Schein (2010) introduced three levels for analysis of organizational culture
includes underlying assumptions, espoused beliefs and values, and artifacts.
Hatch (1993) enhanced the Schein’s theory by adding “symbol” as a new and
complementary element of organizational culture, and also initiating a shift
from static to dynamic conceptions of culture as the hierarchical model of cul-
tural dynamics (HMCD) which is shown as Figure 2.13.
Symbols
Symbolizaon
Arfacts
Interpretaon
Realizaon
Values
Manifestaon
Assumpons
Figure 2.13 Hierarchical Model of Cultural Dynamics (HMCD)

Culture
Behavior Performance
Strategy & Acon
Organization
Figure 2.14 Organizational culture and its relationship with behavior and

performance
2.3.3 Organizational Culture Functions

The main functions of organizational culture can be as giving members an
organizational identity; facilitating collective commitment; promoting social
system stability; and shaping behavior by helping members make sense of their
surroundings (Kinicki and Fugate 2012).
As in Figure 2.14 the organizational culture, behavior (or strategies and
actions) and performance are related mutually and strongly.
2.3.4 Organizational Culture Power and Change

Organizational culture based on the intensity and widely acceptance of core
values by organization members can be evaluated as strong versus weak cul-
ture. Organizational culture may have both functional (positive or driving)
and dysfunctional (negative or restraining) effects on people and organizations
(Robbins and Judge 2015; Daft 2016).
In today’s ever-changing business condition and environment organizational
culture not only must be changed align with external and internal changes but
also should pave the way for changes in other parts of organization (Gibson
et al. 2012; Desson and Clouthier 2010).
Organizational culture can foster dynamic capabilities through two key
roles: internal integration and external adaption (Daft 2016).
68 H. AGHAZADEH
One of the key roles of leaders is managing organizational culture dynami-

cally in a way to be able to make necessary changes and developments in it.
For this purpose they should focus on the layers/levels of organizational cul-
ture (include basic assumptions, espoused values and observable artifacts).
The intended changes in organizational culture can be accomplished through
below mechanisms (Kinicki and Fugate 2012: 42–44):
–– Formal statements of organizational philosophy, mission, vision, val-
ues, and materials used for recruiting, selection, and socialization
–– The design of physical space, work environments, and buildings
–– Slogans, language, acronyms, and sayings
–– Deliberate role modeling, training programs, teaching, and coaching
by managers and supervisors
–– Explicit rewards, status symbols (e.g. titles), and promotion criteria
–– Stories, legends, and myths about key people and events
–– The organizational activities, processes, or outcomes that leaders pay
attention to, measure, and control
–– Leader reactions to critical incidents and organizational crises
–– The workflow and organizational structure
–– Organizational systems and procedures
–– Organizational goals and the associated criteria used for recruitment,
selection, development, promotion, layoffs, and retirement of people
2.3.5 Organizational Subculture and Climate

Within the dominant culture of an organization there exist subcultures.
Different groups in organization such as units, functions, subsidiaries, proj-
ects and departments may have their own subcultures. The subcultures may
be compatible with dominant culture and have positive effects on it; or may
be incompatible with the dominant culture and have negative effects on it (as
counterculture). The culture and subculture become very vital when different
groups or organizations with multiple and far distant cultures have to come
together because of managerial decision or strategy like mergers and acquisi-
tions (M&A) or internationalization/globalization. While mergers may have
successful financial results they often have some cultural challenges. Then man-
agers should be aware of these cultural issues and have solutions for handling
them in synergic manners (Gibson et al. 2012).
Organizational climate as a manifestation of the organization’s culture is
influenced by and shapes organizational culture. Organizational climate is for-
mal or informal and directly or indirectly perception of employees working
in the organization about the work environment and organizational policies,
practices, and procedures at any given time that focuses on their perceptions
of the way things are and influences and motivates their behavior. If the shared
perceptions of practices and procedures change or differ in any way, then the
results of these changes or differences could produce a different organizational
climate. Organizational climate can be measured through assessing six dimen-
sions that influence the work environment and employee motivation: clarity,
commitment, standards, responsibility, recognition, and teamwork (Gibson

et al. 2012; Robbins and Judge 2015; Litwin and Stringer 1968; Schneider and
Reichers 1983; Bitsani 2013; Schneider 1975; Reichers and Schneider 1990;
Hunt and Ivergard 2007; Sopow 2007; Muchinsky 1976, 1977; Stringer 2001;
Atkinson and Frechette 2008; Lockwood 2007; Moorman 1995).
2.3.6 Business Orientations and Culture

There are diversified perspectives to classify business orientations involve
decision-making, strategic, cultural, intelligence, performance, behavioral,
scope, and so on. In this regard several business orientations have been for-
mulated include strategic, market, customer, competitor, information, inno-
vation, entrepreneurship, learning, service, and quality. Then culture as a key
dimension of organization can have close relations with business orientations
in different ways such as driving or restraining force; embracing and foster-
ing ground; a classification perspective; being affected by orientations; taking
typology based on orientations. For instance imagining “market orientation”
as significant business orientation, a given organization’s culture may impose
driving or restraining forces to its development, may cover and encourage it,
may be cultural classification of it, may be impacted by it and become more
open to market, and may be engaged with it to the extent that be identi-
fied as market-oriented versus product-oriented culture (Kohli and Jaworski
1990; Narver and Slater 1990; Lafferty and Hult 2001; Baker and Sinkula
1999; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Mavondo et al. 2005; Gatignon and
Xuereb 1997; Zhou et al. 2005; Lambin 2007; Dauber et al. 2010, 2012;
Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Pace and Faules 1994; Bush and Middlewood
2013; Madu 2012).
2.3.7 Market-Oriented Culture
Today business environment is intensively competitive within which the market is
remarkably complex and turbulent. In such dynamic external condition the busi-
ness leaders and senior executives in order to lead their organization safely and
successfully should manage the internal situation in a way to be flexible, adaptive
and agile enough. In this regard the organizational culture is the most significant
phenomenon that should be focused within inside of organization. Therefore an
enterprise in order to accomplish successful business performance should have mar-
ket-oriented organizational culture. Such a culture can ensure both financial and
market performance for the company through contributing on creating and deliv-
ering value to the key stakeholders in marketplace superior than key competitors.
The business leaders in order to generate and expand market-oriented cul-
ture throughout the organization can think and work on below components
(Homburg and Pflesser 2000):
–– Defining and communicating “shared basic values that support mar-
ket orientation” include success, speed, innovativeness and flexibility,
openness of internal communication, quality and competence, inter-
70 H. AGHAZADEH
functional cooperation and coordination, responsibility of the employ-

ees, and appreciation of the employees.
–– Defining and communicating “norms for market orientation” include
market-related success, speed and quality orientation; market-related
inter-functional cooperation; market-related responsibility and appre-
ciation of the employees; market-related innovativeness and flexibility;
and openness of market-related internal communication.
–– Defining and communicating “artifacts for market orientation” include
stories about heroes and problems of market orientation; arrangements
and rituals of market orientation; market-oriented and non-market-
oriented language.
–– Defining and communicating “market-oriented behaviors” include
intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination and responsiveness.
–– Defining and communicating “business performance/outcomes”
include market performance and financial performance (return on sales).
–– Considering and communicating “market dynamism” include changes
in products, sales strategies and sales promotion/advertising strategies
of competitors.
It can be implicated that a market-oriented culture may take market-
driving or market-driven categories in accordance with the external (envi-
ronment/market) condition, internal capacity (business power), people
preferences, and management priorities (Tuominen et al. 2004; Day
1994; Webster 1994; Weerwardena and O’Cass 2004; Kumar et al. 2000;
Maximini 2015; Ubius and Alas 2009; Anaeto 2010; Kreitner and Kinicki
2012; Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Miller 2009; Pace and Faules 1994;
Aghazadeh 2015).
2.3.8 Marketology Culture and Climate

Culture and climate inherently are very important issues for accelerating or
decelerating organizational performance and goal achievement through influ-
encing all factors and dimensions all over the organization. These become
more critical when working scopes of an organization go beyond local bound-
aries into international levels and some cross-cultural issues are rise up. In
any case, culture and climate effect on and impacted by both internal and
external factors relying on the information that are exchanged among organi-
zational members and stakeholders. To be constructive the culture and climate
of organization should be formed, directed and changed properly by leaders/
managers. The hyper-function of marketology is the most appropriate compe-
tency that notably can help organizations to manage well the culture and cli-
mate in an intended way. However marketology itself also should have its own
effective culture and climate (Kotter and Heskett 1992; Gallagher et al. 2008;
Yoon and Lee 2006; Day 1994, 1999; Webster 1992a, b, 1993; Harris 1998;
Narver and Slater 1990; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Berkowitz 2011; Olszak
2014; Hatch and Cunliffe 2006, 2013; Nahavandi et al. 2014; Trice and Beyer
1993; Stoyko 2009; Dauber et al. 2010, 2012; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Slater
et al. 2011; Katherine 2015; O’Donnell and Boyle 2008; Tharp 2009a, b;
Bush and Middlewood 2013; Madu 2012; Allaire and Firsirotu 1984).
2.3.9
Supporting Organizational Culture and Climate
The hyper-function of marketology can support organizations and their execu-
tives, people and units to form, enhance, change, expand and direct organizational
culture, subcultures and climate appropriately through generating, delivering and
serving purposeful and influential market-related products (i.e. market DIKII)
and complementary services. In fact marketology provides strategic supports for
organization to better direct, utilize and improve their culture and climate.
2.3.10 Culture and Climate Within the Hyper-Function

of Marketology
Apparently such crucial hyper-function of marketology to be able to play key
role for strategic supporting of organization for better running culture and
climate, itself must have a very strong culture and climate.
Considering the marketology as a hyper-function which is scattered all over
the organization the effectiveness of its culture and climate becomes more
important. The hyper-function of marketology should think of both effec-
tive internal and external culture and climate. Its internal culture and climate
represent believes, attitudes, behaviors, vision, values, norms, systems, assump-
tions, etc. that shape the working manner of people and groups/teams within
marketology organization. Anyhow such culture and climate to be effective
on marketology’s performance in inside and outside of organization should be
constructive and interactive enough. Therefore it can be concluded that the
internal culture and climate of marketology should be formed and perform in
a way that could enable it to influence effectively both internal and external
of organization by providing its market-related products (i.e. market DIKII)
and complementary services (Kotter and Heskett 1992; Gallagher et al. 2008;
Yoon and Lee 2006; Day 1994, 1999; Webster 1992a, b, 1993; Harris 1998;
Nahavandi et al. 2014; Trice and Beyer 1993; Stoyko 2009; Dauber et al.
2010, 2012; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Slater et al. 2011; Katherine
2015; Narver and Slater 1990; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Berkowitz 2011;
Allaire and Firsirotu 1984; Maximini 2015; Ubius and Alas 2009; Anaeto
2010; Kreitner and Kinicki 2012; Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Miller
2009; Pace and Faules 1994; Olszak 2014; Hatch and Cunliffe 2006, 2013;
O’Donnell and Boyle 2008; Tharp 2009a, b; Bush and Middlewood 2013;
Madu 2012).
72 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
(2-6) Marketology culture and climate
Guideline (FOCUS)
above, practice FOCUS for below issues:
1. Organizational culture;
2. Organizational culture dynamics;
3. Organizational culture functions;
4. Organizational culture power and change;
5. Organizational subcultures and climate;
6. Market-oriented culture;
7. Marketology culture and climate;
8. Supporting organizational culture and climate by marketology;
9. Culture and climate within the hyper-function of marketology;
10. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and the coach/professor/mentor,

2.3.11 Marketology Organizational Design Canvas:

Piece of Culture Is Completed
Regarding the descriptive explanations about culture and climate it can be illus-
trated in Figure 2.41 that the “culture” as one piece of MOD canvas become

practice (MIP)
Culture
(2-7)
previous parts, practice MCMC in your intended case for below issues about culture:
1. Coverage of marketology culture by organization/business structure?
2. Manifestation of marketology culture within organization/business?
3. Contribution of marketology from organization/business culture?
the discussion.
74 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
Culture
(2-8)
Guideline: Examine interlinks between marketology and culture in below matrix
Marketology Total

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Organizational culture
2. Culture components
3. Culture dimensions
4. Culture typology
BOD: culture
5. Culture levels/layers
6. Culture functions
7. Culture change
8. Market-oriented culture
9. Organizational climate
Sum
Total
Average
in related weight
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of MCMC analysis framework; MMM analyze the
relationship between marketology and the culture as a key component of BOD.
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: organizational culture, culture
components, culture dimensions, culture typology, culture levels/layers, culture functions, culture
change, market-oriented culture, organizational clim ate, etc.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and the culture:

2.4 People
–– People and organization
–– Group and team
–– Group roles
–– Power and politics
–– Organizational conflict
–– Marketology people and group
–– Marketology organizational audiences
–– Marketology organizational delegates
–– Marketology skills
–– Marketology-based skills
–– Marketology marketology organizational design (MOD) canvas: piece
of people is completed
Marketology in practice: People

–– MIP 2-9: Marketology people and group
MCMC & MMM
2.4.1 People and Organization
The people (individuals) are considered as the main kernel of organization and its
performance. This is why the executives should pay more attention to organiza-
tional people, their differences, characteristics, personality, attitude, perception,
stress, creativity, skills, behaviors, motivations, learning, performance, inter-
personal relationships, and so on. A suitable framework for well describing the
individual-organization relationship is the psychological contract which refers to
a set of expectations of people regarding what they provide to the organization
and in return what they expect to receive. The contributions of an individual to
the organization may be effort, ability, skill, time, competence, and loyalty. In
return the compensations of organizations may be payment, job security, ben-
efits, status, and career and promotion opportunities (Mintzberg 1971; Kotter
2015; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Daft 2016; Day 1994; Gibson et al. 2012;
Griffin 2013, 2014; Griffin et al. 2013; Griffin and Moorhead 2013; Katz 2009;
Robbins and Judge 2012, 2015; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Zeid 2006; Olszak
2014; Moorman and Rust 1999; Luthans et al. 2015; Dresner et al. 2002;
Dessler 2014; Mathis and Jackson 2010; Armstrong 2016).
76 H. AGHAZADEH
2.4.2 Group and Team
A group in an organization is defined as “the collection of individuals in which
behavior and/or performance of one member is influenced by behavior and/
or performance of other members.” (Gibson et al. 2011: 230). There are dif-
ferent types of group include formal, informal, and task groups. Groups evolve
through the stages of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
A team as particular type of task group is defined as group of workers in
form of a unit often with no supervision to perform tasks, activities and func-
tions relevant to work. Teams and groups are somehow different from each
other. Teams which are smaller than groups have in-place working structure,
hierarchy, and norms and contain members with complementary skills. There
are several types of teams as followings: problem-solving (most famous type of
team), management, work, virtual, cross-functional, skunkworks, self-directed,
and quality circles. Teams may combine complementary skills include techni-
cal or functional, problem-solving, decision-making, and interpersonal skills.
These bundles of skills can lead to higher productivity of organizations.
The organizational performance is being affected not only by the individ-
ual performance but also by the interpersonal relationships and influences and
behavior of groups or teams as significant forces. Hence the characteristics,
types, behavior, leadership, power, politics and conflicts of both formal and
informal groups should be taken into account as the crucial matters related
to people in organizations (Kotter 2015; Dauber et al. 2012; Kaplan and
Norton 2001; Hiatt and Creasey 2012; Aghazadeh 2008; Daft 2016; Day
1994; Gibson et al. 2012; Griffin 2013, 2014; Griffin et al. 2013; Griffin and
Moorhead 2013; Katz 2009; Mintzberg 1971; Robbins and Judge 2015;
Zeid 2006; Griffith 2011; Van Tiem et al. 2012; Subramanian 2015b; Michel
2015; Wallace 2012; Noe et al. 2014).
2.4.3 Group Roles
Organizational people as members of different teams/groups based on their
skills and preferences may play one or multiple of following roles in an effective
team: linker (coordinating and integrating), adviser (encouraging search for more
information), creator (initiating creative ideas), promoter (championing initiated
ideas), assessor (offering insightful analyses), organizer (designing structure), pro-
ducer (providing direction and follow-through), controller (examining details and
enforces rules), and maintainer (fighting external battles). When an individual take
a specific role usually others have expectations for the person’s behavior in that
particular role as the “role set”. Role structure is a sort of roles and interlinks
between those roles that are defined and accepted by group or team members.
Regarding the multiple roles, diversified role sets and different role perceptions an
individual may encounter with “role conflict” (Dessler 2014; Mathis and Jackson
2010; Griffin 2013; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004; Aghazadeh 2016; Olszak 2014;
Moorman and Rust 1999; Luthans et al. 2015; Dresner et al. 2002; Robbins and
Judge 2012; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Gibson et al. 2012; Olson et al. 2005;
Slater et al. 2011; Mathis et al. 2014; Ulrich et al. 2012; Armstrong 2010, 2016).
2.4.4 Power and Politics
Power is defined as the “ability to get others to do what one wants them to
do” (Gibson et al. 2011: 291). There are five bases for interpersonal power
includes legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and referent. The sources of
organizational power may be its size, assets, people, and so on. The directions
of power in organizations may be vertical or horizontal. The politics is appli-
cation of power to impact decisions to accomplish the intended outcomes.
Organizational politics can be defined as set of activities to obtain, expand
and apply power and other sources to gain intended results in case of uncer-
tainty and disagreement about solutions. Political behavior means the inten-
tional behavior outside of standard power system of an organization which is
designed to obtain power for benefiting the individuals/units at the expense
of organization in general. For this purpose and in line of acquiring more
powers as shown in Figure 2.15 the managers and non-managers in organiza-
tions play several political games for particular intentions (Gibson et al. 2012;
Kaplan and Norton 2001; Hiatt and Creasey 2012; Griffith 2011; Van Tiem
et al. 2012; Aghazadeh 2016; Olszak 2014; Griffin 2014; Moorman and Rust
1999; Luthans et al. 2015; Dresner et al. 2002; Robbins and Judge 2012;
Stewart and Rogers 2012; Subramanian 2015b; Michel 2015; Wallace 2012;
Noe et al. 2014; Griffin and Moorhead 2013; Katz 2009; Dauber et al. 2012).
Political games Sample intentions
1. Insurgency game Resist authority
2. Counterinsurgency game Counter the resistance to authority
3. Sponsorship game; and Coalition-building game Build power bases
4. Line versus staff game Defeat rivals
5. Whistle-blowing game Affect organizational change
Figure 2.15 Political games and pertaining intentions

78 H. AGHAZADEH
2.4.5 Organizational Conflict
Conflict is a disagreement between two or more people, groups, or organi-
zations. Very low or very high amount of conflict may harm organizational
performance, but the optimal level of conflict can enhance performance.
Interpersonal or intergroup conflict may be created due to personality differ-
ences or by organizational strategies, tactics and tasks. Anyhow organization
should try to manage conflict in order to maintain it in an optimal level (Griffin
and Moorhead 2013; Katz 2009; Robbins and Judge 2015; Zeid 2006; Kotter
2015; Dessler 2014; Mathis and Jackson 2010; Mathis et al. 2014; Ulrich
et al. 2012; Armstrong 2010; Gibson et al. 2012; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004;
Olson et al. 2005; Aghazadeh 2008; Daft 2016; Griffith 2011).
2.4.6 Marketology People and Group

In the structure section of the previous debates the MICC and MMC have
been introduced as core organizing forms of the hyper-function of marketol-
ogy throughout the organization.
The MMC should encompass qualified people and groups (include directors
and staffs, market/business analysts, market/business professionals, IT special-
ists, and so on) to assist market/business executives and the key audiences of
marketology or market/BI throughout the corporation in making insightful
and effective decisions and efficient actions for better business process and per-
formance management.
Formerly the pivotal function of market/BI related organizational units
or delegates (e.g. BICC) was simply assisting senior executives to make bet-
ter decisions through providing outcomes and reports to them relying on the
affiliated analysts and staffs concentrating on relevant processes, methods and
technologies.
However, regarding the changed conditions (enhanced personnel’s
know-how and enablement, raised collaborations within and among orga-
nizations, easy access to huge business information and analyzes) today
very different manner of working should be taken by such units or agents
indeed. In this regard the information/intelligence about internal and
external issues of business should be generated and delivered constantly
and timely to the users throughout the corporation and then followed up
to be utilized.
Such required comprehensive and constant practices of providing updated
MI/insight to the key audiences (i.e. executives and analysts) throughout the
organization can be conducted by the hyper-function of marketology. Needless
to say, this cannot be operationalized and work as competent as expected unless
having and employing skillful, motivated, innovative and generally effective
people, groups and teams.
Although for this purpose the organizational units of market and BI and
marketology like BICC, MICC or MMC may encounter several important
barriers such as shortage or weakness of the affiliated staff ’s capabilities
(analytic, IT and business) and deterrent organizational culture and dynam-
ics. Definitely the success of market and BI and marketology governance
(designing, deployment and performance) is closely akin to overcoming these
challenges.
While the skillful and competent experts are rare, then the experts should be
scattered into strategic, tactical and operational levels throughout the enterprise
by shaping a MMC’s expert team in a virtual or shadow mode. Accordingly,
the strategic objectives of company can be achieved properly.
One radial function of a strong MMC is concreting the business perfor-
mance and objectives of the corporation with appropriate market and business
information, process, procedure, people and technology that can be obtained
as supports from organization (Luthans et al. 2015; Dresner et al. 2002;
Robbins and Judge 2012; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016;
Daft 2016; Day 1994; Gibson et al. 2012; Griffin 2013, 2014; Griffin et al.
2013; Griffin and Moorhead 2013; Katz 2009; Olszak 2014; Moorman and
Rust 1999).
2.4.7 Marketology Organizational Audiences

Considering the significance of applied tools on enhancing the usability of
marketology across the organization by different audiences, it is crucial for
marketology delegates to segment the key users of marketology products and
services by their aims and style of exploiting the delivered market DIKII and
IGDEE services; then to present marketology outputs using the appropriate
tools matched with preferences of the users. Note that each group of users
requires specific tools. The classifications of marketology users within enter-
prise (which may be the same as the users of BI) are described in Figure 2.16
(Aghazadeh 2016; Olszak 2014; Moorman and Rust 1999; Luthans et al.
2015; Dresner et al. 2002; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Robbins and Judge
2015; Zeid 2006; Kotter 2015; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004).
2.4.8 Marketology Organizational Delegates

Looking back at marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC)
aspects it can be implicated that to have influential people and groups for
conducting the functions of marketology below three main arrangements can
be done in a synergic manner:
1. The people and group related requirements of the subsystem of marke-

tology should be covered within the people and group dimensions of
organization design.
80 H. AGHAZADEH
Users of marketology
Description Tool
Main class Sub class
- Only views static reports and - SAP Crystal Reports (reports)
dashboards, distributed via paper, - SAP Business Objects Web
Viewer PDF, or static Web Intelligence (reporting)
- Often like to receive these reports
via email or Web.
- Drill, filter, and schedule reports - SAP Business Objects Web
- Focuses on BI tool functionality Intelligence (reports) and SAP

Casual Navigator
Business Objects
- Dashboards (dashboards)
- Explore predefined data collections - OLAP
(e.g., a data warehouse or data mart) - SAP Business Objects Analysis
Explorer in an ad hoc manner - SAP Business Objects Explorer
- Concentrates the BI tool’s semantic
layer
- As advanced explorer has basic - OLAP
business knowledge - SAP Business Objects Analysis
- Basic analytical, integration, and - SAP Business Objects Explorer

Investigator
publishing skills - Create charts and tables; custom
Power
groups and hierarchies;
- Save and share views
- Uses the BI tool’s ad hoc query - OLAP

Analyst
capabilities - SAP Business Objects Analysis
Figure 2.16 The classifications of marketology users within enterprise

Users of marketology
Description Tool
Main class Sub class
- Explores data in the data warehouse - Analysis (statistical, root cause, and
and combine with local data sets comparative)
- Good business knowledge - Scenario modeling
- Intermediate analytical, data - Fixing data errors
integration, and publishing skills - Transforming fields by excel
- Assembling interactive dashboards
- Reporting and publishing

Power
- Explores raw data in operational - SQL1
systems or external data - SAP Predictive Analysis
- Deep business knowledge - Statistical and machine learning
- Excellent analytical, and data modeling
Data integration skills - Advanced visualization
Scientist - Intermediate publishing skills - Denormalize and transform
complex source data
- Create custom groupings
- Assemble interactive dashboard
- Reporting and publishing
a
Structured Query Language (SQL) is a special-purpose programming language designed for managing data held
in a relational database management system (RDBMS), or for stream processing in a relational data stream man-
agement system (RDSMS). For more information refer to Wikipedia 2016i-SQL
Figure 2.16 (continued)
2. The hyper-function of marketology should take and shape its needed

qualified people, groups and teams; and then execute them in form of a
manifestation as within its organizational design throughout the
organization
3. The hyper-function of marketology should support the people and group
dimensions of organization design substantially through its process,
products and services.
As illustrated in Figure 2.17 in a successful MMC to conduct the functions

of marketology all over the organization in an effective manner the needed
people can be classified as following 3E groups:
82 H. AGHAZADEH
Figure 2.17 Marketology people: 3E groups
Executives The executives of MMC include the governing and managing

team in strategic, tactical and operational levels depends on the organizing
style of marketology. It is obvious that when the marketology is not struc-
tured at strategic level of organization then there will be no strategic mar-
ketology manager directly. In such case the strategic issues of marketology
governance or MMC will be handled by other strategic managers who are
somehow related to marketology (like strategic marketing or BI manager)
indirectly.
Experts The experts of MMC usually are composed of well-educated

and experienced people who are specialists in different needed areas. The
main required areas of expertise for good performance of MMC are busi-
ness and market (as business & market analysts), information and technol-
ogy (as computer and IT experts), communication and relations (as relations
professionals).
Employees The employees of MMC involve the people who work under the
direction of executives and guidance of experts. They may assist executives and
experts in different fields and steps of work. For instance, they may help execu-
tives in the step of identifying the market-related informational needs of the
organizational audiences by conducting the arrangements of holding a meet-
ing with senior managers of the enterprise. Moreover, they may help experts
in the step of analyzing the gathered market data by entering the data into the
computer and intended software. Then the needed fields of education or skills
of employees may be diversified like business, strategy, marketing, IT, finance,
psychology, computer, internet, etc. (Olszak 2014; Moorman and Rust 1999;
Luthans et al. 2015; Dresner et al. 2002; Robbins and Judge 2012; Stewart
and Rogers 2012; Hiatt and Creasey 2012; Griffith 2011; Van Tiem et al.
2012; Subramanian 2015b; Michel 2015; Wallace 2012; Noe et al. 2014;
Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Daft 2016; Zeid 2006; Kotter 2015; O’Reilly and
Tushman 2004; Olson et al. 2005; Slater et al. 2011; Dessler 2014; Mathis
and Jackson 2010; Mathis et al. 2014; Ulrich et al. 2012; Armstrong 2010,
2016).
2.4.9 Marketology Skills
Notwithstanding the structure of company, the MMC more than provision of
common market and BI/insight all over the organization should report to high-
level executives (e.g. chief executive officer [CEO], board members, or vice-
chancellors) in particular those of market and business executives (such as the
CMO, CFO, COO, CIO or chief strategy officer [CSO]). Therefore, the MMC
should have defined commandments, determined territories, entailing resources,
clear liabilities, and networked architecture in collaboration with other units or
groups (such as IT, finance, marketing, strategy, business and operations).
It should be noticed that the ultimate intention of an MMC is assisting
of successful business process and performance management by endeavors
for providing appropriate business and MI/insight. Considering the inher-
ent dynamics of corporates, the MMC must be flexible in accordance with
the potential changes internal and external to the organization based on the
business objectives. Then it can be implicated that there should be a harmony
between such advanced organizational beyond-unit and hyper-function of
MMC and the people who will be employed in it and also their expertise.
Meanwhile the personnel of a desirable MMC should have skills in more
than one area (strategy, market, business, analytics, and IT). In other words,
the staffs and particularly directors of MMC should be experts in the fields
of market and BI, process, and strategy and performance management. The
strategy, market, business, analytics and IT skills required for effectiveness and
success of MMC can be summarized as Figure 2.18.
84 H. AGHAZADEH
Strategy, Market and Business skills Analytics skills IT skills
- Recognizing the needs of - Ability to use analytics tools - Knowing and preparing the
organizational functions (such as and techniques fluently requirements of business
marketing, sales, and finance) to - Recognizing business critical analytics and business
business intelligence problems and analyzing these intelligence
- Perception of cross functional matters problems through suitable - Grasping how to gain and
(such as customer profitability) frameworks handle the data needed to
- Capability of interacting with senior - Detecting business data, nitrify business intelligence
executives and associating BI with templates, relationships, and provision
organizational strategic objectives trends - Apprehending the tools and
- Assisting business executives to - Collaborating with IT unit to techniques of business
determine working priorities based on find out needed data for analysis and intelligence
consequences of decision options particular business analysis - Perceiving the differences
- Undertaking the strategic business - Applying a collection of in attributes of various data
objectives and the role of BI in analysis techniques from sources (data warehouses,
realizing them basic to advanced database management
- Defining standard hierarchies and - Screening the primary systems, and operational
common perception of BI provision generated outcomes and data stores)
endeavors presenting precise - Bearing the proficiencies in
recommendations data governance,
- Training and consulting the architecting, administration
users for best utilizing and metadata management
business to support business
information/intelligence intelligence achievements
Figure 2.18 The skills required for a MMC
The MMC to be successful enough on effectively meeting the identified

needs for BI/MI across the organization, should not be toughly IT-driven
rather should be to some extent market/business-driven too. For this the
business should be involved in building, launching and enabling the MMC
relying on market and business users, analysts, power users, and IT support
teams. Such successful MMC requires a balanced mix of technical and business
skills; and consists of these crucial roles: MMC director/manager; technol-
ogy, market and business analyst; technical consultants and educators; formal
relationship managers, IT infrastructure; architecture teams; etc. (Mathis et al.
2014; Ulrich et al. 2012; Armstrong 2010, 2016; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016;
Daft 2016; Day 1994; Gibson et al. 2012; Griffin 2013, 2014; Griffin et al.
2013; Griffin and Moorhead 2013; Katz 2009; Mintzberg 1971; Robbins and
Judge 2012, 2015; Zeid 2006; Kotter 2015; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004;
Olson et al. 2005; Slater et al. 2011; Dessler 2014; Mathis and Jackson 2010;
Olszak 2014; Moorman and Rust 1999; Luthans et al. 2015; Dresner et al.
2002; Stewart and Rogers 2012).
2.4.10 Marketology-Based Skills
It is a widely accepted reality that in today ever-changing environment and
turbulent market the businesses have no choice other than to be market
oriented and compliment the novel and market-based competencies such as
hyper-function of marketology. In this regard not only the marketology people
(mostly within MMC) should be skillful on strategy, market, business, analyt-
ics, and IT but also the other people of organization should be skilled well on
knowing and exploiting the hyper-function of marketology all over the organi-
zation to the different extent.
The needed extent of marketology-based skills for different organizational
functions or departments can be determined based on their degree of being
market related (DBMR). The DBMR for different organization functions can
be scored high, moderate, and low. For instance, the DBMR for departments
like marketing and strategy is high; the DBMR for units like human resource
and R&D is moderate; and the DBMR for functions like accounting and
administration is low. In fact this is a presumptive scoring and it can be differ-
ent in various organizations.
Accordingly, the marketology-based skills of different organizational
units can be ranged as advanced (for those with high DBMR), intermediate
(for those with moderate DBMR), and basic (for those with low DBMR).
The dispersion of marketology-based skills of organizational functions pertain-
ing to their DBMR level can be illustrated as Figure 2.19 (Wallace 2012; Olson
et al. 2005; Slater et al. 2011; Dessler 2014; Dauber et al. 2012; Kaplan and
Norton 2001; Hiatt and Creasey 2012; Griffith 2011; Van Tiem et al. 2012;
Subramanian 2015b; Michel 2015; Mathis et al. 2014; Ulrich et al. 2012;
Armstrong 2010, 2016; Aghazadeh 2016; Olszak 2014; Moorman and Rust
1999; Luthans et al. 2015; Dresner et al. 2002; Robbins and Judge 2012;
Stewart and Rogers 2012).
86 H. AGHAZADEH
2.4.11 Marketology Organizational Design Canvas: Piece of People

Is Completed
Regarding the descriptive explanations about people and group it can be illus-
trated in Figure 2.41 that the ‘people’ as one piece of MOD canvas become
Figure 2.19 Dispersion of marketology-based skills throughout organization in

accordance with DBMR level of organizational functions

practice (MIP)
Marketology people and group
(2-9)
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. People and organization;
2. Group and team;
3. Power and politics;
4. Organizational conflict;
5. Marketology people and group;
6. Marketology organizational audiences;
7. Organizational delegates;
8. Marketology skills;
9. Marketology-based skills;

88 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
People
(2-10)
previous parts, practice MCMC in your intended case for below issues about people:
1. Coverage of marketology people by organization/business structure?
2. Manifestation of marketology people within organization/business?
3. Contribution of marketology from organization/business people?
the discussion.

practice (MIP)
People
(2-11)
Guideline: Examine interlinks between marketology and people in below matrix
Marketology Total

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. People differences, personality and attitude
2. People perception and motivation
3. People creativity, learning and innovation
4. People skill and behavior
5. People-organization relationship
BOD: people
6. Group and team
7. Group and team dynamics
8. Group formation and roles
9. Power and politics
10. Organizational conflict
Sum
Total
Average
in related weight
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of MCMC analysis; and MMM analyze the relationship
between marketology and the people as a key component of BOD.
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: people differences, personality and
attitude; people perception and motivation; people creativity, learning and innovation; people skill and
behavior; people-organization relationship; group and team; group and team dynamics; group
formation and roles; power and politics; and organizational conflict, etc.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and the people:

90 H. AGHAZADEH
2.5 Assets
In this section, the following topics are discussed:
1. Organizational infrastructures
2. Hierarchy of business competencies
3. Organizational assets
4. Organizational capabilities
5. Organizational competencies
6. Sustainable competitive advantage and competitive success
7. Dynamic capability
8. Marketology infrastructures
9. Marketology assets
10. Marketology budgeting
11. Marketology capabilities
12. Marketology competencies
13. Marketology dynamic capability
14. Marketology organizational design canvas: piece of asset is completed
Marketology in practice: Assets

–– MIP 2-12: Organizational assets, capabilities and competencies
–– MIP 2-13: Marketology assets
MMC & MMM
–– MIP 2-15 Marketology match matrix (MMM)
2.5.1 Organizational Infrastructures
The organization’s internal elements as organizational infrastructures for
facilitating functions within organization can be classified into the following
categories: assets/resources, competencies, orientations, and business perfor-
mance. Assets/resources contain tangible assets (financial, physical, and techno-
logical) and intangible assets (organizational/structural, human/intellectual,
informational, stakeholders/relational, virtual and social capital). Competencies
embrace managerial, operational, learning, technological, leadership, and
human resource. Orientations involve strategic, market, customer, competi-
tor, information, innovation, entrepreneurship, learning, service, and qual-
ity. Business performance includes financial performance (revenue, cost, and
profit) and nonfinancial performance (market, customer, and competitive

performance, employee satisfaction, business brand and image) (Dess et al.
2013, 2015; Barney 1991, 1995, 2011; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Fahy
and Smith 1999; Aaker 1989; Barney and Griffin 1991; Kaplan 2005; Kaplan
and Norton 2001; Dess and Lumpkin 2003; Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1994;
Javidan 1998).
2.5.2 Hierarchy of Business Competencies

In the business world and in the literature the organizational resources/
assets, capabilities and competencies sometimes are used interchangeably.
Although they are closely related to each other but in fact there are subtle
differences between them (Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016). This can be seen
upon an evolutionary relationship as demonstrated in Figure 2.20 in the form
of hierarchy of business competencies (HBC) originated from resources and
ended in SCS.
The HBC begins with resources/assets, continued respectively by capabilities
(abilities of employing the resources like business processes and functions), com-
petencies (synthesizing and harmonizing the capabilities in a specific way), core
competencies (competencies that are vital for business competitive s uccess), dis-
tinctive competencies (core competencies that can be conducted more effective
than key competitors), competitive advantage, sustainable competitive advan-
tage (SCA), and SSS/SCS. Regarding today’s ever-changing environment, tur-
bulent market, dynamic organizations, intensive competition and tough rivalry
Figure 2.20 Hierarchy of Business Competencies (HBC)

92 H. AGHAZADEH
battles of businesses only dynamic capabilities can ensure SCA and success of
businesses in marketplace. Such dynamic capabilities can be developed relying
on organization’s internal and external resources, capabilities and competencies
compatible with business environment and market. In this regard the hyper-
function of marketology seems to be highly influential capability for accom-
plishing such huge business purposes (Javidan 1998; Hitt et al. 2015; Prahald
and Hamel 1990; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Daft 2016; Day 1994; Gibson et al.
2012; Barney and Griffin 1991; Griffin 2014; Kotter 1995; Barney 2011; Walsh
and Linton 2001; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Zhou et al. 2005).
2.5.3 Organizational Assets
Organizational assets (or resources, properties, capitals, equities, and inputs)
as depicted in Figure 2.21 generally can be classified into tangible or visible
assets (include physical, financial/monetary, and technological) and intangible
or invisible assets or intellectual capital (involve human, organizational/struc-
tural, informational, innovative, stakeholders/relational/customer, and social)
(Srivastava et al. 2001; Olavarrieta and Friedmann 1999; Chen et al. 2004;
Pike et al. 2005; Guthrie 2001; O’driscoll et al. 2000; Murray and Donegan
2003; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Day 1994; Walsh and Linton 2001; Farrell and
Oczkowski 2002; Zhou et al. 2005; Jogaratnam and Tse 2006; Hsieh et al.
2006; Davenport 1997; Drucker 1988; Choo 1998; Voon 2006; Lytle and
Timmerman 2006; Lynn et al. 2000; Avlonitis and Gounaris 1999; Baker and
Sinkula 1999; Cadogan and Diamatopoulos 1995).
2.5.4 Organizational Capabilities
The capabilities of an enterprise refer to its specialized capacities or abilities
to use or apply the resources/assets/capitals for conducting the activities in
form of organizational processes, or the ways of solving organizational prob-
Figure 2.21 Marketology assets

lems in different levels (unit, function, department, business, division and

whole company). In fact the capability is the ability of converting the assets/
capitals into competencies. Important categories of capabilities are: indi-
vidual, task-specific, functional, and cross-functional; economic/financial,
strategic/marketing, organizational, and technological; structural design,
roles and collaboration mechanisms, processes and tools, leadership, people
and engagement and culture and change; value chain capabilities include the
capabilities of conducting primary and supportive activities; and functional
capabilities include corporate, management information, R&D, operations,
product design, marketing, and sales and distribution. More than the men-
tioned regular capabilities today business organizations remarkably need
advanced capabilities that are compatible with changing environment. Such
adaptive and integrative type called ‘dynamic capability (DC)’ (Korhonen and
Niemeia 2005; Ulrich and Lake 1991; Roghe et al. 2012; Grant and Jordan
2012; Grant 1991, 2013; Brophy and Kiely 2002; Walker and Madsen 2015;
Thompson et al. 2013; Teece and Pisano 1994; Teece et al. 1997; Teece
2007; Aghazadeh 2015).
2.5.5 Organizational Competencies
The organizational competences can be imagined as the process of realiz-
ing the capabilities in a beneficial and valuable manner to create competi-
tive advantage. The competences can be distinguished from capabilities by
the criteria of IQR (include importance, quality and result). A competence
can be considered an advanced capability by which an important activity of
organization is being conducted in good quality and reached at remarkable
results. The organizational capability and competence can be compared as
Figure 2.22.
As shown in above figure the inputs (like assets) are emphasized in capa-
bility more than competence, whereas outputs (like values) are asserted in
competence more than capability. The process (like doing activities) is men-
tioned by both capability and competence equally. The capability is efficiency-
based process whereas the competence is effectiveness-based. They have many
similarities with the represented differences.
Thompson et al. (2013: 90) pointed ‘a competence is something an organi-
zation is good at doing’. Some organizational competencies may be regarded
more important and better-performed than others due to their more influ-
ential role in creating competitive advantage and contribution on competi-
tive success. Mapping upon the Importance-Performance (IP) matrix as in
Figure 2.23, the organizational competencies can be classified into below cat-
egories (Oliver 1997; Gupta and Benson 2011; IMA 1996a, c, d; Pitelis 2008;
Tosheva 2013; Berns et al. 2009; F-Jardon and Gonzalez-Loureiro 2013;
Vorhies and Morgan 2005; Srivastava et al. 2013; Hitt and Ireland 1985;
Mooney 2007; Meyer 1991; Martina et al. 2012; Barney 1991, 1995, 2010;
94 H. AGHAZADEH
Figure 2.22 Comparing capability and competence
Thompson 2001; Business Dictionary 2016-‘competence’; Rothaermel 2014;

Jurevicius 2013; Thompson et al. 2013):
1. Normal competency: When a competence is significant for strategy, com-

petitiveness, profitability, and success of an enterprise and the organiza-
tion is good at performing that competence, it can be called ‘normal
competency’. These competencies may add operational value to business
process and performance management.
2. Core competency: When comparing to other competencies, a given com-
petence is critically important not peripheral for strategy, competitive-
ness, profitability, and success of an enterprise and the organization
performs that competence excellently, it can be called ‘core competency’.
These competencies may add tactical value to business process and per-
formance management.
3. Distinctive competency: When comparing to key competitors, a specific
competence is supremely important for strategy, competitiveness,
profitability, and success of an enterprise and the organization performs
that competence superiorly, it can be called ‘distinctive competency’.
These competencies may add strategic value to business process and per-
formance management and its competitive success for delivering superior
value to customers in the marketplace.
(Comparing to
Distinctive
Supreme
External
Competency
rivals)
------------------------
(Strategic Value)
Core
Importance
Competency
Critical
(Organization Inside)
------------------------
(Tactical Value)
Internal
Normal
Significant
Competency
------------------------
(Operational Value)
Good Excellent Superior
External
Internal
(Comparing to
(Organization Inside)
rivals)
Performance
Figure 2.23 Organizational competencies classifications
Examples of Core Competencies

Some examples of core competencies are skills and capabilities of high-
quality products production/provision, quick new product/service
development (NPD/NSD), precise and prompt delivery of customers’
orders, satisfactory after sales services and CRM, effective knowledge
and experience (know-how) in selecting qualified channels, placing good
retail locations, promoting brand and merchandising products, and use-
ful expertise in integrating technologies and innovations in improving
and developing products and processes. Some other instances of compe-
tencies can be mentioned as teamwork, leading for results, effective com-
munication, customer service focus, planning and organizing, problem
solving, financial awareness, strategic thinking, BI, MI, strategic insight,
foresight, experience in leadership, communication skills, time flexibility,
presentable behavior and presentation skills, reliability and responsibil-
ity, organizational skills, independence, self-confidence, dynamic person
with a proactive approach, negotiation skills, analytical skills, hardwork-
ing, goal-oriented, stress resistance, project management skills, loyalty,
creativity, accuracy, systems thinking, decision-making skills, willingness
to learn, sense of purpose, process-oriented, etc.
96 H. AGHAZADEH
2.5.6 Sustainable Competitive Advantage (SCA) and Sustainable

Competitive Success (SCS)
Regarding the HBC, as illustrated in Figure 2.24 an organization finally
should be able to achieve sustainable superior success (SSS) as first best prac-
tice or SCS as second best practice on delivering value to key stakeholders
in the marketplace leveraging SCA which is being created relying on orga-
nizational distinctive competencies. For this purpose the competencies
should pass the assessment based on VRIO/VRIN12 by being Valuable, Rare,
costly to Imitate, and Organized to capture value (Grant and Jordan 2012;
Rare?
Figure 2.24 Linking distinctive competencies to SSS/SCS through SCA

Prahalad 1993; Srivastava 2005; Banerjee 2003; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015,

2016; Leonard-Barton 1992; Petroni 1998; Walsh and Linton 2001; Bakker
et al. 1994; Drejer and Sorenson 2002; Duysters and Hagedoorn 2000; Wang
et al. 2004; King and Zeithaml 2001; Snow and Hrebiniak 1980; De Carolis
2003; Meyer and Utterback 1992; Collis and Montgomery 1995; Hamel and
Prahalad 1994; Sanchez et al. 1996; Torkelli and Tuominen 2002; Edgar and
Lockwood 2008).
2.5.7 Dynamic Capability
Teece et al. (1997: 516) defines dynamic capabilities as “the firm’s ability
to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to
address rapidly changing environments. Dynamic capabilities thus reflect an
organization’s ability to achieve new and innovative forms of competitive
advantage given path dependencies and market positions”. Dynamic capabili-
ties as the abilities to obtain new forms of competitive advantage focus on
two significant dimensions: dynamic and capability. The dynamic aspect rep-
resents the renewed competencies and innovative responses congruent with
the rapidly changing business environment and technology. The capability
aspect refers to adapting, integrating, and reconfiguring both internal and
external resources and competencies of organization compatible with chang-
ing environment.
There are three types of dynamic capabilities: sensing, seizing, and transfor-
mation. Sensing represents the recognition of organizational needs to change
business processes and links with customers and suppliers. Seizing refers to
discovering and contemplating change opportunities. Transformation depicts
the technically execution of changed organizational business processes (Porter
1998a, b, 2008; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Shapiro 1989; Zollo and
Winter 2002; Winter 2003; O’Reilly and Tushman 2013; Helfat et al. 2007;
Helfat and Peteraf 2003, 2009; Helfat 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin 2000; Di
Stefano et al. 2009; Adner and Helfat 2003; Chien and Tsai 2012; Lidija and
Hisrich 2014; Peteraf and Bergen 2003).
98 H. AGHAZADEH
Organizational asset, capabilities and competencies
F
et out a report, present it to the class/organization and do an evaluation
1. Organizational infrastructures;
2. Hierarchy of Business Competencies (HBC);
3. Organizational assets;
4. Organizational capabilities;
5. Organizational competencies—normal, core and distinctive competencies
6. Sustainable competitive advantage (SCA), competitive success (SCS), and superior
success (SSS);
7. Dynamic capabilities;

2.5.8 Marketology Infrastructures
It was pointed that a significant issue such as marketology to be formed and
evolved within an organization requires key organizational infrastructures. In fact
the principle functions and process of marketology can be conducted relying on
the organizational infrastructures. Similar to other organization’s key issues, the
marketology depends on its depth of penetration and acceptance within an orga-
nization can have its own dedicated infrastructures either commonly used with
other functions. Anyhow the organizational infrastructures should be analyzed
properly. In this regard the current and desired situation of marketology can be
investigated in accordance with the identified components of organizational infra-
structures to reveal that whether each element is dedicated to the marketology or
shared with other functions (Daft 2016; Day 1994; Gibson et al. 2012; Aghazadeh
2008, 2015, 2016; Griffin 2014; Kotter 1995; Moorman and Rust 1999; Kaplan
and Norton 2001; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004, 2013; Olszak 2014; Walker and
Madsen 2015; Thompson et al. 2013; Grant 2013; Helfat et al. 2007).
2.5.9 Marketology Assets
The same as an organizational system that needs resources/assets to well perform
its activities based upon defined processes to achieve given results/outcomes; the
marketology as an organizational subsystem requires specific resources/assets
to conduct its functions and practices successfully too. While the subjects like
resources, properties, capitals, equities, inputs, assets, etc. are used synonymous
and interchangeable with each other, then here in the “asset” is applied instead of
all of them. The marketology assets within an organization are classified into tan-
gible assets (include physical, financial and technological) and intangible assets
(involve human, organizational, informational, innovative, relational, and social)
(Prahald and Hamel 1990; Aghazadeh 2016; Hitt et al. 2015; Roghe et al. 2012;
Grant 2013; Walker and Madsen 2015; Thompson et al. 2013; Teece and Pisano
1994; Teece et al. 1997; Teece 2007; Gupta and Benson 2011; Tosheva 2013).
2.5.10 Marketology Budgeting
Considering the discussed issues and classified assets, now it can be advised
to the executives or delegates of marketology in an enterprise that in order
to make it successful within the organization both tangible and intangible
assets should be prepared and applied sufficiently and suitably. Provision of
required marketology assets can be done in form of enterprise budget plan.
While in different enterprises the marketology may be organized in differ-
ent formats, then its budgeting method for taking the needed assets may
be different too. Regarding the structuring styles of marketology within
an organization include separate from, common with and apart of other
organizational units/departments the budgeting tactics of marketology
for providing the assets respectively can be independent, semi-dependent,
and dependent. The budgeting tactics of marketology pertaining to its pat-
tern of structuring within an o
rganization can be illustrated in Figure 2.25
100 H. AGHAZADEH
(Schienstock 2009; UTA 2004; Cyert and March 1963; Day 1994;
Schreogg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007; Myers 1996; Sveiby 1997; Aghazadeh
2008; Moorman and Rust 1999; Kaplan and Norton 2001; O’Reilly and
Tushman 2004; Barney 2011).
In accordance with independent tactic the required budget or asset of mar-
ketology is provided as an autonomous organizational unit/department (hyper-
function). As semi-dependent tactic a portion of the marketology budget or asset
is allocated in affiliation to that of the unit/department that the marketology is
organized in closed linkage to (like marketing and strategy). Another portion of
the marketology budget or asset is prepared autonomously. Based on d ependent
Figure 2.25 Marketology budgeting tactics pertaining to its structuring pattern

tactic the needed marketology budget or asset is dedicated under the whole bud-
gets or assets of the organizational department or unit within which the mar-
ketology is structured (Moorman and Rust 1999; Kaplan and Norton 2001;
O’Reilly and Tushman 2004; Barney 2011, Fahy and Smith 1999; Aghazadeh
2008, 2015; Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1994; Javidan 1998; Dess et al. 2015;
F-Jardon and Gonzalez-Loureiro 2013; Srivastava et al. 2013; Edgar and
Lockwood 2008; Porter 2008; Helfat et al. 2007; Lidija and Hisrich 2014).
2.5.11
Marketology Capabilities
Considering the HBC, it can be seen that the capabilities play a linking role
between assets and competencies. Then now it would be fruitful to discuss
about marketology capabilities before its competencies.
Hence the marketology capabilities can be concluded as the components
that are shown in Figure 2.26 include: hierarchical, structural, financial,
Figure 2.26 Marketology capabilities

102 H. AGHAZADEH
informational, technological, organizational, market-based, process-based,

role-based, leadership-based, people-based, and culture-based.
The marketology capabilities in above figure have been formed based on
different perspectives. The hierarchical capabilities include strategic, tacti-
cal and operational (or technical) capabilities such as defining the strategy of
entering into the new marketplace by the tactic of full coverage and diversified
media support and the technic of face-to-face visiting of key potential custom-
ers. Depending on the working domain of marketology the capability may be
exerted by individual (like web surfing for market recognition), group (like
lobbying and supporting the strategy of entering into the new market through-
out the organization), unit/department (like attempting to establish an initial
office/branch in the new intended market by the unit of market development),
and organization (like rewarding the innovative market-related ideas). While
the concept and instances of the other capabilities of marketology seem to be
clear, then long discussion in this regard is not necessary and it is enough to go
through the marketology competencies (Oliver 1997; IMA 1996a, c, d; Pitelis
2008; Berns et al. 2009; Vorhies and Morgan 2005; Mooney 2007; Meyer
1991; Martina et al. 2012; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Barney 1991, 1995,
2010, 2011; Schienstock 2009; UTA 2004; Cyert and March 1963; Day
1994; Schreogg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007; Sveiby 1997; Moorman and Rust
1999; Kaplan and Norton 2001; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004; Fahy and Smith
1999; Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1994; Javidan 1998; Dess et al. 2015; Prahald
and Hamel 1990; Hitt et al. 2015; Roghe et al. 2012; Grant 2013; Walker
and Madsen 2015; Thompson et al. 2013; Teece and Pisano 1994; Teece et al.
1997; Teece 2007; Gupta and Benson 2011; Tosheva 2013; F-Jardon and
Gonzalez-Loureiro 2013; Srivastava et al. 2013; Edgar and Lockwood 2008;
Porter 2008; Helfat et al. 2007; Lidija and Hisrich 2014).
2.5.12 Marketology Competencies
Now climbing up the HBC and reaching out its top as business competitive
success, it is worthy to argue how marketology competencies may work. The
marketology competencies can be seen from two different perspectives:
1. Marketology as an organizational competency
In accordance with this view the marketology competency is considered

similar to other organizational competencies which can be normal, core or
distinctive depends on its internal and external importance and performance.
For example, in a turbulent, complex and intensively competitive market, the
competency of marketology become supremely important both internally and
externally for a firm to be intelligent toward marketplace and insightful of com-
petitors’ movements. In such condition if the firm can perform hyper-function
of marketology superior than its key rivals, then the competency of marke-
tology may be evaluated as distinctive competency and key source for creat-
ing SCA through which the firm can achieve competitive success in delivering
value to key stakeholders far better than key competitors.
2. Marketology as an assistant to organizational competencies
Based on this perspective marketology either as an organizational compe-

tency or no plays assistive role for other organizational competencies to step up
along the hierarchy and become distinctive and as sources of creating SCA for
influentially contributing in delivering value to key stakeholders. For example,
marketology by providing MI/insight helps managerial competency to become
more aware and intelligent of market changes and accordingly to become able
to make insightful decisions and take right actions. This empowerment of com-
petencies by marketology makes them as sources of SCA.
Considering different categories of competencies which have been classi-
fied in previous section, the marketology competencies either organizational
or supportive can be categorized as clusters that are depicted in Figure 2.27.
Figure 2.27 Clusters of marketology competencies

104 H. AGHAZADEH
The categories of the clusters of marketology competencies are described

as below:
Cluster 1: management and system competencies of marketology
–– Managerial and leadership
–– Strategic, tactical, operational
–– System (input, process and output) based
–– Policy, strategy and plan based
–– Communication and relationship based
Cluster 2: people and skill competencies of marketology
–– Intangible/intellectual capital or human resource based
–– Experience and skill based
–– Individual and/or person based
–– Group and/or team based
Cluster 3: information and technology competencies of marketology
–– Technological
–– Information Technology based
–– Learning and knowledge based
–– Innovation based
–– Data and information based
–– Intelligence or insight based
Cluster 4: market and stakeholders competencies of marketology
–– Environmental or external based
–– Market based
–– Customer based
–– Competitor based
–– Stakeholder based
Cluster 5: organization and integration competencies of marketology
–– Organization and corporate based
–– Job, function or department based
–– Internal or inside based
–– Tangible asset/capital based
–– Culture, climate and orientation based
–– Integration, collaboration and coordination based
Cluster 6: value and social competencies of marketology
–– Value and performance based
–– Financial based
–– Non-financial and social based
–– Time (historical/past and future/forecast/foresight) based
While explaining all categories of marketology may be exhausting, here

some important one are described. In this regard as an instance from
cluster one, the ‘policy, strategy and plan based’ competency of marke-
tology refers to the market-related capabilities of enterprises to support
designing market-r elated policies, strategies and plans of organizations to
create SCA. From cluster two, the ‘experience and skill based’ competency
of marketology refers to the experiences and skills of market-related execu-
tives, analysts and operational people of firms that are being exploited by
them to make effective decisions and take efficient actions to contribute
business competitive success. From cluster three, the ‘innovation based’
competency of marketology represents the capabilities of organizations to
build and develop market-related innovations on product, process, technol-
ogy, etc. which may be influential in overcoming rivals in the blue side of
marketplace ocean. From cluster four, the ‘stakeholder based’ competency
of marketology indicates the awareness and intelligence of companies to
well recognition of the key stakeholders’ wants and to define most suitable
offerings to them much better than key competitors to obtain substantial
share of the stakeholders’ mind and heart. From cluster five, the ‘culture,
climate and orientation based’ competency of marketology points to the
market-calibrated attributes and behaviors of corporations to encourage
and reinforce the market-centric decisions and actions to better and timely
responding to market, customers and competitors. Finally from cluster six,
the ‘value and performance based’ competency of marketology refers to
both organization-focused and market-oriented capabilities of firms to cre-
ate and deliver superior value to the key stakeholders (particularly custom-
ers) and as return to capture value and gain both financial and non-financial
performance for the company as business competitive success (Mansfield
1996; Lado and Wilson 1994; Walker Group 1997; Cardy and Selvarajan
2006; Stross 1996; Lindgren et al. 2003; Vaaler 2005; Aghazadeh 2008,
2015, 2016; Dainty et al. 2003; Luo 1999; Alldredge and Nilan 2000;
Collins and Porras 1994; Spurgin 2004; Hoskisson et al. 2012; Terrence
1999; BCPSA 2015; Edgar and Lockwood 2007, 2010, 2012; Frans et al.
2003; Agha et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2004; O’driscoll et al. 2000; Lado et al.
1992; Selznick 1957; Learned et al. 1969; Murray and Donegan 2003;
Gilmore and Carson 1996; Murray 2003; Walsh and Linton 2001; Bogner
et al. 1999; Cerovsek et al. 2010; Barney 2011; Fahy and Smith 1999;
Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1994; Javidan 1998; Dess et al. 2015; Prahald and
Hamel 1990; Hitt et al. 2015; Roghe et al. 2012; Day 1994).
106 H. AGHAZADEH
2.5.13 Marketology Dynamic Capability

DC of marketology can be defined as busitech-driven (business and technol-
ogy) and analytical capabilities for accelerating decision-making and action-
taking of firms. Such dynamic capabilities contemplate both internal and
external assets and competencies congruent with changing environment rely-
ing on timely and innovative market-related products include market data/
information/intelligence (as products of marketology). Then the hyper-
function of marketology as a DC ensures sustainable competitive success of
business. However marketology as its supportive role can facilitate the cre-
ation and development of other dynamic capabilities throughout the organi-
zation (Dainty et al. 2003; Luo 1999; Alldredge and Nilan 2000; Collins and
Porras 1994; Spurgin 2004; Hoskisson et al. 2012; Terrence 1999; BCPSA
2015; Frans et al. 2003; Agha et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2004; O’driscoll et al.
2000; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Teece and Pisano 1994; Teece et al.
1997; Teece 2007; Olszak 2014; Davenport and Harris 2007; Lado et al.
1992; Synder and Ebeling 1992; Barney 1991, 1995; Hall 1992, 1993; Verna
2008; Peteraf 1993; Amit and Schoemaker 1993; Eisenhardt and Martin
2000; Javidan 1998; Edgar and Lockwood 2012; Seetharaman et al. 2004;
Brennan and Connel 2000; Roos and Roos 1997; Petty and Guthrie 2000;
Srivastava et al. 2001; Olavarrieta and Friedmann 1999; Chen et al. 2004;
Pike et al. 2005; Guthrie 2001; Murray and Donegan 2003; Day 1994; Walsh
and Linton 2001; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Zhou et al. 2005; Jogaratnam
and Tse 2006; Hsieh et al. 2006; Davenport 1997; Drucker 1988; Choo
1998; Voon 2006; Lytle and Timmerman 2006; Lynn et al. 2000; Avlonitis
and Gounaris 1999; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Cadogan and Diamatopoulos
1995; Deshpande et al. 1993; Gatignon and Xuereb 1997; Greenley and
Foxall 1998; Harris and Piercy 1999; Lings 2004; Mohr-Jackson 1998; Smart
and Conant 1994; Roos 2005).
2.5.14 Marketology Organizational Design Canvas: Piece of Asset Is

Completed
Regarding the descriptive explanations about assets it can be illustrated in Figure
2.41 that the ‘asset’ as one piece of MOD canvas become completed and located.
108 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
Asset
(2-14)
previous parts, practice MCMC in your intended case for below issues about asset:
1. Coverage of marketology asset by organization/business structure?
2. Manifestation of marketology asset within organization/business?
3. Contribution of marketology from organization/business asset?
the discussion.

practice (MIP)
Asset
(2-15)
Matrix guideline: examine interlinks between marketology and asset in below matrix
Marketology Total

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Organizational infrastructures
2. Hierarchy of business competencies (HBC)
3. Assets
4. Capabilities
BOD: asset
5. Competencies (normal, core and distinctive)
6. SCA
7. SCS
8. SSS
9. DC
Sum
Total
Average
in related weight
between marketology and the asset as a key component of BOD.
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: organizational infrastructures,HBC,
assets, capabilities, competencies (normal, core and distinctive),
SCA, SCS, SSS, DC , etc.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and the asset:

110 H. AGHAZADEH
2.6 Processes
–– Process
–– Business processes
–– Business process types
–– Value-based business processes (VBP)
–– Business models
–– Business process management (BPM)
–– Marketology process management
–– Marketology organizational design (MOD) canvas: piece of process is
completed
Marketology in Practice: Processes

–– MIP 2-16: Marketology process management
MCMC & MMM
2.6.1 Processes
Process is a very important component of an organization design and behav-
ior. A process can be considered as logical and purposeful sequence of orga-
nizational activities in a way that they are being done in order to accomplish
organizational goals.13 The process is closely related to other components
of organization design and management like structure, resources, strategy,
change, technology, people and so on (Ballard et al. 2006; Galbraith 1995;
Gibson et al. 2012; Moorman 1995; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Moorman
and Rust 1999; Van Tiem et al. 2012; Subramanian 2015b; Wallace 2012;
Schreogg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007; Gallagher et al. 2008; Kotter and Heskett
1992; Quinn 1988; Olson et al. 2005; Olavarrieta and Friedmann 1999;
Farrell and Oczkowski 2002).
2.6.2 Business Processes
Operations management is a process of managerial activities that organizations
apply in creating their value, products and services. Business processes are the
corner stone of business operations which play the main role on their success
or failure. Today the business process and BPM are accounted key capabilities
and core competencies of companies to work well and accomplish competitive

success. The business processes are expected to connect organizations’ mis-
sion and strategic goals to their performance and outcomes through mega,
major, and sub processes and including activities and tasks. Business processes
are formed to result in creating value for key stakeholders (specifically cus-
tomers) by enhancing both process efficiency and performance effectiveness.
Hence business processes should be assessed and improved continually by use-
ful methods such as BPR, knowledge management (KM), total quality man-
agement (TQM), business process modelling, IT-enabled business process
management, business process architectures, balanced scorecard (BSC), six
sigma, capability maturity model, capability maturity model integration, busi-
ness process maturity model and so on (Prahald and Hamel 1990; Grant and
Jordan 2012; Thompson et al. 2013; Srivastava et al. 2013; Aghazadeh 2008;
Galbraith 1995; Gibson et al. 2012; Edgar and Lockwood 2012; Drucker
1988; Verna 2008; Davenport and Harris 2007; Porter 2008; Helfat et al.
2007; Prahalad 1993; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Boyer et al. 2010; Wierenga
et al. 2008; Jeston and Nelis 2008; Koster 2009; Weske 2007; Ko et al. 2009;
Vom Brocke and Rosemann 2015).
2.6.3 Business Process Types

Business processes can be classified into three main categories: managerial, pri-
mary, and supportive. As another classification, the business processes may be
grouped as strategic, tactical and technical/operational processes. Managerial
business processes refer to the processes through which the operations of orga-
nizational system are managed and led such as corporate governance, strategic
management, shared value creation, international business, and so on. Primary
business processes represent the processes relevant to the core business and
main activities of value chain that lead to value for stakeholders such as pur-
chasing, producing, delivering, marketing and selling, and after sale service
providing. Supportive business processes point the processes that assist the
primary business processes such as information system, human resource, and
R&D. Crossing above two classifications a matrix can be formed to indicate the
types of business processes as in Figure 2.28.
As depicted in above figure SM business processes stand for managerial pro-
cesses at strategic level (like corporate governance); SP business processes stand
for primary processes at strategic level (like supplying strategy); SS business
processes stand for supportive processes at strategic level (like human resource
strategy). TM business processes stand for managerial processes at tactical
level (like partnership tactics); TP business processes stand for primary pro-
cesses at tactical level (like channel management tactics); TS business processes
stand for supportive processes at strategic level (like crowdsourcing tactics).
OM business processes stand for managerial processes at operational level (like
negotiation techniques); OP business processes stand for primary processes at
operational level (like social networking techniques); OS business processes
112 H. AGHAZADEH
Process nature
Managerial Primary Supportive
Strategic
SM SP SS
(Enterprise level)
Organizational Tactical
TM TP TS
level (Process level)
Operational
OM OP OS
(Implementation level)
Figure 2.28 Business process types
stand for supportive processes at strategic level (like software and internet
providing techniques) (Baker and Sinkula 1999; Greenley and Foxall 1998;
Agha et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2004; Murray 2003; Porter 1998a; Chien and
Tsai 2012; Aghazadeh 2016; Hitt and Ireland 1985; Duysters and Hagedoorn
2000; King and Zeithaml 2001; Snow and Hrebiniak 1980; De Carolis 2003;
Teece 2007; Griffin 2013; Van der Aalst 2012; Harmon and Wolf 2014; Zur
Muehlen and Ting-Yi 2006; Skyrme 1989, 1990, 1995).
2.6.4 Value-Based Business Processes (VBP)

The business is contemplated as a grand process and chain of activities that
leads to sustainably providing superior value to the key stakeholders in market
and in turn bringing value to the enterprise. Accordingly, the key strategic,
tactical and operational decisions of enterprises in different areas like how to
deal with market are related to value exchange indeed. Hence today the execu-
tives of enterprise for better managing their organizations should make deci-
sions and work through the value-based business process (VBP) instead of
solid/pure business process. In this regard different scholars have contributed
numerous foundations, debates, principles, points and comments about busi-
ness practices, process and models concerning the concept of value and related
issues (Kotler and Armstrong 2013, 2015a, b; Doyle 2009; Lopez 2014;
Webster 2008; Lambin 2007; Best 2012; Kotler and Keller 2015; Aghazadeh
2008, 2015, 2016; Porter 1998a, b; McDonald and Christopher 2003;

Osterwalder et al. 2015; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Strategyzer 2015a, b;
Lambin and Schuiling 2012; Smart et al. 2009; Keen et al. 2006; Underdahl
2011; Garimella et al. 2008; Daft 2016; Robbins and Judge 2015; Hatch and
Cunliffe 2013; Katz 2009; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004; Kaplan 2005; Barney
2011, Fahy and Smith 1999; Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1994; Javidan 1998;
Dess et al. 2013, 2015).
2.6.5 Business Models
Kotler and Armstrong (2013) in their popular book Principles of Marketing
have defined marketing as “the process by which companies create value for
customers and build strong customer relationships in order to capture value
from customers in return”. Accordingly, they represented a five-step model of
the marketing process through which companies in the first four steps attempt
to understand consumers, create customer value, and build strong customer
relationships; whereas in the final step as the returns of providing superior
customer value they in turn capture value from consumers in the form of sales,
profits, and long-term customer equity.
Chernev (2014) introduced the concept of optimal value proposition as the
core of managing value which is appeared from the confluence of customer value,
company value and collaborator value. However, this three-dimensional view
toward value can be completed by a more comprehensive view of stakeholders.
McDonald and Christopher (2003) illustrated marketing as a process
includes the steps of defining target market and customer value, creating value
proposition, communicating and delivering value proposition, assessing and
monitoring value, and developing value.
The business value chain of Porter (1998a) involves primary activities (i.e.
inbound logistics, process/operations, outbound logistics, marketing and sales,
and services) and supportive activities (i.e. firm infrastructure, human resource
management, technology development and procurement).
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2013: 14) described a business model as “the
rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value”. As illus-
trated in Figure 2.29 the components of a business model consist of key part-
ners, key activities, key resources, value proposition, customer relationships,
channels, customer segments, cost structure, and revenue streams.
Osterwalder et al. (2015) described the value proposition as the benefits
customers can expect from the products and services of a business. As depicted
in Figure 2.30 they designed the value proposition canvas in two sides: (1)
the Customer Profile (customer understanding: gains, pains and jobs) and (2)
Value Map (how to create value for that customer: gain creators, pain relievers
and products and services). A business can achieve Fit between the two when
one meets the other.
Considering the main and basic works on business process and model, and
putting them together it can be implicated that the principle pillars of the
114 H. AGHAZADEH
Key Partnerships: Key Activities: Value Propositions: Customer Relationships: Customer
Segments:
Some activities are …by performing a number of Key It seeks to solve Customer relationships are established and maintained
outsourced and Activities. The most important things a customer problems and with each Customer Segment. The types of relationships An organization
some resources are company must do to make its business satisfy customer needs a company establishes with specific Customer serves one or several
acquired outside the model work. with value propositions. Segments. Customer Segments.
enterprise. The Key Resources: The bundle of products Channels: The different groups
network of suppliers and services that create of people or
and partners that Key resources are the assets required to value for a specific Value propositions are delivered to customers through organizations an
make the business offer and deliver the previously described Customer Segment communication, distribution, and sales Channels. How a enterprise aims to
model work. company communicates with and reaches its Customer reach and serve.
elements…. The most important assets
required to make a business model work. Segments to deliver a Value Proposition
Cost Structure: Revenue Streams:
The business model elements result in the cost structure. All costs incurred to Revenue streams result from value propositions successfully offered to customers. The
operate a business model cash a company generates from each Customer Segment (costs must be subtracted from
revenues to create earnings).
Figure 2.29 The components of a business model canvas: focused on value

proposition
Company side Meet Customer side
Value (Proposition) Map: Customer (Segment) Profile:
The features of a specific value proposition A specific customer segment in your business
Fit:
in business model in a more structured and model in a more structured and detailed way. It
detailed way. It breaks value proposition breaks the customer down into its jobs, pains, and
When value map
down into products and services, pain gains.
meets customer
relievers, and gain creators.
profile — when
Gain Creators: Gains:
products and
services produce
How your products and services create The outcomes customers want to achieve or the
pain relievers and
customer gains. concrete benefits they are seeking.
gain creators that
Pain Relievers: Pains:
match one or
more of the jobs,

How your products and services alleviate Bad outcomes, risks, and obstacles related to
pains, and gains
customer pains. customer jobs.
that are important
Products and Services: Customer Jobs:
to your customer.
This is a list of all the Products and What customers are trying to get done in their work
Services a value proposition is built around. and in their lives, as expressed in their own words.
Figure 2.30 The components of value proposition canvas

above-mentioned business model involve the significant components of key

suppliers and partnerships, key activities and processes, key value propositions,
key channels and customers, key resources and capabilities, and key perfor-
mance (revenue and cost). As well the business process will be focused on value
including the steps of defining, creating, communicating, delivering, captur-
ing, monitoring and expanding value. The key components of business model
and main steps of business process are demonstrated in Figure 2.31. Definitely
the other key parts and processes of enterprise such as marketing, sales, cus-
tomer relations, finance, HR, IT and so on are being formulated and imple-
Business model
Key
Partnerships
Key Key
Performance Acvies
Value
Proposion
Key Key
Customers Resources
Business process
Monitoring
Defining
& Expanding
Value
Capturing Creang
Communicang
&
Delivering
Figure 2.31 The key components/steps of business model/process

116 H. AGHAZADEH
mented in form of the above demonstrations (Chernev 2014; Osterwalder

et al. 2015; Kotler and Armstrong 2013, 2015a, b; Osterwalder and Pigneur
2013; Strategyzer 2015a, b; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Porter 1998a, b;
McDonald and Christopher 2003; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004; Kaplan 2005;
Barney 2011, Fahy and Smith 1999; Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1994; Javidan
1998; Dess et al. 2013, 2015; Lambin and Schuiling 2012; Smart et al. 2009;
Keen et al. 2006; Underdahl 2011; Garimella et al. 2008; Daft 2016; Robbins
and Judge 2015; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Katz 2009; Doyle 2009; Lopez
2014; Webster 2008; Lambin 2007; Best 2012; Kotler and Keller 2015).
2.6.6 Business Process Management (BPM)

Business process management (BPM) is a core competency of an organiza-
tion that embraces business process and performance improvement, innova-
tion and optimization; it also enhances efficiency, effectiveness and change
management capabilities of organization. Business process managementis not
a one-time practice and should take a continuous manner in form of busi-
ness process managementlife cycle including the stages of: design, model,
execution, monitor, and optimization. In this regard three pillars for effec-
tive business performance management that must be focused include: pro-
cess, people, and technology. Then as illustrated in Figure 2.32 an effective
Figure 2.32 Key features of effective business process management

business process management (BPM) should take business process-oriented,

IT-enabled and people-leveraged features (Smart et al. 2009; Keen et al. 2006;
Underdahl 2011; Garimella et al. 2008; Van der Aalst 2012; Harmon and Wolf
2014; Zur Muehlen and Ting-Yi 2006; Jeston and Nelis 2008; Koster 2009;
Weske 2007; Ko et al. 2009; Vom Brocke and Rosemann 2015; Ballard et al.
2006; Galbraith 1995; Gibson et al. 2012; Moorman 1995; Moorman and
Rust 1999; Van Tiem et al. 2012; Barney 2011, Fahy and Smith 1999; Feurer
and Chaharbaghi 1994; Javidan 1998; Dess et al. 2013, 2015; Prahald and
Hamel 1990; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Subramanian 2015b; Wallace
2012; Schreogg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007; Gallagher et al. 2008; Kotter and
Heskett 1992; Quinn 1988; Olson et al. 2005; Olavarrieta and Friedmann
1999; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Greenley and
Foxall 1998; Agha et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2004; Murray 2003; Porter 1998a,
2008; Chien and Tsai 2012; Davenport and Harris 2007; Helfat et al. 2007;
Grant and Jordan 2012; Prahalad 1993).
2.6.7 Marketology Process Management

The process of marketology14 may begin when a need for market data/
information/knowledge/intelligence/insight (DIKII)15 is identified by a marke-
tology delegate, or requested by an analyst or a decision-maker as the customer/
audience of the process. However, the process of marketology is cyclical and has
no end; its first round may end in satisfactory response or solution delivered to
the target audience (e.g. decision-maker). Definitely good starting, progressing
and ending of the process depend on the constructive interaction between dif-
ferent role players who are involved along through the process include analysts,
marketology delegates and decision-makers.
The process is regarded as a significant component of marketology because
it is somehow linked to all the parts of marketology system. The marketology
process is expected to be intelligent, to be conducted/ worked intelligently,
to produce/provide market DIKII, and to support intelligent and effective
decision-makings and efficient action-takings. Hence the marketology should
be considered as an intelligence cycle. Brought out from the generic cycle
of intelligence, the process of marketology can be illustrated as below steps
(IGDEE):
1. Identification of market DIKII

2. Generation of market DIKII
3. Dissemination of market DIKII (prepare, transfer, communicate, and
warehouse)
4. Exploitation of market DIKII (follow up, assist and institutionalize)
5. Evaluation of market DIKII
118 H. AGHAZADEH
Producing and providing market DIKII is considered as the core con-

cern of the process from beginning to end. It means the marketology pro-
cess is expected to identify, create and provide the market DIKII needed
for the decision-makers and action-takers of an organization continually
and precisely. The significance of market DIKII is due to their crucial role
in forming strategic decisions in business and building market-oriented
organizations.
In fact, marketology process situates upon system of marketology as a key
component in a way that links its inputs to outputs. In accordance with such
system and through marketology process the requests of each audience(s) for
market DIKII should be collected, examined and organized separately and dif-
ferently; then it should be concluded what to be generated and loaded within
an informational river as general/standard form of market DIKII or in each
specific container as the customized form of market DIKII which may be appli-
cable for a given audience(s) in organization (O’Brien 1998; Power 2002;
Alexandra 2005; McLeod and Rogers 2001; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Shaker
2011; Talvinen 1995; O’Brien et al. 1995; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2007,
2015; Smith et al. 2006; Smith and Raspin 2008; Dickson 1992, 1996; Kotler
and Keller 2015; Day 1994; Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Narver and Slater 1990;
Jaworski et al. 2002; Olavarrieta and Friedmann 1999; Davenport and Harris
2007; Subramanian 2015b).

practice (MIP)
Marketology process management
(2-16)
Guideline (FOCUS)
Discussion: Regarding the subjects and content that have been provided and explained
1. Process;
2. Business operations;
3. Business process;
4. Business process types;
5. Value-based business process (VBP);
6. Business models;
7. Business process management (BPM);
8. Marketology process management;

120 H. AGHAZADEH
2.6.8 Marketology Organizational Design Canvas: Piece of Process

Is Completed
Regarding the descriptive explanations about process it can be illustrated in
Figure2.41 that the ‘process’ as one piece of MOD canvas become completed
and located.

practice (MIP)
Process
(2-17)
previous parts, practice MCMC in your intended case for below issues about process:
1- Coverage of marketology process by organization/business structure?
2- Manifestation of marketology process within organization/business?
3- Contribution of marketology from organization/business process?
4- Fulfill a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and close
the discussion.

practice (MIP)
(2-18) Process
Guideline: examine interlinks between marketology and processin below matrix
Marketology Total
Weight (100%)
Weight: Weight: Weight:

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Process
2. Business process
3. Business operations
BOD: process
4. VBP
5. Business model
6. Business process management (BPM)
7. BPM
8. BBBs
Sum
Total
Average
in related weight
between marketologyand the process as a key component of BOD.
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: process, business process, business
operations, VBP, business model, business process management(BPM), BPM, BBBs, etc.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and the process:

122 H. AGHAZADEH
2.7 Technology
–– Technology
–– Technology and organization design
–– Information technology
–– Information information technology application in an organization
–– Information technology and management control systems
–– Information systems
–– Information system dynamics
–– Knowledge management
–– e-Business organization design
–– Relationship between marketology and organizational information and
technology
–– Marketology supports organizational information and technology
–– Marketology as information and technology
–– Information and technology that enable marketology
–– Marketology organizational design (MOD) canvas: piece of technol-
ogy is completed
Marketology in practice: Technology

–– MIP 2-19: Marketology and technology
MCMC & MMM
2.7.1 Technology
Technology can be defined as organizational processes, systems, strategies, tac-
tics, actions, techniques, and machines to convert inputs (resources) into outputs
(products/services). The organizational technologies may be core or non-core.
The technology that is directly related to organization’s strategic issues (mission)
is core technology such as hospitality of guests in a hotel and transferring pas-
sengers in a transportation company (airline, railway etc.). The technologies that
are important but not directly related to organization mission are regarded as
noncore technologies like accounting, R&D, HR and so on.
The organizational core technology can be classified into two main catego-
ries include: core organization manufacturing technology, and core organiza-
tion service technology. The organizational non-core technologies based on
their analyzability and variety degree can be grouped in four major categories
of technology: routine, craft, engineering, and non-routine.16
The workflows of organizational departments have interdependences with
other departments involve pooled, sequential, and reciprocal interdependences.
Each type of interdependences has specific type of organizational department

technologies. The pooled interdependence refers to mediating technology; the
sequential interdependence called long-linked technology; and the reciprocal
interdependence depicts intensive technology (Cerovsek et al. 2010; Schienstock
2009; Srivastava et al. 2013; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Prahalad 1993; Thompson
et al. 2013; Daft 2016; Robbins and Judge 2015; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013;
Chaudhuri and Dayal 1997; Khan and Quadri 2012; Chandler et al. 2011;
Parenteau et al. 2016; Livari 1992; IBM 2010; Verna 2008; Davenport and Harris
2007; Schreogg and Kliesch-Eberl 2007; Vom Brocke and Rosemann 2015).
2.7.2 Technology and Organization Design

The technology affects organizational job design in several ways include: job
designing, job rotation, job simplification, job enlargement, and job enrichment.
The technology in an interaction with social system affects the organization design-
ing in light of sociotechnical systems approach. In accordance with this approach
both the technical and social system impact the organization to develop a design
for joint optimization in which there exist a proper fit between social and technical
elements to achieve organizational goals and success (Gibson et al. 2012; Griffin
2013; Daft 2016; Robbins and Judge 2015; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Aghazadeh
2008, 2016; Walker and Madsen 2015; Kilmann et al. 2010; Galbraith 1995;
McMillan 2006; Katz 2009; Thompson et al. 2013; Olszak 2014; Dess et al. 2015;
Hult 2011; Day 1994; Burton et al. 2006a; Luthans et al. 2015; Kotter 2015).
2.7.3 Information Technology
Information is crucial component of every manager’s performance. Information
is generated by a set of data. Data refers to raw facts and figures as a single
aspect of reality. Information is a set of data which take a meaning. Information
will be useful for managers when it is accurate, timely, complete, and relevant.
In today ever-changing internal and external condition the IT extremely has
been penetrated in life and work of individuals, groups and organizations and
used widely by them. Accordingly, the IT plays vital role for survival, profit-
ability and growth of enterprises in competitive marketplaces. This is why the
managers of organizations should concentrate intensively on the application
and utilization of IT for improving organization performance.
IT refers to resources and methods used by an organization to manage
information to achieve goals. Information management can be applied in many
areas and for many purposes in organizations. One of the key usages of infor-
mation management is as a part of control process. IT systems have major
building blocks include input medium, processor, output medium, storage
device, and control system (Wallace 2012; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Boyer
et al. 2010; Litan et al. 2010; Skyrme 1995; Van der Aalst 2012; Koster 2009;
KPMG 2014b; Deloitte 2016; Chaudhuri et al. 2011; Griffin 2013; Daft
2016; Robbins and Judge 2015; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Chandler et al.
2011; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Griffith 2011; Parenteau et al. 2016; Livari
1992; Grant and Jordan 2012; Underdahl 2011; Harmon and Wolf 2014;
124 H. AGHAZADEH
4- Adding strategic value
3- Control
2- Decision-making
1- Operaons
Figure 2.33 Evolution of IT application in an organization
Gupta and Benson 2011; Tosheva 2013; F-Jardon and Gonzalez-Loureiro

2013; Srivastava et al. 2013; Edgar and Lockwood 2012; Walker and Madsen
2015; Kilmann et al. 2010; Galbraith 1995).
2.7.4 Information Technology Application in an Organization

IT is applied for organizational operations, decision-making, control, and add-
ing strategic value. The evolution of the application of IT in organizations
can be viewed from two dimensions: management level (operational to top)
and complexity of IT systems (low to high). In this regard the evolution of
the application of IT systems in organizations from initial to advance stages is
As depicted in above figure the evolutionary stages of IT application within
organizations can be defined as below:
1. Operations: simple IT systems were applied to organizational operations

at front-line level. The applied systems in this stage were transaction pro-
cessing systems (TPSs), DW and data mining.
2. Decision-making: IT systems with medium complexity were applied to
managerial decisions mainly at middle management level of organization.
The applied systems in this stage were management information system
(MIS), information reporting system, decision support system (DSS),
enterprise information system (EIS), and BI/MI.
3. Control: IT systems with medium complexity were applied to managerial

controls mainly at middle management level of organization. The applied
systems in this stage were management control system and BSC.17
4. Adding strategic value: IT systems with high complexity were applied to
strategic value creation mainly at top management level of organization.
The applied systems in this stage are classified into two groups: internal
coordination and external relationships. The IT systems for internal
coordination are intranets, ERP, and knowledge management. The IT
systems for external relationships are integrated enterprise, e-business,
and CRM. The integrated enterprise is an organization that uses advanced
IT to enable internal coordination and external relationship.
IT has remarkable effects on organization design. Using IT within orga-

nization may leads to: smaller organizations, decentralized organizational
structures, improved horizontal coordination, improved inter-organizational
relationships, and enhanced network structures (modular or virtual organiza-
tions) (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Chandler et al. 2011; Aghazadeh
2008, 2015, 2016; Parenteau et al. 2016; Livari 1992; Grant and Jordan 2012;
Underdahl 2011; Harmon and Wolf 2014; Vom Brocke and Rosemann 2015;
Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Smith and Raspin 2008; Keen et al. 2006; Lambin
and Schuiling 2012; Helfat et al. 2007; Hitt et al. 2015; Roghe et al. 2012;
Grant 2013; Teece 2007; Gupta and Benson 2011; Tosheva 2013; F-Jardon and
Gonzalez-Loureiro 2013; Srivastava et al. 2013; Edgar and Lockwood 2012).
2.7.5 Information Technology and Management Control Systems

Effective control systems of organizations use feedback to compare the real per-
formance with established standards to help the organization achieve its goals.
The organizational feedback control system include the steps of setting strategic
goals, defining performance metrics and standards, comparing the actual perfor-
mance with standards, and taking corrective required actions. Some important
management control systems are budget, financial reports, statistical reports,
reward systems, and quality control systems In this regard information system and
technology can significantly enhance the speed, accuracy, intelligence and effec-
tiveness of management control systems throughout the organization through
appropriate IT-based methods and tools (e.g. BI modules, managerial dashboards,
and ERP, benchmarking and six sigma) (IBM 2010, 2011; Porter 2008; O’Reilly
and Tushman 2004, 2013; Podeswa 2009; Dutta et al. 2015; Ballard et al. 2006;
Galbraith 1995; Gibson et al. 2012; Subramanian 2015a, b; Wallace 2012; Stewart
and Rogers 2012; Boyer et al. 2010; Litan et al. 2010; Skyrme 1995; Van der Aalst
2012; Koster 2009; KPMG 2014b; Deloitte 2016; Chaudhuri et al. 2011; Griffith
2011; Schienstock 2009; Srivastava et al. 2013; Prahalad 1993; Banerjee 2003;
Petroni 1998; Lopez 2014; Kotler and Keller 2015; MacLachlan 1995).
2.7.6 Information Systems
Actually the information and information systems are so significant and valuable
then organizations should be able to utilize MISs appropriately. Information
126 H. AGHAZADEH
systems influence organizations in different ways include: leading to leaners

organizations, more flexible operations, increased collaborations, improved
management processes, and changed employee behaviors.
Basic levels of information systems are transaction-processing systems (TPS),
systems for various groups of workers (knowledge workers, office applicators,
operators, and data workers, knowledge-level and office systems); MISs for
top, middle and functional managers; DSS, executive support system, AI sys-
tems and expert systems.
The internet is also a new information system that is becoming increasingly
important to businesses, mangers, analysts, and all information users. The internet
paves the way for information to be provided by the World Wide Web (WWW),
servers and browsers, directories and search engines, intranets, and extranets.
Managing information systems has five basic components include: design-
ing/creating information systems; integrating information systems; using
information systems; managing information security (firewall); and under-
standing information system limitations (Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Robbins
and Judge 2015; Galbraith 1995; Gibson et al. 2012; Lambin and Schuiling
2012; Smart et al. 2009; Keen et al. 2006; Underdahl 2011; Garimella et al.
2008; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Katz 2009; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; O’Reilly
and Tushman 2004; Kaplan 2005; Barney 2011; Dess et al. 2015; Teece 2007;
Van Tiem et al. 2012; Subramanian 2015b; Wallace 2012; Ballard et al. 2006;
Moorman 1995; Khan and Quadri 2012; Chandler et al. 2011; Parenteau
et al. 2016; Livari 1992; Banerjee 2003; Petroni 1998; Drejer and Sorenson
2002; Duysters and Hagedoorn 2000; Meyer 1991; Lopez 2014; Kotler and
Keller 2015).
2.7.7 Information System Dynamics

There are enormous informational needs by different people and units for
decision-making and action-taking in organizations. There are four groups of
users of information systems with different needs: first-line, middle, and top
management, and knowledge workers. Knowledge workers refer to specialists
and professionals who design new products or generate new business processes
relying on IT using information systems. Then the information needs of an
organization may be declared by several mechanisms involve: most notably,
system requirements, and requests of user groups.
It should be noted that each of these information systems presents cer-
tain types of information which is suitable for specific groups of managers.
Information systems should be fitted to the needs of target user groups. Then
instead of a single information system a combination of different information
systems with different functionalities is required to properly meet the infor-
mational needs throughout the organizations (Robbins and Judge 2015; Daft
2016; Prahald and Hamel 1990; Hitt et al. 2015; Korhonen and Niemeia 2005;
Ulrich and Lake 1991; Roghe et al. 2012; Grant and Jordan 2012; Brophy and
Kiely 2002; Walker and Madsen 2015; Kotler and Keller 2015; Aghazadeh
2008; Thompson et al. 2013; Teece and Pisano 1994; Teece et al. 1997; Teece
2007; Oliver 1997; Gupta and Benson 2011; IMA 1996a, c, d; Kaplan 2005).
2.7.8 Knowledge Management
Knowledge in organization is developed by using data and information.
Knowledge management refers to organizing and sharing organization’s
creative resources and intellectual capital. There are two types of organizational
knowledge: explicit (knowing about) and tacit (knowing how).
Knowledge management in one hand has close relationship with IT in a way
that IT can foster and enhance creating, transferring, warehousing, sharing and
totally better managing knowledge in organizations. On the other hand, knowl-
edge management can play an influential role in improving organization design,
management and performance. Therefore it can be implicated that knowledge
management, IT and organization design and management (behavior) are inter-
related together (Hislop 2013; Barnes and Milton 2015; O’Dell and Hubert
2011; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Griffin 2014; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Pitelis
2008; Tosheva 2013; Berns et al. 2009; F-Jardon and Gonzalez-Loureiro 2013;
Vorhies and Morgan 2005; Srivastava et al. 2013; Porter 2008; Helfat et al.
2007; Lidija and Hisrich 2014; Gupta and Benson 2011; IBM 2011; Hitt et al.
2015; Roghe et al. 2012; Grant 2013; Aghazadeh 2015; Walker and Madsen
2015; Olszak 2014; Davenport and Harris 2007; Barney 2011).
2.7.9 E-Business Organization Design

The peak interrelationship between IT, organization design, and knowledge
management may be seen in an electronic business organization. E-businesses
organizations are mainly established based on IT, widely work upon knowledge
management, and often have their specific organization designs. There are three
approaches of e-business organization design include: in-house division (inte-
grated with traditional business), strategic partnership (partnership with other
organizations for e-business); and spin-off (totally separate from traditional busi-
ness) (Chaffey 2011, 2014; Katz 2009; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004; Griffin
et al. 2013; Gibson et al. 2012; Lado et al. 1992; Prahalad 1993; Stewart and
Rogers 2012; Boyer et al. 2010; Wierenga et al. 2008; Kotler and Armstrong
2013; Lopez 2014; Webster 2008; Best 2012; KPMG 2014b; Deloitte 2016;
Chaudhuri et al. 2011; James 2013; TechTarget 2016a; Ranjan 2009; Chaudhuri
and Dayal 1997; Aghazadeh 2016; Petroni 1998; Drejer and Sorenson 2002;
IBM 2010; Duysters and Hagedoorn 2000; Meyer 1991; Torkkeli and Tuominen
2002; MacLachlan 1995; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002).
2.7.10 Relationship Between Marketology and Organizational

Information and Technology
The relationship between hyper-function of marketology and information and
technology within an organization can be illustrated as Figure 2.34.
As depicted in above figure the hyper-function of marketology performs
to provide market DIKII relying on IGDEE services to the audiences within
128 H. AGHAZADEH
Figure 2.34 Relationship between marketology and technology within organization
organization. In this regard it may interrelate with information and technology

in three below modes (junction points):
1. Marketology supports organizational information and technology

2. Marketology as information and technology
3. Information and technology that enable marketology
2.7.11 Marketology Supports Organizational Information

and Technology
Organizational executives are living and working and organizations are per-
forming at the age of information and technology which are evolving, chang-
ing, progressing, and developing so fast. In such a situation organizations may
be overloaded by costly and useless information in one hand and also may have
to apply costly and outdate technologies on the other hand. The organizations
should be equipped with capability of taking and exploiting valuable, benefi-
cial, timely, update, and useful information and technologies for better leading
organization in a modern IT-based world.
The hyper-function of marketology is the most qualified competency that

notably can assist organizations to find, take and apply suitable information and
technologies appropriately. It is very important to point that the fundamental
function of marketology as its key contribution is generating and providing
market-related information to organization. However marketology itself also
should arrange information system and employ useful technologies within its
system (Drejer and Sorenson 2002; Duysters and Hagedoorn 2000; Meyer
1991; Torkkeli and Tuominen 2002; Keen et al. 2006; Van der Aalst 2012;
Koster 2009; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Dess et al. 2015; Edgar and
Lockwood 2012; Lopez 2014; Thompson et al. 2013; Daft 2016; Robbins
and Judge 2015; Khan and Quadri 2012; Chandler et al. 2011; Parenteau
et al. 2016; Livari 1992; IBM 2010, 2011; Litan et al. 2010; Skyrme 1995;
MacLachlan 1995; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002).
2.7.12 Marketology as Information and Technology

Organizations to perform well on creating and capturing value should have
useful and update information and technologies. Although all types of infor-
mation and technologies are significant for enabling organization to work well
but amongst the market-related information and technologies seem to be more
crucial due to enormous market turbulences and technology progresses.
Organizations in different stages of their evolution and development; formu-
lating and implementing of plans and programs; and decision and actions need
various and diversified types of information and technologies. For instance,
they may need DIKII about market, customers, competitors, partners, govern-
ment, public, channel, shareholders, politics, economic, technology, culture,
society, ecology and so on. As well the impacts of these spread factors and
forces on their current and future situation in marketplace.
Organizations may require technologies for modernizing and conduct-
ing their functions more productive than before in different areas such as
BI, strategic intelligence (SI), MI, customer/competitor intelligence (CI)
monitoring, scanning and analyzing environment; strategic thinking and
planning; forecast, estimation, and foresight; decision-making, ERP, execu-
tion and action-taking; evaluation, control and revise; and so on. Alongside
such technologies the related delegates of organizations (executives and
business analysts) may need several business and market analysis techniques
and tools18 like PESTLE, SWOT, BCG, GE, Force Field, 5 Forces, Value
Chain, 7Ss, Business Model Canvas, business planning, marketing planning
and so on.19
The hyper-function of marketology as an organizational core competency
can support organizations to find out proper information and technologies
(majorly market-related ones) that may ensure their success in modern busi-
ness world. In this regard marketology may help organizations relying on its
effective market-related products (i.e. market DIKII) and complementary ser-
vices to decide and act right pertaining to identifying, capturing and applying
130 H. AGHAZADEH
useful information and technology. It is worthy to bear in mind that marke-

tology itself is a very suitable technology to generate and provide substan-
tial market-related DIKII (data, information, knowledge, intelligence, and
insight) to organizational senior decision-makers, analysts and action-takers.
By this way it can be concluded that marketology provides strategic support
for organizational information and technology (Underdahl 2011; Harmon
and Wolf 2014; Vom Brocke and Rosemann 2015; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015,
2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Ballard et al. 2006; Griffith 2011; Subramanian
2015b; Wallace 2012; Wang et al. 2004; Walsh and Linton 2001; Cerovsek
et al. 2010; Schienstock 2009; Srivastava et al. 2013; Banerjee 2003; Petroni
1998; Prahalad 1993).
2.7.13 Information and Technology That Enable Marketology

It is obvious that such key hyper-function of marketology to be able to do well
on providing strategic supports for organizational information and technology
itself must have advanced and effective information system, technology and any
required useful tools and techniques.
The hyper-function of marketology should think of both internal and
external information and technology. Its internal information and technology
represent the ways of installing and operationalizing the useful information
system and technologies pertaining to its working process within marketology
organization. The working process of marketology includes identification, gen-
eration, dissemination, exploitation and evaluation of market DIKII. Several
relevant technologies and tools may be analytics and BI, mobile technologies,
collaboration technologies, IT and KM, CRM, virtualization, security, ERP
applications, DW, EDW, dashboards, ad hoc reporting/queries, data discov-
ery, cloud computing or cloud data services, ETL, online analytical processing
(OLAP), data mining, big data processing, and so on.
Therefore it can be concluded that the internal information and technol-
ogy of marketology should be conducted in a way that enable it to effec-
tive supporting information and technology both inside and outside of
organization by providing its market-related products (i.e. market DIKII)
and complementary services (Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Aghazadeh 2008,
2015, 2016; Dess et al. 2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Smith and
Raspin 2008; Podeswa 2009; Dutta et al. 2015; KPMG 2014b; Deloitte
2016; Chaudhuri et al. 2011; James 2013; TechTarget 2016a; Ranjan 2009;
Chaudhuri and Dayal 1997; Kotler and Keller 2015; Lambin and Schuiling
2012; Grant and Jordan 2012).

practice (MIP)
Marketology and technology
(2-19)
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Technology;
2. Technology and organization design;
3. Information Technology (IT) and itsapplication in organization;
4. Information technology (IT) and management control systems;
5. Information system and its dynamics;
6. Knowledge management;
7. e-Business organization design;
8. Marketology supports organizational information and technology;
9. Marketology as information and technology;
10. Information and technology that enable marketology;

.
2.7.14
Marketology Organizational Design Canvas: Piece
of Technology Is Completed
Figure 2.41 that the ‘technology’ as one piece of MOD canvas become com-
pleted and located.
132 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
(2-20) Technology
previous parts, practice MCMC in your intended case for below issues about technology:
1. Coverage of marketology technology by organization/business structure?
2. Manifestation of marketology technology within organization/business?
3. Contribution of marketology from organization/business technology?
the discussion.

practice (MIP)
Technology
(2-21)
Guideline: Examine interlinks between marketology and technology in below matrix
Marketology Total

Weight (100%)

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Technology
2. Technology and organization design
3. IT
4. IT application in organization
BOD: technology
5. IT and management control systems
6. Information systems
7. Information systems dynamics
8. KM
9. E-business organization design
Sum
Total
Average
in related weight
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of MCMC analysis; and MMM analyze the relationship between
marketology and the technology as a key component of BOD.
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: technology, technology and organization design,
information technology IT, application in an organization, IT and management control systems, Information
systems, information systems dynamics, knowledge management, E-business organization design, etc.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and the technology:

2.8 Innovation
–– Organizational creativity
–– Creativity, change and innovation
–– Organizational change and learning
–– Organizational change forces and agents
–– Responding change by changing
–– Organizational change types
–– Change implementation: transformational leadership
–– Resisting and resolving
–– Organizational innovation
–– Relationship between marketology and organizational innovation
–– Marketology supports organizational creativity, innovation and change
–– Marketology as a hyper-function with creativity, innovation and change
–– Creativity, innovation and change enable marketology
–– Marketology organizational design (MOD) canvas: piece of innovation
is completed
Marketology in practice: Innovation

–– MIP 2-22: Marketology and innovation
MCMC & MMM
2.8.1 Organizational Creativity
Creativity is defined as the ability to generate new and effective ideas. The
process or stages by which individuals do creative activities are: preparation,
incubation, insight, and verification.
Creativity and creative behavior in organizations may be appeared by vari-
ous individuals and groups from inside or outside of organization. Creativity
in organizations may be emerged both organized and unorganized. Sometimes
creativity behavior in organization may be happened in revolutionary form of
Schumpeter’s ‘creative destruction’ through which people or groups think of
how to destroy the old one (e.g. processes, products, technologies) and how
to create a new one. As illustrated in Figure 2.35 the creativity in an organiza-
tion may be promoted by: enablers of creative behavior, process of creative
134 H. AGHAZADEH
behavior and results (outcomes) of creative behavior (Daft 2016; Robbins and
Judge 2015; Griffin 2014; Mintzberg 2013; Kotter 2015; Senge et al. 2011;
Schumpeter 1950, 2008; Drucker 2002; White and Bruton 2011; Aghazadeh
2007, 2008, 2016; Schilling 2016; HBR 2013b; Cameron and Green 2015;
Schienstock 2009; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004, 2013; Lidija and Hisrich
2014; Srivastava et al. 2013; Murray and Donegan 2003; Zollo and Winter
2002; Ulrich et al. 2012).
Outcomes of creave
behavior
Process of creave
behavior
Enablers of creave
behavior
Figure 2.35 Organizational creativity behavior model

2.8.2 Creativity, Change and Innovation

Creativity, change and innovation are the organizational issues that as
depicted in Figure 2.36 are closely interconnected together. In fact orga-
nizational change cannot be occurred without creativity and innovation;
creativity cannot be stimulated and generated without intentions to change;
and innovation cannot be formed and completed without beginning by
creativity and resulting to change (HBR 2011a, 2013b; Kotter 2007, 2012;
Cameron and Green 2015; Heath and Heath 2010; Davila et al. 2012;
Tidd and Bessant 2013, 2014; Schilling 2016; Drucker, 2002; Aghazadeh
2008; Dodgson et al. 2015; White and Bruton 2011; Gibson et al. 2012;
Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; McMillan 2006; Kilmann et al. 2010; Galbraith
1995; Katz 2009; Senge 2010; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Mavondo et al.
2005; Zhou et al. 2005; Homburg et al. 2000; Quinn and Spreitzer 1991;
Sopow 2007; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; O’Dell and Hubert 2011;
Dess et al. 2013; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Smith et al. 2006; Smith
and Raspin 2008; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002).
2.8.3 Organizational Change and Learning

As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus observed, “the only thing that is constant is
change”, and as both the external factors (such as economic, political, social, tech-
nological, customers, competitors, partners and other market forces) and inter-
Change
Innovaon
Creavity
avity
Figure 2.36 Interconnection between creativity, change and innovation

136 H. AGHAZADEH
nal factors (like structure, strategy, people, process and many other elements of
system) of organizations are changing dramatically, today organizations and their
leaders have no choice other than think of plan to and institutionalize change.
Learning organization is described as ‘proactively creating, using, and
transferring knowledge to change its behavior’ by Senge (1990). In accor-
dance with learning principles the organizational changes pass through three
major phases include: unfreezing old learning, movement to new learning, and
refreezing the learned behavior (White and Bruton 2011; Senge 1990, 2010;
Mavondo et al. 2005; Olszak 2014; Senge et al. 2011; Galbraith 1995; Katz
2009; Jackson 2011; Aghazadeh 2015; Schilling 2016; HBR 2013b; Davila
et al. 2012; Dodgson et al. 2015; Di Stefano et al. 2009; Chien and Tsai
2012; Teece and Pisano 1994; Homburg et al. 2000; Lidija and Hisrich 2014;
Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Pitelis 2008; Ulrich et al. 2012; Dess et al. 2013;
Mintzberg 2013; Griffin 2014; Gibson et al. 2012; Kotter 2012).
2.8.4 Organizational Change Forces and Agents

The factors that affect organizational change are environmental and internal
forces. The sources of environmental change are forces of market, technol-
ogy and resources; the sources of internal change are forces of behavioral and
processes. The change agents as the intervener that challenge the current situ-
ations of organization by new and different ideas and views as illustrated in
Figure 2.37 may be external, internal or exinternal (external-internal) change
teams or factors (Luthans et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Robbins and Judge 2015;
Griffin 2014; Griffin and Moorhead 2013; Gibson et al. 2012; Mintzberg
2013; Kaplan and Norton 2001; Aghazadeh 2016; Conner 1992; Kotter 2012,
2015; Mavondo et al. 2005; Zhou et al. 2005; Olszak 2014; Schienstock 2009;
Exinternal change
agent
Organizaon
Environment
Figure 2.37 Organizational change agents

O’Reilly and Tushman 2004, 2013; Lidija and Hisrich 2014; Teece and Pisano
1994; Porter 1998a; Gupta and Benson 2011; Murray and Donegan 2003;
Zollo and Winter 2002; Heath and Heath 2010; Davila et al. 2012; Tidd and
Bessant 2013, 2014; Schilling 2016; HBR 2013b; Drucker 2002; Dodgson
et al. 2015; White and Bruton 2011).
2.8.5 Responding to Change by Changing

Considering the increasing external and internal changes organizations have
no choice other than innovate and change not only to progress but also
to survive. Organization changes may be planned or unplanned/reactive.
However, planned changes are preferable. Changes within organizations
pertaining to their various dimensions and managerial concerns or priorities
may take different types such as: incremental versus radical; strategic, tactical
or operational/technical; structure, people, technology, business processes,
product and service, culture, and so on (HBR 2011a; Kotter 2005, 2007,
2012; Cameron and Green 2015; Heath and Heath 2010; Davila et al. 2012;
Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Teece and Pisano 1994; Porter 1998a;
Ulrich et al. 2012; Dess et al. 2013; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Aghazadeh
2008; Murray 2003; Zollo and Winter 2002; Luthans et al. 2015; Robbins
and Judge 2015; Griffin 2014; Gibson et al. 2012; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013;
McMillan 2006; Kilmann et al. 2010; Galbraith 1995; Katz 2009; Olszak
2014; Conner 1992).
2.8.6 Organizational Change Types

There are diversified types of organizational change which are described com-
paratively below:
–– Incremental versus radical changes: the incremental changes refer
to continuous progression, affecting a part of organization, being
conducted through normal structure and management processes,
leads to technology and product improvements. By contrast the
radical changes represent paradigm-breaking burst, transforming
entire organization, creating new structure and management, break-
through technology, and developing new products that create new
markets.
–– Strategic versus tactical changes: the strategic changes that may pro-
vide strategic advantages for organization include technology, product
and service, strategy and structure, and culture changes. Tactical or
operational changes are those changes that happen in levels below the
strategic level of organization hierarchy.
138 H. AGHAZADEH
–– Dual-core approach (administrative and technical cores): Considering

the remarkable changes inside and outside of organizations they
should take a dual-core approach for effective adaption with these
changes: administrative and technical cores. The administrative core
within a mechanistic structure is responsible for good implementation
of administrative changes and innovations. The technical core within
an organic structure is accountable for good adaption with technical
changes and innovations.
–– Ambidextrous approach (exploring and exploiting): An organization
for a successful technological change should take an ambidextrous
approach: creating (exploring) new ideas or implementing (exploiting)
the ideas.
–– Organization development (OD): builds culture, human and social
changes which in turn enable organizational changes in product, ser-
vice, structure, strategy, and technology.
–– Product and service changes: To achieve competitive advantage and get
continued competitive power, enterprises have to make new product
or service changes and innovations quickly.
Regarding the explained types of organizational change, it can be concluded
that the most widespread types of organizational changes include: structure/
design, people/behavior, technology, and business processes (O’Reilly and
Tushman 2004, 2013; Senge 1990, 2010; Mavondo et al. 2005; Zhou et al.
2005; Lidija and Hisrich 2014; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Quinn
and Spreitzer 1991; Sopow 2007; Jackson 2011; Teece and Pisano 1994;
Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Ulrich et al. 2012; Dess et al. 2013; Murray
and Donegan 2003; Zollo and Winter 2002; HBR 2011a; Kotter 2007, 2012;
Aghazadeh 2016; Cameron and Green 2015; Heath and Heath 2010; Tidd
and Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Daft 2016; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al.
2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Griffin and Moorhead 2013; Gibson et al.
2012; Kilmann et al. 2010; Katz 2009; Olszak 2014; Kaplan 2005).
2.8.7 Change Implementation: Transformational Leadership

The transformational leadership seems to be the most suitable style for
change leadership. In accordance with this style the leaders may make orga-
nizational change and enhance organizational innovation both directly
and indirectly. The leaders also should create and improve commitment to
change throughout the organization. Change commitment process involves
three main stages: (1) preparation: initial contact and awareness; (2) accep-
tance: understanding and decision to implement; and (3) commitment:
installation and institutionalization (Senge et al. 2011; Schumpeter 1950,
2008; Conner 1992; Kotter 1995, 2007, 2012, 2015; Baker and Sinkula
1999; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004, 2013; Mavondo et al. 2005; Zhou et al.
2005; Deshpande et al. 1993; Schienstock 2009; Senge 2010; Daft 2016;
Griffin 2014; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Robbins and Judge
2015; Griffin and Moorhead 2013; Gibson et al. 2012; Aghazadeh 2015;
HBR 2011a; Cameron and Green 2015; Heath and Heath 2010; Davila
et al. 2012; Tidd and Bessant 2014).
2.8.8 Change Resisting and Resolving

People usually resist organizational change due to several reasons include:
parochial/threatened self-interest, different assessments/perceptions, low tol-
erance for change, misunderstanding, lack of trust, excessive focus on costs,
failure to perceive benefits, lack of coordination and cooperation, uncertainty
avoidance, and fear of loss. The strategies that may be used by managers to
overcome or reduce resistances to organizational changes involve: alignment
with needs and goals of audiences, communication and training, positive con-
text, participation and involvement, facilitation and support, negotiation and
agreement, manipulation and cooptation, and explicit and implicit forcing/
coercion. Some techniques that can be used to successful implementation of
changes in organization involve: building a sense of urgency for change, estab-
lishing a coalition to guide the change, designing a vision and strategy for
change, finding an idea that fits the need, developing plans to overcome resis-
tance to change, making change teams, and fostering idea champions (Gibson
et al. 2012; Senge et al. 2011; Conner 1992; Kotter 2007, 2012, 2015; Zhou
et al. 2005; Daft 2016; Griffin 2014; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Galbraith 1995;
Katz 2009; Olszak 2014; Srivastava et al. 2013; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom
2002; Jackson 2011; Aghazadeh 2016; Hiatt and Creasey 2012; Helfat et al.
2007; Chien and Tsai 2012; Teece and Pisano 1994; Gupta and Benson 2011;
Pitelis 2008; Ulrich et al. 2012; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; HBR 2011a;
Cameron and Green 2015).
2.8.9 Organizational Innovation
Innovation is the managed attempts of an organization to develop new
products or services, or new application of current products or services. The
organizational innovation process involves the stages of developing, apply-
ing, launching, growing, managing the maturity and decline of creative
ideas. The main forms of organizational innovation can be mapped along
continuums include: radical versus incremental, technical versus managerial,
and product versus process. Radical innovation is an innovation that funda-
mentally changes current practices, products and processes while incremen-
tal innovation in an innovation that improves current practices or makes
small improvements in products and processes. Technical innovations are
the innovations that take place in technical areas and levels of organization
(e.g. production line, packaging or website); the managerial innovations are
140 H. AGHAZADEH
those that happen in managerial functions/works (e.g. decision-making,

policy-making, entering a new business or cultivating a current product line).
Product innovations are the innovations that focus on product-related issues
(e.g. modifications in packaging, labelling, size, design; idea of a new product,
and suggesting a substitute or complementary products); the process innova-
tions are the innovations that concentrate on process redesigning or improve-
ment (e.g. BPR, shortcutting a long process, adding/removing a process,
automating a process, and IT-enabling a process). For better managing inno-
vation organizations should defined the scope of innovation as strategic enve-
lope. Strategic envelope ensures that the innovation attempts of companies are
not wasted on projects or practices that are outside the company’s domain of
interests. In fact it defines a sort of acceptable innovation projects (Tidd and
Bessant 2013, 2014; Schilling 2016; HBR 2013b; Drucker 2002; Dodgson
et al. 2015; White and Bruton 2011; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015; Di Stefano
et al. 2009; Chien and Tsai 2012; Teece and Pisano 1994; Osterwalder and
Pigneur 2013; O’Dell and Hubert 2011; Frans et al. 2003; Porter 1998a;
Gupta and Benson 2011; Pitelis 2008; Ulrich et al. 2012; Dess et al. 2013;
Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Smith et al. 2006; Smith and Raspin 2008;
Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Murray 2003; Murray and Donegan 2003; Zollo
and Winter 2002; Schumpeter 2008; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Mavondo et al.
2005; Galbraith 1995; Katz 2009; Olszak 2014; Stewart and Rogers 2012;
Kaplan and Norton 2001; Kaplan 2005; Gibson et al. 2012; Daft 2016;
Griffin 2014).

Innovation
The outcomes of the hyper-function of marketology are providing market
DIKK relying on IGDEE services to the audiences within organization. In this
regard it may interrelate with innovation via the following three modes:
1. Marketology supports organizational innovation

2. Marketology as a hyper-function that innovates
3. Innovation enables marketology
2.8.11 Marketology Supports Organizational Creativity, Innovation

and Change
Today change is the most stable fact for organizations. Change and develop-
ment to be effective require creativity and innovation in individual, group and
organizational levels. In this regard, several key notes should be considered
about creativity, innovation and change in organizations: driving, facilitating/
fostering, performing and leading, evaluating and improving.
The hyper-function of marketology is the most suite competency that influ-

entially can help organizations to perform and lead creativity, innovation and
change properly. However ,marketology itself as well should make creativity,
innovation and change within its system.
2.8.12 Marketology as a Hyper-Function with Creativity,

Innovation and Change
Organizational creativity, innovation and change need some internal or exter-
nal stimulus or drivers. For example, a rival’s action on developing and intro-
ducing a new product; or changing expectations and preferences of a customer
due to world technology advances can be external drivers for necessity of
change and product innovation in organization. As well there may be some
internal stimulus like feedbacks of sales and distribution team or comments of
technology department, etc. In conducting creativity, innovation or change
programs, projects or activities the organizational delegates may encounter
different obstacles which should be identified timely and removed properly.
Moreover, as a matter of fact the creativity, innovation and change as essential
issues for organizational success should be performed, led, evaluated, managed
and improving steadily.
Clearly it can be brought out from above expressions that the appropriate-
ness and success of all mentioned attempts on moving organizational creativity,
innovation and change projects or programs ahead tightly require external or
market-oriented, internal-linked, intelligent, integrated and effective support-
ing services that should be provided to the executives or any in charge people/
teams. The hyper-function of marketology is an organizational core compe-
tency that can support organizational creativity, innovation and change efforts
substantially.
The hyper-function of marketology relying on its influential market-
related products (i.e. market DIKII) and complementary services can help
organizations and their executives, people, teams and departments to know
well the internal and external conditions, contexts, drivers, restrainers, facil-
itators and accelerators of creativity, innovation and change; which type of
them arrange to be done; how to realize them in different organizational
levels; what methods and technologies to use; CSFs, and the appropriate
ways of successful implementing, leading and improving them throughout
the organization. Markatology even can be source and origin of organiza-
tional creativity, innovation and change. By this way it can be concluded
that marketology provides strategic support for organizational creativity,
innovation and change.
142 H. AGHAZADEH
2.8.13 Creativity, Innovation and Change Enable Marketology

There is no doubt such significant hyper-function function of marketology to
be able to play such vital role for strategic supporting of organizational creativ-
ity, innovation and change itself must make substantial creativity, innovation
and change.
The hyper-function of marketology should think of effective internal and
external creativity, innovation and change. Its internal creativity, innovation and
change refer to ways of making intelligent, integrative and beneficial creativity,
innovation and change within marketology organization. Therefore it can be
concluded that the internal creativity, innovation and change of marketology
should be conducted in a way that enable it to influence effective happening
of creativity, innovation and change both inside and outside of organization
by providing its market-related products (i.e. market DIKII) and complemen-
tary services appropriately (Daft 2016; McMillan 2006; Quinn and Spreitzer
1991; Sopow 2007; Jackson 2011; Hiatt and Creasey 2012; Helfat et al.
2007; Di Stefano et al. 2009; Griffin 2014; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al.
2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013;
Kilmann et al. 2010; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Galbraith 1995; Katz 2009;
Olszak 2014; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Smith
et al. 2006; Smith and Raspin 2008; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Murray
2003; Kaplan and Norton 2001; Kaplan 2005; Ballard et al. 2006; Senge
2010; Schumpeter 2008; Conner 1992; Kotter 2007, 2012, 2015; Baker and
Sinkula 1999; Mavondo et al. 2005; Zhou et al. 2005; Deshpande et al. 1993;
Schienstock 2009; Senge et al. 2011; Tidd and Bessant 2013, 2014; Schilling
2016; HBR 2013b; Drucker 2002; Dodgson et al. 2015; White and Bruton
2011; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004, 2013; Lidija and Hisrich 2014; Srivastava
et al. 2013; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Homburg et al. 2000; Chien
and Tsai 2012; Teece and Pisano 1994; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; O’Dell
and Hubert 2011; Frans et al. 2003; Porter 1998a; Gupta and Benson 2011;
Pitelis 2008; Ulrich et al. 2012; Dess et al. 2013; Murray and Donegan 2003;
Zollo and Winter 2002; Cameron and Green 2015; Heath and Heath 2010;
Davila et al. 2012).

practice (MIP)
Marketology and innovation
(2-22)
Guideline (FOCUS)
Set a report, present it to the class/organization and do an evaluation
1. Organizational creativity, change and innovation;
2. Organizational change and learning;
3. Organizational change forces and agents;
4. Responding change by changing;
5. Organizational change types;
6. Change implementation: transformational leadership
7. Change resisting and resolving;
8. Organizational innovation;
9. Relationship between marketology and organizational innovation;
10. Marketology supports organizational creativity, innovation and change;
11. Marketology as a hyper-function with creativity, innovation and change;
12. Creativity, innovation and change enable marketology;

2.8.14
of Innovation Is Completed
Figure 2.41 that the ‘innovation’ as one piece of MOD canvas become com-
pleted and located.
practice (MIP)
(2-23) Innovation
Guideline: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained
above, practice MCMC in your intended case for the following issues about innovation:
1. Coverage of marketology innovation by organization/business structure;
2. Manifestation of marketology innovation within organization/business;
3. Contribution of marketology from organization/business innovation;


practice (MIP)
(2-24) Innovation
Guideline: examine interlinks between marketology and innovation in below matrix
Marketology Total

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. organizational creativity
2. organizational change
3. strategic versus tactical change
4. ambidextrous change
5. dual-core change
BOD: innovation
6. incremental versus radical change
7. organization development (OD)
8. organizational innovation and learning
9. change forces and agents
10. responding change
11. change and transformational leadership
12. change resisting and resolving
Sum
Total
Average
in related weight
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC)
analysis; and marketology match matrix (MMM) analyze the relationship between marketology and the
innovation as a key component of business organizational design (BOD).
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: organizational creativity, organizational
change, strategic versus tactical change, ambidextrous change, dual-core change, incremental versus radical
change, organization development (OD), organizational innovation and learning, change forces and agents,
responding change, change and transformational leadership, change resisting and resolving, etc.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and innovation:
2.9 Communication
–– Communication
–– Communication within an organization: forms and channels
–– Communication network
–– Communication technologies
–– Communication barriers
–– Effective communication
–– Market-oriented communication
–– Business interaction: external and internal
–– Business response to environment uncertainty
–– Interaction-based organization design
–– Relationship between marketology and organizational communication
–– Marketology supports organizational communication
–– Marketology as a hyper-function that communicates
–– Organizational communication enables marketology
–– Marketology organizational design (MOD) canvas: piece of communication
Marketology in practice: Communication

–– MIP 2-25: Marketology and communication
MCMC & MMM
2.9.1 Communication
Richmond and McCroskey (2009: 34) represent communication as ‘the pro-
cess by which individuals stimulate meaning in the minds of other individuals,
by means of verbal and nonverbal messages in the context of a formal orga-
nization’. Communication is defined by Gibson et al. (2011: 432) as “trans-
mitting information and understanding, using verbal or nonverbal symbols”.
The main components of classic communication model include communica-
tor (sender), encoding, message, medium, decoding, receiver, feedback, and
noise (Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Schrodt 2002; Daft 2016; Griffin
2014; Gibson et al. 2012; Aghazadeh 2016; Anaeto 2010; Miller 2009, 2015;
Muchinsky 1977; Pace and Faules 1994).
146 H. AGHAZADEH
2.9.2 Communication Within an Organization: Forms

and Channels
The directions of communication within organizations can be vertical (upward
or downward), horizontal and diagonal. The communication generally can be
concentrated at different levels include intrapersonal, interpersonal, group/
team, organizational, public/media, and intercultural.
Forms of organizational communication include interpersonal (oral and
written), networks and work teams (patterns of communication among
members), electronic (formal information systems and personal electronic
technology), and organizational (vertical/horizontal and formal/informal)
communication.
The networks and channels of organizational communication can be cat-
egorized as formal/official or informal/unofficial; internal or external; verti-
cal, horizontal or diagonal; upward or downward (Daft 2016; Griffin 2014;
Gibson et al. 2012; Anaeto 2010; Miller 2009, 2015; Muchinsky 1977; Pace
and Faules 1994; Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Schrodt 2002; Aghazadeh
2008; Shannon and Weaver 1949; Sopow 2007; Robbins and Barnwell 2007;
Nahavandi et al. 2014; Kreitner and Kinicki 2012; Griffin and Moorhead 2013;
Eunson 2013; Watts 2004; Berkowitz 2011).
2.9.3 Communication Network
Watts (2004) pointed that according to the ‘small world phenomenon’, any
person on the globe may be separated from any other person by no more than
‘six degrees of separation’. In this regard the communication network within
organizations becomes a significant issue. As illustrated in Figure 2.38 the
leaders and senior executives can manage organizational culture and people,
design, behavior and performance relying on effective organizational com-
munication. In fact the business leaders are considered as the architects of
organizational culture and design and the developers of organizational strat-
egy and performance; and directors of organizational people and behabior
within organizational communication network (Watts 2004; Anaeto 2010;
Miller 2009, 2015; Muchinsky 1977; Pace and Faules 1994; Richmond and
McCroskey 2009; Schrodt 2002; Daft 2016; Griffin 2014; Gibson et al. 2012;
Aghazadeh 2015; Dauber et al. 2010, 2012; Narver and Slater 1990; Baker
and Sinkula 1999; Madu 2012; Desson and Clouthier 2010; Olszak 2014;
Stewart and Rogers 2012).
Figure 2.38 Organizational communication and leadership (Note: It should be

noted that in this book communication and culture are considered as subcomponents
of organizational design; and similarly leadership and performance are considered as
subcomponents of organizational behavior)
2.9.4 Communication Technologies
Some of the major communication innovations and technologies are as follow-
ings: internet, intranet, extranet, electronic mail, messaging, social networking,
blogs, smart phones, voice-mail, videoconferencing, teleconferencing, webi-
nars, e-meetings or collaboration and so on. Then managers in regard of orga-
nizational communication should think of information richness which refers to
the extent of information that can be transmitted in an effective manner (Madu
2012; Desson and Clouthier 2010; GE Capital 2012; Bush and Middlewood
2013; Anaeto 2010; Tharp 2009a; Miller 2015; Muchinsky 1977; Pace and
Faules 1994; Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Berkowitz 2011; Olszak 2014;
148 H. AGHAZADEH
Kilmann et al. 2010; Hatch 1993; Webster 1994; Weerawardena and O’Cass
2004; Kumar et al. 2000; Lambin 2007; Kohli and Jaworski 1990).
2.9.5 Communication Barriers
The obstacles to effective communication may be made by sender, receiver
or both. The barriers created by sender are semantic problems, filtering, in-
group language, status differences, and time pressures. The barriers created
by receiver are selective listening, value judgments, and source credibility. The
barriers created by both sender and receiver are frame of reference, proxemics
behavior, and communication overload. Some barriers may not be necessarily
related to sender or receiver, and may be relevant to other elements of commu-
nication include message, medium or noise (O’Donnell and Boyle 2008; Miller
2009; Tharp 2009b; Tsai 2011; Schein 2010; Daft 2016; Griffin 2014; Gibson
et al. 2012; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Robbins and Judge 2015;
Schrodt 2002; Shannon and Weaver 1949; Sopow 2007; Chaudhuri et al.
2011; Kappos and Rivard 2008; Kaplan 2005; Ballard et al. 2006; Aghazadeh
2008; Eunson 2013).
2.9.6 Effective Communication
The proper communication is essential for organizational culture change
and performance success in a way that organizations are considered as pat-
terns of communication. Effective communication more than just transmit-
ting information should share the message and its meaning and helps people
to understand each other better and become closer to together. Every busi-
ness/company struggles for SCS in the marketplace which can be achieved
relying on a dynamic and deriving organizational culture that is well man-
aged through an effective communication (Anaeto 2010; Miller 2009, 2015;
Muchinsky 1977; Pace and Faules 1994; Richmond and McCroskey 2009;
Schrodt 2002; Shannon and Weaver 1949; Sopow 2007; Daft 2016; Griffin
2014; Gibson et al. 2012; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Kaplan 2005;
Ballard et al. 2006; Aghazadeh 2015; Schein 2010; Weerawardena and O’Cass
2004; Kumar et al. 2000; Lambin 2007; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Hofstede
et al. 2010).
2.9.7 Market-Oriented Communication
Nowadays it has been said that the only constant thing is ‘change’. Organizational
communication should seriously focus on three key issues: integration, market
orientation and social networks. In case of not being integrated, different levels
or parts of organization may be communicate with both internal and external
stakeholders in contradictive manner; in case of not being market-oriented the
organization will not be able to recognize the environment/market complexity
and turbulence rightly then will not be able to respond to them properly; and
in case of not care about the networking and social networks will not be able to
exploit their potentially tremendous positive power for fostering goal achieve-
ments; or to counteract with their potentially dramatic negative power for
preventing the declines. For this end along with many useful styles and meth-
ods of organizational communication it is highly recommended to business
leaders and executives to apply the internal market orientation (IMO), inte-
grated marketing communication (IMC) and social market-oriented commu-
nication throughout the organization (Anaeto 2010; Miller 2015; Muchinsky
1977; Pace and Faules 1994; Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Schrodt 2002;
Shannon and Weaver 1949; Sopow 2007; Lings 2004; Lings and Greenley
2005; Kaur 2015; Day 1994; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Doyle 2009;
Lopez 2014; Webster 2008; Weerawardena and O’Cass 2004; Kumar et al.
2000; Kotler and Keller 2015; Lambin 2007; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver
and Slater 1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Kaplan 2005; Ballard et al. 2006;
Aghazadeh 2016; Eunson 2013).
2.9.8 Business Interaction: External and Internal

Businesses as open organizational systems should communicate and interact
with both internal and external forces continually. Internal interaction refers
to both formal and informal communication of people, units and departments
within an organization with each other. External interaction represents the
communication of organizational people, units and departments with envi-
ronment forces both formal and informal. The external interactions can be in
modes of IN-EX (from internal/inside to external/outside) and EX-IN (from
external/outside to internal/inside).
Right, timely and sound interactions with both inside and outside seem
to be a core competency for businesses to better and superior perform in
competitive markets. In this regard as depicted in Figure 2.39 they should
be able to realize efficiency relying on internal interactions and accomplish
effectiveness relying on external indications. However both efficiency and
effectiveness as key measures of business performance are significant in both
external and internal interactions.
The organizational interactions with environment can be assessed based
on several models: goal-based, resource-based, internal process, stakehold-
ers, strategic constituents, and combined models20 (Lings 2004; Lings and
Greenley 2005; Kaur 2015; Rodrigues and Pinho 2012; Fill and Jamieson
2006; Catalin et al. 2014; Dunmore 2002; Tuominen et al. 2004; Day 1994;
Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Aghazadeh 2016; Kotler and Keller 2015;
Doyle 2009; Lopez 2014; Webster 2008; Ballard et al. 2006; Weerawardena
and O’Cass 2004; Kumar et al. 2000; Lambin 2007; Kohli and Jaworski
1990; Narver and Slater 1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Farrell and
Oczkowski 2002; Mavondo et al. 2005; Sulkowski 2012; Stoyko 2009;
Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Trice and Beyer 1993; Gatignon and Xuereb
1997; Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Schrodt 2002; Shannon and
Weaver 1949; Sopow 2007).
150 H. AGHAZADEH
Internal External
Interacon Interacon
Focus on Focus on
Efficiency Effecveness
Organizaon
Environment
Figure 2.39 Business interactions focus: external-effectiveness versus internal-efficiency
2.9.9 Business Response to Environment Uncertainty

Organizations are not static but dynamic. Businesses based on the way of
responding to environment can be classified into three categories: proactive
(those who make things happen), active (those who watch things happen), and
reactive (those who wonder what is happened). Companies are recommended
to define their approach of responding to the environment contingently consid-
ering both external and internal situation. The environmental/market uncer-
tainty can be examined by a framework with two dimensions: environmental/
market change (unstable vs. stable) and environmental/market complexity

(simple vs. complex). Crossing these dimensions can result in a matrix called
environment/market uncertainty assessing framework with four positions: Low
uncertainty (stable and simple environment); Low-moderated uncertainty (sta-
ble and complex environment); High-moderated uncertainty (unstable and sim-
ple environment); and High uncertainty (unstable and complex environment).
An enterprise assessing the environment/market uncertainty and considering
its dynamic capabilities should form an organizational design through which
could be able to respond to the environment/market and fulfill organizational
goals and success appropriately (Catalin et al. 2014; Dunmore 2002; Tuominen
et al. 2004; Day 1994, 1999; Webster 1994, 2008; Weerawardena and O’Cass
2004; Kumar et al. 2000; Lambin 2007; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and
Slater 1990; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Smith and Raspin 2008; Helfat
and Peteraf 2009; Aghazadeh 2015; Vrontis and Thrassou 2006; Fleisher and
Bensoussan 2015; Kotler and Keller 2015; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Doyle
and Stern 2006; Aaker 2013; Teece et al. 1997; Piercy 1990; Kaplan 2010;
Miller 2015; Pace and Faules 1994; Thompson et al. 2013; Porter 2008; Dess
et al. 2015; Davenport and Harris 2007; Grant and Jordan 2012; Barney 2010;
Olszak 2014; Stewart and Rogers 2012).
2.9.10 Interaction-Based Organization Design

Organization design may be affected by the forces that come from both out-
side and inside the organization. Figure 2.40 illustrates the strategic and opera-
tional requirements of organization design that are imposed respectively from
external and internal.
As depicted in above figure the external forces (such as environmental
uncertainty and accordingly the need for setting proper strategic direction and
goals) put top-down pressure on designing the organization as strategic design
requirements. The internal forces (such as work processes improvement or
replacement of outdated equipment) create bottom-up pressure as operational
design needs. Therefore businesses should design their organization in a con-
tingent based considering both operational requirements (internal and bottom-
up forces) and strategic requirements (external and top-down forces) (Daft
2016; Griffin 2014; Gibson et al. 2012; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015;
Anaeto 2010; Miller 2009, 2015; Muchinsky 1977; Pace and Faules 1994;
Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Smith and
Raspin 2008; Helfat and Peteraf 2009; Webster 2008; Doyle and Stern 2006;
Aaker 2013; Srivastava et al. 1998; Teece et al. 1997; Piercy 1990; Kaplan
2010; Porter 2008; Dess et al. 2015; Davenport and Harris 2007; Grant and
Jordan 2012; Day 1994; Kotler and Keller 2015; Weerawardena and O’Cass
2004; Kumar et al. 2000; Lambin 2007; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and
Slater 1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Mavondo
et al. 2005; Wallach 1983; O’Donnell and Boyle 2008; Tharp 2009a, b; Tsai
2011; Aghazadeh 2008; Kreitner and Kinicki 2012; Griffin and Moorhead
2013; Watts 2004; Berkowitz 2011).
152 H. AGHAZADEH
Top-down pressure
External forces
Strategic
design
requirements
Bottom-up pressure
Internal force
Operational
design
requirements
Figure 2.40 Organization design requirements: external/strategic and internal/

operational

Communication
The hyper-function of marketology contributes business executives and ana-
lysts by providing market DIKII relying on IGDEE services throughout the
organization. In this regard it may be interlinked with organizational commu-
nication as below three modes:
1. Marketology supports organizational communication

2. Marketology as a hyper-function that communicate
3. Organizational communication enables marketology
2.9.12 Marketology Supports Organizational Communication

Communication is vital for organizations to the extent that without sound com-
munication they unlikely are able to perform well and even to survive. Needless
to say, that at the age of information and communication it is not an option but
a requirement is for any organization and organizational function/department
to be able to build and lead intelligent, integrated and effective communica-
tion/interaction21 both internally and externally. The hyper-function of mar-
ketology is the most suite competency that influentially can help organizations
to conduct intelligence and strategic communication appropriately. However,
marketology itself as well should be able to communicate well.
2.9.13
Marketology as a Hyper-Function that Communicates
Generally organizational communication can be classified into two groups: inter-
nal and external. Internal communication refers to the relations and interactions
of departments and people together within organization either horizontal or ver-
tical. The internal communication can be summarized as P2D (people to depart-
ment) and P2P (people to people).
External communication represents the relations and interactions of orga-
nization with outside people and organizations. These environmental bodies
mostly are organization’s external stakeholders (like customers, suppliers, chan-
nels, partners, etc.). The external communication may be formal or informal,
as well commercial or noncommercial. The external communication models
can be summarized as B2B (business to business), B2C (business to customer),
B2G (business to government), B2P (business to people), and so on.
Generally speaking the organizational communication of any kind seems to
go through three main stages: pre-communication, communication, and post-
communication. When talking about organizational communication in which
various units and people communicate both internally and externally the key
considerations in all stages that become apparent are integration: information
about principle issues that matter in communication (intelligence), integration
and effectiveness. As it has been noted frequently marketology is a core compe-
tency that can support organizational communication remarkably these regards.
154 H. AGHAZADEH
The hyper-function of marketology relying on its influential market-related

products (i.e. market DIKII) and complementary services can help organiza-
tions and their executives, people and departments to know well the condi-
tions, attributes and preferences of involved bodies/parties, suitable channels/
network, useful mediums/technologies, integration building mechanisms,
solutions for probable barriers, effectiveness and CSFs, and the proper ways
of successful leading communication. By this way it can be concluded that
marketology provides strategic support for organizational communications and
interactions of all kinds.
2.9.14 Organizational Communication Enables Marketology

There is no doubt such significant hyper-function of marketology to be able to
play such vital role for strategic supporting of organizational communication
itself must possess a very effective communication style.
Considering the marketology as a hyper-function which is scattered all over
the organization the effectiveness of its communication become more impor-
tant. The communication of marketology can be both internal and external. The
hyper-function of marketology may evolve through three main stages within
an organization: pre-mature, mature, and post-mature. Definitely its manner
of working would be different in each stage and a contingent style would be
workable. Accordingly, the hyper-function of marketology should think of both
effective internal and external communication. Its internal communication refers
to ways of making intelligent, integrative and effective relations and interactions
between members (people, teams and units) within marketology organization. It
should be pointed that in this regard the hyper-function of marketology consid-
ered as a system (organization) that is surrounded by overall organization (as an
environmental layer). Therefore it can be concluded that the internal communica-
tion of marketology should be conducted in a way that could enable it to com-
municate effectively with external bodies both inside and outside of organization
by providing its market-related products (i.e. market DIKII) and complemen-
tary services appropriately (Anaeto 2010; Miller 2009, 2015; Muchinsky 1977;
Pace and Faules 1994; Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Schrodt 2002; Shannon
and Weaver 1949; Sopow 2007; Daft 2016; Griffin 2014; Gibson et al. 2012;
Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Robbins
and Judge 2015; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Smith and Raspin 2008; Helfat
and Peteraf 2009; Webster 2008; Day 1994, 1999; Vrontis and Thrassou 2006;
Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Kotler and Keller 2015; Babatunde and Adebisi
2012; Doyle and Stern 2006; Aaker 2013; Srivastava et al. 1998; Teece et al. 1997;
Piercy 1990; Kaplan 2010; Thompson et al. 2013; Porter 2008; Dess et al. 2015;
Davenport and Harris 2007; Grant and Jordan 2012; Barney 2010; Homburg
and Pflesser 2000; Mavondo et al. 2005; Lings and Greenley 2005; Tuominen
et al. 2004; Weerawardena and O’Cass 2004; Kumar et al. 2000; Lambin 2007;
Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999;
O’Donnell and Boyle 2008; Tharp 2009a; Denison and Mishra 1995; Dauber
et al. 2012; Olszak 2014; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Kaplan and Norton 2001).

practice (MIP)
Marketology and communication
(2-25)
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Communication;
2. Communication within organization: forms and channels;
3. Communication network;
4. Communication technologies;
5. Communication barriers;
6. Effective communication;
7. Market-oriented communication;
8. Business interaction: external and internal;
9. Business response to environment uncertainty;
10. Interaction-based organization design;
11. Marketology communication;
12. Supporting organizational communication;
13. Communication within the hyper-function of marketology;
2.9.15
of Communication
Regarding the descriptive explanations, it can be illustrated in Figure 2.41 that
the ‘communication’ as one piece of MOD canvas become completed and
located.
156 H. AGHAZADEH
2.9.16 Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) Canvas:

Completion of Pieces
Regarding the descriptive explanations about structure, culture, people, assets,
processes, technology, innovation and communication, it can be illustrated in
Figure 2.41 that all eight pieces become completed and accordingly the MOD
canvas becomes fulfilled.
Marketology
Organizaonal
Contribuon (MOC)
Technology
Asset
Communicaon
Culture
Process
People
Innovaon
Structure
Figure 2.41 MOD canvas: completion of pieces

practice (MIP)
(2-26) Communication
Guideline: Regarding the subjects and content that have been provided and explained
above, practice MCMC in your intended case for the following issues about communication:
1. Coverage of marketology communicationby organization/business structure;
2. Manifestation of marketology communicationwithin organization/business;
3. Contribution of marketology from organization/business communication;


practice (MIP)
Communication
(2-27)
Guideline: Examine interlinks between marketology and communication in below matrix
Marketology Total

Weight (100%)

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Communication
2. Communication forms
3. Communication network
4. Communication technologies
BOD: communication
5. Communication barriers
6. Communication improvement
7. Market-oriented communication
8. Business interaction
9. Business response to environment
10. Interaction-based organization design
Sum
Total
Average
in related weight
between marketology and the coomunication as a key component of BOD.
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: communication, communication forms,
communication network, communication technologies, communication barriers, communication
improvement, market-oriented communication, business interaction, business response to environment,
interaction-based organization design, etc.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and communication:
158 H. AGHAZADEH
2.10 Marketology in Practice: MOD
Marketology in Marketology Organizational Design(MOD)

practice (MIP)
Cumulating and integrating the components of MOD
Chapter-End
Previous ‘marketology in practice’ parts have been arranged to represent a practical view
of the sections’ discussionsas the components of MOD include structure, culture, assets,
people, processes, technology, innovation, and communication. Some practical tools and
techniques of marketology were not applicable at the end of sections where as they are
suitable to use at the end of chapter in a cumulative manner. Because of this the following
tools/techniques of marketology are applied and exercised at the end of chapter to cover
all subjects of chapters together and integrative:
MIP 2-28: Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
MIP 2-29: Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD)
MIP 2-30: Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)
MIP 2-31: Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
MIP 2-32: Case study: Marketology and business organizational design (BOD)
Marketology in Marketology Status Analysis Matrix (MSAM)

practice (MIP)
Marketology organizational design (MOD)
(2-28)
Guideline: In below matrix determine the acceptance and penetration degree of the components of
MOD and also total MOD within an organization. The components
of MOD include structure, culture, assets, people, processes, technology, innovation, and communication. It
should be noted that the acceptance/penetration degree of each component of MOD should be determined
by considering the corresponding components of BOD within an
organization. In this way the MSAM can provide a comparative
acceptance and penetration picture of MOD and its components within an organization.
High (6-9) A
(strong)
Acceptance
Middle (3-6) B
(fair)
Low (0-3) C
(weak)
Low (0-3) Middle (3-6) High (6-9)
Penetration
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM); and the
identified situations for componentsof MODand the total MOD; analyze the situationsof them
separately and comparatively. Three modes of status can be identified for each component of MOD and
its total are: A (strong), B (fair), and C (weak).
Analysis of situations for components of MODand the total MOD:
160 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD)

practice (MIP)
Evaluating perspectives(3P): parasol, pillar and pipeline
(2-29)
Guideline: in below diagram determine each approach’s degree for the components of marketology
organizational design (MOD) and also total MOD within an organization. The components of MOD
include structure, culture, asset, people, process, technology, innovation, and communication. Definitely
after specifying the degree of each approach and plotting them together an intended combination of
approaches can be identified for total MOD and its components. By this way the marketology and
organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD) can provide a comparative view of the
intended approaches for total MOD and its components within an organization.The scoring range is
from lowest (1) to highest (9).
Parasol
(0-9)
Pipeline Pillar
(0-9) (0-9)
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of marketologyand organization relationship perspectives

diagram (MORPD) ; and the identified perspectives for componentsof MODand the total MOD;
analyze their combinations ofapproaches separately and comparatively.
Analysis of approaches for components of MOD and the total MOD:
Marketology in Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)

practice (MIP)
(2-30) Evaluating directions: O2M and M2O
Guideline: first determine the directions of organization to marketology (O2M) and marketology to
organization (M2O) are positive or negative. Accordingly in below matrix locate the direction mode
of both O2M and M2O for the components of marketology organizational design (MOD) and also
total MOD within an organization. The components of MOD include structure, culture, asset, people,
process, technology, innovation, and communication. It should be noted that the mutual direction of
each component of MOD should be determined by considering the corresponding components of
business organizational design (BOD) within an organization. Definitely after specifying the mutual
directions between marketology and organization, the current direction modes can be identified for
total MOD and its components. By this way the marketology and organization directional effects
matrix (MODEM) can provide a comparative view of the identified direction modes for total MOD
and its components within an organization.
O2M
+
+- ++
DM DM
- +
M2O
-- -+
DM DM
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of marketology and organization directional effects matrix
(MODEM); and the identified direction modes for the componentsof MODand total MOD; analyze
their direction modesseparately and comparatively.
Analysis of direction modes of the components of MOD and total MOD:
162 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)

practice (MIP)
(2-31) Marketology organizational design (MOD) and components
Guideline: in below matrix score interlinks between marketology and the components of business
organizational design (BOD) and the total BOD within an organizationbased on previously discussed
related marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) analysis;and using the data (facts &
figures) of related marketology match matrix (MMM). The components of BOD include structure, culture,
asset, people, process, technology, innovation, and communication. Hence using marketology benchmark
matrix (MBM) the interconnectionsbetween marketology and the components and total of BODcan be
benchmarked by comparing an intended company with the best practice companies (BPC)or competitors
within industry or market.
Coverage Manifestation Contribution Components BOD

Weight
Firm BPC1 BPC2 Firm BPC1 BPC2 Firm BPC1 BPC2 Firm BPC1 BPC2 Firm BPC1 BP2
Structure
Business organizational design (BOD)
Culture
People
Asset
Process
Technology
Innovation
Communication
MCMC
100
dimension
Total Score Average
Firm
Marketology BPC1
BPC2
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of marketology benchmark matrix (MBM); and the
benchmarked interlinks between marketology and the componentsof BODand total BOD; analyze their
interconnections separately and comparatively.
Analysis of benchmarked interlinks between marketology and components of MOD and total MOD:
Marketology in Case Study

practice (MIP)
(2-32) Marketology and business organizational design (BOD)
Guideline:
1. Consider a given company/organization that you may have access to primary or secondary data about
its organization, business, strategy and market in general; and specifically the components of BOD,
marketology system, components of MOD, and other useful data. In case of not access to usable
data you can consider a presumptive case company/organization.
2. Reviewing the ‘marketology in practice’ parts of the chapter, conduct below analyses with focus
on BOD and MOD about the intended case using the accessible data individually or in a group:
• MCMC analysis framework
• MMM
• MSAM
• Marketology and organization relationship analysis

– MORPD
– MODEM
• MBM
3. Conclude about the case company/organization in the fields of investigated issues and present an
analytical case report.
164 H. AGHAZADEH
2.11 Conclusion
Considering the described and discussed issues of the chapter it can be con-
cluded that:
• Structure, culture, people, processes, assets, technology, innovation, and

communication are key components of BOD (as pieces of BOD canvas)
facilitate and leverage conducting BOB, accomplishing BPM and busi-
ness SSS/SCS.
• Today in area of ever-changing environment, turbulent market, and mod-
ern business organizations, the hyper-function of marketology is crucial
for arranging BOD, conducting BOB, accomplishing BPM, and achiev-
ing SSS/SCS compatible with external and internal circumstances.
• The hyper-function of marketology which is constructed based on the
main pillars of business, market, technology, and analytics contributes mar-
ket-related decisions and actions of businesses through providing market
DIKII relying on IGDEE services throughout the enterprise using suitable
and applicable analytics and modern and user-friendly technologies.
• The hyper-function of marketology is closely related to the components
of BOD include structure, culture, people, processes, assets, technology,
innovation, and communication within business organization in three
modes: being enabled or covered by the components (coverage), assist
the business through empowering the components (support), and form-
ing and developing its own design’s components (manifest).
• The hyper-function of marketology should shape and expand a proper
design of itself throughout the organization/enterprise as marketology
organizational design (MOD) align with BOD including the components
of structure, culture, people, processes, assets, technology, innovation,
and communication.
• The functionality and relationship of marketology organizational design
(MOD) and its key components within business organization can be
evaluated, practiced and developed using tools and techniques that are
exercised in practical parts called MIP during and at the end of chapter.
2.12 Summary of the Chapter
1. During this chapter following issues have been discussed generally within
business organization context and specifically within marketology con-
text as different sections: structure, culture, people, processes, assets,
technology, innovation, and communication.
2. Each of the abovementioned subjects has been exercised using applied
tools and techniques of marketology in practical parts called ‘marketol-
ogy in practice’ during and at the end of section. Last part of each section
one piece of the MOD canvas has been completed.
3. Several issues and subjects of the chapter that were not applicable to be
practiced during the chapter have been exercised at the end of chapter in
practical part called ‘MIP-Chapter End’ in an integrative method.
4. At the end of this chapter a third of the SMC has been completed as its
first main piece (MOD).
5. The next two main pieces of the SMC (i.e. MOB and MOC) will be
completes respectively at the end of Chaps. 3 and 4.

In the following of Chap. 1 as preliminary and Chap. 2 as intermediary,
in Chap. 3 the MOB and its pertaining components are described and
practiced in detail: governance, strategy, business environment analysis,
stakeholder (internal and external) interaction, value (proposition), and
performance. At the end of next chapter the second piece of the SMC
(MOB) will be completed.
In Chap. 4 as a consequence of Chaps. 2 and 3 the contributions of
marketology will be discussed and practiced in detail.
Marketology in practice (MIP): Structure

–– MIP 2-1: Organization design and structure
–– MIP 2-2: Marketology structure
–– MIP 2-3: Marketology Management Center
MCMC & MMM
Marketology in practice (MIP): Culture
–– MIP 2-6: Marketology culture and climate
MCMC & MMM
166 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in practice (MIP): People

–– MIP 2-9: Marketology people and group
MCMC & MMM
Marketology in practice (MIP): Asset
–– MIP 2-12: Organizational asset, capabilities and competencies
–– MIP 2-13: Marketology asset
MCMC & MMM
Marketology in practice (MIP): Process
–– MIP 2-16: Marketology process management
MCMC & MMM
Marketology in practice (MIP): Technology
–– MIP 2-19: Marketology and technology
MCMC & MMM
Marketology in practice (MIP): Innovation
–– MIP 2-22: Marketology and innovation
MCMC & MMM

Marketology in practice (MIP): Communication
–– MIP 2-25: Marketology and communication
MCMC & MMM
Marketology in practice (MIP): Marketology Organizational
Design (MOD) Integrated Frameworks
–– MIP 2-28: Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
• MIP 2-29: Marketology and organization relationship perspectives
diagram (MORPD)
• MIP 2-30: Marketology and organization directional effects matrix
(MODEM)
• MIP 2-31: Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
• MIP 2-32: Case study: Marketology and business organizational
design (BOD)

Discuss, answer and practice the following issues with your colleagues or class-
mates (with an emphasis on a specific business, enterprise or an organization):
Notes
1. For more information, see McCourtie (2013).
2. The idea of classifying marketology structure in accordance with galaxy
has been adapted from the layers of Earth. Excluding the exosphere,
Earth has four primary layers, which are the troposphere, stratosphere,
mesosphere, and thermosphere. From highest to lowest, the five main
layers are: Exosphere: 700–10,000 km (440–6,200 miles);
Thermosphere: 80–700 km (50–440 miles); Mesosphere: 50–80 km
(31–50 miles); Stratosphere: 12–50 km (7–31 miles); Troposphere:
0–12 km (0–7 miles) (NASA 2016).
168 H. AGHAZADEH
3. ERP: Enterprise Resource Planning.

4. Regarding the similarity between marketology and business intelligence
(BI) mostly they are used interchangeably.
5. ETL stands for Extract, Transform, and Load. For more information
see Wikipedia (2016d) “Extract, transform, load (ETL)”.
6. This type of structuration is alike to organizing business intelligence as
“BI Excellence Advisory Board”. Such BI board may have monthly
roundtables to discuss about the relevant issues and problems.
7. For more detailed information refer to Eckerson (2013).
8. For more information about market-related informational products and
services of marketology see “chapter 4: marketology system” of
Aghazadeh H. (2016) Principles of Marketology, Volume 1: Theory,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA.
9. For more information about the definition of funding models and their
pros and cons, refer to Boyer et al. (2010): 55–57.
10. Note that in order to avoid duplicating the figure of MOD canvas at the
end of each section, illustration of the completion of each piece/com-
ponent of MOD canvas is referred to the figure in which the fulfillment
of MOD canvas is depicted comprehensively at the end of chapter.
11. For further information about Hofstede’s “model of national culture”,
its six dimensions and comparable reports of different nations see his
website: http://geert-hofstede.com/.
12. There are many frameworks to identify and analyze the sources of orga-
nizations’ competitive advantage like Porter’s value chain and five force
models, Mckinsey’s 7S framework, etc. One important and widely used
of them is VRIO (Barney 1995) or VRIN (Barney 1991) framework.
VRIN stands for Valuable, Rare, costly Imitable and Non-substitutable;
VRIO is the same as VRIN except “O” which stands for Organized to
capture the value.
13. In this meaning a process can be simulated to a string that collect and
connect the prayer beads and form a prayer Rosary. The Rosary is a col-
lection of beads that are connected through a string. The Rosary is usu-
ally used for prayer in different religions especially in Islam and Christian.
14. The materials and contents of this part (business analysis) majorly are
adapted from chapter 4 of volume one of this book. For more informa-
tion see Aghazadeh (2016), Chap. 4: Marketology System.
15. In order to avoid repeat of “market data/information/knowledge/
intelligence/insight (DIKII)” hereinafter the “market DIKII” will be
used as an equivalent. It should be noted that in some cases some ele-
ments of DIKII (i.e. data, information, knowledge, intelligence, and
insight) may be not or less intended. For example sometimes among all
elements of DIKII market knowledge may be highly intended, market
data is unintended and market intelligence is low intended. Anyhow
DIKII covers all the elements and each element can be intended to the
needed extent.
16. For more information about the categorization of organization non-

core (department) technologies see Daft (2012); Chap. 7: manufactur-
ing and technologies.
17. The BSC which has been developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992)
contains four main dimensions: financial performance, customer ser-
vice, internal business processes, and the organizational capacity for
learning and growth.
18. It should be mentioned that in this part majorly “technology” is

intended rather than tools and techniques. However they may be closely
related together.
19. For more information about business and market analysis technologies,
tools and techniques see Chaps. 5 and 6 of volume (1) of this book.
Aghazadeh (2016), Chap. 5: Business, market and competitive analysis
(BMCA) tools and techniques; and Chap. 6: Business, environment
and market analysis (BEMA) framework.
20. For more information about the models of examining organizational effec-
tiveness or interaction with environment see the subject of “
organizational
effectiveness” in part of “performance” in Chap. 9 of this book.
21. In this part communication is used to convey the meaning of both com-
munication and interaction.
CHAPTER 3
Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB)

In this chapter, the following topics will be discussed:
• Business and stakeholders analysis

• Business analysis (external and internal)
• Stakeholder analysis (external and internal)
• Governance
• Strategy
• Value and performance
• Marketology in practice (MIP)
• Marketology in practice (MIP)—Cumulative: Cumulating MOD (Chap. 2)
and MOB (Chap. 3)
The detailed learning objectives of each subject will be represented in its

related section in this chapter.
3.1 Introduction
In Chap. 1 the marketology organizational architecture (MOA) from a practi-
cal viewpoint has been mapped based upon a puzzled form called “standard
marketology canvas (SMC)” which includes three main pieces: (1) marketology
organizational design (MOD) as contextual piece, (2) marketology organiza-
tional behavior (MOB) as managerial piece, and (3) marketology organiza-
tional contribution (MOC) as consequential piece. In Chap. 2 the first main
piece, namely MOD, has been explained, analyzed, discussed, and completed
practically. In this chapter the second main piece of SMC, namely MOB, is
covered and explained in the following sections: Sect. 3.2: Business Analysis and
Stakeholder Analysis, Sect. 3.3: Governance, Sect. 3.4: Strategy, Sect. 3.5: Value
and Performance. Note that these sections are also the pieces of MOB canvas.

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54833-7_3
172 H. AGHAZADEH
In each section the subject is first introduced within the general context
of business organization. Secondly, the subject is explained within marketol-
ogy context; and, thirdly, the issues raised in the section are demonstrated
within and at the end of each section using applied tools and techniques of
marketology in practical exercises called “marketology in practice (MIP).” In
the final part of each section, one piece of the MOD canvas is completed.
Several of the issues and subjects within the chapter that are not directly
applicable and demonstrated in the chapter are detailed in MIP at the end of
the chapter using an integrative method. Further, at the end of this chapter
a third piece of “standard marketology canvas (SMC)” is completed as its sec-
ond main piece (MOB). Finally, in the appendix to this chapter some of the
key subjects and issues of the two previous chapters (Chap. 2 “Marketology
Organizational Design (MOD)” and Chap. 3 “Marketology Organizational
Behavior (MOB)”) are practiced through “MIP-Cumulative” commonly and
comparatively in an integrative manner. The third and last main piece (MOC)
of SMC will be completed in Chap. 4.
3.2 Business Analysis and Stakeholder Analysis

• Business analysis (external and internal)
• Stakeholder analysis (external and internal)
In this section, the following topics will be discussed:
• Business ecosystems
• External and internal factors and stakeholders
• Horizon scanning and market engineering
• Business analysis1: external or internal?
• Exinternal or envinternal business analysis
• Internal business analysis: inside
• External business analysis: macro, general, or remote environment
• External business analysis: micro, operating, task, competitive, or i ndustry
environment
• External business analysis: market
• Business stakeholders
• Marketology stakeholders (external and internal)
• External and internal marketology
• Marketology organizational behavior (MOB) canvas: piece of business
analysis
MARKETOLOGY ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR (MOB) 173
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Business and Stakeholder Analysis

(Internal and External)

–– MIP 3-1: Business and stakeholder analysis (internal and external)
–– MIP 3-2: Business, marketology and stakeholder analysis
MCMC & MMM
3.2.1 Business Ecosystems
Organizations as open systems designed to respond well to the rapidly changing
business environment have to follow and keep up with the widespread trends
of decreasing boundaries and increasing participation with the public and soci-
ety, and with collaboration and coopetition with other organizations and even
competitors in the form of inter-organizational relationships within organiza-
tional ecosystems. In such a business ecosystem the organizations may build their
inter-organizational relationships based on different perspectives, four important
ones of which are: resource dependence (competitive relationship with dissimilar
organizations); collaborative networking (cooperative relationship with dissimilar
organizations); population ecology (competitive relationship with similar orga-
nization); and institutionalism (cooperative relationship with similar organiza-
tions) (Gibson et al. 2012; Kaur 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Doyle 2009; Lopez
2014; Webster 2008; Daft 2016; Barney 2011; Porter 2007, 2008; Griffin 2013;
Mintzberg 2013; Bergen and Peteraf 2002; Best 2012; Kotler 2003; Aghazadeh
2008, 2016; Kumar et al. 2000; Lambin 2007; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver
and Slater 1990; Kotler and Keller 2015; Campbell and Craig 2011; Dranove
et al. 1998; Duncan et al. 1998; Fernando 2011; Lucas 2000; Nordmeyer 2015;
Qiu 2008; Reginald 2000; Teece 2010; Grant and Jordan 2012; Cravens and
Piercy 2013; Czepiel and Kerin 2012; Grant 2013; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a,
b; Clark 1997; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Smith and Raspin 2008).
3.2.2 External and Internal Factors and Stakeholders

Within a business ecosystem enterprises can achieve sustainable superior/
competitive success (SSS/SCS) relying on business organizational design
(BOD) and business organizational behavior (BOB). In accordance with
BOB, firms should arrange their governance, strategy, value, performance,
external and internal factors, and stakeholders to work effectively based upon
174 H. AGHAZADEH
the components of BOD. In this regard analysis of the business environ-

ment and the market, external stakeholders, the business itself (within), and
internal stakeholders are considered as key matters. The analysis of such mat-
ters is significant because it leads to the proper recognition of external and
internal complexities, uncertainties, turbulences, dynamics, challenges, the
key SWOTs (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), and the main
expectations, interests, power sources, and causes of satisfaction/dissatisfac-
tion of both external and internal stakeholders. Certainly the hyper-function
of marketology can play a substantial role in facilitating such analysis and
recognition.
In addition to the abovementioned supportive role, the hyper-function of
marketology itself is an organizational subsystem which should perform well
within an organization. Marketology should attempt to be effective in sup-
porting market-related business decisions and actions. For this purpose the
hyper-function of marketology should rely on marketology organizational
design (MOD) and marketology organizational behavior (MOB). Based on
MOB the hyper-function of marketology should be considered for a business’s
governance, strategy, value, performance, external and internal factors, and
stakeholders to ensure all work well based upon the components of BOD. In
this regard marketology analysis of the business environment and external
stakeholders and marketology of the business itself (within) and internal stake-
holders, as well as the need to support those at a higher level in the business,
are considered as critical issues. Therefore it can be inferred that analysis of
external and internal factors and stakeholders is a vital capability for accom-
plishing both BOB and MOB, and accordingly realizing marketology and
business success.
Horizon scanning and market engineering are two market-related, ana-
lytical, and somewhat outdated methods that may appear to be similar to
and interchangeable with marketology. But in fact they can be considered
under the umbrella of marketology (Mavondo et al. 2005; Sulkowski 2012;
Stoyko 2009; Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Trice and Beyer 1993; Grant
2013; Gatignon and Xuereb 1997; Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Schrodt
2002; Sopow 2007; Peteraf and Bergen 2003; Porter 2007, 2008; Qiu 2008;
Reginald 2000; Teece 2010; Grant and Jordan 2012; Cravens and Piercy
2013; Czepiel and Kerin 2012; Eden and Ackermann 1998; Gibson et al.
2012; Dess et al. 2015; Lopez 2014; Webster 2008; Daft 2016; Barney
2011; Kotler and Keller 2015; Smith and Raspin 2008; Mintzberg 2013;
Aghazadeh 2015).
3.2.3 Horizon Scanning and Market Engineering

Horizon scanning is a systematic investigation of information to identify
probable opportunities, emerging matters, risks, and threats. Horizon scan-
ning is understood as analyzing the future to examine the potential effects
of emerging trends and developments on current strategies and practices.
Horizon scanning can help business decision-makers and action-takers to

take a longer-term strategic approach, and reinforce current strategies and
tactics in the face of future uncertainty. Horizon scanning can also help deci-
sion-makers to gain new insights and to think out of the box. Horizon scan-
ning is built upon older methods such as environmental scanning, strategic
foresight, indications and warning, identification of emerging risks, strate-
gic warning, and warning intelligence. Environmental/market scanning is
used interchangeably with futures scanning systems, early warning systems,
and futures intelligence systems.2 Horizon scanning embraces two processes:
(1) identification and monitoring of new and evolving issues and conditions;
and (2) analysis of the related c ontext in which these new and evolving issues
exist in order to understand their potential impacts on business value and
performance.
As a matter of fact market engineering is conceptualized in a similar
manner to horizon scanning. Market engineering refers to the structured
and systematic process of analyzing and restructuring a market in order to
make it an effective and efficient means for conducting exchange transac-
tions. Market engineering is a holistic approach for environmental analysis,
designing, evaluating, implementing and introducing to market (often the
new electronic market).3 Marketing engineering helps to gain data, infor-
mation, and insights into decisions, and facilitates the decision-making and
implementation.
Regarding the comprehensive, systematic, and modern concept and
practice of the hyper-function of marketology on the hand, and the dis-
cussions of horizon scanning and market engineering on the other it can
be inferred that, from an expanded view, marketology may embrace both
horizon scanning and market engineering entirely; from a limited view
marketology can support both horizon scanning and market engineering
effectively. These all represent the necessity of proactive or futuristic market
intelligence and insight for businesses. In this way businesses are able to
make market-related decisions and take the necessary actions in a timely
and correct manner. It is interesting to note that without such analysis busi-
nesses and their key decision-makers and action-takers are otherwise lack-
ing market intelligence and are blind to the trends in the market and its
complexities and turbulences. Accordingly they will behave like the boiling
frog and will be cooked to death because they were not able to perceive the
threats in the market4 (Weinhardt et al. 2007; Weinhardt and Gimpel 2007;
Lilien and Rangaswamy 2006; Lilien et al. 1999, 2012; Day 2013; Bishop
2009; Brown 2007; Sutherland and Woodroof 2009; Bengston 2013;
Jackson 2011; Lavoix 2010, 2012; OECD 2016; FAO 2014; Gordon and
Jerome 2009; Grabo 2004; Habbegger 2009; Campbell and Craig 2011;
Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Grant 2013;
Cravens and Piercy 2013; Teece 2010; Best 2012; Aghazadeh 2016; Griffin
2013; Doyle 2009; Smith et al. 2006; Smith and Raspin 2008; Smith and
Grimm 1987; Subramanian et al. 1993).
176 H. AGHAZADEH
3.2.4 Business Analysis 5: External or Internal?

Businesses are always scrimmaging with two fundamental challenges: exter-
nal/environmental changes and internal dynamics.6 These challenges are
increasingly intensifying. This is why we often see well-known and widely
used phrases such as ever-changing, intensively competitive, dynamic, tur-
bulent, complex, and uncertain business environment and organizations in
related business academic and practical textbooks, papers, speeches, lectures,
and so on.
By facing such continual challenges in both the external and internal work-
ings of a business it is part of the outstanding art of leadership and the role also
of senior executives to be aware of their organization’s external changes and
internal dynamics in a timely and constant manner. In this way they are expected
to be able to forecast future conditions of the environment/market as well as
the future situation of their own organization within a defined time horizon. For
this purpose they should be equipped with a core competency of simultaneous
external/environmental and internal analysis in the form of new frameworks of
“exinternal”7 or “envinternal”8 business analysis as shown in Figure 3.1.
As illustrated in Figure 3.1 with regard to the so-called challenges of both the
external/environmental changes and the internal dynamics of business orga-
nizations, effective decisions and actions to deal with such challenging condi-
tions require a mixed or combined analysis of both external/environmental
and internal factors. In this regard the “exinternal” or “envinternal” business
analysis frameworks can be helpful for business analysts, decision-makers, and
action-takers. Accordingly the leaders/managers of an organization are able to
continually and comprehensively scan, monitor, and assess both external and
internal factors and obtain effective and real-time business, market, competi-
tive, and organizational intelligence (Griffin 2013; Eden and Ackermann 1998;
Gibson et al. 2012; Dess et al. 2015; Lopez 2014; Webster 2008; Daft 2016;
Kotler and Keller 2015; Porter Porter 2007, Porter 2008; Mintzberg 2013;
Aghazadeh 2015; Lings 2004; Kaur 2015; Rodrigues and Pinho 2012; Fill and
Exinternal or
External Internal
Envinternal
business business
business
analysis analysis
analysis
Figure 3.1 “Exinternal” or “envinternal” business analysis (combination of external

and internal business analysis)
Jamieson 2006; Catalin et al. 2014; Dunmore 2002; Tuominen et al. 2004;
Day 1994; Doyle 2009; Peteraf and Bergen 2003; Qiu 2008; Reginald 2000;
Teece 2010; Grant and Jordan 2012; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Czepiel and
Kerin 2012; Beal 2000; Beck 1982; Lings and Greenley 2005; Subramanian
et al. 1994; Bednall and Valos 2005; Boyd and Janet 1996).
3.2.5 Exinternal or Envinternal Business Analysis

A business organization is an open system that has wide-ranging and close
interactions with the environment and market; a useful business analysis should
consider both external and internal factors of business. Strategic market manage-
ment of a business firm includes developing strategy alternatives and making stra-
tegic decisions as outputs of business analysis in turn require both external and
internal analysis as the inputs. The external factors include all elements outside of
the business, and the internal factors involve all components within the business.
Generally the business analysis is classified into two main groups: external
business analysis—or business, environment and market analysis (BEMA)9—
and internal business analysis. Specifically these two groups of business analysis
are merged and incorporated as universal and unified exinternal or envinternal
business analysis.
4. Market
3. Macro
2. Micro
1. Inside
Figure 3.2 Layers/levels of “exinternal” or “envinternal” business analysis

178 H. AGHAZADEH
Exinternal or envinternal business analysis as illustrated in Figure 3.2

c ontains both external and internal business analysis in four layers/levels start-
ing from within the organization to beyond.
The layers/levels of “exinternal” or “envinternal” business analysis are:
1. Business internal: inside

2. Business external: macro, general, or remote environment
3. Business external: micro, operating, task, or industry environment
4. Business external: market
3.2.6 Internal Business Analysis: Inside

Internal business analysis represents an understanding of important elements of
the organization covering the performance and strategic issues. There are two
main perspectives for internal analysis: performance-based and strategy-based
perspectives.
According to the performance-based perspective of internal business
analysis two dimensions of financial and non-financial performance are

considered. Financial performance is measured by sales and profitability,
return on assets (ROA), return on investment (ROI), market share, and
shareholder value. Non-financial performance indicators, which may be
linked to future profitability, include customer satisfaction, brand loyalty,
product/service quality, brand/firm associations, relative cost, product port-
folio, new products, and manager/employee capability and performance.
Based on the strategy-based perspective of internal business analysis those
business characteristics are considered that influence strategic options, and that
limit or drive strategy choice. In accordance with this perspective five issues are
examined: past and present strategy, strategic problems, organizational capa-
bilities and constraints, financial resources and constraints, and organizational
strengths and weaknesses.
Analysis of the internal workings of the business consider factors that origi-
nate from within the firm inside and includes forces that affect a firm’s man-
agement and performance. Through a systemic examination of the internal
workings of the business a firm can better understand how each activity may
contribute significantly to add value or to shape an effective strategy. There are
different methods for analyzing the internal environment of a company, such
as Porter’s Value Chain, McKinsey’s 7S, and so on.
The company’s internal departments (such as top management, market-
ing, finance, research and development (R&D), purchasing, operations, and
accounting) should be coordinated with each other to ensure proper interac-
tion and the creation of value for environmental stakeholders.
It is expected that an effective internal business analysis, as a main com-
ponent of the strategic market management of a business, does more than
simply identify organizational strengths and weaknesses but should also relate
these to competitor and market analysis; which then paves the way for design-
ing realistic and strong business strategies (Cadle et al. 2010; Clark 1997;
Daft et al. 1988; Day 1986; Dean et al. 1998; Downey 2007; Doyle and Stern
2006; Aghazadeh 2016; Dyson and O’Brien 1998; Grant 2013; Dyson 1990;
Evans 2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Fuld 1995; Hagen and Amin
1995; Raphael and Parket 1991; Smith et al. 2006; Smith and Grimm 1987;
Subramanian et al. 1993; Teece et al. 1997; Tonsetic 2012; Trim 2006; Barney
2011; Smith and Raspin 2008; Vaitkevicius et al. 2006; Ventana 2010; Aaker
2013; Amit and Zott 2012; Hambrick 1982; Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart
2007; Bressler 2012; Davenport et al. 2006).

practice (MIP)
Business and stakeholder analysis (internal and external)
(3-1)
Guideline (FOCUS)
- Form groups of students (in class) or colleagues (in organization) composed of 3 or 5 members
- Organize a leader and select a name/label for your group
- Consider a case or subject for investigation and analysis
- Understand, discuss, and work on the issue as a teamwork
- Set out a report, present it to the class/organization, and do an evaluation
Discussion: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained in
previous sections, practice FOCUS in your intended case for the issues below:
1. Business ecosystems;
2. External and internal factors and stakeholders;
3. Horizon scanning and market engineering;
4. Business analysis: external or internal;
5. Exinternal or envinternal business analysis;
6. Internal business analysis: inside;
7. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and

180 H. AGHAZADEH
3.2.7
External Business Analysis: Macro, General, or
Remote Environment
Macro environment analysis is the process of understanding the emerging
opportunities and threats created that come from macro environment com-
ponents/factors. The macro environment, sometimes called general or remote
environment, has broad scope and long-term implications for managers, firms,
and strategies. The components of the macro environment are usually beyond
the direct influence or primary control of any single organization. A well-
established analysis model to identify significant factors of the remote busi-
ness environment is the PESTLE analysis. The acronym PESTLE stands for
political, economic, social-cultural, technological, legal, and ecological. These
factors may be considered over a large geographic area (e.g. global, multina-
tional, international, regional, national, provincial/state, and local) and over
time (e.g. past, present, and future).
The macro environment comprises forces that affect the actors in the micro
environment and shape opportunities and pose threats to the business. These
forces, their changes, and their probable effects should be considered and ana-
lyzed carefully by companies. Below the main components of a company’s
macro environment are explained in brief.
–– Political environment, which includes laws, government agencies, and
pressure groups. Political factors influence organizations and individu-
als in a society, and affect business decisions.
–– Economic environment, which can present both opportunities and
threats, consists of economic factors that affect consumer purchas-
ing power and spending patterns. Based on the economic situation,
nations are classified according to the three main categories of indus-
trial, developing, and subsistence economies. Economic factors can
have a dramatic effect on consumer spending and buying behavior.
Businesses in all industries are looking for ways to offer today’s more
financially cautious buyers greater value—just the right combination of
product quality and good service at a fair price. Additionally companies
and marketers should pay attention to income distribution as well as
income levels.
–– Social factors refer to the study of human populations in terms of
size, density, location, age, gender, race, occupation, and other sta-
tistics. While the demographic environment involves people, and
people make up markets, changes in demographics indeed mean
changes in markets. Consequently, social factors are considered to
be very important to companies (particularly marketers). Based on
changes to demographics, changes in business and marketing strate-
gies are required.
–– Cultural environment is composed of institutions and other forces that
affect basic values, perceptions, preferences, and behaviors of a soci-
ety. Cultural factors describe how people think and consume. People
in a society’s cultural environment have core beliefs and values which

have a high degree of persistence, whereas secondary beliefs and values
are more open to change. The major cultural values of a society are
expressed in people’s views of themselves and others, as well as in their
views of organizations, society, nature, and the universe.
–– Technological environment is considered as the dramatic and rap-
idly changing set of external factors which encompass the forces that
may create new technologies, new products, and exciting market
opportunities.
–– Legal factors refer to public policy developed by governments to guide
the business environment and its players through sets of laws and regu-
lations that limit businesses for the good of society as a whole. Business
legislation is enacted to protect companies from unfair competition;
protect consumers from unfair business practices; and protect the
interests of society against unrestrained business behavior.
–– Ecological factors involve the natural resources that are needed as
inputs by companies or that are affected by their activities. Businesses
should be aware of several trends in the natural environment, includ-
ing shortages of raw materials, increased pollution, and increased gov-
ernment intervention in natural resource management. According to
the so-called green movement, today, companies attempt to develop
strategies and practices that support environmental sustainability by
responding to consumer demands for more environmentally respon-
sible products.
–– Emphasis on ethics and socially responsible actions has increased among
socially responsible businesses in a way that goes beyond written laws
and regulations. Businesses are also governed by social codes and rules
of professional ethics to protect the long-term interests of their con-
sumers and the environment. Through corporate social responsibility
(CSR), social marketing, cause-related marketing, and, more recently,
creating shared value (CSV), businesses attempt to create both benefits
and value for society (specifically local societies) and, accordingly, as
a result of long-term return, create economic benefits and value for
themselves.
Companies’ actions based on the way in which they respond to the busi-
ness environment can be classified according to three categories: proactive
(those who make things happen), active (those who watch things happen),
and reactive (those who wonder what has happened). Most companies can-
not always affect environmental forces, whereas some companies instead of
being influenced by the environment are able to define a strategy that impacts
the environment significantly and quite remarkably. Considering the turbu-
lence and complexity of the environment on the one hand, and the flexibility
and fluctuation of companies’ capabilities for dealing with environment on
the other hand, companies are recommended to define their approach of
182 H. AGHAZADEH
responding to the environment by considering both the external and the

internal situation. This requires that companies take a contingently proactive,
active, or reactive perspective toward the environment and market (Porter
and Kramer 2011; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Smith and Raspin 2008;
Helfat and Peteraf 2009; Webster 2008; Day 1999; Warren 2008; Vrontis
and Thrassou 2006; Kaplan 2010; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Aaker
2013; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Doyle and Stern 2006, Piercy 1990;
Teece et al. 1997; Srivastava et al. 1998; Subramanian et al. 1993; Aghazadeh
2016; Tonsetic 2012; Trim 2006; Barney 2011; Dess et al. 2015; Kotler and
Keller 2015; Grant 2013; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Teece 2010; Best 2012;
Campbell and Craig 2011; Aaker 2013; Porter 2008).
3.2.8
External Business Analysis: Micro, Operating, Task,
Competitive, or Industry Environment
The micro environment consists of components that have relatively specific and
immediate implications for managing the firm. The main factors of the operat-
ing environment are customers, suppliers, competitors, mediators/channels,
and collaborators. Unlike the general environment, the operating environment
can be influenced by individual firms.
The competitive environment is composed of many factors which can be ana-
lyzed by five forces model (Porter 1980) or value net model (Brandenburger
and Nalebuff 1995). The five forces involve the bargaining power of suppliers
and customers, threats posed by new entrants and substitute products/services,
and intensity of rivalry among competitors in an industry. The value net model
involves the interactions of a company with substitutes and complements, and
transactions of a company with suppliers and customers. Complements refer to
products or services that have an impact on the value of a firm’s products or
services.
As mentioned above the task environment encompasses four key areas of
customers, competitors, channels, and suppliers.
The micro environment affects the company’s ability (positively or nega-
tively) to build relationships with and create value for the stakeholders, espe-
cially customers. Successful interaction between a business and its stakeholders
in order to create value for them requires interdepartmental relationships
within the company, and also the building of strong relationships with suppli-
ers, intermediaries, competitors, various publics, and customers as components
of the company’s value delivery network:
–– The company’s internal departments that may be involved should be
coordinated with each other for to allow proper interaction and the
creation of value for environmental stakeholders. These departments
include top management, marketing, finance, research and develop-
ment (R&D), purchasing, operations, and accounting.
–– Suppliers are considered as crucial actors in the company’s overall value

delivery network as they provide the necessary resources for producing
goods and services. Suppliers’ problems should be taken seriously by
the company, in the sense that they should be considered as partners in
creating and delivering value to stakeholders.
–– Intermediaries are firms that help the company to promote, sell,
and distribute its products to final buyers. They include resellers,
physical distribution firms, marketing services agencies, and financial
intermediaries.
–– For a company to be successful it must provide greater value and satis-
faction for its stakeholders (customers) than its competitors do. To this
end, simply adapting to the needs of target consumers is not enough
and the company must achieve sustainable competitive advantage by
choosing and executing proper marketing strategy and positioning the
offerings in a way in which in the minds of consumers they are strongly
differentiated from competitors’ offerings. It should be recognized
that no single competitive marketing strategy is best for all companies
and each firm should consider its own size and industry position com-
pared to those of its competitors.
–– As with the other components of the micro environment, a public has
an actual or potential interest in or impact on a company’s ability to
achieve its objectives. There are seven types of public groups: finan-
cial publics, media publics, government publics, citizen-action publics,
local publics, general publics, and internal publics.
The most vital actors of the company’s micro environment are customers.
The ultimate goal of the company’s value delivery network is to serve target
customers appropriately and create strong relationships with them. There are
five types of customers (each market type with its own special characteristics)
and a company might target any or all five types. They are customer markets,
business markets, reseller markets, government markets and international mar-
kets (Kotler 2003; Kumar et al. 2001; Langley 1991; Lehman and Winer 2007;
McClinton 2015; McNamee et al. 1999; Meer 2012; Metayer 2013; Miller
and Smith 2011; Weick 2009; Smith and Raspin 2008; Beal 2000; Beck 1982;
Bednall and Valos 2005; Boyd and Janet 1996, Cadle et al. 2010; Clark 1997;
Daft et al. 1988; Day 1986; Dean et al. 1998; Dess et al. 2015; Downey 2007;
Doyle and Stern 2006; Dyson and O’Brien 1998; Dyson 1990; Evans 2015;
Fuld 1995; Hagen and Amin 1995; Aghazadeh 2015; Raphael and Parket
1991; Smith et al. 2006; Subramanian et al. 1993, 1994; Teece et al. 1997;
Tonsetic 2012; Trim 2006; Vaitkevicius et al. 2006; Ventana 2010; Bergen and
Peteraf 2002; Coyne and Horn 2009; Dranove et al. 1998; Smith and Grimm
1987; Duncan et al. 1998; Fernando 2011; Henderson 1983; Lucas 2000;
Nordmeyer 2015; Peteraf and Bergen 2003; Porter 2007; Qiu 2008; Reginald
2000; Grant and Jordan 2012; Czepiel and Kerin 2012).
184 H. AGHAZADEH
3.2.9 External Business Analysis: Market

In order to achieve competitive success in creating and delivering value propo-
sition to its key stakeholders, in a way in which is superior to that of its sig-
nificant competitors, a business should be able to make timely and effective
decisions (at strategic, tactical, and operational levels) by generating and dis-
seminating useful business and market information, knowledge, and insight.
Certainly such intelligences and insights can be gained through comprehensive
business external/environment/market analysis.
The market/submarket analysis involves determining the attractiveness of
the market and submarkets, understanding the dynamics of the market, and
the examination of market size, growth prospects, profitability, cost structure,
channels, trends, emerging markets, and key success factors. The market attrac-
tiveness means profit potential measured by the long-term return on invest-
ment (ROI) achieved by its participants. However entering and acting in an
attractive market will not assure success for all participants, whereas a mar-
ket appropriate for a particular company may not be appropriate for another
company. This means that the success of a company in a market depends not
only on the market attractiveness but also on the company’s strengths and
weaknesses in comparison to those of its competitors. The dynamics of a mar-
ket include identifying emerging markets, key success factors, trends, threats,
opportunities, and strategic uncertainties that can guide information-gathering
and analysis.
Dimensions of market analysis include market and submarket size (actual
and potential), growth, and profitability; cost structure; distribution sys-
tems; trends and developments; emerging submarkets; key success factors;
and so on.
Looking for growth areas in the market may cause a company to over-
look a substantial set of associated risks. The risks of high-growth markets
can be classified according to three categories: competitive risks (competi-
tor overcrowding, and the entrance of competitors with a significant advan-
tage); market changes risks (a change in the key success factor, changing and
developing technology, disappointing market growth, and price instability);
and firm limitation risks (resource constraints, and distribution channel con-
straints and unavailability).
The market analysis which is composed of customer and competitor analy-
sis helps decision-makers to make strategic decisions about the market and
its dynamics. Customer analysis comprises the identifying of the organiza-
tion’s customer segments and each segment’s motivations and unmet needs.
Competitor analysis includes the identification of competitors (current and
potential), their strategic groups (those with similar characteristics, strength,
and strategies), performance (sales, sales growth, and profitability), image and
personality (positioned and perceived), objectives (growth), strategies (past
and current), future strategic moves, culture (priorities of cost control, or
entrepreneurship, or customer), cost structure (cost advantage), and strengths

and weaknesses (e.g. brand name, distribution, and R&D).
In order to make proper strategic decisions and develop effective strate-
gies, an organization needs market information and insight, and this should be
gained through special studies and ongoing information-gathering and market
analysis (Eden and Ackermann 1998; Gibson et al. 2012; Lopez 2014; Webster
2008; Daft 2012, 2016; Barney 2011; Kotler and Keller 2015; Porter 2008;
Smith and Raspin 2008; Mintzberg 2013; Aghazadeh 2008; Day 1999, 2013;
Piercy 1990; Srivastava et al. 1998; Campbell and Craig 2011; Fleisher and
Bensoussan 2015; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Grant 2013; Cravens and
Piercy 2013; Teece 2010; Best 2012; Griffin 2013; Doyle 2009; Aaker 2013;
Amit and Zott 2012; Hambrick 1982; Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2007;
Bressler 2012; Davenport et al. 2006; Ballard et al. 2006; Weerawardena and
O’Cass 2004; Kumar et al. 2000; Lambin 2007; Kohli and Jaworski 1990;
Narver and Slater 1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999).
3.2.10 Business Stakeholders
All organizations have various stakeholders. Stakeholders are individuals/
people, groups, and organizations that are directly affected by the practices
of the organization and have a stake in its performance and success. Thus an
organization should be responsible to the stakeholders. Stakeholder manage-
ment is an organizational strategy for identifying and responding to the inter-
ests, expectations, influence/power, and satisfaction of stakeholders.
Eden and Ackermann (1998) have developed the power-interest grid as a
method for stakeholder analysis. In accordance with this matrix, based on the
extent of their interest and power the stakeholders of organizations can be clas-
sified according to four groups: crowd (low interest and low power), subjects
(high interest and low power), context setters (low interest and high power),
and players (high interest and high power). On the basis of the position of
stakeholders the businesses can arrange ways of interacting with stakehold-
ers in the following ways: crowd (monitor: minimum effort), subjects (keep
informed), context setters (keep satisfied), and players (manage: engage closely
and influence actively).
A business’s stakeholders can be further classified as internal or external
stakeholders. Various groups of organizational stakeholders include stock-
holders, customers, communities, suppliers, employees, interest groups,
trade associations, owners/investors, courts, colleges and universities, for-
eign government, state/federal/local government, and creditors. The major
stakeholder groups of an organization and their main expectations are as
follows:
Internal stakeholders:
–– Employees and managers: supervision, payment, and satisfaction
–– Managers: commitment, responsiveness, and performance
186 H. AGHAZADEH
–– Groups/teams (formal and informal): interests, power, and significance

–– Departments: position, facilities, and resources
–– Owners and shareholders10: financial return
External stakeholders:
–– Customers: high-quality products, special services, and value
–– Creditors: fiscal responsibility and creditworthiness
–– Government: fair competition and obedience to laws and regulations
–– Union: benefits and employee pay
–– Community/society: contribution to community affairs and good
corporate citizen
–– Suppliers: revenue from purchases and satisfactory transactions
–– Channel/mediators: commission, payment, validation, and continued
ties
–– Media and public: transparency and information-sharing
–– Collaborators/partners: benefits, long relationship, honesty, and
transparency
Business stakeholders can be assessed based on their attributes and
ehaviors. Attributes of stakeholders refer to their inherent characteris-
b
tics, such as demographic features, or surrounding factors of customers,
employees, and suppliers. In fact, stakeholders do not have as much control
and influence on their attributes. Rather the behaviors or performances of
stakeholders represent the process and consequences of their decisions and
actions. In contrast to their attributes, stakeholders have enough control
and influence on their behaviors to render them capable of selecting/or not
selecting a behavior and performance. In this regard the stakeholders are
responsible for their behaviors (decisions and actions) (Gibson et al. 2012;
Dess et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Griffin 2013; Mintzberg 2013; Herring 1999,
2002; Bryson 2004; IMA 1996a, c, d; Eden and Ackermann 1998; Bryson
et al. 2002, 2011; Morphy 2016; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Wolfe and
Putler 2002; Rowley 1997; Preston and Sapienza 1990; Ogden and Watson
1999; Jawahar and McLaughlin 2001; Hillman and Keim 2001; Frooman
1999; Svendsen 2010; Donaldson and Preston 1995; Coff 1999; Day 2013;
Best 2012; Doyle 2009; Aaker 2013; Amit and Zott 2012; Hambrick 1982;
Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2007; Bressler 2012; Davenport et al. 2006;
Aghazadeh 2016; Balboni et al. 2010; Helfat and Peteraf 2009; Heuer
1999; Kotler 2003; Kumar et al. 2001; Langley 1991; Lehman and Winer
2007; McClinton 2015; McNamee et al. 1999; Meer 2012; Metayer 2013;
Miller and Smith 2011; Weick 2009; Cadle et al. 2010).
3.2.11 Marketology Stakeholders (External and Internal)

The factors and stakeholders external to the hyper-function of marketol-
ogy can be classified as inside and outside of the organization. The external
factors and stakeholders of marketology positioned outside of the organiza-
tion (layer 2) are the same as the external factors and stakeholders of the
business/organization itself. Whereas the external factors and stakeholders
of marketology positioned inside of organization (layer 1) are the internal
factors and stakeholders of business/organization except those within the
hyper-function of marketology. Hence the factors and stakeholders that are
located within marketology are defined as the internal factors and stakehold-
ers of marketology. These groups of external and internal factors and stake-
holders of marketology comparing to those of organizations are illustrated
in Figure 3.3.
External factors and External factors and

stakeholders of stakeholders of
business/organizaon marketology
External factors and

stakeholders of
marketology (Layer 2)
External factors and

stakeholders of
marketology (Layer 1)
Internal factors and

stakeholders of marketology
Internal factors and Environment/

stakeholders of Market
business/organizaon
Organizaon
The hyper-funcon
of marketology
Figure 3.3 External and internal factors and stakeholders of marketology

188 H. AGHAZADEH
Important factors and stakeholders of marketology11:
• The external factors and stakeholders of marketology-layer 2:

–– The external factors of marketology-layer 2 are the same as the exter-
nal factors of the business/organization and include the elements of
macro environment, micro environment, and market.
–– The external stakeholders of marketology-layer 2 are the same as the
external stakeholders of business/organization and involve customers,
creditors, government, union, community/society, suppliers, chan-
nel/mediators, media and public, collaborators/partners, and so on.
• The external factors and stakeholders of marketology-layer 1:
–– The external factors of marketology-layer 1 are similar to the internal
factors of the business/organization and include the components of
business organizational design (BOD) (i.e. structure, culture, people,
process, asset, innovation, technology, and communication) and busi-
ness organizational behavior (BOB) (i.e. governance, strategy, value,
performance, business, environment and stakeholders), and so on.
–– The external stakeholders of marketology-layer 1 are similar to the
internal stakeholders of business/organization and include execu-
tives (in strategic, tactical and operational levels), analysts and experts,
decision-makers, action-takers, employees, and so on.
• The internal factors and stakeholders of marketology:
–– The internal factors of marketology include the components of mar-
ketology organizational design (MOD) (i.e. structure, culture, people,
process, asset, innovation, technology, and communication) and marke-
tology organizational behavior (MOB) (i.e. governance, strategy, value,
performance, business, environment, and stakeholders), and so on.
–– The internal stakeholders of marketology involve managers, analysts,
and experts (mostly business, market, IT), delegates (dedicated and
scattered) and employees, and so on.
Aghazadeh (2016) prioritized key stakeholders of marketology in an enter-
prise as following: key plus(+): the stakeholders with high influence (+) and high
interest (+); key: the stakeholders with high influence (+) and low interest
(−); or low influence (−) and high interest (+); and key minus(−): the stake-
holders with low influence (−) and low interest (−). It should be noted that
this prioritization is for a normal situation, and it may be changed contin-
gently (Cravens and Piercy 2013; Teece 2010; Day 1986, 2013; Best 2012;
Griffin 2013; Doyle 2009; Aaker 2013; Amit and Zott 2012; Hambrick
1982; Casadesus-Masanell and Ricart 2007; Bressler 2012; Davenport et al.
2006; Ballard et al. 2006; Weerawardena and O’Cass 2004; Kumar et al.
2000, 2001; Lambin 2007; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater
1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Zaltman 2006;
Yankelovich and Meer 2006; Wilson 1994; Weick 2000, 2009; Warren 2008,
Hitt et al. 2015; Wansink 2000; Szulanski 1996; Accenture 2012; Aguilar
1967; Ahituv et al. 1998; Almquist and Lee 2009; Babatunde and Adebisi
2012; Aghazadeh 2016; Balboni et al. 2010; Helfat and Peteraf 2009; Heuer
1999; IMA 1996a, c, d; Kotler 2003; Langley 1991; Lehman and Winer
Miller and Smith 2011; Beal 2000; Bednall and Valos 2005; Boyd and Janet
1996, Cadle et al. 2010; Clark 1997; Daft et al. 1988).
3.2.12 External and Internal Marketology

Considering the debated external and internal factors and stakeholders and
other relevant discussions the marketology organizational architecture (MOA)
including marketology organizational design (MOD) and marketology
organizational behavior (MOB) can be formulated as external and internal
marketology.
The external marketology refers to the functions and components of MOD
and MOB that pertain to the external factors and stakeholders of marketology
(layer 2) as well as those of business/organization. By this way the hyper-
function of marketology provides its services of identification, generation,
dissemination, exploitation, and evaluation (IGDEE) and products of market
DIKII to target audiences in order to support the market-related decision-
makers and action-takers across the organization in relation to the external
environment/market of the business/organization.
The internal marketology represents the functions and components of
MOD and MOB that are relevant to the internal factors and stakeholders of
business/organization (contain external factors and stakeholders of marke-
tology (layer 1) and internal factors and stakeholders of marketology). By
this way the hyper-function of marketology provides its services of IGDEE
and products of market DIKII to individuals, people, groups, departments,
and committees in order to consolidate and cement its position and func-
tionality throughout the organization in relation to the operations within
the business/organization (Dyson and O’Brien 1998; Evans 2015; Fleisher
and Bensoussan 2015; Fuld 1995; IMA 1996a, c, d; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015,
2016; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Kotler and Keller 2015; McClinton
2015; Smith et al. 2006; Smith and Raspin 2008; Best 2012; Nordmeyer
2015; Porter 2007, 2008; Teece 2010; Grant 2013; Cravens and Piercy
2013; Lings 2004; Lings and Greenley 2005; Rodrigues and Pinho 2012;
Fill and Jamieson 2006; Catalin et al. 2014; Dunmore 2002; Tuominen
et al. 2004; Day 1994, 1999; Mavondo et al. 2005; Sulkowski 2012; Stoyko
2009; Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Trice and Beyer 1993; Gatignon and
Xuereb 1997; Richmond and McCroskey 2009; Schrodt 2002; Sopow
2007; Barney 2011; Eden and Ackermann 1998; Gibson et al. 2012; Dess
et al. 2015; Lopez 2014; Webster 2008; Daft 2016; Mintzberg 2013;
Piercy 1990; Srivastava et al. 1998; Campbell and Craig 2011; Griffin 2013;
Aaker 2013; Davenport et al. 2006).
190 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
Business, marketology and stakeholder analysis (internal and external)
(3-2)
Guideline (FOCUS)
- Understand, discuss, and work on the issue as a teamwork
- Set out a report, present it to the class/organization, and do an evaluation
previous sections, practice FOCUS in your intended case for the issues below:
1. External business analysis: macro, general, or remote environment
2. External business analysis: micro, operating, task, competitive, or industry environment
3. External business analysis: market
4. Business stakeholders
5. Marketology external and internal factors and stakeholders
6. External and internal marketology

3.2.13 Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB)

Canvas: Piece of Business Analysis
With regard to the descriptive explanations about internal and external busi-
ness factors and stakeholder analysis it can be seen from Figure 3.27 that the
“business analysis” as one piece of marketology organizational behavior (MOB)
canvas becomes complete and located.12
Note
Business analysis refers to analyzing the issues of
–– Business internal (inside);
–– Business external (macro, general, or remote environment);
–– Business external (micro, operating, task, or industry environment);
–– Business market; and
–– Business stakeholders (internal and external).

practice (MIP)
Business and Stakeholder Analysis (Internal and External)
(3-3)
previous sections, practice MCMC in your intended case for the issues below about business
analysis:
1. Coverage of marketology’s business analysis by organization’s business analysis;
2. Manifestation of marketology’s business analysis within the organization;
3. Contribution of marketology’s business analysis to the organization’s business analysis;

and close the discussion.
192 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
Business and Stakeholder Analysis (Internal and External)
(3-4)
Guidelines: In the matrix below examine the interlinks between marketology and business analysis as
a component of business organizational behavior (BOB).
Marketology Total

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Business exinternal or envinternal
2. Business internal analysis: inside

BOB: business analysis
3. Macro environment analysis
4. Micro environment analysis
5. Market analysis
6. External stakeholders analysis
7. Internal stakeholders analysis
Sum
Total
Average
Note: (AS) stands for Absolute Score, and (WS) stands for Weighted Score. AS can be a score within this continuum
{9 ≥ AS ≥ 0}; WS is calculated by multiplying each AS in related weight
Analysis guideline: with regard to the results of marketology coverage, manifest and contribute
(MCMC) analysis, and marketology match matrix (MMM) analyze the relationship between marketology
and the business analysis as a key component of business organizational behavior (BOB).
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: business ecosystems; external and internal
factors and stakeholders; horizon scanning and market engineering; business analysis; exinternal or
envinternal business analysis; internal/inside business analysis; external business analysis: macro,
general or remote environment; external business analysis: micro, operating, task, competitive, or
industry environment; external business analysis: market; business stakeholders; marketology external
and internal factors and stakeholders; and external and internal marketology, and so on.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and business analysis:
3.3 Governance
Section 3.3.1 Governance and Leadership
–– Corporate governance
–– Corporate governance perspectives
–– Good corporate governance
–– Leadership versus management
–– Management
–– Leadership
–– Strategic and transformational leadership
–– Strategic management and control
Section 3.3.2 Marketology Governance
–– Marketology governance
–– Good marketology governance (GMG)
–– BusiTech-driven marketology governance (BTMG)
–– Advanced marketology governance (AMG)
–– Balanced marketology governance (BMG)
–– Comparative governing of BICC, MICC and MMC
Section 3.3.3 Decision Making
–– Decision
–– Decision-making
194 H. AGHAZADEH
–– Decision-making antecedents and consequences

–– Decision-making and action-taking
–– Group decision-making
–– Organizational decision-making
–– Decision-making styles
Section 3.3.4 Marketology Decision Making
–– Marketology and organizational decisions and actions (ODA)
–– ODA for marketology (organization coverage)
–– ODA of marketology (manifestation)
–– ODA by marketology (contribution)
–– Marketology organizational behavior (MOB) canvas: piece of governance
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Governance

–– MIP 3-5: Good corporate governance
–– MIP 3-6: Good marketology governance
–– MIP 3-7: Organizational decisions and actions (ODA)
–– MIP 3-8: Marketology, decisions and actions
MCMC & MMM
–– MIP 3-9: Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC)
analysis framework
3.3.1 Governance and Leadership
Corporate Governance
Governance is defined as formal process of governing an entity (country, orga-
nization, function, or department). Corporate governance is the structure and
relationship of the main contributors in defining the goals and direction and con-
ducting the performance of corporations. The main contributors to corporate
governance are shareholders, management (headed by the chief executive officer
(CEO)), and the board of directors (BOD) (assigned by the shareholders) and
other stakeholders. It is worth bearing in mind that corporate governance is not
simply bounded to the relationship between board of directors, shareholders and
management. In addition it pertains to other key stakeholders including employ-
ees, customers, suppliers, creditors, and the legal, regulatory, institutional, and
ethical environment of the community. The corporate governance within the
business ecology (includes a corporation, its internal and external stakeholders,
and their interlinked relationships and transactions) is illustrated in Figure 3.4
(Dess et al. 2015; Subramanian 2015a, b; Bennis 2009; Bennis et al. 2015;
Schein 2010; Balachandran and Chandrasekaran 2011; Corpgov 2015; Baker
and Anderson 2010; Stringer 2001; Tsai 2011; Alldredge and Nilan 2000;
BCPSA 2015; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015; Selznick 1957; Kaplan 2005; Warren
2008; Hitt et al. 2015; Teece 2010; Grant and Jordan 2012; Peteraf and Bergen
2003; Evans 2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Dyson and O’Brien 1998;
Mintzberg 2013; Lopez 2014; Webster 2008; Day 2013; Luthans et al. 2015;
Kotter 2015; Galbraith 1995; Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013).
As demonstrated in Figure 3.4 the stakeholders of an organization are indi-
viduals, groups, and organizations that are affected by and have a stake in the
Shareholders
Board of
Directors
External stakeholders: customers, clients,

(BOD)
External stakeholders: government,
community, NGOs …
Cheif Execuve
Officer (CEO)
creditors …
Managers and Employees
Organizaon
External stakeholders:
Partners, suppliers, channels …
Environment
Figure 3.4 Corporate governance within business ecology

196 H. AGHAZADEH
performance and success of the organization. These include shareholders/

stockholders, employees, suppliers, channels, creditors, customers, clients,
government, communities, and other parties with whom the firm conducts its
business. Stakeholder management is the organizational strategy for identifying
and responding to the interests, power, and expectations of stakeholders.
In accordance with agency theory (Basu et al. 1985; Eisenhardt 1989) cor-
porate governance is considered as a method through which management (as
agent) can direct the corporation for the benefit of key stakeholders.
Corporate governance involves two main types of relationship: long-term
and transactional. The long-term relationship refers to the checks and bal-
ances, incentives for managers, and communications between management
and investors. The transactional relationship pertains to disclosure and author-
ity (Balachandran and Chandrasekaran 2011).
There are usually conflicts of interests between different groups of stake-
holders. Corporate governance is the ability to direct, administer, and control
the corporation to overcome such conflicts of interests. Corporate governance
considers the relationships between diversified internal and external stakehold-
ers, and also the governance processes to help to achieve the primary goal
of the corporation. In this regard ethical value, corporate social responsibility
(CSR), and creating shared values (CSV) are considered as significant issues of
corporate governance. The ethical considerations can be grouped as individual,
managerial, and organizational. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a sort
of commitments of an organization to protect and enhance the social context/
environment in which it operates. Porter and Kramer (2011: 6) define creating
shared value (CSV) as “policies and operating practices that enhance the com-
petitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and
social conditions in the communities in which it operates. Shared value creation
focuses on identifying and expanding the connections between societal and
economic progress” (Porter and Kramer 2011; Olszak 2014; Basu et al. 1985;
Eisenhardt 1989; Baker and Anderson 2010; OECD 2015a, b; UNCTAD
2006; Balachandran and Chandrasekaran 2011; Corpgov 2015; Subramanian
2015a, b; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Dyson and O’Brien 1998; Mintzberg
2013; Lopez 2014; Webster 2008; Day 2013; Aghazadeh 2016; Luthans et al.
2015; Kotter 2015; Galbraith 1995; Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013;
Aaker 2013; Best 2012; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Srivastava et al. 1998; Smith
and Raspin 2008; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Kotler and Keller 2015;
Griffin and Moorehead 2013; Robbins and Judge 2015; Stewart and Rogers
2012; Moorman and Rust 1999; Dauber et al. 2012; Clark 1997).
orporate Governance Perspectives

C
From looking at both the academic and the practical literature about corpo-
rate governance and by also considering the above-mentioned discussions two
main viewpoints can be identified in the examination of corporate governance:
bounded and broad perspectives.
In accordance with bounded perspective the primary emphasis of corporate
governance is on the function of control. In this regard corporate governance is
considered as a structure and process through which the relationship between

stakeholders and the direction and goal of the corporation are controlled.
Whereas corporate governance based on the broad perspective is regarded as a
perfect structure, process, function, and system of management through which
the corporation is governed effectively. Considering such a perspective one may
question what the difference is between the regular function of management
and the regular function of corporate governance. The answer is that the broad
perspective considers corporate governance as a long-term, stakeholder-based,
relational, strategic, and advanced version of management through which the
modern, complex, and dynamic business corporation can be directed so as to
perform well. It should be pointed out that the broad perspective of corporate
governance is not so different and separate from the bounded perspective but
embraces the definition as a much more evolved role. Therefore in order to pro-
vide more clarification and better understand corporate governance on the basis
of a broad perspective it can be recited as a stakeholder-based relational strategic
leadership/management (SRSL/SRSM). This means a strategic leadership or
management that concentrates on the expectations of key stakeholders and the
relationship with them. Strategic management includes the steps of crafting,
executing, and evaluating strategy. Corporate governance involves the stages of
directing, administering, and controlling the corporation. This stepwise compari-
son can better depict the similarities and commonalities of strategic management
and broad view corporate governance as shown in Figure 3.5 (Rowe and Mason
1987; Ulrich et al. 2012; Kaplan 2010; Davenport and Harris 2007; Doyle
Figure 3.5 Corporate governance as corporate strategic management

198 H. AGHAZADEH
and Stern 2006; Thompson et al. 2013; Porter 2007, 2008; Aghazadeh 2015;
Campbell and Craig 2011; Best 2012; Coyne and Horn 2009; Barney 2011;
Kotter 1995, 2015; Ballard et al. 2006; Mintzberg 1971, 2013; Weerawardena
and O’Cass 2004; Day 1994; Rowe et al. 1984; Doyle 2009; Lopez 2014; Kaur
2015; Davenport et al. 2006; Aaker 2013; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Srivastava
et al. 1998; Smith and Raspin 2008; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Kotler and
Keller 2015; Griffin and Moorehead 2013; Robbins and Judge 2015; Griffin
2013; Daft 2012, 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Grant 2013; Olszak 2014; Robbins
and Judge 2015; Brousseau et al. 2006; Nayar 2013).
ood Corporate Governance

G
The concept of corporate governance can be thus defined as the structure and
relationship for goal setting, and directing and realizing the performance of a
corporation to achieve its goals and accomplish success. Thus good corporate
governance can be defined as the style of corporate governing through which
good goals are determined, the corporation is well directed, performance is
efficient, and goals are achieved effectively. In other words it can be summa-
rized as good goals, good direction, good performance, and good results for
the corporation in a way whereby the interests of key stakeholders are opti-
mized. For this purpose several principles should be considered as essential to
good corporate governance; these include accountability, responsibility, vision
for long-term value, equitable treatment, transparency, ethics, participation,
effectiveness, and efficiency. Finally, it can be concluded that to have good
corporate governance the leaders and managers of corporates should oper-
ate intelligent and insightful corporate governance (Kotler and Keller 2015;
Griffin and Moorehead 2013; Robbins and Judge 2015; Griffin 2013; Daft
2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Grant 2013; Olszak 2014; Brousseau et al. 2006;
Kotter 2015; Nayar 2013; HBR 2013a, b; Bennis et al. 2015; Murray 2010;
Cespedes and Piercy 1996; Courtney 2001; Raffaldi et al. 2012; Scott and
Bruce 1995; Aghazadeh 2016; BCPSA 2015; Selznick 1957; Kaplan 2005;
Balachandran and Chandrasekaran 2011; Corpgov 2015; Subramanian 2015a,
b; Clair 2015; Baker and Anderson 2010; Rowe and Boulgarides 1992; Dess
et al. 2015; Baker and Anderson 2010; Bennis 2009).
eadership Versus Management

L
Leadership and management are different but are very closely related and linked.
The functions of a manager are to plan, organize, conduct, and control subordi-
nates, but not necessarily to lead; while the role of a leader is to inspire and moti-
vate the followers. A manager may or may not be involved with leadership. Thus
leadership can be distinguished from management as it is proactive, goal-oriented,
and concentrated on building and realizing a creative vision by encouraging fol-
lowers to also embrace and work toward this vision. The managers are identified
by administrating; imitating; maintaining; asking how and when; accepting the
status quo; doing things right; and focusing on systems, structure, control, the
bottom line, and the short-range view. Leaders are identified by innovating; origi-
nating; developing; asking what and why; challenging; doing the right thing; and
focusing on people, inspiring, visioning horizons, and the long-range perspective
(Bennis et al. 2015; Murray 2010; Cespedes and Piercy 1996; Courtney 2001;
Raffaldi et al. 2012; Scott and Bruce 1995; Mintzberg 1971, 2013; Schein 2010;
Stringer 2001; Tsai 2011; Alldredge and Nilan 2000; BCPSA 2015; Selznick
1957; Kaplan 2005; Balachandran and Chandrasekaran 2011; Corpgov 2015;
Subramanian 2015a, b; Clair 2015; Baker and Anderson 2010; Aghazadeh 2008;
Rowe and Boulgarides 1992; Dess et al. 2015; Bennis 2009; Griffin 2013; Kotter
2015; Nayar 2013; HBR 2013a, b; Gibson et al. 2012).
Management
Management is a set of activities that involves planning and decision-making,
organizing, leading, and controlling with the aim of accomplishing the organi-
zational goals in both an efficient and an effective manner, and relying on the
organization’s human, financial, physical, and information resources. Managers
play ten different roles: interpersonal (dealing with other people): figurehead,
leader, and liaison; informational (processing information): monitor, dissemina-
tor, and spokesperson; and decisional (making decisions): entrepreneur, distur-
bance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator (Mintzberg 1971). Further,
managers should be equipped with particular skills that include technical (to
accomplish or understand the specific kind of work within the organization),
interpersonal (to communicate with, understand, and motivate both individuals
and groups), conceptual (to think in abstract terms), diagnostic (to visualize the
most appropriate response to a situation), communication (to convey/receive
ideas and information to/from others), decision-making (to correctly recognize
and solve problems), and time management (to prioritize, work, and delegate
appropriately) (Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Mintzberg 1971,
1973, 2013, Grant 2013; Olszak 2014; Robbins and Judge 2015; HBR 2013a,
b; Brousseau et al. 2006; Rowe and Boulgarides 1983, 1992; Kotter 1995,
2015; Nayar 2013; Aghazadeh 2015; Rowe and Mason 1987; Murray 2010;
Cespedes and Piercy 1996; Courtney 2001; Raffaldi et al. 2012; Scott and Bruce
1995; Rowe et al. 1984; Galbraith 1995; Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013).
Leadership
Leadership is a competency of influence to motivate individuals (within a group
or an organization) to achieve goals. Leadership can be considered either a pro-
cess (using non-coercive influence) or a property (attributes related to leaders).
The new approaches to leadership are substitutes for leadership (the situations
in which leadership is not needed); charismatic leadership (charisma is an inher-
ent feature of the leader)13; and transformational leadership (transmitting a
sense of mission and inspiring new ways of thinking). The emerging approaches
to leadership are strategic, cross-cultural, and ethical (Eisenhardt 1989; Baker
and Anderson 2010; OECD 2015a, b; UNCTAD 2006; Balachandran and
Chandrasekaran 2011; Corpgov 2015; Subramanian 2015a, b; Schein 2010;
Aghazadeh 2015; Stringer 2001; Tsai 2011; Alldredge and Nilan 2000; BCPSA
200 H. AGHAZADEH
2015; Selznick 1957; Kaplan 2005; Dyson and O’Brien 1998; Grant 2013;
Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Dess et al. 2015; Robbins and
Judge 2015; Porter and Kramer 2011; Olszak 2014; Basu et al. 1985).
S trategic and Transformational Leadership

Strategic leadership is the process of transforming organizations from what/
where they are to what/where the leader intends them to be. It represents
the competence of understanding both internal and environmental complexi-
ties and turbulences, and then leading changes within the organization to
accomplish and maintain a superior alignment between the organization and
the environment. Transformational leaders create vision for followers, inspire
and motivate them, stimulate their emotions, challenge them to make greater
endeavors, play as a role model and make valuable changes in them, and sup-
port them to enhance and optimize their performance. By this way transfor-
mational leaders encourage followers by external rewards beyond basic and
internal rewards (such as financial payments). The transformational leaders try
to inspire and motivate the followers to fulfill outcomes larger than those basi-
cally arranged for internal rewards. The key attributes of transactional leader-
ship are contingent reward and management by exception. The key attributes of
transformational leadership are charisma, individual attention, and intellectual
stimulation (Eisenhardt 1989; Baker and Anderson 2010; Luthans et al. 2015;
Kotter 2015; Galbraith 1995; Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Doyle and
Stern 2006; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Dess
et al. 2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Porter and Kramer 2011; Olszak 2014;
Basu et al. 1985; Aghazadeh 2008; Lopez 2014; Kaur 2015; Davenport et al.
2006; Nayar 2013; Murray 2010; Cespedes and Piercy 1996; Courtney 2001;
Raffaldi et al. 2012; Scott and Bruce 1995).
S trategic Management and Control

The main function of every leader/manager is to create sustainable com-
petitive success (SCS) or sustainable superior success (SSS) for an organi-
zation through strategic management/leadership which involves creating
and delivering superior value to key stakeholders (particularly customers).
In light of strategic management the leaders/managers should formulate
strategic issues (vision, mission, core values, strategic themes, and goals),
strategies, policies, plans, budget, programs, and projects, and then execute,
evaluate, and control them precisely. Strategic control can be an informa-
tional control over strategy formulating (to ensure effectiveness or “doing
the right things”) and behavioral control over strategy implementation (to
ensure efficiency or “doing things right”). In fact the advanced and com-
prehensive type of strategic control is corporate governance in which con-
trols are conducted from three angles: shareholders, board of directors, and
management (Luthans et al. 2015; Kotter 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Dess
et al. 2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016;
Porter and Kramer 2011; Olszak 2014; Basu et al. 1985; Balachandran and
Chandrasekaran 2011; Corpgov 2015; Subramanian 2015a, b; Schein

2010; Aghazadeh 2015; Stringer 2001; Tsai 2011; Alldredge and Nilan
2000; BCPSA 2015; Selznick 1957; Kaplan 2005; Dyson and O’Brien
1998; Mintzberg 2013; Lopez 2014; Webster 2008; Day 2013; Kaur
2015; Davenport et al. 2006; Nayar 2013; HBR 2013a, b; Murray 2010;
Cespedes and Piercy 1996; Courtney 2001; Raffaldi et al. 2012; Scott and
Bruce 1995).

practice (MIP)
(3-5) Good corporate governance
Guideline (FOCUS)
Understand, discuss, and work on the issue as a teamwork
Set out a report, present it to the class/organization, and do an evaluation
previous sections, practice FOCUS for the issues below:
1. Corporate governance;
2. Corporate governance perspectives;
3. Good corporate governance;
4. Leadership versus management;
5. Strategic and transformational leadership;
6. Strategic management and control;

202 H. AGHAZADEH
3.3.2 Marketology Governance
Marketology Governance
The hyper-function of marketology is a key phenomenon for business suc-
cess. Senior executives and leaders should think of marketology organization
behavior (MOB) throughout a business. In this regard appropriately managing
and leading marketology is a key issue which can be considered as marketol-
ogy governance. Regarding the necessity of capable marketology that could be
effective in accomplishing business success, the executives would be better to
operate good marketology governance throughout the organization.
ood Marketology Governance (GMG)

G
The good marketology governance (GMG) refers to the capability of gov-
erning marketology within an organization in a way that ensures it performs
successful and can effectively influence the realization of the business’s sustain-
able superior success (SSS). The GMG is expected to be aligned with business
vision, strategy, system, and infrastructures to provide effective market DIKII
and IGDEE services on supporting market-related decisions and actions of
creating superior value to the key stakeholders. In fact the marketology gov-
ernance can be evaluated as “good” when it is good in leading the hyper-
function of marketology, good in helping market-related decisions and actions
by providing effective market DIKII and IGDEE services, good in its align-
ment across the organization, and good in assisting in the realization of the
business’s sustainable superior success (SSS). Hence such GMG should have
BusiTech-driven, balanced, and advanced approaches (Dess et al. 2015; Olszak
2014; Kotter 2015; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012;
Galbraith 1995; Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Dyson and O’Brien
1998; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Subramanian 2015a, b; Baker
and Anderson 2010; Kaplan 2010; Thompson et al. 2013; Scott and Bruce
1995; Aghazadeh 2015; Barney 2011; Campbell and Craig 2011; Dauber
et al. 2012; Clark 1997; Murray 2010; Cespedes and Piercy 1996; Courtney
2001; Raffaldi et al. 2012; Warren 2008; Hitt et al. 2015; Teece 2010; Porter
2007; Grant and Jordan 2012; Peteraf and Bergen 2003; Evans 2015; Webster
2008; Day 2013; Porter and Kramer 2011; Basu et al. 1985; Eisenhardt 1989).
usiTech-Driven Marketology Governance (BTMG)

B
In today’s business ecosystem in order to create sustainable competitive advan-
tage, improve business process and performance, enhance company position
against competitors, and raise a company’s rank within industry, enterprises
should make their organization or business suitably agile. An agile business
can make flexible and fast decisions to improve business performance. The key
dimensions of business agility are market responsiveness, channel integration,
knowledge dissemination, digital psychology, change management, business
intelligence, infrastructure elasticity, process architecture, software innovation,
and sourcing and supply chain. The businesses that make their organizations
agile can attain higher levels of business process efficiencies and effectiveness,
Business- BusiTech- Technology-

driven driven driven
approach approach approach
Figure 3.6 BusiTech-driven marketology governance (BTMG) approach
and business performance success. It is obvious that appropriate marketology

implementation is one of the key pillars through which business agility can be
obtained. To this end the significant matter that a business should purse is the
marketology governance approach. The approaches of enterprise marketology
governance as illustrated in Figure 3.6 are technology-driven, business-driven,
and/or combination of both. Such combined approach is called “BusiTech-
driven marketology governance (BTMG).”
The technology-driven marketology governance approach is scalable but it
often happens at the expense of agility and flexibility. The business-driven mar-
ketology governance approach is agile but is not scalable and nor is it mission-
critical. Hence the best approach to scalable and agile marketology governance
is to merge technology-driven with business-driven marketology governance
approach and form the BusiTech-driven marketology governance (BTMG).
Apparently this mixed approach to good marketology governance is expected
to take the benefits and strengths of both single approaches and simultane-
ously not to have their costs and weaknesses (Grant and Jordan 2012; Peteraf
and Bergen 2003; Evans 2015; Webster 2008; Day 2013; Porter and Kramer
2011; Hitt et al. 2015; Teece 2010; Porter 2007; OECD 2015a, b; UNCTAD
2006; Basu et al. 1985; Olszak 2014; Kotter 2015; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013;
Eisenhardt 1989; Baker and Anderson 2010; Galbraith 1995; Aghazadeh
2016; Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Dyson and O’Brien 1998;
Mintzberg 1971, 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Warren 2008; Balachandran and
Chandrasekaran 2011; Corpgov 2015; Subramanian 2015a, b; Clair 2015;
Clair et al. 2013; Forrester 2014; Evelson 2014; Dess et al. 2015; Daft 2016;
Gibson et al. 2012).
dvanced Marketology Governance (AMG)

A
The changing business environment has forced enterprises to become mod-
ern organizations that are strategy-focused, market-oriented, intelligent, agile,
and so on. Modernization is expected to enable enterprises to utilize BICC/
204 H. AGHAZADEH
MICC/MMC for effective and insightful business process and performance

management. In this regard an advanced form of marketology governance is
required through which the BICC/MICC/MMC of a modern business in a
competitive marketplace could be adapted to the new world of market and
business analytics and be aligned with business performance management. In
such a new world of market and business analytics the matters listed below may
be considered as the characteristics of modern enterprises:
–– The need for active market and business analytics community (with
closed relationships between IT, analysts, and market and busi-
ness people) based on flexible and self-service approaches instead of
a traditional approach in which delegates from market, business, and
IT play separate user–provider roles. This is a better way to build useful
relationships that re required to make the right decisions and take the
best course of action.
–– The need for market and business agility to enable strategic, tactical,
and operational decision-making and action-taking to be responsive
to the ever-changing environment using agile BI/MI as an approach
that combines business processes, activities, tools, technologies, and
organizational structure.
–– The need for reorganizing the market and business organization to
support market and business agility (using agile BI/MI) through
moving from centralized IT to more federated BICC/MICC/MMC
and applying shadow BI/MI.
–– The need for refocusing the market and business analytics to support
market and business agility through moving from reporting to data
exploration/presentation. This gives the business people the oppor-
tunity to find their needed information in the form of self-service data
usage and face-to-face discussions rather than formal requests. In this
way the role of the BICC/MICC/MMC moves from gatekeeper to
air traffic controller which monitors the market and business analytics
initiatives.
–– The services provided by the BICC/MICC/MMC need to be respon-
sible for solutions to market and business problems; training in tools,
data, and best-practice techniques; cross-functional knowledge using
data (internal or external, and structured or unstructured); profes-
sional recommendations of which technologies to use; communicating
BI/MI/ marketology outputs and encouraging participation in the
BI/MI/marketology community; platforms for collaboration and data
storage; and optimizing the system of market and business analytics as
a whole.
–– While all users of market and business information may not possess
required skills of market and business analytics, the BICC/MICC/
MMC should provide training programs to empower the users for
effective decision-making to ensure they are not interpreting data
incorrectly or jumping to the wrong conclusions.
–– The new data sources and analyses of BICC/MICC/MMC need to

be shared widely and become a standard part of the information infra-
structure as a BI/MI/marketology lifecycle throughout the enterprise.
It can be concluded that market and business analytics aligned with informa-
tion technology are a vital competence for advanced marketology governance.
Therefore in a modern enterprise, as a result of advanced marketology gov-
ernance through which market and business analytics are applied appropri-
ately, business process and performance management of an enterprise can be
accomplished effectively in today’s competitive market. The fact is that the old
organizational structures cannot compete effectively in using market and busi-
ness analytics to make improvements in organizational processes and systems.
Advanced marketology governance can enhance the agility of an enterprise
for better usage of market and business analytics and their alignment with IT
and business within an organization through new self-service market and busi-
ness analytics approaches. To this end, several key cornerstones can be fruitful:
a new organizational culture and climate; a new working manner; consistent
compromises among market; coordinated business, and IT organizations; perva-
sive communications; and community-shaping in the form of advanced BICC/
MICC/MMC as an essential part of making a successful transition14 (Galbraith
1995; Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Kaplan 2010; Thompson et al.
2013; Evans 2015; Webster 2008; Day 2013; Porter and Kramer 2011; Basu
et al. 1985; Eisenhardt 1989; Corpgov 2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015;
Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Aghazadeh 2008; Baker and Anderson
2010; Subramanian 2015a, b; Dess et al. 2015; Olszak 2014; Kotter 2015;
Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Clair 2015; Clair et al.
2013; Forrester 2014; Evelson 2014; Elliott 2014; Brousseau et al. 2006; Kotler
and Armstrong 2015a, b; Griffin and Moorehead 2013).
alanced Marketology Governance (BMG)

B
The market and business analytics and intelligence have become crucial owing
to substantial changes in the competitive world of market and business, such as
the fact that information as a profit center is an integral part of business process
and performance management success; the expectations of market and busi-
ness people about the speed and quality of MI/BI have increased; the data/
information needed for market and business people come from both inside
and outside of the enterprise; and that utilizing the shadow market and busi-
ness analytics relies on self-service data discovery, cloud analytics, and open-
source platforms. It is interesting to know that these matters make it easier
than ever for market and business people to carry out meaningful business
analytics without the support of a central IT department. In other words, today
market and business people declare that they increasingly use homegrown MI/
BI applications instead of those provided by central IT. Such new conditions of
open access to business and market data/information and the possibility of easy
and personal usage of them create some significant challenges for marketology
governance. The success of business process and performance management is
206 H. AGHAZADEH
critically dependent on the interactive relationship between decision-making

(usually bottom-up) and action-taking (usually top-down) based on busi-
ness intelligence provided by BICC and market DIKII provided by MICC/
MMC. Therefore as shown in Figure 3.7 one of the main challenges of marke-
tology governance is how to establish a workable balance between the follow-
ing market data provision tactics:
–– Decision-making (bottom-up) and action-taking (top-down) tactics.
–– Self-service data usage by market/business people and the supply of
centralized market data.
Hence the major challenge of businesses in governing marketology and
handling BICC/MICC/MMC seems to be finding an appropriate way to uti-
lize the benefits of self-service (including the advantages of flexibility, speed,
adoption, and alignment) and to avoid the potential problems (involving the
disadvantages of needless duplication of data and tools, and diluted responsi-
bility) (Brousseau et al. 2006a, b; Kotter 1995; Nayar 2013; HBR 2013a, b;
Rowe and Mason 1987; Bennis et al. 2015; Rowe and Boulgarides 1992; Dess
et al. 2015; Olszak 2014; Forrester 2014; Aghazadeh 2016; Elliott 2014;
Bennis 2009; Mintzberg 1971, 2013; Robbins and Judge 2015; Griffin and
Figure 3.7 Challenges of marketology governance: building balance

Moorehead 2013; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012;
1998; Luthans et al. 2015; Corpgov 2015; Subramanian 2015b; Clair 2015;
Clair et al. 2013).
omparative Governing of BICC, MICC, and MMC

C
Despite having a BI system in their organization, because of the intensity and
pressure of business and market competition, several companies also look at
launching an MI or a marketology system. In such cases some enterprises may
merge these teams to form a unified team for unitizing the advantages of the
economy of scale, whereas some other enterprises may not merge these two
teams and settle for each of them to operate separately. Some other enterprises
may only partially merge these teams (to the extent that they have common
competencies). However several enterprises may not have BICC and may want
to form MICC or MMC initially. Hence for the purposes of comparison and
locating BICC and MICC/MMC under the umbrella of good marketology
governance, the enterprises may be classified according to the following groups
along a spectrum which includes separate, neighbor, common, nested, and uni-
fied patterns of comparative governing BICC and MICC/MMC as illustrated
in Figure 3.8.
The separate marketology governance refers to a style in which the
BICC and MICC/MMC are arranged and stand apart from each other
within an organization. The common marketology governance represents
a style in which the BICC and MICC/MMC have their own functions yet
they have some common activities. The neighbor marketology governance
depicts a style which is neither separate nor common but somewhere in-
between. The unified marketology governance points to a style in which the
BICC and MICC/MMC work together as a unified team. The nested mar-
ketology governance demonstrates a style which is neither common nor uni-
fied but somewhere in-between. In the sections that follow the main p atterns
of comparative governance of BICC, MICC, and MMC are explained further.
Separate Governance of BICC and MICC/MMC In accordance with this

governing approach each of the managing teams (BICC and MICC/MMC)
works separately in conducting their own functions and responding to their
own audiences. However, they may have some rare and random contact but
this is neither frequent nor defined. It should be noted that in some enter-
prises one of the teams according to this approach may not be formed or exist.
For instance, BICC alone may exist without MICC/MMC being present and
vice versa.
Common Governance of BICC and MICC/MMC Based on this govern-

ing approach the managing teams (BICC and MICC/MMC) work in close
contact with each other. In this regard they share some common activities.
This approach helps enterprises to utilize the benefits of synergy and economy
208 H. AGHAZADEH
MICC/
Separate
BICC
MMC
Neighbor
MICC/
BICC
MMC
Common
MICC/
BICC
MMC
MICC/
Nested
BICC
MMC
BICC-
Unified
MICC/
MMC
Figure 3.8 Governing approaches of BICC and MICC/MMC
of scale. For example they may both share data-gathering and analysis or
information-sharing.
Unified Governance of BICC and MICC/MMC According to this gov-

erning approach the managing teams (BICC and MICC/MMC) are akin
to each other and work together as one unified team. The team may be
BICC but it also carries out the functions of MICC/MMC and vice versa. In
this approach, somehow all business and market information/intelligence-
related activities are concentrated into a defined governing/managing team

which may be BICC or MICC/MMC (Luthans et al. 2015; Corpgov 2015;
Subramanian 2015a; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al.
2012; Galbraith 1995; Clair 2015; Clair et al. 2013; Forrester 2014; Evelson
2014; Elliott 2014; Brousseau et al. 2006; Bennis 2009; Bennis et al. 2015;
Katz 2009; Aghazadeh 2016; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Dyson and O’Brien
1998; Mintzberg 2013; Davenport and Harris 2007; Doyle and Stern 2006;
Porter 2008; Best 2012).

practice (MIP)
(3-6) Good marketology governance
Guideline (FOCUS)
Discussion: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained in previous
sections, practice FOCUS for the issues below:
1. Marketology governance;
2. Good marketology governance (GMG);
3. BusiTech-driven marketology governance (BTMG);
4. Advanced marketology governance (AMG);
5. Balanced marketology governance (BMG);
6. Comparative governing of BICC, MICC and MMC;
7. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and close
the discussion.
210 H. AGHAZADEH
3.3.3 Decision-Making
Decisions
Decisions are organizational means of behaving with regard to a specific issue
to achieve a favorable situation through the information gathered from plans,
designs, programs, projects, maps, strategies, tactics, techniques, and so on
across the organization. As shown in Figure 3.9 the specific organizational
issues can be difficulties, developments, or both. Decisions (as a means rather
than as an end) and consequent actions should lead to the resolution and
removal of the difficulties and build on and boost the developments (Leidner
and Elam 1995; Wierenga et al. 2008; Choo 1998; Alexandra 2005; Power
2002; Robbins and Judge 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Olszak 2014; Kotter 2015;
Aghazadeh 2015; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012;
1998; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015).
Decision-Making
Decision-making is the process of recognizing the problem, identifying the
alternatives and solutions, evaluating them, selecting the best alternative/solu-
tion, and putting it into practice. Decision-making may be carried out in states
of certainty, risk, and uncertainty.
Simon (1954, 1955, 1956) introduced two types of decisions: programmed
and non-programmed. Programmed decisions refer to determined procedures
for solving repetitive and routine problems. Non-programmed decisions point
to decisions that pertain to unique and complex management problems which
should be solved by innovative procedures.
Individual decision-making can be viewed by two approaches: rational
(systematic view) and bounded rationality (unsystematic view). The rational
Figure 3.9 Organizational matters that require decisions

approach as an ideal procedure seems to be good under conditions of little

competition and with well-understood issues. The bounded rationality per-
spective may be linked to the intuitive decision-making in which the decisions
are primarily made based on experience and judgment rather than sequen-
tial logic or explicit reasoning. Sometimes the intuitive decision-making as an
unconscious and emotional process with least rationality seems to be most suit-
able model (Raphael and Parket 1991; Aghazadeh 2016; Subramanian 2015a,
b; Baker and Anderson 2010; Kaplan 2010; Thompson et al. 2013; Scott and
Bruce 1995; Barney 2011; Campbell and Craig 2011; Dauber et al. 2012;
Clark 1997; Murray 2010; Robbins and Judge 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Olszak
2014; Kotter 2015; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012;
Shaker 2011; Lilien and Rangaswamy 2006; Day 1986; Langley 1991).
ecision-Making Antecedents and Consequences

D
Individuals (particularly managers) have to make decisions as part of their main
responsibilities. People’s decision-making is affected by several behavioral influ-
ences or antecedents. Organizational decisions based on their externalities or con-
sequences can be classified as: increasing, stabilizing, preventing, and decreasing
(Dyson and O’Brien 1998; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Alexandra 2005;
Power 2002; Gibson et al. 2012; Galbraith 1995; Campbell and Craig 2011;
Dauber et al. 2012; Clark 1997; Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Shaker
2011; Lilien and Rangaswamy 2006; Day 1986; Langley 1991; Barney 2011).
Examples of decisions antecedents:

–– Ethics (ethical decision-making), values, personality, propensity for
risk (situations of certainty, risk, and uncertainty), potential for dis-
sonance (post-decision anxiety), and escalation of commitment.
Examples of decisions consequences:

–– Increasing decisions: increasing revenue, profit, market share,
customer satisfaction, competitiveness, brand equity, creating shared
value (CSV), developing human capital, and so on.
–– Stabilizing decisions: fixing prices, guaranteeing product quality,
determining the supplied material standards, defining the commis-
sion of channels, and so on.
–– Preventing decisions: stopping more losses, share value drop, brand
image destruction, customer dissatisfaction, negative electronic
word of mouth (e-WOM) against an organization, and so on.
–– Decreasing decisions: cutting extra costs, harvesting products that
are not performing well, firing incompetent people, and so on.
Decision-Making and Action-Taking
Organizational decisions are made by decision-makers and are executed by
action-takers (as organizational behavior) upon the organizational context or
212 H. AGHAZADEH
design. Therefore leaders and managers can ensure the effectiveness of deci-
sions, efficiency of actions, and the success of business performance through
creating the right integration between organizational behavior (e.g. decisions
and actions) and design (e.g. structure and culture). The models or styles of
decision-making and action-taking are: analytical–systematic or global–intui-
tive; rational–economic, administrative and behavioral economics; logical,
emotional, creative, and focused; directive, analytical, conceptual, and behav-
ioral; analytical, behavioral, and organizational; decisive, hierarchic, flexible,
and integrative; and include to maximize, cope behaviorally, decide rationally,
decide intuitively, depend on others, avoid decisions, decide spontaneously and
feel regret. The process of decision-making and action-taking include the fol-
lowing steps: establishing specific goals and objectives and measuring results;
identifying problems; developing alternatives; evaluating alternatives; choos-
ing an alternative; implementing the decision; and controlling and evaluating.
Business decision-making styles include the following modes: systematic,
analytical, behavioral, and integrative. Business decision-making and action
process involve the following steps: analysis, decision, action, and evaluation.
The business decision-making and action-taking styles and process can be sum-
marized according to the classifications given in Figure 3.10 (Choo 1998;
Alexandra 2005; Power 2002; Shaker 2011; Lilien and Rangaswamy 2006;
Raphael and Parket 1991; Scott and Bruce 1995; Nayar 2013; HBR 2013a, b;
Bennis et al. 2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Olszak 2014;
Kotter 2015; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Dyson
and O’Brien 1998; Rowe and Mason 1987; Luthans et al. 2015; Aghazadeh
2016; Leidner and Elam 1995; Dauber et al. 2012; Clark 1997; Murray 2010;
Cespedes and Piercy 1996; Courtney 2001; Raffaldi et al. 2012).
Group Decision-Making
Organizations are composed of individuals and groups. Group decision-
making can be fruitful for better managing the organization if the advantages
are being utilized and the obstacles are being overcome well. In this regard the
effectiveness of group decision-making can be stimulated by the techniques of
brainstorming, the Delphi process, and the nominal group technique (NGT).
–– Brainstorming is a group creativity technique through which a list of
ideas automatically contributed the members.
–– The Delphi process is an organized communication technique in which
the experts answer questionnaires in several rounds.
–– The nominal group technique (NGT) is a group process through which
the problem is identified, solutions are generated and decisions are made.
Group cohesiveness may be a double-edged sword. A group with high cohe-
siveness may perform and make decisions better than a group with low cohe-
siveness. Sometimes the highly cohesive groups may suffer from “groupthink”
in their decision-making process (Dess et al. 2015; Olszak 2014; Kotter 2015;
Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Galbraith 1995;
Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Dyson and O’Brien 1998; Mintzberg
2013; Luthans et al. 2015).
Process
Analysis
Evaluaon Decision
Acon
Style
Behavioral
Integrave
Systemac Analycal
Figure 3.10 Business decision-making and action-taking style and process
Organizational Decision-Making
Today, both the internal and the external conditions of organizations are chang-
ing rapidly and becoming more dynamic, complex, and turbulent. In such an
ever-fluctuating situation decision-making plays a vital role in an organization’s
success or failure. Organizational decision-making is the process of problem
identification and solution. Organizational decisions can be programmed or
non-programmed. Due to the rapid changes within the organization, in the
environment and in the market, managers have to make predominantly non-
programmed decisions. The organization-level decisions are not necessarily
made by a single manager but are usually made by a group of people. There
214 H. AGHAZADEH
Type
Descriptive Prescriptive
Individual - Bounded rationality - Rational
Non-programed Programed
Level
- Carnegie
Organizational
- Incremental
- Management science
- Combination of Carnegie and incremental
- Garbage can
Figure 3.11 Categorization of decision-making models/approaches
are several types of organizational decision-making models, including manage-

ment science, Carnegie, incremental decision process, and garbage can.
–– Management science model: using statistic, for deciding where variables
can be measured, ignoring human element, etc.
–– Carnegie model: setting realistic assumption about decision-making, infor-
mation limitation, bounded rationality, organizational coalition, etc.
–– Incremental decision process model: focusing on sequence of events
from problem discovery to solutions, etc.
–– Garbage can model: decisions in organizations are random and unsys-
tematic, decision-making in high uncertainty, streams of events instead of
defined problems and solutions, etc.
Organizations should utilize the enhanced models of decision-making: a com-
bination of incremental process and Carnegie models, as well as the garbage
can model. Regarding the changing internal and external condition of the
organization, a contingent model is required to determine the most suitable
decision-making method. There are two dimensions to define the contingent
decision-making framework15: problem consensus (agreement about the prob-
lems, opportunities, and goals), and technical knowledge (agreement about
how to solve problems and achieve organizational goals). These models and
approaches which are relevant to different types and levels of decision-making
are summarized and categorized in Figure 3.11 (Kotter 2015; Grant 2013;
Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Galbraith 1995; Katz 2009; Hatch
and Cunliffe 2013; Dyson and O’Brien 1998; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al.
2015; Aghazadeh 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Olszak 2014; Campbell and Craig
2011; Dauber et al. 2012; Clark 1997; Murray 2010; Cespedes and Piercy 1996;
Courtney 2001; Raffaldi et al. 2012; Warren 2008; Hitt et al. 2015; Alexandra
2005; Power 2002; Shaker 2011; Lilien and Rangaswamy 2006; Teece 2010;
Porter 2007; Grant and Jordan 2012; Peteraf and Bergen 2003).
Decision-Making Styles
Decision-making styles can be defined in a two-dimensional matrix of four styles
(listed below). One dimension is the way of using information by decision-makers
(these include satisficing or less information, and maximizing or more informa-
tion). The other dimension relates to the number of options that the decision-
makers can develop (these include single focus or one option, and multifocus or
many options). Merging these two dimensions with the four modes results in a
matrix of the four decision-making styles as follows (Corpgov 2015; Subramanian
2015a, b; Clair 2015; Clair et al. 2013; Dess et al. 2015; Shaker 2011; Lilien and
Rangaswamy 2006; Forrester 2014; Elliott 2014; Bennis 2009; Olszak 2014;
Kotter 2015; Grant 2013; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Leidner
and Elam 1995; Wierenga et al. 2008; Evelson 2014; Brousseau et al. 2006):
1. Decisive decision-making style (satisficing information use/single focus

option): “this decision style is direct, efficient, fast and firm. In public,
this action-focused style comes across as task oriented (Brousseau et al.
2006: 113).”
2. Hierarchic decision-making style (maximizing information use/single focus
option): “People using this highly analytical and focused style expect their
decisions, once taken, to be final and to stand the test of time. In public, this
complex style comes across as highly intellectual (Brousseau et al. 2006: 113).”
3. Flexible decision-making style (satisficing information use/multi-focus
option): “this style is about speed and adaptability. Managers make deci-
sions quickly and change course just as quickly to keep abreast of imme-
diate, shifting situations. In public, this flexible style comes across as
highly social and responsive (Brousseau et al. 2006: 113).”
4. Integrative decision-making style (maximizing information use/multifocus
option): “In integrative mode, people frame problems broadly, using input
from many sources, and make decisions involving multiple courses of action
that may evolve over time as circumstances change. In public, this creative
style comes across as highly participative (Brousseau et al. 2006: 113).”

practice (MIP)
(3-7) Organizational decisions and actions (ODA)
Guideline (FOCUS)
Discussion: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained in previous
sections, practice FOCUS for the issues below:

216 H. AGHAZADEH
1. Decisions and decision-making;
2. Decision-making antecedents and consequences;
3. Decision-making and action-taking;
4. Group decision-making;
5. Organizational decision-making;
6. Decision-making styles;
the discussion.
3.3.4 Marketology Decision Making
arketology and Organizational Decisions and Actions (ODA)

M
Marketology is considered as a hyper-function that may be formed and
developed somewhere throughout organizations to support making effec-
tive market-related decisions and taking efficient courses of action to provide
superior value to their key stakeholders in the marketplace. For this purpose
the hyper-function of marketology should provide the needed market DIKII
through IGDEE services to the key decision-makers and action-takers.
Therefore it can be inferred that the cornerstones of such processes are “organi-
zational decisions and actions (ODA)”. The ODA as illustrated in Figure 3.12
can be viewed from three angles in relation to marketology: (1) ODA for mar-
ketology (organization’s coverage); (2) ODA by marketology (marketology’s
contribution); and (3) ODA of marketology (marketology’s manifestation).
DA for Marketology (Organization Coverage)

O
Organizational decisions and actions (ODA) for marketology refer to the deci-
sions that are made and the actions taken for developing the hyper-function of
marketology across the organization by the executives during the business life-
cycle stages of startup (birth), growth, maturity, revival, or decline. The ODA
can be at the strategic, tactical, or operational level of an organization as well as
about the positioning of marketology within the business organizational design
(BOD) (to include structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology, innova-
tion, and communication) or the business organizational behavior (BOB) (and
include governance, strategy, stakeholders, business and environment/market,
and performance). In accordance with ODA the hyper-function of marketology
By
marketology
(Contribuon)
Organizaonal
Decisions and
Acons (ODA)
Of For
marketology marketology
(Manifestaon) (Coverage)
Figure 3.12 Organizational decisions and actions (ODA) in relation to marketology
may be ignored; formed weakly, fairly, or strongly; established within other units
or autonomously; developed and expanded; located at the strategic, tactical, or
operational level; launched in a single unit or scattered in multiunits; merged
with other functions; declined and removed; and so on. It should be noted that
this approach may resemble the coverage dimension of the MCMC framework
as well as the parasol perspective of marketology development perspectives (3Ps)
For more information see the explanations of subtitle: 1.17.1 Marketology and
Organization Relationship Perspectives Diagram.
DA of Marketology (Manifestation)
O
Organizational decisions and actions (ODA) of marketology point to the
decisions and actions of delegates of the hyper-function of marketology as an
organizational subsystem to perform well throughout the enterprise in the form
of internal and external marketology. The key concerns of marketology within
organizations are emergence/formation, acceptance/penetration, develop-
ment/expansion, sustainability/durability, governance/ leadership, and per-
forming/contributing. It means that according to its evolution or maturity
level the delegates of marketology should make decisions and take actions in
218 H. AGHAZADEH
properly handling the range of issues we have discussed. Depending on its

organizational or structural location the decisions and actions of marketology
can also be at the strategic, tactical or operational level of an organization as
well as about marketology organizational architecture (MOA), marketology
organizational design (MOD) (which includes the structure, culture, people,
process, asset, technology, innovation and communication), or marketology
organizational behavior (MOB) (which includes governance, strategy, stake-
holders, business and environment/market, and performance). It is worth
bearing in mind that there are two main areas for key decisions and actions of
marketology across the organization: consolidating (how to stabilize well) and
functioning (how to perform well). It should be noted that this approach may
be the same as the manifestation dimension of the MCMC framework as well
as the pillar perspective of marketology development perspectives (3P).
DA by Marketology (Contribution)
O
This view represents the support that the hyper-function of marketology pro-
vides to market-related organizational decisions and actions (ODA). Businesses
during their life cycle stages of startup (birth), growth, maturity, revival, or
decline make plenty of market-related decisions (bottom-up) and consequently
take enormous market-related actions (top-down) at the strategic, tactical, and
operational levels. The main market-related decisions and actions of organiza-
tions may be based on a business’s sustainable superior/competitive success
(SSS/SCS), business building blocks (BBB), business organizational design
(BOD) (which includes structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology,
innovation, and communication) or business organizational behavior (BOB)
(which includes governance, strategy, stakeholders, business and environ-
ment/market, and performance). The hyper-function of marketology can sup-
port all the above-mentioned organizational decisions and actions by providing
the required market DIKII through IGDEE services to the target audiences
(decision-makers and action-takers) across the organization. The market-
related products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE) of marketology may
be presented to the organizational decision-makers and action-takers in two
formats: standard (river) and customized (container).16 It should be noted
that this approach may be similar to the contribution dimension of MCMC
framework as well as to the pipeline perspective of marketology development
perspectives (3P) (Campbell and Craig 2011; Lilien and Rangaswamy 2006;
Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Galbraith 1995; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al.
2015; Kotter 2015; Katz 2009; Hitt et al. 2015; Teece 2010; Grant and
Jordan 2012; Kotler and Keller 2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Aaker 2013;
Best 2012; Clair 2015; Aghazadeh 2016; Thompson et al. 2013; Porter 2008;
Olszak 2014; Balachandran and Chandrasekaran 2011; Corpgov 2015; Clair
et al. 2013; Evelson 2014; Forrester 2014; Elliott 2014; Dess et al. 2015;
Subramanian 2015a, b; Baker and Anderson 2010; Bennis et al. 2015; Griffin
2013; Daft 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Grant 2013; Brousseau et al. 2006;
Nayar 2013; HBR 2013a, b; Cespedes and Piercy 1996; Courtney 2001; Scott
and Bruce 1995; Rowe and Mason 1987; Rowe and Boulgarides 1992).

practice (MIP)
(3-8) Marketology, decisions and actions
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Marketology and organizational decisions and actions (ODA);
2. ODA for marketology (organization coverage);
3. ODA of marketology (manifestation);
4. ODA by marketology (contribution);
arketology Organizational Behavior (MOB) Canvas: Piece of Governance

M
Regarding the descriptive explanations about governance, leadership, and decision-
making it is illustrated in Figure 3.27 that “governance” as one piece of marketol-
ogy organizational behavior (MOB) canvas can become complete and located.
220 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
MOB: governance
(3-9)
previous sections, practice MCMC in your intended case for the issues below about governance:
1. Coverage of marketology governance by organization governance;
2. Manifestation of marketology governance throughout the organization;
3. Contribution of marketology governance to organization governance;

practice (MIP)
Governance
(3-10)
Guidelines: In the matrix below examine the interlinks between marketology and governance as a
component of business organizational behavior (BOB).
Marketology Total

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Corporate governance
2. Good corporate governance
3. Management and leadership
4. Strategic management and control

BOB: governance
5. Strategic issues: vision, mission, core
values, strategic themes, and goals
6. Decision-making
7. Action-taking
8. Individual, group and organizational
decision-making
Sum
Total
Average
Note: (AS) stands for Absolute Score, and (WS) stands for Weighted Score. AS can be a score within this continuum
{9 ≥ AS ≥ 0}; WS is calculated by multiplying each AS in related weight
analysis; and marketology match matrix (MMM) analyze the relationship between marketology and the
governance as a key component of business organizational behavior (BOB).
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: corporate governance, good corporate
governance, management and leadership, strategic management and control, strategic issues (vision,
mission, core values, strategic themes, and goals), decision, decision-making, action-taking, and
individual, group and organizational decision-making, and so on.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and corporate governance and decision:
3.4 Strategy
–– Strategic management and thinking
–– Strategic marketology framework (SMF)
–– Strategic marketology: beyond IT silos
–– Marketology strategy: integrating technology, business, market and
analytics
–– Marketology strategy: creating intelligence-based competitive advan-
tage (IBCA)
–– Marketology strategy: contributing business value and performance
–– Marketology strategy execution
–– Marketology strategy effectiveness
–– Marketology strategy: bridging the gap
–– Marketology strategic management (MSM)
–– Marketology and strategy
222 H. AGHAZADEH
–– Strategy for marketology (coverage)

–– Strategy of marketology (manifestation)
–– Strategy by marketology (contribution)
–– Marketology organizational behavior (MOB) canvas: piece of strategy
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Strategy

––
–– MIP 3-11: Marketology strategy
–– MIP 3-12: Marketology strategic management (MSM)
MCMC & MMM
analysis framework
3.4.1 Strategic Management and Thinking

In order to achieve sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS), busi-
nesses should exert effective strategic management. In past times when compe-
tition intensity, environment complexity, market turbulence, and organizational
complexity were not as pronounced as they are today, applying classic models
of strategic management was suitable to ensure organizational competitive suc-
cess. Nowadays, due to dramatic changes in the market and in organizations,
advanced strategic models are required for companies to succeed.
However, the main steps in the strategic management process still include
strategy crafting, strategy execution, and strategy evaluation. But the approaches
and style of conducting each step have been changed. In this regard, in a mod-
ern style of strategic management, it is necessary to take the following matters
into account, from the beginning of the process to restarting it: comprehen-
siveness, stakeholder, alignment (hierarchical), participation, agility, integration
(procedural), strategic thinking, cognitive, intelligence/insight, commitment,
continuity, and so on. In fact strategic thinking is a key issue and a significant
capability that should not be forgotten by strategists of organizations.
The ultimate objective of any strategic management process is to ensure
organizational competitive success through creating and delivering superior
value to key stakeholders. Today, the strategic management systems of organi-
zations equipped with so-called advanced features should go through the fol-
lowing steps: analyzing the internal and external situation (current and desired);
clarifying a mission; imagining a vision; representing core values; defining stra-
tegic themes; determining strategic objectives; designing strategies (corporate,

business, and function); setting policies; arranging operational plans, programs
and projects; carrying out preparations for strategy execution; implementing
the strategies, plans and programs; monitoring the execution phase; correcting
and improving the required items and issues during the execution; eliciting and
considering the feedbacks; evaluating, revising, and enhancing the strategies;
refreshing the whole process and steps; and restarting the process.
A simple glance at strategic management and thinking reveals that the hyper-
function of marketology can play an influential role in supporting the whole
process of crafting, executing, and evaluating strategy; strategic thinking; and
preparing most of the above-mentioned features of modern strategic manage-
ment (such as agility, cognition, intelligence, insight, and integration) (Hohhof
1994; Jaworski et al. 2002; Fiegenbaum et al. 1991, 1996; Mosimann et al.
2009; LaValle 2009a; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Gartner 2013; Wright 2013;
Jiang 2009; Boyer et al. 2010; Porter 1980; Dresner 2008; Griffin 2013; Gibson
et al. 2012; Aghazadeh 2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Grant 2013; Dess et al.
2013; Best 2012; Srivastava et al. 2013; Dauber et al. 2012; Teece 1984; Peteraf
and Bergen 2003; Hall 1992; Mintzberg 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Kotter
2015; Ulrich et al. 2012; Davenport and Harris 2007; Aaker 2013; Ackermann
and Eden 2011; Amit and Zott 2012; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Barnes and
Milton 2015; Day 1994; Barney 2011; BCPSA 2015; Beal 2000).
3.4.2 Strategic Marketology Framework (SMF)

Traditionally capabilities such as business intelligence (BI) and market intelligence
(MI) intended to support decisions at the strategic level only. Today, because of dra-
matic changes in environment and the internal workings of businesses, to achieve
superior or competitive success requires the hyper-function of marketology that
supports both decisions and actions at all levels: strategic, tactical and operational.
The successful launch, development, and performance of marketology within an
enterprise require appropriate strategic marketology framework (SMF) to run mar-
ketology strategies consistent with the components of marketology organizational
architecture (MOA), which include marketology organizational design (MOD)
and marketology organizational behavior (MOB); and aligned with business build-
ing blocks (BBB), which include business strategies and the components of business
organizational design (BOD) and business organizational behavior (BOB). The
mentioned strategic marketology framework (SMF) is illustrated in Figure 3.13.
A good strategic marketology framework (SMF) can ensure marketology
strategy success and effectiveness throughout the enterprise and accordingly can
improve market-related decision-making and action-taking capabilities of orga-
nizations to accomplish their objectives of providing superior value to their key
stakeholders in the marketplace. In fact an appropriate marketology strategy can
facilitate the proper exploitation of market DIKII and IGDEE services at the
strategic, tactical, and operational levels of an organization by senior, middle,
and frontline management for effective decision-making and efficient action-tak-
ing to accomplish business sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS).
224 H. AGHAZADEH
MOB MOD
BOB BOD
Business strategy
Marketology strategy
Figure 3.13 Strategic marketology framework (SMF): consistent with MOA and
aligned with BBB
Key Components of Marketology Strategy

Marketology may be considered as a core competency containing capabili-
ties based on business, market, IT, and analytics. In this conceptualization,
similar to BI, there are several elements that are pivotal components of mar-
ketology strategy17; these include the business context; key performance
indicators (KPIs); marketology platforms and tools; and marketology archi-
tecture. The marketology architecture constitutes data sources (e.g. external
sources), data integration services (e.g. data profiling), data management
services (e.g. enterprise data warehouse and data marts), reporting and
analytical services (e.g. Online Analytical Processing—OLAP), information
delivery and consumption services as a collaborative approach (e.g. score-
cards/ dashboards and market monitoring), information security, data gov-
ernance, data quality, data architecture, data integration, and management
of metadata (a data dictionary that contains definitions and data sources).
In the marketology strategy framework, to define effective marketology

strategy it would be helpful to consider the various stages of maturity as follows:
1. Multiple marketology and reporting tools; chaotic environment; no

alignment or consistency; and no specific structure.
2. Sets of teams working together; yet multiple groups but some collabora-
tive orientations emerging; virtual team may be in place.
3. A collection of standards chosen; IT and business working together;
marketology team in place (BICC/MMC); obtaining consistency in
approaches and processes.
4. Linking strategy and execution; formal organizational perspective in
place; IT, finance, and business working together; technology, people,
and process standards for marketology and performance management
(PM) in place.
It should be noted that the hyper-function of marketology may be at dif-

ferent stages of maturity in different organizations (Davenport et al. 2006;
Jiang 2009; Dresner 2008; HP 2012; LaValle 2009b; Leidner and Elam
1995; Nasri 2012; Boyer et al. 2010; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Dyson 1990;
Howson 2008; SAS 2005; Zeid 2006; Day 1986, 1990, 1999; Fleisher and
Bensoussan 2003; Daft et al. 1988; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Amit and
Schoemaker 1993; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Barnes and Milton 2015;
Aghazadeh 2016; Beal 2000; Bednall and Valos 2005; Cespedes and Piercy
1996; Olszak 2014; Chaffey 2014; Chernev 2014; Clark 1997; Collis and
Montgomery 1995; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Czepiel and Kerin 2012; Daft
2016; Barney 1991; Dean et al. 1998; Dess et al. 2013; Downey 2007; Doyle
and Stern 2006; Dresner et al. 2002; Dunmore 2002; Dyson and O’Brien
1998; Evans 2015).
3.4.3 Strategic Marketology: Beyond IT Silos

In accordance with IBM and Gartner recent surveys BI and business analyt-
ics has been recognized high prioritized issues for chief information officers
(CIOs) and senior executives of corporations. Similarly regarding the rapid
changes in business environment, market, technology and the internal work-
ings of enterprises, it can be inferred that, today, market, competitive, and busi-
ness analytics; market data, information, knowledge, intelligence, and insight
(DIKII); and marketology can be highlighted as of being a principal concern
and priority issue for CIOs, CMOs, and CEOs of enterprises. As a matter of fact
marketology can facilitate obtaining market and business DIKII and enhanc-
ing market-related decision-making and action-taking competencies through
which organizations can explore new opportunities, improve business process
and performance, and realize business sustainable superior/competitive success
(SSS/SCS). Behind long-time investing in developing information infrastruc-
tures and compiling oceans of data, it seems that many enterprises are unable to
226 H. AGHAZADEH
attain their expected results sufficiently in line with utilizing market and busi-
ness intelligence (MI and BI), market DIKII, and marketology. Rather they
have encountered information and knowledge silos which are hard to adapt,
complicated to grasp, and too narrow to provide the required insights. In this
way marketology strategy can help businesses to overcome such obstacles,
make effective market-related decisions, and take efficient actions for accom-
plishing business process, performance improvement, and competitive success
in marketplace. For this purpose marketology strategy facilitates effective mar-
ket DIKII through integrative IGDEE services across the enterprise. It should
be noted that effective implementation of marketology strategy beyond simply
technological initiatives requires effective marketology organizational architec-
ture (MOA), which includes marketology organizational design (MOD) and
marketology organizational behavior (MOB) consistent with business organi-
zational design (BOD) and business organizational behavior (BOB).
Because of the absence of strategic marketology many enterprises have
focused on tactical or technical marketology initiatives, which produced silos
of information/intelligence, and departmental or IT-based self-service report-
ing systems. Whereas, today, business executives and market-related decision-
makers and action-takers need effective market DIKII and IGDEE services
of marketology across the organization and in an integrative manner partic-
ularly at the strategic level. This purpose can be realized through an effec-
tive marketology management center (MMC) within a corporation. Then
the fundamental responsibilities of an MMC can be as defined as providing
strategic services, software implementations, system administration, training,
mentoring, and development. In fact an effective MMC can benefit the organi-
zation by increased usage of market DIKII; understanding the value of marke-
tology and market DIKII; satisfaction of users (market-related decision-makers
and action-takers); speed and effectiveness of decision-making; efficiency of
action-taking; and decreased staff and software costs. In this way the MMC can
play a role as a central hub (rounded by functions such as finance, supply chain,
human resources, information technology, and business units) through which
marketology performs well throughout the organization (Leidner and Elam
1995; Nasri 2012; Cognos-IBM 2010; Boyer et al. 2010; Miguel 2011; Pant
2009; LaValle 2009a, b; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Gartner 2013; Fiegenbaum
et al. 1996; Wright 2013; SAP 2015; Kamel et al. 2012; Daft 2016; Day 2013;
Dean et al. 1998; Dess et al. 2013, 2015; Prahald and Hamel 1990; Herring
1999; Porter 2007; Doyle 2009; Grant and Jordan 2012; Mosimann et al.
2009; Dresner et al. 2002; Kaplan and Norton 2001; Evans 2015; Grant 2013;
Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Piercy 1998; Zeid 2006; Eden and Ackermann
1998; Bryson et al. 2011; SAS 2005; IMA 1996a, c, d; Aghazadeh 2008;
Thompson et al. 2013; Campbell and Craig 2011; Webster 2008; Fahy and
Smith 1999; Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1994; Javidan 1998; Prahalad 1993).
3.4.4 Marketology Strategy: Integrating Technology,

Business, Market and Analytics
Despite the long-time utilization of business intelligence (BI), market intelli-
gence (MI), competitive intelligence (CI), strategic intelligence (SI), and simi-
lar capabilities or solutions by organizations, there are still several challenges
to the successful execution and exploitation of these. As a matter of fact such
circumstances becomes restrictive for a contemporary capability such as the
hyper-function of marketology.
While the main reason seems to be merely focusing on technology there
are several causes beyond technology such as a lack of strategy, organizational
architecture, and performance/success evaluation in place; deviations imposed
by politics, culture,18 and other components of business organizational design
(BOD); and detached and costly IT-based or business-based efforts/solutions
without sufficient ROI.
In today’s rapidly changing business environment it is a prime requirement
that capabilities such as marketology contribute to accomplishing a business’s
sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS) through assisting in imple-
menting effective market-related decision-making and efficient action-taking.
In other words the hyper-function of marketology should play an influential
role in ensuring the effectiveness of overall business performance instead of
conventionally concentrating solely on improving IT efficiency and business
efficiency. For this purpose and in order to better govern businesses, the senior
executives of enterprises should focus on utilizing marketology strategy rather
than just IT-enabled BI, MI, CI, or SI.
In fact marketology strategy can enable a market-related decision and action
support skeleton through which the executives of enterprises are equipped with
effective market DIKII and provided by suitable IGDEE service. Accordingly
they become able to make effective market-related decisions and take efficient
actions to better steer the business to create superior value to key stakeholders
in the marketplace. Therefore under the umbrella of marketology strategy the
businesses should integrate the matters of technology, business, market, and ana-
lytics in collaboration with key stakeholders relying on IT efficiency and business
efficiency and aimed at business effectiveness (Kamel et al. 2012; Cognos-IBM
2009a, b; Howson 2008; SAS 2005; Zeid 2006; Boyer et al. 2010; Dresner
2008; HP 2012; Leidner and Elam 1995; Fiegenbaum et al. 1996; Wright 2013;
Sanchez et al. 1996; Galbraith 1995; Gatignon and Xuereb 1997; Richmond
and McCroskey 2009; Herring 2002; Davenport et al. 2006; Kaplan 2005; Hitt
and Ireland 1985; McClinton 2015; Porter 1998b, 2008; McNamee et al. 1999;
Meer 2012; Metayer 2013; Leidner and Elam 1995; Nasri 2012; Miguel 2011;
Pant 2009; Grant 2013; Dess et al. 2013; Smith and Raspin 2008; Kotler and
Armstrong 2015a, b; IMA 1996a, c, d; Aghazadeh 2008; Thompson et al. 2013;
Campbell and Craig 2011).
228 H. AGHAZADEH
3.4.5 Marketology Strategy: Creating Intelligence-Based

Competitive Advantage (IBCA)
It has been emphasized that, today, businesses have to pursue sustainable supe-
rior/competitive success (SSS/SCS) in an ever-changing marketplace and to this
end they should be able to create sustainable competitive advantage in an intel-
ligent manner. Wright (2013) expressed such a kind of competitive advantage
as “intelligence-based competitive advantage (IBCA)” which can be created and
sustained through intelligence-based market-related decisions and actions of
organization relying on market DIKII and IGDEE services that are provided by
the hyper-function of marketology as a consequence of marketology strategies.
Intelligence-based competitive advantage (IBCA) refers to the timely form-
ing and conducting of the competitive, market and business intelligence ini-
tiatives, business analytics processes and advanced competitive strategies. In
order to attain IBCA companies should define and execute marketology strat-
egy through which they can exploit insight management (IM) and competitive
intelligence, analysis and strategy (CIAS).
The capabilities of competitive intelligence (CI), intelligence management
(IM), and competitive intelligence, analysis and strategy (CIAS) can be con-
sidered as organizational processes of marketology strategy for systematically
collecting, processing, analyzing, and distributing the required market DIKII to
market-related decision-makers and action-takers throughout the organization.
Within the hyper-function of marketology the CI, IM, and CIAS capabilities work
based on three groups of activities: (1) general/secondary information services
(published market DIKII), (2) primary information c ollection (collected market
DIKII), and (3) analysis (analyzed and generated market DIKII).
In fact such efforts as CI, IM, and CIAS capabilities in marketology strategy
should be organized and conducted with sufficient efficiency, accuracy, compre-
hensiveness, and timeliness; and also should have confident, realistic, and rapid
sense-making of generated market DIKII. Definitely the process of marketol-
ogy strategy is continued with disseminating/delivering, exploiting, and evalu-
ating the generated market DIKII to the target audiences (decision-makers).
Today, enterprises should be agile and flexible enough through being equipped
with utilizing dynamic capabilities, making insightful decisions, and taking influen-
tial action based on market DIKII. In this regard the CI, IM, and CIAS capabilities
of marketology strategy are expected to facilitate effective market-related decision-
making and efficient action-taking that relies on market DIKII beyond the tradi-
tional intelligence systems such as Knowledge Management System, Management
Information System, Marketing Information System, and Competitor Monitoring
System. The marketology is a comprehensive and advanced intelligence system
that is highly aligned with both the resource-based view (RBV) and the sense-
making school of decision making. Therefore an enterprise can obtain intel-
ligence-based competitive advantage (IBCA); improve its business process and
performance management; and thus achieve sustainable superior/competitive
success through the proper utilization of marketology (Hohhof 1994; Jaworski
et al. 2002; Fiegenbaum et al. 1991, 1996; Mosimann et al. 2009; LaValle 2009a;
SAP 2015; Kamel et al. 2012; Cognos-IBM 2 009a, b; Dresner 2008; HP 2012;
Leidner and Elam 1995; Wright 2013; Jiang 2009; Boyer et al. 2010; Leidner and
Elam 1995; Nasri 2012; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Porter 2008; Campbell
and Craig 2011; Webster 2008; Day 2013; Edgar and Lockwood 2012; Stewart
and Rogers 2012; Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Sanchez et al. 1996; Davenport
et al. 2006; Grabo 2004; Hall 1993; Hambrick 1982; Helfat et al. 2007; Helfat
and Peteraf 2009; Piercy 1997; Aghazadeh 2015; Hitt et al. 2015; Johanson and
Vahlne 2011; Rothaermel 2014; Jurevicius 2013; Teece et al. 1997; Kaplan 2010;
Moorman and Rust 1999; O’Reilly and Tushman 2004; Kotler 2003; Kumar
et al. 2001; McClinton 2015; McNamee et al. 1999; Meer 2012; Metayer 2013;
Miller and Smith 2011).
3.4.6 Marketology Strategy: Contributing Business

Value and Performance
The marketology strategy is not an over night but an over time effort that
should be consistent with components of marketology architecture and aligned
with business building blocks. In accordance with strategic marketology frame-
work (SMF) the marketology strategies should be formulated by considering
the vision, mission, strategic objectives and themes, governance, external and
internal requirements, and stakeholders analysis of both marketology and orga-
nization. An then, consequently, the policies, action plans, budget, programs,
and projects of marketology should be defined to be executed and evaluated.
Certainly the successful formulation, implementation, evaluation, and devel-
opment of marketology strategy are closely linked to the structure, culture,
people, process, asset, technology, innovation, and communication of both
marketology and organization. Therefore these key components should be
precisely considered in the marketology strategy framework.
In accordance with strategic marketology framework (SMF) the marketol-
ogy strategies can contribute to business value, and consequently result in busi-
ness performance as illustrated in Figure 3.14.
As depicted Figure 3.14 different marketology strategies (business alignment,
behavioral, and technology) contribute to different business values (business and
IT effectiveness and efficiency) and result in different business performance out-
comes (goal achievement, higher productivity, and lower costs) (Wright 2013;
Jiang 2009; Boyer et al. 2010; Dresner 2008; HP 2012; LaValle 2009a; SAP
2015; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b, 2010; Gartner 2013; Meyer 1991; Olson et al.
2005; OnStrategy 2014; Piercy 1990; Pike et al. 2005; Porter 1998a; Rumelt
1984; Leonard-Barton 1992; Lidija and Hisrich 2014; Roos 2005; Cameron
and Green 2015; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Dodgson et al. 2015;
White and Bruton 2011; Shapiro 1989; Slater et al. 2011; Smith and Grimm
1987; Snow and Hrebiniak 1980; Subramanian 2015a, b; Aghazadeh 2016;
Svendsen 2010; Lado et al. 1992; Synder and Ebeling 1992; Teece 2010; Trim
2006; Tonsetic 2012; Vaitkevicius et al. 2006; Ventana 2010; Varadarajan 2010;
Vrontis and Thrassou 2006; Walker and Madsen 2015; Warren 2008; Yoon and
Lee 2006; KFKB 2014).
230 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology strategies Business value Business performance
Business alignment Business

Business value outcomes and objectives
strategy effectiveness
Organizational and Business

Higher productivity, faster time to complete tasks
behavioral strategy efficiency
Technology and tools Lowest total cost of ownership and greater

IT efficiency
strategy efficiencies in IT
Figure 3.14 Marketology strategy contribution on business value and performance

practice (MIP)
(3-11) Marketology strategy
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Strategic management and thinking
2. Strategic marketology framework (SMF)
3. Strategic marketology: beyond IT silos
4. Marketology strategy: integrating technology, business, market and analytics
5. Marketology strategy: creating intelligence-based competitive advantage (IBCA)
6. Marketology strategy: contributing business value and performance

3.4.7 Marketology Strategy Execution

In order to successfully design and execute a marketology strategy within an
enterprise in charge of the marketology organization (such as an MMC) sev-
eral key components should be taken into account in an integrative manner:
business building blocks (BBB), which includes business organizational design
(BOD) and business organizational behavior (BOB); and marketology orga-
nizational architecture (MOA), which includes marketology organizational
design (MOD) and marketology organizational behavior (MOB).19
In consideration of the significance of marketology strategies on a business’s
competitive success, through assisting market-related decisions and actions, the
Examples of Key Components for Marketology Strategy Design and

Execution
–– Strategic issues: marketing strategy, business strategy, and informa-

tion technology/system (IT/IS) strategy.
–– Organizational issues: people (organization), process (functions),
technology, and information.
–– Marketology platform issues: marketology governance, information
architecture, roadmap and portfolio, organization and operations,
and internal/external intelligence.
key matter is how to execute these strategies appropriately. As a result of good

execution of marketology strategy the analysis, planning, forecasting, decision-
making, and action-taking capabilities of users/clients throughout the enter-
prise can be enhanced remarkably.
Several critical concerns that should be taken into account for successful
execution of marketology strategy are as follows:
• Alignment: the marketology strategies should be aligned with organiza-

tional strategies, design, and behavior.
• Consistency: the marketology strategies should be consistent with other
components of marketology system, design, and behavior.
• Flexibility: the marketology strategies should be reviewable, modifiable,
and revisable in accordance with changing external and internal condi-
tions of businesses.
• Compatibility: the marketology strategies should be compatible with
organizational resources, capabilities, and constraints.
• Workability: the marketology strategies should be continued with opera-
tional elements such as policies, action plans, budgets, programs, and
projects to be performed efficiently.
• Result-oriented: the execution of marketology strategies should result in
definite outcomes of supporting market-related decisions and actions by
232 H. AGHAZADEH
market DIKII and IGDEE services across the organization in an effective

manner.
• Evaluable: the marketology strategies should be measureable, evaluable,
controllable, and correctable based on probable feedbacks.
Good execution of marketology strategy requires appropriate training pro-

grams, organizational supports, collaborative marketology environment, and
socialization of the marketology. In this regard the enterprise should prepare
the cross-functional structure with a decision-support atmosphere to facili-
tate the marketology strategy execution which in turn can align marketology
investments and practices with organization objectives and then bring value to
the business by enabling the market-related decision-makers and action-tak-
ers (Leidner and Elam 1995; Nasri 2012; Cognos-IBM 2010; Miguel 2011;
Pant 2009; Hohhof 1994; Fiegenbaum et al. 1991; Mosimann et al. 2009;
Jiang 2009; Johanson and Vahlne 2011; Rothaermel 2014; Jurevicius 2013;
Kaplan 2010; Kaplan and Norton 2001; Kotler and Keller 2015; Kumar et al.
Miller and Smith 2011; Langley 1991; Lehman and Winer 2007; Lambin and
Schuiling 2012; Aghazadeh 2008; Lopez 2014; OnStrategy 2014; Pike et al.
2005; Leonard-Barton 1992; Lidija and Hisrich 2014; Roos 2005; Cameron
and Green 2015; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Dodgson et al. 2015;
Lambin 2007).
3.4.8
Marketology Strategy Effectiveness
When a marketology strategy is successful it can be aligned with business
partners, recognize market-related informational needs, and provide compre-
hensive strategic marketology solutions to assist market-related decisions and
actions. Successful execution of the enterprise-wide marketology strategy is
depiceted in Figure 3.15.
As depicted in Figure 3.15 successful execution of marketology strategy
requires the following key functions to work integratively and effectively within
an MMC and throughout the organization:
• Developing effective marketology strategy

• Alignment with IT department/function
• Building a marketology management center (MMC)
• Developing marketology governance structure
• Implementing an MMC
3.4.9 Marketology Strategy: Bridging the Gap

The marketology strategy can be considered as solutions for bridging the probable
gaps between its current and its desired status. Based on such a gap analysis the
current status (AS IS) of marketology is compared with its desired status (TO BE),
Building or maintaining a marketology management center
Development of an effective Alignment with IT (MMC)
marketology strategy department/function Developing marketology

Implementing MMC
governance structure
- Identifying key stakeholders - Corporate IT alignment - Forming confirmed - Defined business
- Identifying corporate with marketology executive steering committee priorities
strategy to build alignment - Identifying marketology - Buy-in and involvement - Defined reporting needs
with strategic, program, from all impacted - Defined KPIs and
- Identifying priorities related analytical and technical stakeholders supporting metrics
to business and market skills - Identifying and agreeing on - Defined architecture
- Identifying confirmed - Identifying overlapping priorities - Defined data needs
architecture business and market - Defining and agreeing on - Defined solutions and
- Identifying data sources priorities accountabilities methodologies
- Making alignment with - Identifying architectural - Defining and agreeing on - Confirmed capabilities
MMC priorities scope, overlap, etc. roles and responsibilities - Confirmed project
- Identifying confirmed - Identifying data scope, - Defining and agreeing on priorities
internal capability overlap, legacy systems, guidance, standards and - Confirmed project
- Identifying impacted etc. templates management process
business processes - Confirming deployment - Identifying marketology - Confirmed project roll-

capability toolsets out process
- Deploying marketology - Defining marketology toolset - Confirmed guidance,

toolset capabilities standards and templates
Figure 3.15 Key functions of effective marketology strategy within an MMC
and then solutions for bridging the gaps are provided as marketology strategies.
The dimensions (or perspectives) of marketology gap analysis are as follows:
(a) Product-service perspective: market-related products, including “market

DIKII,” and services, including “IGDEE”
(b) Architectural perspective: “marketology organizational design (MOD)”
and “marketology organizational behavior (MOB)”
(c) Functional perspective: “business and market” and “technology and
analytics”
Marketology gap analysis can be investigated based on the above-mentioned

dimensions in a matrix as illustrated in Figure 3.16.
As represented in Figure 3.16 the marketology strategy determines how
to bridge the probable gaps between the current and the desired status of
marketology in terms of the discussed aspects. In other words the marketology
strategy maps the transformation from the current status of marketology to
its desired status.
234 H. AGHAZADEH
TO BE
Marketology's
desired status
Marketology products: market DIKII
Business & Market
Marketology's
current status
AS IS
Technology & Analytics
Marketology organizational behavior (MOB)
Marketology services: IGDEE
Figure 3.16 Marketology strategy: bridging the gaps
Marketology Current Status (AS IS) Current state analysis helps the enter-
prise to recognize the existing pain points of marketology on architectural,
product-service, and functional dimensions and focus on improving them
through marketology strategy. In order to identify the current status of mar-
ketology the current situation of the above-mentioned dimensions, including
marketology organizational design (MOD) and marketology organizational
behavior (MOB); marketology products (including market DIKII) and ser-
vices (IGDEE); and the functions of business, market, technology, and analyt-
ics should be identified. As current status analysis, the marketology maturity
and readiness within an enterprise should also be investigated.
Marketology Desired Status (TO BE) After recognizing the current

status of marketology the key issue is to determine the desired situation of
marketology on architectural, product-service, and functional dimensions
that an enterprise wants to be in.
Example Items for Identifying Current Situation of Marketology
–– Prevalently used information systems, technology, processes, and

governance procedures
–– All platforms, technologies, and tools being used to develop and
deliver marketology content
–– Existing users, user profiles, and their way of using market DIKII
–– Common processes and structures for managing market DIKII
–– How various technologies and governance procedures are being
implemented
–– How people are using the marketology solutions (products and
services)
–– How marketology capabilities are being leveraged
–– Do the users now receive market DIKII in a suitable format to best
use of marketology?
–– How the users are consuming market DIKII
–– …
Transformation from Current to Desired Status of Marketology The AS

IS/TO BE state analysis of marketology should assist the enterprise in defin-
ing a transformation plan as part of marketology strategy to fill in the probable
Example Items for Identifying Desired Situation of Marketology
–– The way of sharing market information and knowledge by users or

clients of marketology
–– The attributes of collaborative environment for the best utilization
of marketology
–– Assessing marketology plans to find out whether they are moving in
the right direction
–– Evaluating the organizational readiness for establishing and exploit-
ing marketology
–– Discerning the abilities of enterprise to leverage marketology
–– Preparing pivotal requirements to ensure success of the marketology
initiatives
–– Inscribing a long-term plan of utilizing marketology for better busi-
ness performance
–– Launching the marketology schemes which ensure business process
and performance improvement
–– Facilitating the combination of marketology with the areas of
business process management, performance improvement, cross-
functional information exchange, knowledge management, market-
ing and customer management, and so on.
–– …
236 H. AGHAZADEH
gaps between the current and the desired status of marketology on architec-
tural, product-service, and functional dimensions.
3.4.10 Marketology Strategic Management (MSM)
Example Themes for Transformation from Current to Desired Status of

Marketology
–– Marketology initiatives: from technology-driven and business-

driven to market-oriented
–– Marketology systems: from multiple to one (integrated and
comprehensive)
–– Marketology environment: from bounded (not enterprise-wide) to
collaborative
–– Marketology data governance: from limited (no-data) to effective
–– Marketology reporting: from data in silos (multiple unsynchronized
solutions) to data aligned with the overall enterprise goals
–– Marketology influence: from single effect of each BI system to
empowering all in the enterprise for better decision-making
–– Marketology methodology: from collecting data in a solitary and
costly manner to standardized enterprise-wide BI/DW
–– Marketology practice style: from lack of collaboration to holistic
manner
–– …
Marketology strategic management (MSM) leads the hyper-function of

marketology to accomplish its objectives considering external and
internal
conditions on a long-term basis. The MSM as a process comprises the steps of
analyzing, formulating, implementing, evaluating, and improving marketology
strategy. Marketology is a novel phenomenon that holds most of the s o-called
features of modern managerial functions; thus the MSM is an advanced style of
strategic management.
3.4.11 Marketology and Strategy
The hyper-function of marketology is to support market-related decisions and
actions of businesses by providing the needed market DIKII through IGDEE
services to the target decision-makers and action-takers. In this regard the rela-
tionship between marketology and strategy within an organization, as illus-
trated in Figure 3.17, can be investigated from three perspectives: (1) strategy
for marketology (organization strategy’s coverage); (2) strategy by marketol-
ogy (contribution); and (3) strategy of marketology (manifestation).
By
marketology
(Contribuon)
Strategy
For
Of marketology
marketology
(Coverage)
(Manifestaon)
Figure 3.17 Marketology and strategy
It worth bearing in mind that “alignment” is the vital issue of all perspec-
tives. It means that marketology strategies should have both horizontal and
vertical alignment with any other strategies in place in the organization. Also,
all marketology strategies (for, by, or of) are expected to be continued with
policies, action plans, budgets, programs, and projects.
238 H. AGHAZADEH
3.4.12 Strategy for Marketology (Coverage)

Strategy for marketology refers to the strategies that are defined and executed
for developing the hyper-function of marketology across the organization
by the executives. These strategies can be as one or several organizational
strategies (either with direct or indirect focus on marketology) in strategic,
tactical, or operational levels of an organization. In other words the organi-
zational strategies embrace strategies for marketology. These organizational
strategies for marketology can be about the positioning manner of marketol-
ogy within the business organizational design (BOD) (which includes the
structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology, innovation, and com-
munication) and business organizational behavior (BOB) (includes the gov-
ernance, strategy, stakeholders, business and environment/market, value,
and performance). In accordance with these organizational strategies the
hyper-function of marketology may be developed, maintained, or declined.
The strategy for marketology may be compatible with the coverage dimen-
sion of the MCMC framework and the parasol perspective of marketology
development perspectives (3P).
3.4.13 Strategy of Marketology (Manifestation)

The strategy of marketology represents the strategies that the governors
or leaders of the hyper-function of marketology formulate and implement
to accomplish its functions across the organization as internal and external
marketology. The strategies of marketology should concentrate on two main
concerns pertaining to marketology throughout the organizations: consoli-
dating (how to stabilize well) and functioning (how to perform well). In
this regard the strategies of marketology may be, for example, the in-house
or out-sourced functioning; product-oriented or client-oriented support-
ing; and centralized or scattered working. Based on its position and maturity
within the organization the strategies of marketology can be at the strategic,
tactical, or operational level and can also be about the manner of marketol-
ogy organizational architecture (MOA), marketology organizational design
(MOD) (structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology, innovation
and communication), or marketology organizational behavior (MOB) (gov-
ernance, strategy, stakeholders, business and environment/market, and per-
formance). The strategy of marketology may be similar to the manifestation
dimension of the MCMC framework and the pillar perspective of marketol-
ogy development perspectives (3P).
3.4.14 Strategy by Marketology (Contribution)

Strategy by marketology points to the organizational strategies at the cor-
porate, business, and functional levels that are crafted and executed by the
support of the hyper-function of marketology. The main market-related
organizational strategies may be based on how to achieve the business’s sus-

tainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS), business building blocks
(BBB), business organizational design (BOD) (structure, culture, people,
process, asset, technology, innovation and communication), or business
organizational behavior (BOB) (governance, strategy, stakeholders, busi-
ness and environment/market, and performance). Further, organizational
strategies may focus on defining where to compete (which market to enter/
exit as a Blue versus Red Ocean) or how to compete (which competitive
advantage to create/sustain). The hyper-function of marketology can sup-
port the formulating and implementing of such organizational strategies
by providing market-related products (i.e. market DIKII) and services (i.e.
IGDEE) to the target audiences (strategists) across the organization. These
supports of marketology may be delivered in two forms: standard (river)
and customized (container). The strategy by marketology may be the same
as the support dimension of MCMC framework and the pipeline perspec-
tive of marketology development perspectives (3P) (Mosimann et al. 2009;
Gartner 2013; Boyer et al. 2010; Dresner 2008; HP 2012; Leidner and
Elam 1995; Kamel et al. 2012; Cognos-IBM 2010; Howson 2008; SAS
2005; Zeid 2006; Fiegenbaum et al. 1996; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016;
Wright 2013; Nasri 2012; Miguel 2011; Pant 2009; SAP 2015; Gibson
et al. 2012; Robbins and Judge 2015; Best 2012; Srivastava et al. 2013;
Griffin and Moorehead 2013; Kotter 2015; Smith and Raspin 2008; Kotler
and Keller 2015; Herring 2002; Grant 1991; Thompson et al. 2013; Porter
2008; Webster 2008; Cameron and Green 2015; Tidd and Bessant 2014;
Schilling 2016; Dodgson et al. 2015; White and Bruton 2011; Slater et al.
2011; Subramanian 2015a, b; Svendsen 2010; Teece 2010; Tonsetic 2012;
Vaitkevicius et al. 2006; Ventana 2010; Varadarajan 2010; Vrontis and
Thrassou 2006; Walker and Madsen 2015).

practice (MIP)
(3-12) Marketology strategic management (MSM)
Guideline (FOCUS)

240 H. AGHAZADEH
1. Marketology strategy execution
2. Marketology strategy effectiveness
3. Marketology strategy: bridging the gap
4. Marketology strategic management (MSM)
5. Marketology and strategy
(a) Strategy for marketology (coverage)
(b) Strategy of marketology (manifestation)
(c) Strategy by marketology (contribution)
3.4.15 Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB)

Canvas: Piece of Strategy
Regarding the descriptive explanations for strategy, strategic marketology,
strategy formulation, execution, and effectiveness Figure 3.27 illustrates that
the “strategy” as one piece of marketology organizational behavior (MOB)
canvas can become complete and located.

practice (MIP)
MOB: strategy
(3-13)
previous sections, practice MCMC in your intended case for the issues below about strategy:
1. Coverage of marketology strategy by organization strategy;
2. Manifestation of marketology strategy throughout the organization;
3. Contribution of marketology strategy to organization strategy;

practice (MIP)
Strategy
(3-14)
Guidelines: In the matrix below examine the interlinks between marketology and strategy as a
component of business organizational behavior (BOB).
Marketology Total

Weight (100%)

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Strategy
2. Strategic management
3. Strategic thinking
4. Strategic analysis
BOB: strategy
5. Strategy crafting
6. Strategy execution
7. Strategy evaluation
8. Strategy alignment
9. Strategy effectiveness
Sum
Total
Average
for Weighted Score. AS can be a score within this continuum {9≥AS≥0}, WS is calculated by multiplying each AS in
related weight.
242 H. AGHAZADEH
analysis, and marketology match matrix (MMM) analy ze the relationship between marketology and the
governance as a key component of business organizational behavior (BOB).
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: strategy, strategic management, strategic
thinking, strategic analysis, strategy crafting, strategy execution, strategy evaluation, strategy alignment,
and strategy effectiveness, and so on.
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and strategy and strategic management:
3.5 Value and Performance

–– Business value
–– Optimum Balanced Value (OBV)
–– Return on Value (ROV)
–– Marketology value proposition (MVP)
–– Business performance
–– Business performance evaluation
–– Total quality management (TQM), productivity, and organizational
effectiveness
–– Ambidextrous business performance management
–– Business process innovation (BPI) and business process optimization
(BPrO)
–– Business performance optimization (BPO)
–– Proactive and intelligent business performance management (PBPM
and IBPM)
–– Marketology critical success factors (CSFs)

–– Marketology and “value and performance”
–– Value and performance for marketology (coverage)
–– Value and performance of marketology (manifestation)
–– Value and performance by marketology (contribution)
–– Marketology organizational behavior (MOB) canvas: pieces of value
and performance
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Value and Performance

–– MIP 3-15: Value
–– MIP 3-16: Performance
MCMC & MMM
analysis framework
3.5.1 Business Value
In general the theory of value explains value exchange between two or more
sides, bodies or parties. Value can be defined in various fields: economics, busi-
ness and marketing, finance/investing, social, ethics, law, computer science,
mathematics, and so on. Here the main focus is on business and marketing in
relation to economics, social factors, and ethics. Value can be considered as the
residuum of perceived benefits minus perceived costs (Value = Benefits − Costs).
Benefits, costs, and value have financial or monetary (quantitative) and non-
financial (qualitative) (including functional, social, and psychological) aspects,
and in addition to the quantitative calculation, the expertise and intuitive quali-
tative analysis should be carried out complementarily.
Business value refers to the value that firms identify, create, and deliver to
key stakeholders who in return capture value from such deals. While business
and marketing value may have been used interchangeably, here they are con-
sidered to be different. The business value as illustrated in Figure 3.18 can be
expressed from different views, including stakeholder, functional, hierarchical,
and typological perspectives.
As depicted in Figure 3.18, in accordance with stakeholder perspective busi-
ness value includes internal and external values. Internal value represents the
value of internal stakeholders and external value points the value of external
stakeholders. In this regard the business value comprises customer, supplier,
244 H. AGHAZADEH
Stakeholder
Business
Funconal value Hierarchical
perspeves
Typological
Figure 3.18 Business value perspectives
channel/mediator, partner, social, government, public and media, shareholder,

managerial, and employee values. Based on a functional perspective business value
embraces marketing, Management Information System (MIS) and Information
Technology (IT), Human Resource (HR), Research and Development (R&D)
(innovation), production, supply, logistics, and finance values. From a hierarchi-
cal perspective business value consists of strategic, tactical and operational/tech-
nical values. On the basis of typological perspective business value comprises
firm/company, brand,20 market,21 and customer values.
Regarding today’s intensely competitive environment enterprises should
continuously attempt to provide superior/competitive business value (SBV/
CBV) and also improve their business value proposition (BVP) using value
engineering (VE) and value analysis (VA) mechanisms.
In order to succeed in creating, delivering and capturing business value,
senior executives of enterprises should rely on business organizational design
(BOD) (which includes structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology,
innovation, and communication) and business organizational behavior (BOB)
(which involves governance, strategy, stakeholders, business and environment/
market, value, and performance).
The hyper-function of marketology is an organizational subsystem or func-

tion related to all stakeholders, located at all hierarchical levels, and linked to
both internal and external issues of a business. Thus the marketology value can
be considered a specialized version of business value with a holographic attri-
bute. Marketology value can be created, delivered, and captured by IGDEE
services and market DIKII. For this purpose the delegates of marketology
should arrange marketology value based on marketology organizational design
(which includes structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology, innova-
tion and communication) and marketology organizational behavior (MOB)
(which involves governance, strategy, stakeholders, business and environ-
ment/market, and performance) (Williams and Williams 2003; Argandona
2011; Smart 1931; Aaker 2010, 2014, 2016; Doyle 2009; Best 2012; Lopez
2014; Miller and Lewis 1991; Normann and Ramırez 1993; Osterwalder
et al. 2005, 2015; Teece 2010; Tzokas and Saren 1997; Kothari and Lackner
2006; McNaughton et al. 2001; Day 1990; Amit and Zott 2012; Kotler and
Keller 2015; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Balboni et al. 2010; LaValle 2009a;
Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Strategyzer 2015a; Cognos-IBM 2010;
Edgar and Lockwood 2010; Dess et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Barney 2011; Ballard
et al. 2006; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Dodgson et al. 2015;
White and Bruton 2011; Subramanian 2015a, b; Olszak 2014; Chaffey 2014;
Porter 1998b; Cravens and Piercy 2013).
3.5.2 Optimum Balanced Value (OBV)

There is no doubt that a business in the competitive market struggles to deliver
a superior/better value to its key stakeholders (particularly customers) than that
of its key competitors in their attempts to deliver to the same customers, and
in exchange the business looks to capture much more/superior value than that
which its key rivals pursue. This interaction is similar to a game in which each
player (company, customer, and competitor) within a match field (as common/
target market) looks for its own desired maximum value (DMV). However, the
real market is not compatible with such dreams of a playing field! Each player
has to be engaged with a deal and trade-off with other players and consent to a
satisfactory amount of value which may be lower than the DMV. Therefore the
extent of value by which a company and its target customer conclude that each
of them captures satisfactorily (not necessarily maximum)—and the competitor
cannot provide, or finds out that it is not satisfactory to provide such amount
of value to the target customer against its competitor (the given company)—is
defined as optimum balanced value (OBV) in which first the players come to a
balance in dealing with each other, then they consent to an optimum instead
of maximum extent of value. Marketology is a capability or competency that
can help business analysts and executives or decision-makers in a business gain
a good understanding of the players and their perceptions and expectations to
them allow them to determine the right OBV for a given target market.
246 H. AGHAZADEH
The desired maximum value (DMV) can be considered as the highest extent
of value that a player wishes to obtain in the case of there not being any resis-
tance, prevention, conflict of interests, opposing forces, or negative impres-
sions from the other player’s side. However, the real world presents a more
complicated scenario. In the real competitive business marketplace customers
have plenty of choice other than a given company’s offerings. Further there
are strong rivals who constantly struggle to enhance and promote their brand
image and value performance in the target customers’ minds and hearts, and
then occupy an immanent position higher than the aspiring company’s posi-
tion. Therefore it can be inferred that in spite of some driving (positive) forces,
in the real (and rough) world of competition there are plenty of restraining
(negative) forces that are obstacles in the way of achieving desired maximum
value (DMV) which makes it often impossible to realize. Accordingly the opti-
mum balanced value (OBV) can be regarded as the best possible desired maxi-
mum value that is beneficial and agreed upon for two players who deal with
each other.
For instance imagine a company that looks for 100 ComV (Company Value)
as its desired maximum value in a deal with target customers in a competi-
tive marketplace. On the other side of this deal the customer looks for 100
CstV (Customer Value) as its desired maximum value. But in addition to the
company and customer there are other players such as competitors in the mar-
ketplace which look for 100 CptV (Competitor Value) as their own desired
maximum value in dealing with the same customer, and this also impacts the
perceptions, performances, and relationships of both the company and cus-
tomer. As a consequence the company cannot obtain 100 ComV as its desired
maximum value because of the performance and effects of competitors and
the changing perceptions of customers. The customer also cannot attain 100
CstV as its desired maximum value because providing such amount of value
may not be beneficial for the company or even the competitor. In this way the
company, in a tight deal with the customer and under pressure from competi-
tors, may assent 55–75 ComV, the competitor may admit 60–80 CptV, and the
customer when considering their interactions with the company and the impact
of competitors may consent 65–85 CstV. Hence a specific group of customers
may attain a balance with the company in which the company may become
satisfied with 60 ComV as its optimum balanced value and the target customers
of company may become satisfied with 80 CstV as its optimum balanced value.
Another particular group of customers may get a balance with the competitor
of the company in which the competitor may be satisfied with 70 CptV as its
optimum balanced value and the target customer of the competitor may be
satisfied with 75 CstV as its optimum balanced value.
Figure 3.19 depicts the logic of forming optimum balanced value (OBV) as
result of modifications in desired maximum value (DMV) of players (company,
customer, and competitor).
Regarding the previous descriptions and examples and as Figure 3.19
shows, initially each actor in the marketplace (i.e. company, customer, and
Competor
Desired Maximum
Value (DMV) of
Competor
Logic of
Opmum
Balanced
Value (OBV)
Customer
Company
Opmum Balanced Opmum Balanced (Target)
Value (OBV) of Value (OBV) of
Competor Customer (Target A)
Market
Figure 3.19 The logic of optimum balanced value (OBV)
competitor) looks for its desired maximum value but finally, as a consequence
of the competition game between players (particularly the struggles of com-
pany and competitors), they all assent to their balanced optimum value. It
should be remembered that this optimum balanced value is considered as
the motivation for acting influentially within the market and the essence for
selecting the target market and customers for a company or competitor. This
is why the company reaches for a balance with a specific group of custom-
ers (target A) and the competitor reaches for a balance with another specific
group of customers (target B) (Miller and Lewis 1991; Aaker 2010, 2014;
Normann and Ramırez 1993; Osterwalder et al. 2005; Teece 2010; Tzokas
and Saren 1997; Kothari and Lackner 2006; McNaughton et al. 2001; Marr
2015; BSI 2015; Emerson 2003; Leszinski and Marn 1997; Arrow and Lind
2003; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Quinn and Spreitzer 1991; Gupta and Benson
2011; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Srivastava et al. 1999; Hillman and
Keim 2001; IMA 1996a, c, d; Jackson 2011; LaValle 2009b; Miller and
Smith 2011; Kotter 2015; Griffin 2013; Gibson et al. 2012; Robbins and
Judge 2015; Griffin and Moorehead 2013; Davenport et al. 2006; Campbell
and Craig 2011; Porter 1998a; Cameron and Green 2015; Fleisher and
Bensoussan 2015).
248 H. AGHAZADEH
3.5.3
Return on Value (ROV)
A misconception may be derived from investigating the bulk of recent busi-
ness literature in which the efforts of enterprises are devoted to just creating
and delivering superior value to the customers, somehow without tracing and
capturing sufficient amount of value for themselves. However such ambiguities
have been declared formerly via requisiteness of meeting standard amounts in
the key performance indicators (KPIs), such as ROI, ROA, ROE, and ROC/
ROCE/ROIC,22 from the financial viewpoint or customer, internal business
process, and financial and customer perspectives of BSC.23 But now through
the increasing penetration of value-based perspectives to business performance
management, a new and useful indicator can ensure enterprises are captur-
ing the satisfactory amount of value: return on value (ROV). In accordance
with this indicator an enterprise measures its business performance accomplish-
ments by the amount of value that they can capture in exchange for providing
superior value to its key stakeholders (specifically its customers). In this line
the substantial role of marketology is supporting the executives of enterprises
by preparing influential market DIKII to make effective decisions and take
efficient actions that result in ROV. ROV can be defined as the total gained
benefits (TGB) both financial and non-financial against the total paid costs
(TPC) both financial and non-financial.
Similar to the way of consenting to optimum balanced value (OBV), as
Figure 3.20 demonstrates, each player or actor in the marketplace (specifically
the company and customer) first seeks its own desired maximum return on
value (DM-ROV) in a deal with the other, but considering the affecting factors
and surrounding conditions finally assents to an optimum balanced return on
value (OB-ROV).
The optimum balanced return on value (OB-ROV) is a significant criteria
through which a company can sets its value proposition; business and mar-
keting strategies, tactics, plans, programs, processes, tasks, and controls; and
business and marketing performance. In other words a company in accor-
dance with OB-ROV can determine its realistic total benefits that it expects
to gain and the realistic total costs that it can tolerate to pay. Similarly, based
on OB-ROV, the countering player—the customer—can arrange its realistic
total benefits that it expects to gain and the realistic total costs that it can
tolerate to pay. In such an intense marketplace the crucial capability for a
company to obtain satisfactorily ROV is being able to understand and ana-
lyze the conditions and relations appropriately, and then to decide and act
approporaitely and in a timely manner on exchanging optimum value with
the target customer in a balanced manner. Marketology is the outstanding
capability or core competency of an enterprise and can play a vital role in
assisting the analysts, decision-makers, and executives to do well in creating,
delivering, and capturing optimum balanced value with its target custom-
ers (Turner and DeVaughn 2008; Leszinski and Marn 1997; Arrow and
Lind 2003; Marr 2015b; BSI 2015; Emerson 2003; Best and Valence 1999;
(ROV) of Customer
Return on Value
Total Gained Benefits (TGB)
Total Paid Costs (TPC)
Company Customer
Opmum Balanced
Company looks for Return on Value Customer looks for
its own Desired (OB-ROV) its own Desired
Company Customer
Maximum Return on OB-ROV OB-ROV Maximum Return on
Value (DM-ROV) Value (DM-ROV)
(ROV) of Company
Return on Value
Total Gained Benefits (TGB)
Total Paid Costs (TPC)
Market
Figure 3.20 Optimum balanced return on value (OB-ROV)
Osterwalder et al. 2005, 2015; Day 1990; Amit and Zott 2012; Kotler and
Keller 2015; Aghazadeh 2015; Balboni et al. 2010; LaValle 2009a; Miller
and Lewis 1991; Aaker 2010; Normann and Ramırez 1993; Teece 2010;
Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Dodgson et al. 2015; White and
Bruton 2011; Subramanian 2015a, b; Olszak 2014; Webster 1994; Grant
2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Kotter 2015; Griffin 2013).
3.5.4 Marketology Value Proposition (MVP)

The hyper-function of marketology is an organizational subsystem that includes
inputs, process, outputs, and feedbacks.24 In accordance with a value-based
perspective the hyper-function of marketology can be considered as value-
generating and providing a subsystem within an organization. The market-
related informational products that include market DIKII and the supporting
services (including IGDEE),25 which are provided to target audiences of an
enterprise (particularly business analysts and decision-makers), can be defined
as marketology value proposition (MVP).
The needed market-related information for decision-makers and action-
takers throughout the enterprise should be provided effectively by strategic
marketology initiatives in proper alignment with the business strategies and also
the appropriate collaboration with IT and other related functions. Regardless
of their nature the overall information needs can be classified according to:
250 H. AGHAZADEH
market (sales volume, opportunities, growth trend); customers (needs/value,

relationship, behavior); competition (competitors’ status, strategies, inten-
tions, actions); internal (financials, capacity, inventory); legal (laws, regula-
tions, standards); technical; informal/soft (opinions, analyses, foresights);
confidential (customer reliability checks); and so on. Such market-related
informational needs of business analysts, decision-makers, and executives as
depicted in Figure 3.21 may be either explicit (anticipated) or implicit/tacit
(unanticipated).
The market as encompassing innumerable information is imagined as an
ocean in Figure 3.21, whereas the market-related informational needs of busi-
ness analysts, decision-makers, and executives are considered as an informa-
tional iceberg. Such a market-related informational iceberg is composed of
both explicit and implicit/tacit informational needs. In fact the explicit market-
related informational needs are those that the decision-makers request/order
from the marketology body of a company based on their own diagnosis. In
contrast the implicit/tacit needs are those market-related informational needs
that they require for better decision-making but which they are not necessarily
aware that they need and may not request/order actively. Therefore it becomes
the responsibility of an active marketology body to recognize such needs and
meet them by providing suitable and useful market-related information (i.e.
market DIKII).
In accordance with the current and upcoming conditions (either internal
or external) of businesses there is no doubt that there is a serious need for an
effective intelligence system that could be able to provide the right market
takers
Explicit
Market-related
informaonal needs of
Competor
Confidenal
business decision-makers
Customer
Market
Marrket
Technical
hnical
Interrnal
Internal
Informal
Legal
p
Tech
Implicit/ Tacit
Market-related
informaonal needs of
business decision-makers
Figure 3.21 Market-related informational needs of business decision-makers and

action-takers
information at the right time in the right situation. The main outputs and
products/services of marketology are market DIKII and IGDEE services.
Successful provisions of market DIKII to target clients/audiences (business
analysts, decision-makers, and action-takers) require strong marketology. For
this purpose the business organizational design (BOD) and behavior (BOB)
should be prepared. Accordingly the hyper-function of marketology must have
a qualification that can assist the corporation to better, superiorly, lead, decide,
manage, and optimize its business process and performance through timely
action and through suitably generating and exploiting the most pertaining
market DIKII. As a result of utilizing marketology the business is expected
to achieve remarkable financial outcomes (decreasing costs and increasing
profits), sustainable competitive advantage, improved business performance,
and sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS) (Osterwalder and
Pigneur 2013; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; Pike et al. 2005; Pitelis 2008; Porter
and Kramer 2011; Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1981; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015,
2016; Smith and Raspin 2008; Srivastava et al. 1998; Strategyzer 2015b;
Ventana 2010; Verna 2008; Webster 2008; McClinton 2015; Meer 2012;
Metayer 2013; Lambin and Schuiling 2012; Kaplan 2010; Porter 2008; Hitt
et al. 2015; Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1994; Javidan
1998; Argandona 2011; Smart 1931; Aaker 2016; Doyle 2009; Best 2012;
Lopez 2014; Kothari and Lackner 2006; McNaughton et al. 2001; Marr 2015;
BSI 2015; Emerson 2003; Cognos-IBM 2010; Edgar and Lockwood 2010;
Quinn and Spreitzer 1991; Gupta and Benson 2011;Cameron and Green
2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Barney
2011; Ballard et al. 2006; KFKB 2014).

practice (MIP)
(3-15) Value
Guideline (FOCUS)

252 H. AGHAZADEH
1. Business value
2. Optimum balanced value (OBV)
3. Return on value (ROV)
4. Marketology value proposition (MVP)
3.5.5 Business Performance
Performance refers to the actual value, output, or results of an organization
compared to the intended/expected value or outputs (or goals and objectives).
Business performance is the extent to which an organization (typically a busi-
ness organization) achieves a set of predefined targets. Business performance
management (BPM) is a set of managerial, analytic, and business processes that
enable the organization to perform efficiently and achieve goals effectively.
BPM is a cycled process that includes the main steps of strategizing (strategic
objectives, plans, and maps), planning (plans, budgets, scenarios, and projects/
initiatives), monitoring (scorecards, reports/analysis, and alerts), and acting
and adjusting (tasks and corrective actions).
In today’s competitive business environment and market, organizations
frequently encounter ever-changing internal situation and external condi-
tion. Operating successfully in such dynamic, complex, and turbulent circum-
stances requires comprehensive and integrative, intelligent/insightful, and
agile BPM. The comprehensiveness of BPM can be assured by incorporating
business building blocks (BBB) with business organizational design (BOD)
and business organizational behavior (BOB), which are interrelated and inte-
grated. The BPM can become intelligent/insightful and agile by making effec-
tive market-related decisions and taking efficient actions based upon BOD and
BOB, relying on marketology, and by utilizing market DIKII.
For this purpose the business executives should be well versed in BOD
(structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology, innovation and com-
munication) and BOB (governance, strategy, value, performance, business and
environment and stakeholders), and achieving business values/results. Thus
the components of BOD and BOB can be considered as drivers of business

performance management which constantly should be scanned and monitored
by executives to ensure their appropriacy in accomplishing business perfor-
mance and value (Bank 2014; Ittner and Larcker 2003; Venkatraman and
Ramanujam 1986; Simmons 2013; BPEP- Baldrige Performance Excellence
Program 2011; Hertz 1999; EFQM 2016; Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1993;
APQC 2016; McWilliams and Smart 1993; Barney and Hesterly 2011; Barney
2010; Davenport et al. 2006 Courtney 2001; Jacoby 2006; Scott and Bruce
1995; Radcliffe 2007; Toit and Muller 2004; Bhalla et al. 2011; Neely 2009;
Ballard et al. 2006; Aguinis 2012; BPMSG 2005; IBM 2005; Hitt and Ireland
1985; Aghazadeh 2015; Bogdana et al. 2009; Rowe and Boulgarides 1983,
1992; Dess et al. 2015; Turban et al. 2007; Chandler and Ulrich 2016; Franz
and Kirchmer 2013; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Strategyzer 2015b; GE
Capital 2012; Greenley and Foxall 1998; Hannabarger et al. 2007; Harris and
Piercy 1999; KFKB 2014).
3.5.6 Business Performance Evaluation

The actual achievement/value of corporations can be evaluated as above,
equal, or lower than the intended goals and objectives. In this regard a business
performance can be evaluated as above normal (upper), normal (equal), and
below normal (lower). Normal performance is a situation in which the actually
created value is similar or equal to the expected value of the firm. When firms
obtain an actual value lower than they expected to create, their performance is
below normal. Firms perform above normal when they gain more actual value
than they expected to generated. Various models have been developed for busi-
ness performance evaluation. Some well-known models are Baldrige, EFQM,
BSC, PSC, APQC, SCP,26 and so on.27
Business performance can be evaluated based on three perspectives: financial,
non-financial, and stakeholders (combination of financial and non-financial).
Based on the financial perspective the performance of a company can be mea-
sured by several financial ratios including revenue, cost, break-even point,
profit, ROI, ROA, EPS, short-term solvency or liquidity, long-term solvency,
asset management (or turnover), profitability, and market share. Non-financial
measures include indicators such as market share, social responsiveness, creat-
ing shared value, brand equity, customer satisfaction, loyalty, retention, com-
petitor reactions, internal process improvement, creativity, innovation, and
learning employee commitment. The balanced scorecard (BSC) is a compre-
hensive perspective that integrates both financial and non-financial perspectives
to represent a combined view which includes the customer, internal business
process, innovation and learning, and financial aspects to evaluate a firm’s per-
formance from the perspective of key stakeholders.
Numerous measures have been developed for evaluating business
performance with different attributes (e.g. financial or non-financial) and
various levels (e.g. organizational or individual). Some of such measures
254 H. AGHAZADEH
are effectiveness, efficiency, quality, timeliness, productivity, safety, com-

petitiveness, financial performance, flexibility, resource utilization, innova-
tion, and so on (Bank 2014; Ittner and Larcker 2003; Venkatraman and
Ramanujam 1986; Simmons 2013; BPEP- Baldrige Performance Excellence
Program 2011; Hertz 1999; EFQM 2016; Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1993;
Aghazadeh 2016; APQC 2016; McWilliams and Smart 1993; Barney and
Hesterly 2011; Barney 2010; Davenport et al. 2006b; Bhalla et al. 2011;
Neely 2009; Radcliffe 2007; Ballard et al. 2006; Homburg and Pflesser
2000; IBM 2005; Jogaratnam and Tse Ching-Yick 2006; King and Zeithaml
2001; Kotter and Heskett 1992; Kumar et al. 2001; Lings and Greenley
2009; Lytle and Timmerman 2006; Mavondo et al. 2005; Subramanian
et al. 1993; Teece 2007; Van Tiem et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2004; Agha et al.
2012; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Beal 2000).
3.5.7 Total Quality Management (TQM), Productivity

and Organizational Effectiveness
Total quality management (TQM) is strategic commitment to a management
and organization-wide attempt to improve on and make quality a guiding prin-
ciple across the organization. Productivity is a measure of how efficiently an
organization is using its resources to create value (products and services) and
how effectively it accomplishes goals. Productivity measures both efficiency
(doing things right) and effectiveness (doing the right things) at the individual
and organizational level, which should be improved continually. In order to
achieve organizational effectiveness at all three levels, leaders and managers
should be able to coordinate the activities of individuals, groups, and organiza-
tions by conducting the managerial functions that include planning, organiz-
ing, leading, and controlling. Six approaches have been developed to examine
organizational effectiveness. These approaches are depicted in Figure 3.22 and
include goal, systems theory (system resource),28 internal process, stakehold-
ers, strategic constituents, and combined perspectives.
As shown in Figure 3.22 the goal approach refers to the central role of goal
achievement and facilitating the accomplishment of organizational goals. The
systems theory (system resource) approach emphasizes the interrelationships of
elements and the interactions with their environment in order to acquire the
needed resources from the environment. The stakeholder approach focuses on
the significance of the expected value of different groups and individuals inside
and outside of an organization. The internal process approach represents com-
bining the resources in an efficient and productive manner. The strategic con-
stituents approach refers to satisfying strategic constituents in the environment.
The combined approach stresses fostering the obtaining of future resources
(Burton et al. 2006b; Marr 2015; Strategyzer 2015a, b; Kaplan and Norton
1992, 1993, 2001; Arrow and Lind 2003; BSI 2015; Dumas et al. 2013; Jeston
and Nelis 2013; Aghazadeh 2016; Rowe and Boulgarides 1992; Turban et al.
2007; IBM 2010; Davenport 2006; Ekerson 2007; Skyrius et al. 2013; Olszak
2014; IMA 1996a, c, d; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Courtney 2001; Jacoby
Goal
Strategic System
Combined
Stakeholder Process
Figure 3.22 Perspectives of examining organizational effectiveness
2006; Scott and Bruce 1995; Radcliffe 2007; Kotter 2015; Griffin 2013;
Gibson et al. 2012; Simmons 2013; BPEP- Baldrige Performance Excellence
Program 2011; Hertz 1999; EFQM 2016; Turban et al. 2007; Chandler
and Ulrich 2016; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013;
Strategyzer 2015b; Bank 2014; Ittner and Larcker 2003; Venkatraman and
Ramanujam 1986); KFKB 2014).
3.5.8 Ambidextrous Business Performance Management

In today’s turbulent environment and dynamic organizations, as represented
in Figure 3.23, achieving sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS)
requires effective business performance management (BPM) through which
effective business decision-making (bottom-up information flow) and efficient
business action-taking (top-down information flow) can be realized.
For this purpose the capabilities of business process innovation (BPI), busi-
ness process optimization (BPrO), business performance optimization (BPO),
proactive business performance management (PBPM), and intelligent business
performance management (IBPM) should be accomplished sufficiently by rely-
256 H. AGHAZADEH
Business
sustainable
superior/
compeve
success (SSS/SCS)
Business Performance
Opmizaon (BPO)
Marketology
Business Process
Effecve Business Performance Management (BPM)
Figure 3.23 Effective business performance management relying on marketology
ing on the hyper-function of marketology. In fact utilizing marketology enables

organizations to accomplish BPM in an ambidextrous manner in a way that
can explore the market by making effective market-related decisions as well as
exploiting by taking efficient market-related actions (Chandler and Ulrich 2011,
2016; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Strategyzer
2015b; Leszinski and Marn 1997; McDonald and Christopher 2003; Porter
2008; IBM 2005, 2010; Davenport 2006; Bogdana et al. 2009; Courtney
2001; Radcliffe 2007; Aghazadeh 2015; Toit and Muller 2004; Bhalla et al.
2011; Davenport et al. 2006; Neely 2009; Daft 2016; KFKB 2014).
3.5.9 Business Process Innovation (BPI) and Business

Process Optimization (BPrO)
Exploiting marketology enables organizations to innovate and optimize their
business processes and move from only static reporting to dynamic report-
ing, providing market DIKII to decision-makers and action-takers. The hyper-
function of marketology helps businesses to quickly understand the current
market-related situation, and intelligently decide and act in response to the
changing conditions, thus shaping their desired market-related situation. As a
consequence of utilizing the hyper-function of marketology the technological,
analytical, and market and business oriented capabilities of enterprise are incor-
porated and result in real-time market DIKII through which effective market-
related decisions are made and efficient market-related actions are taken to
predictively facilitate mitigating problems and achieve success. For this purpose
the business process innovation (BPI) and business process optimization (BPrO)
should be accomplished based on innovating and optimizing the components
of business organizational design (BOD) (structure, culture, people, process,
asset, technology, innovation, and communication) and business organizational
behavior (BOB) (governance, strategy, business and environment, stakeholder,
value, and performance). Therefore the capabilities of BPI and BPrO based on
marketology can assist organizations to better process innovation (continuous
innovation and improvement), business performance insight (enabling effec-
tive decision-making), operational management (managing efficient business
actions), and business alignment (aligning business strategic and operational
objectives) (Bhalla et al. 2011; Davenport et al. 2006; Neely 2009; Radcliffe
2007; Ballard et al. 2006; Aguinis 2012; BPMSG 2005; IBM 2005; Bogdana
et al. 2009; Rowe and Boulgarides 1983, 1992; Turban et al. 2007; Aghazadeh
2016; Chandler and Ulrich 2016; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; Davenport 2006;
Ekerson 2007; Skyrius et al. 2013; Olszak 2014; IMA 1996a, c, d; Stewart and
Rogers 2012; Burton et al. 2006b; Marr 2015; Strategyzer 2015a; Kaplan and
Norton 2001; APQC 2016; McWilliams and Smart 1993; KFKB 2014).
3.5.10 Business Performance Optimization (BPO)

An organization manages business performance at three levels—strategic, tactical,
and operational—through reciprocal lines of business decision-making and busi-
ness action-taking. Thus in order to realize business performance optimization
(BPO) based on marketology (especially market DIKII) the following tasks should
be carried out with an aligned and integrated relationship between the levels:
• Strategic level: making strategic decisions involving the design of

insightful business strategies, and preparing the implementation of
strategies at the lower levels
• Tactical level: formulating managerial or tactical plans based on the
business strategies, and administrating and procuring the execution of
plans at the lower levels
• Operational level: defining action projects and tasks based on the tactics,
and conducting the tasks and operations
• Overall control: in addition, the activities of business process and
performance management should be monitored and evaluated across

all three levels.
The common required functions of marketology at all levels are collect-

ing valid and reliable market data (both structured and unstructured) from
heterogeneous and trustable sources; classifying and analyzing given groups
of gathered data to gain market information; relating the market information
258 H. AGHAZADEH
to business process and performance to develop market knowledge; generat-

ing market intelligence/insight in response to the requests of target decision-
makers; and warehousing the useful records, in order to then disseminate,
deliver, facilitate exploitation, evaluate the performance, and develop.
In many organizations decisions are made by senior executives and pushed
down to the operational workers to be done. Usually there is significant reli-
ance on the frontline or operational level to take appropriate actions based on
the decisions made at the tactical and strategic levels. This may be due to lack
or shortage of the right market DIKII for decision-makers or action-takers.
Thus the availability of timely and relevant market DIKII in the right context
for the right people can enable both managers and workers at all levels to
make intelligent and influential decisions, and to take informed and consistent
actions. In this regard the business performance optimization (BPO) should
be carried out to exploit the hyper-function of marketology. Accordingly deci-
sions can be effective and linked to the actions; actions can be efficient and
consistent with the decisions; and ultimately business success can be ensured
(Toit and Muller 2004; Bhalla et al. 2011; Davenport et al. 2006; Neely 2009;
Radcliffe 2007; Ballard et al. 2006; Aghazadeh 2015; Simmons 2013; BPEP-
Baldrige Performance Excellence Program 2011; Hertz 1999; EFQM 2016;
Kaplan and Norton 1992; Chandler and Ulrich 2016; Franz and Kirchmer
2013; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Strategyzer 2015b; Agha et al. 2012;
Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Beal 2000; Bednall and
Valos 2005; Burke and Litwin 1992; Chien and Tsai 2012; Coff 1999; Daft
et al. 1988; Dainty et al. 2003; De Carolis 2003; Duysters and Hagedoorn
2000; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Gallagher et al. 2008; KFKB 2014).
3.5.11 Proactive and Intelligent Business Performance

Management (PBPM and IBPM)
In the modern and ever-changing competitive world of business the senior
executives of enterprises, in order to improve business performance manage-
ment (BPM) and ensure sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS),
have no choice other than to adopt comprehensive, integrative, ambidextrous,
and future-oriented (forecast/foresight-based) approaches to their market-
related decision-making and action-taking. This means that leaders of enter-
prises should be able to exert “proactive business performance management
(PBPM)” through exploiting futuristic market intelligence and insight and mak-
ing proactive decisions about upcoming key market-related issues and concerns
of the enterprise based on proactive marketology. Thus the effectiveness and
success of PBPM requires proactive marketology which provides real-time mar-
ket insight in the right format to the right audiences at the right time using the
right tools.29 The proactive marketology (focused on providing the right mar-
ket intelligence/insight) can assists businesses in understanding performance
background and predict the direction of trends for future performance across
the business value chain activities in a proactive manner. In this way businesses
will be able to proactively solve business problems; respond to market dynam-

ics quickly and wisely; capture a realistic and timely view of business condi-
tions; align strategic business goals with underlying business processes; enhance
business processes; ensure proactive business performance management; make
insightful decisions; take efficient actions; and achieve business success.
Today, what businesses need to succeed in overtaking key rivals and provide
superior value to key stakeholders in the competitive business environment
and market is an intelligent business performance management (IBPM). IBPM
refers to the capability of incorporating intelligence into BPM through which
the business performance is linked to the decision-making process and cor-
porations can interpret their strategies and objectives into plans and actions;
monitor business performance against those plans; analyze gaps between actual
outcomes and planned targets; and moderate their objectives and actions
accordingly. The enterprises can utilize IBPM based on strategic business/mar-
ket intelligence (SBI/SMI). The strategic intelligence (either SBI or SMI) is
considered as a comprehensive, internal–external focused and future-oriented
intelligence that supports senior executives to make more insightful and effec-
tive decisions in order to exert intelligent business performance management
throughout the enterprise. The strategic marketology is the core competency
that can ensure the effectiveness and success of IBPM by providing strategic
market DIKII to the senior executives throughout the enterprise.
The process of accomplishing business sustainable superior/competitive
success (SSS/SCS) through proactive business performance management
(PBPM) and intelligent business performance management (IBPM) is repre-
sented in Figure 3.24.
It is obvious that the PBPM and IBPM are considered as advanced ver-
sions of business performance management (BPM) which are enhanced respec-
tively by the hyper-function of marketology (BSI 2015; Dumas et al. 2013;
Jeston and Nelis 2013; Aghazadeh 2016; Rowe and Boulgarides 1992; Turban
et al. 2007; IBM 2005, 2010; Davenport 2006; Ekerson 2007; Skyrius et al.
2013; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Radcliffe 2007; Ballard et al. 2006; Aguinis
2012; BPMSG 2005; Bogdana et al. 2009; Burton et al. 2006b; Marr 2015;
Gatignon and Xuereb 1997; Microsoft 2007; Kotter and Heskett 1992; Kumar
et al. 2001; Lings and Greenley 2009; Lytle and Timmerman 2006; Mavondo
et al. 2005; Mosimann et al. 2009; Murray 2003; Ogden and Watson 1999;
Olavarrieta and Friedmann 1999; Barney and Hesterly 2011; Barney 2010;
Davenport et al. 2006; Kaplan and Norton 2001; KFKB 2014).
3.5.12 Marketology Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

There is no doubt that marketology plays a substantial role in accomplish-
ing business value and performance management. Accordingly the marketol-
ogy value and performance should be fulfilled appropriately. In this regard the
hyper-function of marketology to perform successfully requires the following
prerequisites/requirements:
260 H. AGHAZADEH
Business
Intelligent Proacve
sustainable
Business Business
superior/
Performance Performance
compeve
Management Management
success
(IBPM) (SSS/SCS) (PBPM)
Intelligent Marketology Proacve
Business performance management (BPM)
Figure 3.24 Business success through PBPM & IBPM
• Top management should have market-oriented mindset and facilitate and

support launching and running marketology
• Every business plan, process, and strategy needs proper market DIKII
• The marketology should monitor market changes constantly (even daily)
and be sensitive to them, analyze them, and transfer them to the target
clients in form of market DIKII
• All individuals and units of an organization should collaborate and con-
tribute on marketology functions
• The generated market DIKII should be disseminated and shared through-
out the enterprise in a cross-functional manner
• Marketology functions should be strategic (external–internal and future-
oriented) but not mysterious
• An appropriate marketology with good analysis and interpretation capa-
bility requires sufficient support and resources allocation
• Marketology needs suitable planning and congruent integration with the
business and strategic planning process of the enterprise
• It is expected that marketology will assist in challenging/confirming
current strategies and in developing new strategies
• Each company should design and launch its own specific hyper-function
of marketology which will mostly be different from that of another com-
pany (marketology fingerprint or DNA)
It should be kept in mind that marketology is being defined as a hyper-

function that ultimately must assist the enterprises and their decision-makers
and action-takers to perform intelligently and achieve success. For this pur-
pose the marketology as a vital phenomenon and issue for an organization to
be influential and successful first should be successful itself. Thus it is recom-
mended that the critical success factors (CSFs) of marketology based on Kurt
Lewin’s force field analysis model are constantly identified and analyzed. The
above-mentioned factors for the marketology critical success factors (CSFs)
can play both a positive and a negative role pertaining to the marketology suc-
cess. In this regard Figure 3.25 illustrates driving (accelerators) and restrain-
ing (barriers) forces related to the marketology success. These factors can be
considered and managed to ensure first the marketology’s success and then,
through this, the business’s success (BSI 2015; Dumas et al. 2013; Jeston
and Nelis 2013; Rowe and Boulgarides 1983, 1992; Turban et al. 2007;
Stewart and Rogers 2012; Radcliffe 2007; Ballard et al. 2006; Aguinis 2012;
BPMSG 2005; IBM 2005; Bogdana et al. 2009; Courtney 2001; Jacoby 2006;
Scott and Bruce 1995; Toit and Muller 2004; Bhalla et al. 2011; Davenport
et al. 2006; Neely 2009; Mosimann et al. 2009; Murray 2003; Ogden and
Watson 1999; Olavarrieta and Friedmann 1999; Olson et al. 2005; Preston
and Sapienza 1990; Aghazadeh 2016; PwC 2007; Quinn 1988; Rodrigues
and Pinho 2012; Roos and Roos 1997; Slater et al. 2011; Slater and Narver
1994a, b; Smith and Grimm 1987; Snow and Hrebiniak 1980; Subramanian
et al. 1993; Teece 2007; Van Tiem et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2004; Farrell and
Oczkowski 2002; Gallagher et al. 2008; Gatignon and Xuereb 1997; Microsoft
2007; GE Capital 2012; Greenley and Foxall 1998; Hannabarger et al. 2007;
Harris and Piercy 1999).
3.5.13 Marketology and ‘Value and Performance’

The hyper-function of marketology supports the managing of business value
and performance in order to succeed by presenting needed market DIKII
and conducting IGDEE services to the target decision-makers and action-
takers throughout the organization. In this regard the relationship between
marketology and value and performance within a business as depicted in
Figure 3.26 can be examined based on three perspectives: (1) value and
performance for marketology (organization coverage); (2) value and per-
formance by marketology (contribution); and (3) value and performance of
marketology (manifestation).
3.5.14
Value and Performance for Marketology (Coverage)
Value and performance for marketology refer to the business values that are
created, delivered, and captured; and business process and performance man-
agement functions for developing the hyper-function of marketology for the
entire the firm by the executives. Such value and performance can be as one or
several items of business value and performance (either with direct or indirect
262 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology
Accelerators with posive impacts
progresses to
Barriers with negave effects

be successful
Restraining forces (-):

Driving forces (+):
and ensure
business
success
· Market intelligence pervasiveness · Collaboration on marketology
· Ethics and values · Cross-functional dissemination

· Targeted analysis · Resources allocation
· Market information sharing · Integration with strategic planning
· Following up · Challenging current strategy
· Market oriented mindset · Developing new strategy
· Market intelligent strategy · Specific marketology
· Market monitoring · Strategic marketology
Figure 3.25 Marketology critical success factors (CSFs): driving and restraining
forces
focus on marketology). In other words the business value and business per-
formance management comprise values and performance for marketology. It
should be noted that an organization welcomes marketology when it perceives
it is valuable for a business in a way that its total benefits outweigh its total
By
marketology
(Contribuon)
Value and
Performance
For
Of
marketology
marketology
(Coverage)
(Manifestaon)
Figure 3.26 Marketology and “value and performance”
costs. The values and performance for marketology can be about establishing
marketology within business organizational design (BOD) (structure, culture,
people, process, asset, technology, innovation and communication), and busi-
ness organizational behavior (BOB) (governance, strategy, stakeholders, busi-
ness and environment/market, value, and performance). In accordance with
these business values and performance the hyper-function of marketology may
be developed, maintained, or declined. Values and performance for marketol-
ogy may be compatible with the coverage dimension of marketology coverage,
manifest and contribute (MCMC) framework and the parasol perspective of
marketology development perspectives (3P).
264 H. AGHAZADEH
3.5.15 Value and Performance of Marketology (Manifestation)

Value and performance of marketology represent the value proposition and
the key performance indicators that the governors or leaders of the hyper-
function of marketology consider when implementing the functions of mar-
ketology throughout the business as internal and external marketology. The
value and performance of marketology should focus on two main issues per-
taining to marketology throughout the firms: consolidating (how to stabi-
lize well) and functioning (how to perform well). In this regard the process
and outcomes of marketology can be the basis for evaluating the value and
performance of marketology. The service providing the process of marke-
tology includes the steps of IGDEE. The market-related outcomes of mar-
ketology contain the products of market DIKII. Providing IGDEE services
and market DIKII products of marketology would be preferable to be valu-
able (benefits exceed costs) and productive (both efficient and effective).
An example of the value and performance of marketology can be gaining
real-time and proactive intelligence/insight about market turbulence; and
timely exploring the potential opportunities against probable blindness of
rivals. Value and performance issues of marketology can be at the strategic,
tactical, or operational levels and can also pertain to marketology organiza-
tional design (MOD) (structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology,
innovation and communication), and marketology organizational behavior
(MOB) (governance, strategy, stakeholders, business and environment/
market, and performance). The value and p erformance of marketology may
be similar to the manifest dimension of marketology coverage, manifest and
contribute (MCMC) framework and the pillar perspective of marketology
development perspectives (3P).
3.5.16 Value and Performance by Marketology (Contribution)

Value and performance by marketology indicate the business value and
performance at the strategic, tactical and operational levels that are accom-
plished by supports of the hyper-function of marketology. The main busi-
ness values may be partner value, customer value, market value, brand value,
and so on. The key performance indicators may be efficiency, effectiveness,
TQM, productivity, profit, and so on. Such business values and performance
are often relevant to accomplishing sustainable superior/competitive success
(SSS/SCS), business building blocks (BBB), business organizational design
(BOD) (structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology, innovation
and communication), and business organizational behavior (BOB) (gover-
nance, strategy, stakeholders, business and environment/market, value, and
performance). The hyper-function of marketology can support creating,
delivering, and capturing business value, as well as accomplishing business
process and performance management (BPM) by providing market DIKII
based in IGDEE services to the target decision-makers and action-takers all

over the organization. Such supports of marketology may be provided in two
forms: standard (river) and customized (container). Value and performance
by marketology may be similar to the contribute dimension of marketol-
ogy coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) framework and the pipeline
perspective of marketology development perspectives (3P) (Williams and
Williams 2003; Argandona 2011; Smart 1931; Aaker 2016; Doyle 2009;
Best 2012; Lopez 2014; Marr 2015; BSI 2015; Emerson 2003; Arrow and
Lind 2003; Turner and DeVaughn 2008; Porter and Kramer 2011; Smith
and Raspin 2008; Srivastava et al. 1998; Strategyzer 2015b; Ventana 2010;
Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Verna 2008; Webster 2008; Hitt et al. 2015; Hamel
and Javidan 1998; Grant 2013; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Dess et al.
2015; Daft 2012, 2016; Ballard et al. 2006; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling
2016; Bank 2014; Ittner and Larcker 2003; Venkatraman and Ramanujam
1986; Simmons 2013; BPEP- Baldrige Performance Excellence Program
2011; Hertz 1999; EFQM 2016; APQC 2016; Barney and Hesterly 2011;
Davenport et al. 2006; Subramanian et al. 1993; Teece 2007; Van Tiem
et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2004; Gallagher et al. 2008; Microsoft 2007;
Capital 2012; Hannabarger et al. 2007; Homburg and Pflesser 2000; IBM
2005; Jogaratnam and Tse Ching- Yick 2006; King and Zeithaml 2001;
Kumar et al. 2001; Lings and Greenley 2009; Lytle and Timmerman 2006;
Mavondo et al. 2005; Bhalla et al. 2011; Neely 2009; Radcliffe 2007; Aguinis
2012; BPMSG 2005; Bogdana et al. 2009; Burton et al. 2006b; Strategyzer
2015a; Kaplan and Norton 2001; Dumas et al. 2013; Jeston and Nelis 2013;
Turban et al. 2007; Chandler and Ulrich 2016; Franz and Kirchmer 2013).

practice (MIP)
(3-16) Performance
Guideline (FOCUS)
previous sectoins, practice FOCUS for the issues below:

266 H. AGHAZADEH
1. Business performance
2. Business performance evaluation
3. Total Quality Management (TQM), productivity, and organizational effectiveness
4. Ambidextrous business performance management
5. Business performance optimization (BPO)
6. Proactive and intelligent business performance management (PBPM and IBPM)
7. Marketology critical success factors (CSFs)
8. Marketology and “value and performance”
(a) Value and performance for marketology (coverage)
(b) Value and performance of marketology (manifestation)
(c) Value and performance by marketology (contribution)
3.5.17 Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB) Canvas:

Pieces of Value and Performance
Regarding the descriptive explanations about value and performance it can be
seen from Figure 3.27 that “value” and “performance” as two pieces of the
marketology organizational behavior (MOB) canvas can become complete and
located.
3.5.18 Marketology Organizational Design (MOB)

Canvas: Completion of Pieces
Regarding the descriptive explanations about business analysis and stakeholder
analysis, governance, strategy, value and performance, it can be seen from
Figure 3.27 that all six pieces can become complete and accordingly the MOB
Marketology
Organizaonal
Contribuon (MOC)
Marketology
Organizaonal
Design (MOD)
Organization/Enterprise and internal stakeholders
Figure 3.27 Marketology organization behavior (MOB) canvas: completion of pieces

268 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
MOB: value and performance
(3-17)
Guidelines: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained in
previous parts, practice MCMC in your intended case for issues below about value and
performance:
1. Coverage of marketology value by organization value;
2. Coverage of marketology performance by organization performance;
3. Manifestation of marketology value throughout the organization;
4. Manifestation of marketology performance throughout the organization;
5. Contribution of marketology value to organization value;
6. Contribution of marketology performance to organization performance;


practice (MIP)
Value and performance
(3-18)
Guidelines: In the matrix below examine interlinks between marketology and value and
performance as components of business organizational behavior (BOB).
Marketology Total

AS WS AS WS AS WS
AS WS AS WS
1. Business value
2. Optimum Balanced Value (OBV)
3. Return on Value (ROV)
5. Business performance
BOB: value and performance
6. Total quality management (TQM),
productivity and organizational effectiveness
7. Ambidextrous business performance management
8. Business performance optimization (BPO)
9. Proactive business performance management
(PBPM)
10. Intelligent business performance management
(IBPM)
Sum
Total
Average
for Weighted Score. AS can be a score within this continuum {9≥AS≥0}, WS is calculated by multiplying each AS in
related weight.
analysis, and marketology match matrix (MMM) analyze the relationship between marketology and value
and performance as key components of business organizational behavior (BOB).
Several issues that can be considered for better analysis are: business value, optimum balanced value
(OBV), return on value (ROV), value proposition, business performance, business performance
evaluation, total quality management (TQM), productivity and organizational effectiveness, ambidextrous
business performance management, business performance optimization (BPO), proactive business
performance management(PBPM), intelligent business performance management (IBPM),

critical success factors (CSFs), and so on.
270 H. AGHAZADEH
Analysis of the relationship between marketology and value and performance:
3.6 Marketology In Practice (MIP)
Marketology in Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB)

practice (MIP)
Cumulating and integrating the components of MOB
Chapter-End
The previous marketology in practice (MIP) sections have been arranged to

represent a practical view of the sections’ discussions of the components of
marketology organizational behavior (MOB) including business analysis (exter-
nal and internal factors and stakeholders), governance, strategy, value, and per-
formance. Some practical tools and techniques of marketology, which were not
directly applicable at the end of sections, are provided at the end of the chapter.
These tools/techniques of marketology are provided to cover all the subjects
addressed in the chapter in a combined and integrative manner.
MIP 3-19: Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
MIP 3-20: Marketology and organization relationship perspectives dia-
gram (MORPD)
MIP 3-21: Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)
MIP 3-22: Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
MIP 3-23: Case study: Marketology and business organizational behavior
(BOB)

practice (MIP)
(3-19)
Guidelines: In the matrix below determine the acceptance and penetration degree of the
components of marketology organizational behavior (MOB) and also total MOB within an
organization. The components of MOB include business analysis (internal and external
factors and stakeholders), strategy, value and performance. The acceptance/penetration
degree of each component of MOB should be determined by considering the corresponding
components of business organizational behavior (BOB) within an organization. In this way
the marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM) can provide a comparative acceptance and
penetration picture of MOB and its components within an organization.
High (6-9) A
(strong)
Acceptance
Middle (3-6) B
(fair)
Low (0-3) C
(weak)
Low (0-3) Middle (3-6) High (6-9)
Penetration
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM), and the
identified situations for components of MOB and the total MOB, analyze each situation
separately and comparatively.
Analysis of situations for components of MOB and the total MOB:

272 H. AGHAZADEH
practice (MIP)
Evaluating perspectives (3P): parasol, pillar and pipeline
(3-20)
Guidelines: In the diagram below determine the degree for each approach in terms of the
components of marketology organizational behavior (MOB) and also total MOB within an
organization. The components of MOB include business analysis (internal and external factors
and stakeholders), strategy, value and performance. The appraoches of each component of MOB
should be determined by considering the corresponding components of business
organizational behavior (BOB) within an organization. Certainlytely after specifying the degree
of each approach and plotting them together an intended combination of approaches can be
identified for total MOB and its components. In this way the marketology and organization
relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD) can provide a comparative view of the intended
approaches for total MOB and its components within an organization. The scoring range is
from lowest (1) to highest (9).
Parasol
(0–9)
Pipeline Pillar
(0–9) (0–9)
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of marketology and organization relationship perspectives
diagram (MORPD), and the identified perspectives for components of MOB and the total MOB,
analyze their combinations of approaches separately and comparatively.
Analysis of approaches for components of MOB and total MOB:

Marketology in Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)

practice (MIP)
Evaluating directions: O2M and M2O
(3-21)
Guideline: first determine the directions of organization to marketology (O2M) and marketology to
organization (M2O) are positive or negative. Accordingly in below matrix locate the direction mode
of both O2M and M2O for the components of marketology organizational behavior (MOB) and also
total MOB within an organization. The components of MOB include business analysis (internal and
external factors and stakeholders), strategy, value and performance. The mutual direction of each
component of MOB should be determined by considering the corresponding components of business
organizational behavior (BOB) within an organization. Definitely after specifying the mutual
directions between marketology and organization, the current direction modes can be identified for
total MOB and its components. By this way the marketology and organization directional effects
matrix (MODEM) can provide a comparative view of the identified direction modes for total MOB
and its components within an organization.
O2M
+
+- ++
DM DM
- +
M2O
-- -+
DM DM
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of marketology and organization directional effects matrix
(MODEM); and the identified direction modes for the components of MOB and total MOB; analyze
their direction modes separately and comparatively.
Analysis of direction modes of the components of MOB and total MOB:

274 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
Marketology organizational behavior(MOB) and components
(3-22)
Matrix guideline: in below matrix score interlinks between marketology and the components of
business organizational behavior (MOB) and the total BOB within an organization based on
previously discussed related marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) analysis ;
and using the data (facts & figures) of related marketology match matrix (MMM). The
components of BOB include business analysis (external and internal factors and stakeholders),
governance, strategy, value and performance. Hence using marketology benchmark matrix
(MBM) the interconnections between marketology and the components and total of BOB can be
benchmarked by comparing an intended company with the best practice companies (BPC) or
competitors within industry or market.
Coverage Manifestation Contribution Components BOB

Weight
Business
analysis
Business organizational
behavior (BOB)
Governance
Strategy
Value
Performance
MCMC
100
dimension
Total Score Average
Firm
Marketology BPC1
BPC2
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of marketology benchmark matrix (MBM);and the
benchmarked interlinks between marketology and the componentsof BOB and total BOB; analyze their
interconnections separately and comparatively.
Analysis of benchmarked interlinks between marketology and components of BOB:


practice (MIP)
Marketology and business organizational behavior (BOB)
(3-23)
Guideline:
1- Consider a given company/organization that you may have access to primary or secondary
data about its organization, business, strategy and market in general; and specifically the
components of business organizational behavior(BOB), marketology system, components of
marketology organizational behavior (MOB), and other useful data. In case of not access to
usable data you can consider a presumptive case company/organization.
2- Reviewing the ‘marketology in practice (MIP)’ parts of the chapterconduct

, below analyses
with focus on business organizational behavior (BOB) and marketology organizational
behavior (MOB) about the intended case using the accessible data individually or in a group:
• Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) analysis
• Marketology match matrix (MMM)
• Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD)
3- Conclude about the case company/organization in the fields of investigated issues and present
an analytical case report.
3.7 Conclusion
Considering the described and discussed issues in this chapter it can be
concluded that:
• Business analysis, stakeholder analysis, governance, strategy, value, and

performance are key components of business organizational behavior
(BOB) (as pieces of BOD canvas) and enable and support business
performance management (BPM) and business sustainable superior/
competitive success (SSS/SCS) based on business organizational
design (BOD).
276 H. AGHAZADEH
• The hyper-function of marketology plays a significant role in arranging

BOD, conducting BOB, accomplishing BPM, and achieving business
SSS/SCS compatible with external and internal circumstances. This is
why marketology has become significant for achieving business competi-
tive success.
• The hyper-function of marketology should be closely related to these
components of BOB within a business organization by three modes:
being enabled or covered by the components (coverage), assisting the
business through empowering the components (support), and assist-
ing the business in forming and developing its own MOB components
(manifest).
• The hyper-function of marketology as an organizational subsystem
should be managed appropriately to be influential in BPM and business
SSS/SCS. For this purpose marketology organizational behavior (MOB)
should be arranged and managed based on key components of business
analysis, stakeholder analysis, governance, strategy, value, and perfor-
mance aligned with those of BOB.
• The hyper-function of marketology contributes to accomplishing BPM
and business SSS/SCS by supporting market-related decisions and actions
of businesses through providing market DIKII based on IGDEE services
across the enterprise. These functions are managed based on marketology
organizational behavior (MOB).
• The functionality and relationship of marketology organizational behav-
ior (MOB) and its key components within business organization can be
evaluated, practiced, and developed using tools and techniques that are
exercised in practical exercises called “MIP” throughout and at the end
of the chapter.
• Total marketology organizational design (MOD) and marketology orga-
nizational behavior (MOB) can be evaluated, practiced, and developed
commonly and comparatively using tools and techniques that are pre-
sented in practical sections called “MIP-Cumulative” in the appendix to
this chapter.
1. In this chapter the following issues have been discussed generally within
the context of business organization and specifically within the context of
marketology in different sections: business analysis, stakeholder analysis,
governance, strategy, value, and performance
2. Each of the above-mentioned subjects have been practiced using applied
tools and techniques of marketology in practical sections called “marke-
tology in practice (MIP)” within and at the end of sections. In the last
part of each section, one piece of the MOB canvas has been completed.
3. Several issues and subjects of the chapter that were not directly applicable
to the chapter but are valuable exercises are provided so as to be an inte-
grative method at the end of the chapter in a practical section called

“MIP-Chapter End”.
4. Total MOD and MOB as two significant components of marketology
organizational architecture (MOA) and/or as two main pieces of “stan-
dard marketology canvas (SMC)” have been practiced comparatively in
practical section called “MIP-Cumulative” in the appendix to this
chapter.
5. At the end of this chapter a third piece of the “standard marketology
canvas (SMC)” has been completed as with its second main piece (MOB).
6. The third and final main piece of the “standard marketology canvas
(SMC)” (i.e. MOC) will be completed at the end of Chap. 4.
A Glance to the Next Chapter

In continuation of Chaps. 2 and 3 the marketology organizational con-
tribution (MOC) and its pertaining components will be described and
practiced in detail: business-based contributions, marketology-based
contributions, market DIKII, IGDEE services, and so on in next chapter
(Ch. 4). At the end of the next chapter the third piece of the “standard
marketology canvas (SMC)” (MOC) will be completed.
In Chap. 5 regarding the predictable drastic changes and advances in
business, technology, market, organizations, society, the internet, data,
connections, analytics, and so on the modern and future method of mar-
ketology will be discussed and practiced in detail.

Discuss, answer, and practice the following exercises with your colleagues or
classmates (with an emphasis on a specific business, enterprise, or
organization):
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Business and Stakeholder Analysis

(Internal and External)

–– MIP 3-1: Business and stakeholder analysis (internal and external)
–– MIP 3-2: Business, marketology and stakeholder analysis
278 H. AGHAZADEH
MCMC & MMM

analysis framework
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Governance

–– MIP 3-5: Good corporate governance
–– MIP 3-6: Good marketology governance
–– MIP 3-7: Organizational decisions and actions (ODA)
–– MIP 3-8: Marketology, decisions and actions
MCMC & MMM

analysis framework
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Strategy

–– MIP 3-11: Marketology strategy
–– MIP 3-12: Marketology strategic management (MSM)
MCMC & MMM

analysis framework
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Value and Performance

–– MIP 3-15: Value
–– MIP 3-16: Performance
MCMC & MMM

analysis framework
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Marketology Organizational

Behavior (MOB) Integrated Frameworks
–– MIP 3-19: Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
–– MIP 3-20: Marketology and organization relationship perspectives
diagram (MORPD)
–– MIP 3-21: Marketology and organization directional effects matrix
(MODEM)
–– MIP 3-22: Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
–– MIP 3-23: Case study: Marketology and business organizational
behavior (BOB)
Marketology in Practice (MIP): Cumulating MOD (Chap. 2) and

MOB (Chap. 3)
–– MIP Cumulative (2): Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
–– MIP Cumulative (3): Marketology and organization relationship
perspectives diagram (MORPD)
–– MIP Cumulative (4): Marketology and organization directional
effects matrix (MODEM)
–– MIP Cumulative (5): Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
–– MIP Cumulative (6): Marketology Impact Assessment Matrix
(MIAM)
–– MIP Cumulative (7): Case study: Marketology and entire business
organization
3.10 Notes
1. The materials and contents of this section (business analysis) are primar-
ily adapted from Chap. 6 of Volume 1 of this book. For more informa-
tion see Aghazadeh (2016), ch. 6: Business, Environment, and Market
Analysis (BEMA) Framework.
2. For more information about environmental scanning see Aghazadeh
(2016), ch. 5: Business, Market and Competitive Analysis (BMCA)
Tools and Techniques, and the section titled BMC scanning.
3. For more information about market engineering see Lilien et al. (2012).
4. “The boiling frog is an anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled
alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump
out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not
perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used
280 H. AGHAZADEH
as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or

be aware of threats that occur gradually.” (Wikipedia 2016j, “boiling
frog”.)
5. The materials and contents of this section (business analysis) are primar-
ily adapted from Chap. 6 of Volume 1 of this book. For more informa-
tion see Aghazadeh (2016), ch. 6: Business, Environment, and Market
6. In the business literature different expressions have been used to indi-
cate the factors outside of a business organization and within it. Outside,
external, environment, external environment, and market are frequently
used expressions to explain the factors outside of an organization.
Inside, internal, internal environment, and organization are the fre-
quently used expressions to explain the factors inside of an
organization.
7. The “exinternal” business analysis framework is formed as mix/combi-
nation of “external” and “internal” business analysis.
8. The “envinternal” business analysis framework is formed as mix/com-
bination of “environmental” and “internal” business analysis.
9. For more information see Aghazadeh (2016), ch. 6: Business,
Environment, and Market Analysis (BEMA) Framework.
10. Some scholars classify the shareholders as external stakeholders, here
they are classified as internal.
11. For more information about this subject see previous sections of this
chapter and also Aghazadeh (2016), chs. 5 and 6.
12. Note that in order to avoid duplicating the figure of MOB canvas at the
end of each section, illustration of the completion of each piece/com-
ponent of MOB canvas is referred to in the figure in which the fulfill-
ment of MOB canvas is depicted comprehensively at the end of the
chapter.
13. Charisma represents a form of interpersonal attraction that inspires
acceptance and support.
14. Hereinafter in order to avoid unnecessary repetition, the MMC

(Marketology Management Center) will be used interchangeably with
BICC (Business Intelligence Competency Center) and MICC (Market
Intelligence Competency Center).
15. For more information about the contingency decision-making

framework see Daft (2012); ch.12: Decision-Making Processes,
pp. 515–519.
16. For more information about the two formats of providing marketology
products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE)—standard (river) and
customized (container) —see Aghazadeh (2016).
17. For more explanatory information see Pant (2009).
8. In this regard Peter Drucker said “culture eats strategy for breakfast.”
1
19. As discussed BOD and MOD embrace the components of structure,
culture, people, process, asset, technology, innovation, and communi-
cation. The BOB and MOB contain the components of governance;
strategy; business, environment and market analysis (BEMA), and
stakeholder analysis.
20. Brand equity is the value of the brand in the marketplace. Brand equity
includes brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand associations, and per-
ceived quality. For more information see Aaker (2014, 2016).
21. Market value primarily represents the value of stock market. However,
it refers to the value of both business market or stakeholders of a firm
and the value of stock market of a firm. Here the main concentration is
on business market.
22. ROI: Return on Investment; ROA: Return on Assets; ROE: Return on
Equity; ROC: Return on Capital; ROCE: Return on Capital Employed;
ROIC: Return on Invested Capital.
23. Balanced Scorecard (BSC).
24. For more information see Aghazadeh (2016), ch. 4 (titled Arketology
System) of.
25. As previously expressed, market DIKII contains market data, informa-
tion, knowledge, intelligence, and insight; and IGDEE services
involve identification, generation, dissemination, exploitation, and
evaluation.
26. EFQM stands for European Foundation for Quality Management; BSC
stands for Balanced Scorecard; PSC stands for Poised Scorecard; APQC
stands for American Productivity and Quality Center; and SCP stands
for Structure-Conduct-Performance. “The Poised Scorecard (PSC) is a
systemic scorecard that builds on the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) by
extending its four key dimensions to include collaborative business net-
works as well as the various business models that embody an ambidex-
trous organization” (Davenport et al. 2006: 429).
27. For more information see Aghazadeh (2016), ch. 1.
28. Systems are classified according to three categories: (1) conceptual sys-
tems (like a language), (2) concrete systems (like machines), and (3)
abstract systems (like the culture of an organization); for more informa-
tion see Gibson et al. (2011), p. 21.
29. In this manner the marketology can be considered similar to “business
intelligence and information cycle (BIMC)” which involves the key
activities of visioning, planning, building, operating and using. For
more detailed information see Burton et al. (2006a, b).
282 H. AGHAZADEH
Appendix
3.1.1 Marketology in Practice (MIP): Cumulating MOD (Chap. 2)

and MOB (Chap. 3)
Marketology in Marketology Organizational Architecture (MOA)

practice (MIP)
Cumulating MOD (Chapter 2) and MOB (Chapter 3)
Cumulative
Considering the ‘marketology in practice (MIP)’ parts that have been represented in previous
chapters of 2: Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) and 3: Morketology Organizational
Behavior (MOB), now their outcomes can be cumulated and integrated as marketology in
practice (MIP) for marketology organizational architecture (MOA) which embraces
both MOD and MOB
MOA by incorporating MOD and MOB1:
MIP Cumulative (1): Marketology match matrix (MMM) in accordance with
‘marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) framework’
MIP Cumulative (2): Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
MIP Cumulative (3): Marketology and organization: relationship perspectives diagram
(MORPD)
MIP Cumulative (4): Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)
MIP Cumulative (5): Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
MIP Cumulative (6): Marketology Impact Assessment Matrix (MIAM)
MIP Cumulative (7): Case study: Marketology and entire business organization

practice (MIP)
Cumulating MOD and MOB using MCMC
Cumulative (1)
Guideline: in below matrix examine interlinks between marketology and BOD and BOB in accordance with dimensions
of ‘marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) framework’. Note that the scores of BOD and BOB can be
taken from the marketology match matrix (MMM) of their components (e.g. structure, people, process, innovation,
governance, strategy and performance) in previous chapters and sections.
Note: Marketology Total
(AS) stands for Absolute Score, and (WS) stands for Coverage Manifestation Contribution
Weighted Score. Weight: Weight: Weight: Weight (100%)
AS can be a score within this continuum {9 ≥ AS ≥ 0}, WS
AS WS AS WS AS WS
is calculated by multiplying each AS in related weight. AS WS AS WS
1. Business Organizational Design (BOD)
2. Business Organizational Behavior (BOB)
Total: Sum
Entire business organization Average
Analysis guideline: regarding the facts and figures of above marketology match matrix; analyze the interrelationship
between marketology and ‘BOD, BOB and entire business organization’ separately and comparatively.
Analysis of interrelationship between marketology and ‘BOD, BOB and entire organization’:
284 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
Cumulative (2) Cumulating MOD and MOB status
Guideline: in below matrix determine the situation of marketology organizational design (MOD) and
marketology organizational behavior (MOB). In this matrix situation refers to the degree of acceptance-
penetration. Note that the status of MOD and MOB can be taken from the marketology status analysis matrix
(MSAM) at the end of previous chapters. By this way the status of marketology organizational architecture
(MOA) and in fact total marketology can be revealed within a business organization.
A
Strong
(strong)
Fair B
(fair)
Weak C
(weak)
Weak Fair Strong
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of above marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM); the
identified situations for MOD and MOB; and also the identified status for MOA and total
marketology; analyze the situations of them separately and comparatively.
Analysis of situations for MOD, MOB, MOA and total marketology:

practice (MIP)
Cumulative (3) Cumulating MOD and MOB perspectives
Guideline: in below diagram determine each approach’s degree for marketology organizational design
(MOD), marketology organizational behavior (MOB) and marketology organizational architecture (MOA) or
total marketology. By specifying the degree of each approach and plotting them together a combination of
approaches may be appeared for MOD, MOB and MOA or total marketology. Note that the approaches of
MOD and MOB can be taken from the Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram
(MORPD) at the end of previous chapters. By this way the approaches of MOA and in fact total marketology
can be revealed within a business organization in comparison with those of MOD and MOB.
Parasol (0-9)
Pipeline (0-9) Pillar (0-9)
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of above Marketology and organization relationship perspectives
diagram (MORPD); the identified combination of approaches for MODMOB

, and MOA or total
marketology; analyze the approaches of them separately and comparatively.
Analysis of approaches for MOD, MOB, MOA and total marketology:

286 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
Cumulative (4) MOA: cumulating MOD and MOB directions
Guideline: in below matrix first determine the direction mode (DM) of MOD and MOB. In this matrix
direction modes refer to the positive or negative directions of organization to marketology (O2M) and
marketology to organization (M2O). Note that the direction modes of MOD and MOB can be taken from the
marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM) at the end of previous chapters. By this
way the direction modes of marketology organizational architecture (MOA) and in fact total marketology can
be defined as green, yellow and redwithin a business organization.
DM + + Yellow Green Green

DM + - Red Yellow Green
DM - - Red Red Yellow
DM - - DM + - DM + +
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of above marketology and organization directional effects
matrix (MODEM); the identified modes of directionfor MOD, MOB and MOA or total marketology
(red, yellow or green); analyze the direction modesof them separately and comparatively.
Analysis of direction modes of MOD, MOB, MOA and total marketology:


practice (MIP)
Cumulative (5) Cumulating MOD and MOB benchmarked MCMC
Guideline: in below matrix score interlinks between marketology and BOD and BOB. Note that the
scores of BOD and BOB can be taken from the marketology benchmark matrix (MBM) of their
components (e.g. structure, people, process, innovation, governance, strategy and performance) at the
end of previous chapters. By this way using marketology benchmark matrix (MBM) the interrelationships
between marketology and BOD BOB and entire business organization can be benchmarked by ,
comparing an intended firm with the best practice companies (BPC) or competitors within industry or
market.

Entire business
Coverage Manifestation Contribution BOD / BOB
organization
Weight
1. Business Organizational Design

(BOD)
2. Business Organizational Behavior
(BOB)
MCMC dimension 100
Total Score
Average
Note:
Firm The scores should be defined within this continuum:
Marketology BPC1 9≥X≥0
BPC2
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of above marketology benchmark matrix (MBM); and the benchmarked interlinks between marketology and BOD,
BOB and entire business organization; analyze their interconnections separately and comparatively.
Analysis of benchmarked interlinks between marketology and BOD, BOB and entire business organization:
288 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in practice Marketology Impact Assessment Matrix (MIAM)

(MIP)
Conclusion on MOA (MOD+MOB)
Cumulative (6)
Guideline: in below marketology impact assessment matrix (MIAM);
(A) Score interlinks between marketology and entire business organization (BOD + BOB) of a given firm benchmarking with best
practice companies of industry/market. Consider the average score of several main BPCs. For this, use the data of previous marketology
benchmark matrix (MBM) for MOA. Note that the scores should be weighted and within this 9 ≥ X ≥ 0
(B) Score each perspective of the interaction between marketology and entire business organization (BOD + BOB) of a given firm. For
this, use the data of previous marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD) for MOA. Note that the scores
should be within this continuum: 9 ≥ X ≥ 0
(C) Determine the mode of direction between marketology and entire business organization (BOD + BOB) of a given firm. For this, use
the data of previous marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM) for MOA. Note that the modes might be one of
these: green/ yellow/ red.
(D) Determine the status of marketology within entire business organization (BOD + BOB) of a given firm. For this, use the data of
previous marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM) for MOA. Note that the situations might be one of these: strong/ fair/ weak.
Total marketology/ MOA

(A) (B) (C) (D)
Marketology benchmarked interlinks Marketology interaction Marketology Marketology
Coverage Manifestation Contribution Total CMC perspectives (3P) direction mode status (weak/
Firm BPC Firm BPC Firm BPC Firm BPC Parasol Pillar Pipeline (Red/Yellow/Green) fair/ strong)
Entire business
organization
(BOD+BOB)
Analysis guideline: regarding the facts and fogures of above marketology impact assessment matrix (MIAM); and the benchmarked interlinks of
marketology, marketology interaction perspectives, marketology direction modes, and marketology status within entire business organization; analyze
marketology impact throughout the organization.


practice (MIP)
Marketology and entire business organization
Cumulative (7)
Guideline:
1- Consider a given company/organization that you may have access to primary or secondary data about
its entire business organization, strategy and market in general; and specifically the components of
business organizational design (BOD) and business organizational behavior (BOB), marketology
system, components of marketology organizational design (MOD) and marketology organizational
behavior (MOB), marketology organizational architecture (MOA), and other useful data. In case of
not access to usable data you can consider a presumptive case company/organization.
2- Reviewing the chapter-end and cumulative ‘marketology in practice (MIP)’, conduct below analyses
with focus on entire business organization (integrating BOD and BOB) and marketology
organizational architecture (MOA) (integrating MOD and MOB) about the intended case using the
accessible data individually or in a group:
• Marketology match matrix (MMM) in accordance with ‘marketology coverage, manifest and
contribute (MCMC) framework’
• Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD)
• Marketology Impact Assessment Matrix (MIAM)
• Case study: Marketology and entire business organization
3- Conclude about the case company/organization in the fields of investigated issues and present an
analytical case report.

290 H. AGHAZADEH
Note
30. Note that as is expressed in previous chapters MOA includes MOD,
MOB, and MOC. But here MOD (as contextual component) and
MOB (as managerial component) because of their close interdepen-
dence together have been considered and practiced cumulatively. It
should be reminded that the MOC (as consequential component)
which is an outcome of marketology behavior (MOB) based on its
design (MOD), will be considered and practiced separately and com-
plementarily at the end of the next chapter.
CHAPTER 4
Marketology Organizational
Contribution (MOC)

Marketology organizational contribution (MOC)
• MOC concept
• MOC audiences: people, units, or functions (PUF)
• MOC layers/levels
• MOC components
• MOC dynamics
MOC: Business-based contributions
• Business-based contributions
• Business success
• Business design
• Business behavior
• Business life cycle (BLC)
• Business governance
• Business strategic management
• Business strategic issues
• Exinternal business analysis
• Business stakeholders
• Business value proposition

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54833-7_4
292 H. AGHAZADEH
MOC: Marketology-based contributions
• Marketology-based contributions
• Marketology success
• Marketology design
• Marketology behavior
• Marketology strategic management (MSM)
• Marketology pillars
• Marketology hierarchy and audience
• Marketology requests and presentation
• Marketology value proposition (MVP)
MOC: market DIKII and IGDEE services
• Marketology products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE)

• Dynamics of market DIKII and IGDEE services
• MOC versus market-related functions
• Cooperative MOC
MOC: Marketology content analysis (engineering)
• MOC contents
• Comprehensive business analysis (CBA)
• Business stakeholder analysis (engineering)
• Customer analysis (engineering): attributes and behavior
• Competitor analysis (engineering)
–– Competitor analysis process and perspectives
–– Competitor attributes and behavior
• Channel analysis (engineering): attributes and behavior
• Supplier analysis (engineering): attributes and behavior
• Company analysis (engineering)
–– Company analysis perspectives
–– Company exinternal and out of context analysis
• Condition/context of market analysis (engineering)
• Community, media, NGOs, unions, and government analysis (engineering)
• Collaborator analysis (engineering)
–– Mapping business collaborators
–– Collaborator attributes and behavior
MARKETOLOGY ORGANIZATIONAL CONTRIBUTION (MOC) 293

Contribution (MOC)

–– MIP 4-1: Marketology organizational contributions (MOC)
–– MIP 4-2: MOC: Business-based contributions (1)
–– MIP 4-4: MOC: Marketology-based contributions
–– MIP 4-5: MOC: market DIKII and IGDEE services
–– MIP 4-6: MOC contents and customer analysis: attributes
–– MIP 4-7: Customer analysis: behavior
–– MIP 4-8: Competitor analysis: attributes
–– MIP 4-9: Competitor analysis: behavior
–– MIP 4-10: Channel analysis: attributes
–– MIP 4-11: Channel analysis: behavior
–– MIP 4-12: Supplier analysis
–– MIP 4-13: Company, condition and community analysis
–– MIP 4-14: Collaborator analysis: attributes
–– MIP 4-15: Collaborator analysis: behavior
arketology Organizational Contribution (MOC) Integrated

M
Frameworks
–– MIP 4-16: MOC Client Inquiry Analysis (MOC-CIA): (a) matrix
and (b) inquiry form
–– MIP 4-17: MOC Importance Performance Assessment (MOC-
IPD): (a) Diagram, and (b) Matrix
–– MIP 4-18: MOC Product & Service Profile Matrix (MOC-PSPM)
–– MIP 4-19: MOC Functional Compatibility Diagram
(MOC-FCD)
–– MIP 4-20: MOC Business Support Matrix (MOC-BSM)
–– MIP 4-21: MOC Primary Function Matrix (MOC-PFM)
–– MIP 4-22: Marketology Effectiveness & Maturity Evaluation
(MEME)
–– MIP 4-23: Marketology & Organization Mutual Contribution
(MOMC)
–– MIP 4-24: Case study: MOC and entire business organization
294 H. AGHAZADEH
4.1 Introduction
In Chap. 1, from a practical viewpoint, the marketology organizational
architecture (MOA) has been mapped as “standard marketology canvas
(SMC),” which includes three main pieces: (1) marketology organizational
design (MOD) as contextual piece, (2) marketology organizational behavior
(MOB) as managerial piece, and (3) marketology organizational contribu-
tion (MOC) as consequential piece. In Chap. 2 the first main piece (i.e. MOD)
and in Chap. 3 the second main piece (i.e. MOB) have been explained, ana-
lyzed, discussed, and completed practically. In this chapter, the third and
final main piece of SMC, namely marketology organizational contribution
(MOC) is covered and explained practically and includes the following five
main sections: Sect. 4.2: Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC),
Sect. 4.3: MOC: Business-Based Contributions, Sect. 4.4: MOC: Marketology-
Based Contributions, Sect. 4.5: MOC: Market DIKII and IGDEE Services, and
Sect. 4.6: MOC: Marketology Content Analysis (Engineering). Note that busi-
ness-based contributions, marketology-based contributions, market DIKII,
and IGDEE services are also pieces of the MOC canvas. In each section, the
subject is first explained within the business organization context and the
marketology context, and then the issues of the section are demonstrated
using applied tools and techniques of marketology in practical sections called
“marketology in practice (MIP)” within and at the end of each section. In the
last part of each section one piece of the MOD canvas is completed. Several
of the issues and subjects within the chapter that are not directly applicable
or demonstrated in the chapter are given in the in Sect. 4.7: MIP using an
integrative method. In fact at the end of this chapter the SMC is fulfilled by
completion of the third and final piece (i.e. MOC).
In Chap. 5 the future of marketology will be explored. In the final chapter
(Chap. 6) an integrative manual will be provided to allow marketology to be
practiced within an organization.
4.2 Marketology Organizational Contribution

(MOC)
4.2.1 MOC Concept
In has been frequently discussed that in today’s highly competitive and chang-
ing external and internal condition, achieving business sustainable superior/
competitive success (SSS/SCS) can be facilitated and accelerated by marke-
tology organizational contribution (MOC) based on marketology organiza-
tional design (MOD) and marketology organizational behavior (MOB). In
this regard under the umbrella of MOA, the MOD and MOB are means for
the objective of MOC to support market-related decisions and actions of busi-
nesses through providing market DIKII and IGDEE services throughout the
organization/enterprise.1
Marketology organizational contribution (MOC) refers to the value that the

hyper-function of marketology adds to an organization in order to accomplish
business success through the support in making effective market-related decisions
and efficient market-related actions across the organization. In fact, in accor-
dance with a value-based viewpoint, the marketology organizational contribu-
tions (MOC) can be considered as marketology value proposition (MVP) which
embraces all the products and services that the hyper-function of marketology gen-
erates and provides to target audiences/clients through the entire organization.
MOC points to the functions, outcomes, impacts, and externalities of the
hyper-function of marketology throughout the organization. In regard of
MOC several key questions that should be answered are as follows:
• Whom to contribute? The people, groups, departments, committees,

executives, analysts, and market-related decision-makers and action-tak-
ers as target audiences/clients that should contribute through the hyper-
function of marketology throughout the organization.
• What to contribute? The market-related informational products and sev-
eral complementary services required for the target audiences/clients
who should contribute through the hyper-function of marketology (mar-
ket DIKII: data, information, knowledge, intelligence and insight).
• How to contribute? The way and process of building and bringing the needed
marketology contributions to the target audiences/clients throughout the
organization. The process of guiding target audiences/clients to the deliv-
ered products, eliciting feedback from them, and evaluating, refining, and
improving the contributions of marketology (IGDEE services: identifica-
tion, generation, dissemination, exploitation, and evaluation).
In fact MOC focuses on the consequences and results of marketology’s func-

tions and performance in light of marketology strategic management (MSM)
based on MOA (which includes MOD and MOB) for its added value and contri-
butions in supporting business organizational design (BOD) and business orga-
nizational behavior (BOB), and then fulfilling business success2 (Carlile 2004;
Choo 1998, 2001; MacInnis 2011; Morgan and Turnell 2003; Davenport and
Prusak 1998; Culkin et al. 1999; Day 1999; Smith and Raspin 2008; Davenport
& Prusak 2000; Hansen 1999; Hart et al. 1999; Langley 1991; Liyanage et al.
2009; March 1991; Slater and Olson 2001; Aghazadeh 2016; Barnes and
Milton 2015; Thompson et al. 2013; Metayer 2013; Lambin and Schuiling
2012; Subramanian 2015a, b; Svendsen 2010; Lado et al. 1992; Ventana 2010;
Walker and Madsen 2015; Warren 2008; Argandona 2011).
4.2.2 MOC Audiences: People, Units or Functions (PUF)

The term “marketology” evokes a type of marketing function of an organiza-
tion or links it to the marketing issues of an enterprise. In fact marketology is
defined as a hyper-function that contributes to the audiences of people, units, or
296 H. AGHAZADEH
functions (PUF) across the enterprise so that they can make effective decisions
and take efficient actions through market DIKII and IGDEE services. Thus
marketology is not simply a single function which is linked to marketing, but
it is a hyper-function (multifunctions) beyond hierarchical boundaries (net-
worked) which is linked to every people, unit, and function that needs market-
related products and services at the strategic, tactical, and operational levels
of enterprise. Today most business people, units and functions, to different
extents, have to be market-oriented. Therefore marketology should link and
interact with all PUFs either directly or indirectly to keen them continuously
market-involved (Barnes and Milton 2015; Thompson et al. 2013; Metayer
2013; Lambin and Schuiling 2012; Subramanian 2015a, b; Svendsen 2010;
Lado et al. 1992; Ventana 2010; Walker and Madsen 2015; Warren 2008;
Argandona 2011; Aghazadeh 2015; Lopez 2014; McNaughton et al. 2001;
Doyle 2009; Marr 2015b).
4.2.3 MOC Layers/Levels
Similar to the layers/levels of product, which include core benefits/product,
actual product, and augmented product, the MOC can be layered as core, con-
crete, and complementary contributions as illustrated in Figure 4.1.
As depicted in Figure 4.1 the contributions of marketology are as follows:
• Core contributions: market data, information, knowledge, intelligence,

and insight (DIKII)
• Concrete contributions: identification, generation, dissemination, exploi-
tation, and evaluation (IGDEE) services
• Complementary contributions: supporting market-related decisions and
actions for business success
Figure 4.1 Layers/levels

of marketology organiza- Complementary
tional contribution (MOC) contribuon
Concrete
contribuon
Core
contribuon
Thus it is worth bearing in mind that marketology organizational con-

tribution (MOC) contains all types of contributions (core, concrete, and
complementary). However, in some cases one group of marketology contri-
butions may be more focused than others. For instance, the core contribu-
tions become more important than the others when the concern is utilizing
the delivered market DIKII to senior executives (MacInnis 2011; Morgan
and Turnell 2003; Davenport and Prusak 1998; Choo 2001; Culkin et al.
1999; Day 1999; Smith and Raspin 2008; Lambin and Schuiling 2012;
Subramanian 2015a, b; Svendsen 2010; Lado et al. 1992; Ventana 2010;
Walker and Madsen 2015; Aghazadeh 2016; Auh and Merlo 2012; Hunt
and Lambe 2000; Griffin 2013; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; McClinton 2015;
Kaplan 2010; Hitt et al. 2015; Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Grant 2013;
Barnes and Milton 2015; Thompson et al. 2013; Metayer 2013).
4.2.4 MOC Components
Generally the components of marketology organizational contributions
(MOC) as illustrated in Figure 4.2 can be classified according to four major
contributions: business-based, marketology-based, market DIKII, and IGDEE
services. These components commonly respond to the questions of whom,
what, and how to contribute.
Business-based contributions as supportive functions refer to the effects,
outcomes, and consequences of marketology’s performance within a business
organization. In accordance with business-based contributions the hyper-
function of marketology contributes to supporting business performance, suc-
cess, design, behavior, decisions, and actions by providing market DIKII and
conducting IGDEE services.
Marketology-based contributions as primary functions represent the activi-
ties, processes, products, and services of marketology which are conducted by
the marketology system (hyper-function of marketology) within the organi-
zation based on MOD and MOB. In fact marketology-based contributions
are the contributions of marketology that lead to accomplishing the marketol-
ogy success, design, and behavior in providing market DIKII and conducting
IGDEE services.
Market DIKII point to the outcomes or products of the hyper-function of
marketology and, as discussed, include market data, information, knowledge,
intelligence and insight which are produced and provided to the business-
based and marketology-based audiences through IGDEE services based on
MOD and MOB across the enterprise.
IGDEE services depicts the stages of marketology process involve identifi-
cation, generation, dissemination, exploitation, and evaluation through which
marketology products (market DIKII) are produced and provided to the
business-based and marketology-based audiences based on MOD and MOB
across the enterprise.
298 H. AGHAZADEH
Whom to
contribute
?
Business base
Business-based
ccontribuon
contribuonn
contribute?
contribute?
What to
How to
Market DIKII IGDEE services
contribuon contribuon
Marketology-based
ketology
ogy-b
based
contribuon
Whom to
contribute
?
Figure 4.2 Marketology organizational contribution (MOC) components
It should be noted that the business-based contributions mainly focus on

external marketology; the marketology-based contributions majorly empha-
sizes internal marketology; and the contributions of market DIKII and IGDEE
services pertain to both external and internal marketology (Argandona 2011;
Lopez 2014; McNaughton et al. 2001; Doyle 2009; Marr 2015b; Osterwalder
et al. 2015; Edgar and Lockwood 2010; Sinkula et al. 1997; Aghazadeh
2016; Auh and Merlo 2012; Hunt and Lambe 2000;Griffin 2013; Franz and
Kirchmer 2013; McClinton 2015; Kaplan 2010; Hitt et al. 2015; Hamel and
Prahalad 1994; Grant 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Javidan 1998; Morgan et al.
2000; Moorman and Rust 1999).
4.2.5 MOC Dynamics
The contributions of marketology are commonly and closely related.
Considering the discussed marketology organizational contributions (MOC)
it can be understood that in both business-based and marketology-based con-
tributions the marketology products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE)
are an essential and core contribution. In fact the market DIKII and IGDEE
services ensure the business-based and marketology-based contributions are
realized and operationalized. In this regard the market DIKII and IGDEE ser-
vices as fundamental contributions of marketology enable marketology-based
contributions, and they in turn accomplish business-based contributions as
illustrated in Figure 4.3 (Davenport & Prusak 2000; Hansen 1999; Hart et al.
1999; Langley 1991; Liyanage et al. 2009; March 1991; Slater and Olson
2001; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Barnes and Milton 2015; Thompson et al.
2013; Metayer 2013; Lambin and Schuiling 2012; Subramanian 2015a, b;
Svendsen 2010; Lado et al. 1992; Ventana 2010; Walker and Madsen 2015;
Warren 2008; Argandona 2011; Lopez 2014; McNaughton et al. 2001;
Doyle 2009; Marr 2015b).

practice (MIP)
(4-1) Marketology organizational contributions (MOC)
Guideline (FOCUS)
previous sections, practice FOCUS for the following issues:
1. Marketology organizational contribution (MOC)
2. MOC audiences: people, units or functions (PUF)
3. MOC layers/levels
4. MOC components
5. MOC dynamics

300 H. AGHAZADEH
Business-based MOC
Marketology-based MOC
Fundamental MOC:
- Products: market DIKII
- Services: IGDEE
Figure 4.3 MOC dynamics
4.3 MOC: Business-Based Contributions
4.3.1 Business-Based Contributions of Marketology

The categories and focuses of business-based contributions of marketology are
The above-mentioned categories of business-based contributions includ-
ing business success, business design, business behavior, business life cycle
(BLC), business governance, business strategic management, business stake-
holders, and exinternal business analysis are discussed in the sections that fol-
low (Morgan et al. 2000; Yami et al. 2010; Dagnino and Elena 2009; Pelton
et al. 2014; Amato and Amato 2009; Anderson et al. 1997; Lambert 2014;
Schmalensee 1988; Porter 1996, 1998b; Barney and Clark 2007; Bain 1956;
Morgan and Turnell 2003; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Cameron and Green
2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Robbins and Judge
2015; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Gibson et al. 2012; Dodgson
et al. 2015; White and Bruton 2011; Subramanian 2015a, b; Olszak 2014;
Chaffey 2014; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Chandler & Ulrich 2016; Stewart and
Rogers 2012; Ekerson 2007; Skyrius et al. 2013; Daft 2016).
Category Focus
Business success Sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS)
Business organizational design (BOD): structure, culture, process, people, asset,

Business design
technology, innovation and communication
Business organizational behavior (BOB): governance, strategy, business and

Business behavior
environment analysis, stakeholders analysis, value and performance
Business life cycle

Start-up/introduction, growth, maturity, decline/renewal
(BLC)
Business governance Directing, administrating and controlling
Business strategic Scanning and analysis, decision-making, setting strategic issues, crafting strategy
management and planning, executing and action-taking, and evaluating/controlling
Business strategic issues Vision, mission, core values, and strategic themes
Business exinternal - Business external analysis: macro and micro factors
analysis - Business internal analysis: value chain and proposition
- External stakeholders: customers, collaborators/ partners, mediators/
channels, competitors, government, etc.

Business stakeholders
- Internal stakeholders: shareholders, managers, employees, departments,
groups, committees, etc.
- Business strategic values (BSV): Strategic directions and themes, identity
(brand, image), responsibilities (creating shared value-CSV and corporate
social responsibility-CSR), background, and leadershipcomposition.

Business value
- Business tactical values (BTV): product (customer solution), price (cost),
proposition
place (customer access), promotion (communication), process (convenience),
people (contact), property (context), productivity (customer perceived
quality), and performance (customer 3R: reach, retain and return)
Figure 4.4 MOC: business-based contributions
4.3.2 Business Success
In accordance with business success category, the contributions of marketology
should focus on supporting the achievement of sustainable superior/competitive
success (SSS/SCS) for businesses. There is no doubt the SSS/SCS is the ultimate
attainment of a business and may not be supportable by marketology directly and
should be contributed through the pertaining leverages or pillars. Hence to sup-
port SSS/SCS the hyper-function of marketology should contribute to accom-
plishing proper BOD, BOB, decisions, and actions (Phelps et al. 2007; Beverland
and Lockshin 2001; OECD 2015a, b; Kendall and Kendall 1998; ACG 2016;
302 H. AGHAZADEH
Larcker and Tayan 2013; Anderson et al. 1997; Lambert 2014; Schmalensee 1988;
Porter 1996; Barney and Clark 2007; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Bain 1956; Morgan
and Turnell 2003; Peteraf 1993; Barney and Hesterly 2011; Babatunde and
Adebisi 2012; Ulwick 2012; ; Neighbor and Kienzle 2012; Davenport et al. 2006;
Kaplan and Norton 2001; Chandler & Ulrich 2016; Stewart and Rogers 2012).
MOC to Business Success

The main business-based contribution of marketology is contributing SSS/
SCS to a business through leveraging it to support BOD, BOB, decisions,
actions, and so on.
4.3.3 Business Design
Business organizational design (BOD) is one of the key components of busi-
ness building blocks (BBB) as well as one of the key pillars of business SSS/
SCS. In addition to such a vitally dependent role, BOD independently com-
prises the significant components of structure, culture, process, people, asset,
technology, innovation, and communication. The importance of these compo-
nents for the solidity of BOD and the accomplishment of business performance
and success is indeniable. Thus to support the BOD either as a pillar for busi-
ness success or as an independent business building block, the hyper-function
of marketology should contribute to the setting and running of its precise
components and relevant decisions and actions3 (Thompson et al. 2013; Grant
2013; Phelps et al. 2007; Beverland and Lockshin 2001; Luthans et al. 2015;
Hitt et al. 2015; Griffin 2013; Dess et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Ballard et al. 2006;
Robbins and Judge 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Kotter 2015; Kaplan 2010;
Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Lambert 2014; Schmalensee 1988; Porter 1996;
Barney and Clark 2007; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Bain 1956; Morgan and
Turnell 2003; Auh and Merlo 2012; Hunt and Lambe 2000; Gonzalez 2001;
Sheth and Parvatiyar 1992; Elmuti and Kathawala 2001; MacInnis 2011;
Rusko 2012; Ullah et al. 2014; Tidd and Bessant 2014).
MOC to Business Design

Marketology contributes to BOD either dependently or independently
through the support of its component parts which include structure, culture,
process, people, asset, technology, innovation, communication, and so on.
4.3.4 Business Behavior
Business organizational behavior (BOB) is one of the key components of business
building blocks (BBB) as well as one of the key pillars of business SSS/SCS. In
addition to such a crucially dependent role, BOB independently comprises the
significant components parts of governance, strategy, business environment and
inside analysis, external and internal stakeholder analysis, value, and performance.
The significance of these components for the stability of BOB and the fulfillment
of business performance and success is irrefutable. Thus to support BOB either as
a foundation for business success or as an independent business building block,

the hyper-function of marketology should contribute to accurately arranging and
leading its components and related decisions, and actions4 (Phelps et al. 2007;
Beverland and Lockshin 2001; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Das and Teng 1998;
McGahan and Porter 1997; Teece 2007; Grant 1991, 2013; Aghazadeh 2015,
2016; Peteraf 1993; Barney and Hesterly 2011; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012;
Ulwick 2012; Thompson et al. 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Hitt et al. 2015; Griffin
2013; Dess et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Ballard et al. 2006; Robbins and Judge 2015;
Gibson et al. 2012; Kotter 2015; Kaplan 2010; Hamel and Prahalad 1994;
Lambert 2014; Schmalensee 1988; Porter 1996; Barney and Clark 2007).
MOC to Business Behavior

Marketology contributes to BOB either dependently or independently through
the support of its component parts which include governance, strategy, busi-
ness environment and inside analysis, external and internal stakeholder
analysis, value, performance, and so on.
4.3.5 Business Life Cycle (BLC)

Businesses and organizations during their business or working life go through
several stages as part of the business/organization’s life cycle (BLC/OLC);
these include start-up or introduction, growth, maturity, decline, and renewal.
Depending on the type and attributes of the industry, environment, organiza-
tion, and many other external and internal elements, each stage of the BLC
may last a short or long time. It should be noted that similar to an organization
or a business the product and brand also has a life cycle—the product life cycle
(PLC) and the brand life cycle (BLC)—with similar stages. The analysts and
executives of businesses should confront different concerns and market-related
informational needs and supports at different stages of the BLC or the PLC for
effective business analyses, decisions, and actions.
For instance, in the start-up or introductory stage the key market-related
concerns might be obtaining a comprehensive and realistic view of financing
possibilities and market opportunities that can be captured and utilized by a
business. In the growth stage the critical market-related issues might be to
find out how to deal with intense competition and how to continually oper-
ate customer relationship management (CRM). In the maturity stage the sig-
nificant market-related matters might be how to maintain current customer
and market share; and also how to explore new markets to enter in the near
future. In the decline stage the crucial market-related worries might be how
to exit an unprofitable and stagnant market; how to cut/harvest outdated and
unproductive products; how to refine and innovate current products; how to
conduct new product development (NPD); and how to explore new markets
to enter. Therefore, the hyper-function of marketology should contribute at
each stage according to the unique requirements of each stage.
Thus to support the businesses and their analysts and executives, the hyper-
function of marketology should first contribute to identifying the stage of BLC/
304 H. AGHAZADEH
PLC that a business/product is at and the required market-related informational

products and assistances, and then should contribute to generating and providing
the proper support to target audiences/clients in accordance with the characteris-
tics of a given stage of the BLC.In this way the hyper-function of marketology will
be able to support businesses and their executives to make effective market-related
decisions, take efficient market-related actions, and ensure business success consis-
tent with the features and contingencies of the stage of BLC (Cameron and Green
2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Thompson et al. 2013; Grant 2013; Lings
and Greenley 2009; Dess et al. 2015; Von Krogh et al. 2000; Brown 2005; Denisa
and Jaroslav 2013; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Robbins and Judge 2015; Larcker
and Tayan 2013; Lambert 2014; Rusko 2012; Ullah et al. 2014; Phelps et al.
2007; Beverland and Lockshin 2001; Luthans et al. 2015; Hitt et al. 2015; Griffin
2013; Daft 2016; Ballard et al. 2006; Gibson et al. 2012; Kotter 2015; Kaplan
2010; Kumar et al. 2001; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Cravens and Piercy 2013;
Neighbor and Kienzle 2012; Stewart and Rogers 2012).
MOC to Business Life Cycle (BLC)

Marketology contributes to businesses and their analysts and executives
through supporting market-related decision and actions adapted to the
attributes and requirements of each of the stages of the business life cycle
(BLC) to ensure business success.
4.3.6 Business Governance
Business governance or corporate governance is an integrative manner of gov-
erning, leading, and controlling an organization or a business to reach its goals.
The key players of business governance are management (the people who han-
dle the company), shareholders (the people who own the company), and stake-
holders (the bodies who have a stake in the company’s success). The significant
functions of business governance are directing, administrating, and controlling
to create long-term and transactional relationships. In accordance with good
business governance the main bodies should be analyzed well, the functions
should be conducted well through proper decisions and actions. Consequently,
objectives should be achieved satisfactorily. In this regard to support the busi-
nesses and their analysts and executives, the hyper-function of marketology
should contribute to an understanding of the role of the key players, the func-
tions, and the objectives of business governance; and accordingly should con-
tribute to making effective market-related decisions and taking efficient
market-related actions. Certainly such contributions and supporting features of
marketology can be carried out based on its IGDEE services and market DIKII
products5 (Beverland and Lockshin 2001; OECD 2015a, b; Kendall and
Kendall 1998; ACG 2016; Larcker and Tayan 2013; Anderson et al. 1997;
Lambert 2014; Schmalensee 1988; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Porter 1996;
Barney and Clark 2007; MacInnis 2011; Rusko 2012; Ullah et al. 2014; Von
Krogh et al. 2000; Brown 2005; Denisa and Jaroslav 2013; Kumar et al. 2001;
Lings and Greenley 2009; Cameron and Green 2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan
2015; Barney and Hesterly 2011; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Ulwick 2012;
Neighbor and Kienzle 2012; Davenport et al. 2006; Chandler & Ulrich 2016).
MOC to Business Governance

Marketology contributes to business/corporate governance through support-
ing the executives to understanding the principal bodies of business gover-
nance (management, shareholders, and stakeholders), so they can decide and
act appropriately in directing, administrating, and controlling the business,
and achieving the business’s objectives.

practice (MIP)
(4-2) MOC: Business-based contributions (1)
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Business-based contributions
2. Business success
3. Business design
4. Business behavior
5. Business life cycle (BLC)
6. Business governance

306 H. AGHAZADEH
4.3.7 Business Strategic Management

Strategic management refers to the manner of leading a company to achieve its
objectives regarding both external and internal conditions within a competitive
context and based on a long-term view. Business strategic management as a process
consists primarily of crafting strategy, executing strategy, and evaluating strategy. In
addition several functions are conducted to complete the strategic management
process; these include scanning and analysis, decision-making, setting strategic
issues, crafting strategy and planning, executing and action-taking, and evaluat-
ing/controlling and revising. Generally strategic management in a business orga-
nization is considered at the three levels of corporate, business, and function within
an organization. In accordance with the concept, components, and stages of busi-
ness strategic management it becomes apparent that market-related analysis, deci-
sion-making, and action-taking are undeniable matters that should be implemented
accurately and in a timely manner based on the continuous use of relevant market-
related informational products and services. Hence to support the business analysts
and executives, the hyper-function of marketology should contribute to external
and internal analysis—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)
analysis)—and formulating, implementing, and evaluating strategy. For this pur-
pose, marketology should contribute to effective market-related decision-making
and taking efficient market-related actions based on its IGDEE services and mar-
ket DIKII products6 (Thompson et al. 2013; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling
2016; Walker and Madsen 2015; Lopez 2014; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Piercy
1998; Lehman and Winer 2007; Luthans et al. 2015; Hitt et al. 2015; Evans
2015; Doyle 2009; Jurevicius 2013; Johanson and Vahlne 2011; OnStrategy
2014; Lidija and Hisrich 2014; Roos 2005; Cameron and Green 2015; White and
Bruton 2011; Subramanian 2015a, b; Svendsen 2010; Rusko 2012; Ullah et al.
2014; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Robbins and Judge 2015; Aghazadeh 2016;
Porter 1998b, 2007; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Homburg and Pflesser 2000;
Griffin 2013; Smith et al. 2006; Srivastava et al. 2001; Trim 2006).
MOC to Business Strategic Management

Marketology contributes to business strategic management through support-
ing executives to understand, decide and act upon external and internal
scanning and analysis of strategic issues to craft a strategy, and execute,
evaluate, and revise strategies.
4.3.8 Business Strategic Issues

One of the significant parts or stages of business strategic management is setting
strategic issues as cornerstones of strategy. Their remarkable significance is
the main reason for investigating them independently of business strategic man-
agement. Business strategic issues comprise vision, mission, core values, and
strategic themes. Certainly the setting of appropriate business strategic issues
requires effective market-related informational products, services, and support.
In this regard to support business analysts and executives, the hyper-function of
marketology should contribute to carrying out useful market-related analysis

and making effective market-related decisions based on its IGDEE services and
market DIKII products (Ullah et al. 2014; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015;
Robbins and Judge 2015; Porter 1998b, 2007, 2008; Babatunde and Adebisi
2012; Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Griffin 2013; Smith et al. 2006; Srivastava
et al. 2001; Trim 2006; Ballard et al. 2006; Moorman and Rust 1999; Slater
and Olson 2001; Sinkula et al. 1997; MacInnis 2011; Dess et al. 2013, 2015;
Day 2013; Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Mintzberg 2013; Aghazadeh
2015; Boyer et al. 2010; Wright 2013; Weerawardena and O’Cass 2004; Kaplan
and Norton 2001; Chandler & Ulrich 2016; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Ekerson
2007; Skyrius et al. 2013; Ulwick 2012; Gibson et al. 2012).
MOC to Business Strategic Issues

Marketology contributes to business strategic issues through supporting exec-
utives to carry out appropriate analysis and make the right decisions in put-
ting together a business’s vision, mission, core values, and strategic themes.
4.3.9 Exinternal Business Analysis

Most of a business’s analytical and executional matters closely pertain to and
depend upon business exinternal (external–internal) analysis. In other words
business analysts and executives widely apply the outcomes of business external
and internal analysis in making decisions and taking actions to accomplish busi-
ness organizational design (BOD), business organizational behavior (BOB),
business governance, business strategic management, business strategic issues,
business success, and so on. Business external analysis or business environment
analysis embraces the examination of factors and forces of macro and micro
environments. Business internal or inside analysis contains examination of the
internal factors of an organization. There are different models and frameworks
for business exinternal (external–internal) analysis. Such analysis is expected to
represent a comprehensive and realistic recognition of both within and out-
side the business.7 Business exinternal (external–internal) analysis perhaps is
the most substantial matter that needs market-related informational products
and services to be completed appropriately. Thus to support the business ana-
lysts and executives, the hyper-function of marketology should contribute to
conducting influential analysis of the environmental factors and forces which
are external to business, as well as inside factors which are internal to a business
based on its IGDEE services and market DIKII products (Davenport et al.
2006; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Kaplan and Norton 2001; Chandler & Ulrich
2016; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Porter 1985, 2008; Ekerson 2007; Skyrius
et al. 2013; Ulwick 2012; Dess et al. 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Cravens and
Piercy 2013; Kotler 2003; Barney and Hesterly 2011; Grant 2013; Teece et al.
1997; Teece and Pisano 1994; Kotter 2015; Kaplan 2010; Hamel and Prahalad
1994; Daft 2016; Morgan et al. 2000; Yami et al. 2010; Rothaermel 2014;
Campbell and Craig 2011; Webster 2008; Kotler and Keller 2015; Grant and
Jordan 2012; Bryson et al. 2011; Chernev 2014; Lado et al. 1992).
308 H. AGHAZADEH
MOC to Exinternal Business Analysis

Marketology contribues to exinternal business analysis through support-
ing executives to conduct appropriate analysis of environmental/external
factors or forces and also internal/inside factors of businesses.
4.3.10 Business Stakeholders
Stakeholders as the entities or bodies who have a stake in a business’s success are
always vital and an undeniable consideration for businesses. There are different
models and frameworks for business stakeholder analysis. Two key matters in this
regard are the interest/importance and power/influence of stakeholders that
should be taken into account by business executives when dealing with them.
Business stakeholders are classified according to two main groups: external and
internal stakeholders. The external stakeholders of business include customers,
collaborators/partners, mediators/channels, competitors, government, and so
on; the internal stakeholders of business are shareholders, managers, employees,
departments, groups, committees, and so on. The key matter about business
stakeholder analysis is to understand their attributes and behaviors precisely. In
this regard to support the business analysts and executives, the hyper-function
of marketology should contribute to conducting fruitful stakeholder analysis
and consequently making effective decisions and taking efficient actions for each
group of stakeholders based on its IGDEE services and market DIKII prod-
ucts (Rothaermel 2014; Kotler 2003; Campbell and Craig 2011; Webster 2008;
Kotler and Keller 2015; Grant and Jordan 2012; Bryson et al. 2011; Chernev
2014; Lado et al. 1992; Teece 2010; Tonsetic 2012; Katz 2009; Hatch and
Cunliffe 2013; Mintzberg 2013; Aghazadeh 2015; Boyer et al. 2010; Wright
2013; Weerawardena and O’Cass 2004; Ulrich et al. 2012; Davenport and Harris
2007; Coyne and Horn 2009; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; Thompson et al. 2013;
Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Walker and Madsen 2015; Lopez 2014;
Ackermann and Eden 2011; Piercy 1998; Lehman and Winer 2007).
MOC to Business Stakeholders

Marketology contributes to business stakeholder analysis through supporting
the executives to carry out appropriate analysis, decision-making, and action-
taking in dealing with both external and internal business stakeholders.
4.3.11 Business Value Proposition

There is no doubt that the ultimate purpose of every business is to continually
produce and provide superior value proposition to the key stakeholders (spe-
cifically customers). Business value proposition can be categorized according to
two main groups: strategic and tactical.
Business strategic values (BSV) consist of strategic directions and themes,
identity (brand, image), responsibilities (creating shared value (CSV) and cor-
porate social responsibility (CSR)), background, and leadership composition.

Business tactical values (BTV) concern product (customer solution), price
(cost), place (customer access), promotion (communication), process (conve-
nience), people (contact), property (context), productivity (customer per-
ceived quality), and performance (customer 3R: reach, retain, and return)
(Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Osterwalder et al. 2005, 2015; McNaughton
et al. 2001; Doyle 2009; Marr 2015b; Argandona 2011; Aghazadeh 2016;
Best 2012; Kotler and Keller 2015; Strategyzer 2015a; Osterwalder and
Pigneur 2013; Day 1990, 2013; Aaker 2010, 2014; Chernev 2014; Ballard
et al. 2006; Moorman and Rust 1999; Slater and Olson 2001; Sinkula et al.
1997; Davenport et al. 2006; Davenport and Harris 2007; Coyne and Horn
2009; Dodgson et al. 2015; Olszak 2014; Aghazadeh and Esfidani 2007;
Chaffey 2014; Lambert 2014; Auh and Merlo 2012; Dess et al. 2013).
MOC to Business Value Proposition

Marketology contributes to business value proposition through helping execu-
tives to effectively decide and act on what value proposition to create and
how to deliver it to the key stakeholders.

practice (MIP)
(4-3) MOC: Business-based contributions (2)
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Business strategic management
2. Business strategic issues
3. Exinternal business analysis
4. Business stakeholders
5. Business value proposition

310 H. AGHAZADEH
4.4 MOC: Marketology-Based Contributions
4.4.1 Marketology-Based Contributions
The categories and focuses of marketology-based contributions are illustrated
in Figure 4.5.
The above-mentioned categories of marketology-based contributions
involving marketology success, marketology design, marketology behavior,
marketology strategic management (MSM), marketology pillars, marketology
products and services, marketology hierarchy and audiences, and marketology
requests and presentation are explained in the sections that follow (Buzzell and
Ortmeyer 1994; Desiraju and Moorthy 1997; Friedman and Furey 1999; Franz
and Kirchmer 2013; McClinton 2015; Kaplan 2010; Hitt et al. 2015; Hamel
and Prahalad 1994; Grant 2013; Luthans et al. 2015; Aghazadeh 2016; Javidan
1998; Kotter 2015; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; Feurer and Chaharbaghi 1994;
Campbell and Craig 2011; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Porter 1998a;
Category Focus
Marketology success Internal and external marketology, success and effectiveness
Marketology organizational design (MOD): structure, culture, process, people,

Marketology design
asset, technology, innovation and communication
Marketology organizational behavior (MOB): governance, strategy, business

Marketology behavior
and environment analysis, stakeholders analysis, value and performance
Marketology strategic Scanning and analysis, decision-making, setting strategic issues, crafting strategy
management (MSM) and planning, executing and action-taking, and evaluating/controlling
Marketology pillar Recognition, realization and relationship
Marketology hierarchy - Strategic, tactical and operational
and audience - Analyst, decision-maker and action-taker
Marketology requests - Standard and customized; tangible and intangible
and presentation - River and container
- Marketology products: market DIKII

Marketology value
- Marketology services: IGDEE
proposition
- Handled by MOB relying on MOD
Figure 4.5 MOC: marketology-based contributions

Barney 2011; Cameron and Green 2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015;
Aaker 2016; Balboni et al. 2010; LaValle 2009a; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom
2002; Strategyzer 2015a; Cognos-IBM 2010; Edgar and Lockwood 2010;
Quinn and Spreitzer 1991; Gupta and Benson 2011; Aghazadeh and Esfidani
2007; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Srivastava et al. 1999; Hillman and
Keim 2001; Bengston 2013; Jackson 2013a, b; Lavoix 2012; Morphy 2016).
4.4.2 Marketology Success
The hyper-function of marketology as an organizational subsystem firstly should
perform in a way than achieves solidification, establishment, functioning, and
expansion within an organization in the form of internal marketology. Secondly
it should be able to play its supportive role successfully through the identifica-
tion, generation, dissemination, exploitation, and evaluation (IGDEE) of market
data, information, knowledge, intelligence, and insight (DIKII) to assist in effec-
tive decision-making and efficient action-taking in the form of external marketol-
ogy. Thus the marketology success refers to the accomplishment and effectiveness
of internal and external marketology. The contributions of external marketology
were discussed previously from a business-based perspective. Now the contribu-
tions of internal marketology are intended as a marketology-based perspective.
However, as has been discussed repeatedly, internal and external marketology are
not separate but are closely connected. Thus to realize marketology success the
marketology organizational contribution (MOC) should play an influential role
in performing and fulfilling marketology organizational architecture (MOA),
marketology organizational design (MOD), marketology organizational behav-
ior (MOB), and marketology strategic management (MSM) properly (Friedman
and Furey 1999; Lambert et al. 2005; Morgan et al. 2000; Osterwalder and
Pigneur 2013; Porter 1998a; Barney 2011; Cameron and Green 2015;
Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Daft
2016; Ballard et al. 2006; Robbins and Judge 2015; Tidd and Bessant 2014;
Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Quinn and Spreitzer
1991; Gupta and Benson 2011; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Srivastava et al.
1999; Hillman and Keim 2001; IMA 1996a, b, c, d; Jackson 2011; LaValle
2009b; Fiegenbaum et al. 1991; Lavoix 2012; Morphy 2016; Herring 1999).
Contribution to Marketology Success

The success and effectiveness of marketology is ensured primarily through
performing MOD, MOB, MSM, and so on.
4.4.3 Marketology Design
Marketology organizational design (MOD) is one of the key components of mar-
ketology organizational architecture (MOA) as well as one of the key pillars of
marketology strategic management (MSM) and marketology success. The MOD
embraces the significant components of structure, culture, process, people, asset,
technology, innovation, and communication. Thus to form and h andle MOD for
312 H. AGHAZADEH
marketology success, the hyper-function of marketology should contribute to the

accurate setting and running of its components and the relevant decisions and
actions8 (Lambert et al. 2005; Morgan et al. 2000; Moorman and Rust 1999;
Robbins and Judge 2015; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Thompson et al. 2013; Phelps
et al. 2007; Luthans et al. 2015; Griffin 2013; Daft 2016; Kotter 2015; Kaplan
2010; Porter 1996; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012;
Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Kumar et al. 2001; Lings and Greenley 2009; Lytle
and Timmerman 2006; Mavondo et al. 2005; Boyer et al. 2010; Dresner 2008;
Kamel et al. 2012; Jaworski et al. 2002; Wright 2013; Hillman and Keim 2001;
IMA 1996a, b, c, d; Jackson 2011; LaValle 2009b; Fiegenbaum et al. 1991; Miller
and Smith 2011; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; Pike
et al. 2005; Morphy 2016; Herring 1999, 2002; Cravens and Piercy 2013).
Contribution to Marketology Design

MOD is contributed to through arranging and handling the components of
structure, culture, process, people, asset, technology, innovation, communica-
tion, and so on.
4.4.4 Marketology Behavior
Marketology organizational behavior (MO) is one of the key components of mar-
ketology organizational architecture (MOA) as well as one of the key pillars of
marketology strategic management (MSM) and marketology success. MOB com-
prises the significant components of governance, strategy, business environment
and inside analysis, external and internal stakeholder analysis, value, and perfor-
mance. Thus to set and run MOB for marketology success, the hyper-function of
marketology should contribute to appropriately forming and leading its compo-
nents, and relevant decisions, and actions9 (Moorman and Rust 1999; Slater and
Olson 2001; Sinkula et al. 1997; MacInnis 2011; Mavondo et al. 2005; Grant
2013; Beverland and Lockshin 2001; Hitt et al. 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Ballard
et al. 2006; Gibson et al. 2012; Lambert 2014; Barney and Clark 2007; Aghazadeh
2008, 2016; Boyer et al. 2010; Dresner 2008; Kamel et al. 2012; Jaworski et al.
2002; Wright 2013; Mintzberg 2013; Ulrich et al. 2012; Davenport and Harris
2007; Coyne and Horn 2009; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Barnes and Milton
2015; Thompson et al. 2013; Metayer 2013; Miller and Smith 2011; Osterwalder
and Pigneur 2013; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; Pike et al. 2005; Pitelis 2008;
Ventana 2010; Verna 2008; Webster 2008; IMA 1996a, b, c, d; Cravens and
Piercy 2013; Teece 2010; Best 2012; Griffin 2013; Doyle 2009).
Contribution to Marketology Behavior

MOB is contributed to through the forming and running of its component
parts which include governance, strategy, business environment and inside
analysis, external and internal stakeholder analysis, value, performance,
and so on.
4.4.5 Marketology Strategic Management (MSM)

Marketology governance represents the way of forming, establishing, leading,
performing, controlling, and developing the hyper-function of marketology
within an organization to ensure success and effectiveness based on building
good relationships between its internal and external bodies—for example, the
management team of marketology and business executives and market-related
decision-makers. In parallel with its governance the marketology strategic
management (MSM) refers to the pattern of leading the hyper-function of
marketology to achieve its objectives regarding both external and internal con-
ditions within an organization on a long-term basis. The MSM as a process
comprises the steps of analyzing, formulating, implementing, evaluating, and
improving marketology strategy. It is apparent that this process contains both
decision-making and action-taking by the delegates and managers of marketol-
ogy. Therefore, to realize marketology governance and accomplish marketol-
ogy strategic management (MSM) the hyper-function of marketology should
conduct external and internal analysis (SWOT analysis), and formulate, imple-
ment, and evaluate strategy. For this purpose, the marketology should contrib-
ute to conducting real-time analysis, making effective decisions, and taking
efficient actions based on its IGDEE services and market DIKII products10
(Hakansson and Ford 2002; Grefen et al. 2007; Brandenburger and Nalebuff
1996; Srivastava et al. 2001; Trim 2006; Ulwick 2012; Amit and Schoemaker
1993; Barney 1991, 2001; Bettis and Hitt 1995; Hamel and Prahalad 1994;
Makadok 2001; Nonaka 1994; Otola et al. 2013; Porter 1998b, 2007, 2008;
Peng et al. 2009; Atwong and Rosenbloom 1995; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016;
Jaworski et al. 2002; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Walker and
Madsen 2015; Lopez 2014; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Piercy 1998; Lehman
and Winer 2007; Evans 2015; Babatunde and Adebisi 2012; Cameron and
Green 2015; White and Bruton 2011; OnStrategy 2014; Thompson et al.
2013; Grant 2013; Hitt et al. 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Gibson et al.
2012; Ballard et al. 2006).
Contribution to Marketology Strategic Management (MSM)

MSM is contributed to through performing good analysis, decision-making,
and action-taking for crafting, executing, evaluating, and revising mar-
ketology strategy; and also leading, performing, controlling, and developing
marketology within an organization to ensure its success based on its IGDEE
services and market DIKII products.
4.4.6 Marketology Pillars
The inherent hyper-function of marketology has been defined as a cognitive
capability which supports business executives to make effective market-related
decisions and take efficient market-related actions to accomplish business
314 H. AGHAZADEH
s uccess. In this regard the main function of marketology seems to be providing

market-related recognition. But the fact is that properly utilizing the provided
recognition and realization of its outcomes in decisions and actions is very
important too. What is needed to facilitate a synergic and effective link between
recognition and its application is relationship. Thus recognition, realization,
and relationship are considered as the key pillars of marketology. Hence mar-
ketology should contribute to providing useful recognition; paving the way for
realization of the recognition in decisions and actions; and forming influential
relationships between them based on its IGDEE services and market DIKII
products11 (Sinkula et al. 1997; MacInnis 2011; Morgan and Turnell 2003;
Auh and Merlo 2012; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Aghazadeh 2016; Barnes
and Milton 2015; Thompson et al. 2013; Metayer 2013; Day 1999; Smith and
Raspin 2008; Davenport & Prusak 2000; Hansen 1999; Hart et al. 1999;
Langley 1991; Liyanage et al. 2009; March 1991; Nijssen and Frambach 2001;
Davenport 1997; Pike et al. 2005; Pitelis 2008; Strategyzer 2015b; Ventana
2010; Verna 2008; Webster 1994, 2008; Gartner 2013; HP 2012; Kohli and
Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Farrell and
Oczkowski 2002; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Aghazadeh and Esfidani
2007; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Howson 2008; SAS 2005; Griffin 2013; Doyle
2009; Kaur 2015; Rodrigues and Pinho 2012).
Contribution to Marketology Pillars

Marketology pillars are contributed to by providing good market-related
recognition; facilitating the realization of delivered recognition in market-
related decisions and actions; and forming a good relationship between rec-
ognition and realization within an organization to ensure its success based
on its IGDEE services and market DIKII products.
4.4.7 Marketology Hierarchy and Audience

Marketology has been defined and considered as a hyper-function which oper-
ates and contributes to target audiences across the organization. Thus, regard-
ing the hierarchical levels of an organization, the hierarchy of marketology
organizational contributions (MOC) can be determined as strategic, tactical,
and operational levels. In this regard the target clients of marketology contri-
butions might be every person, group, department and even council or com-
mittee within an organization. Among the principal audiences may be business
analysts, decision-makers, and action-takers throughout the organization at
certain hierarchical levels. Thus in order to contribute better the hyper-function
of marketology firstly should find out who the target audiences are, where they
are located within the organizational hierarchy, and what their characteristics
are. Then marketology can contribute to making audiences compatible with
their conditions through its products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE)
(Nasri 2012; Boyer et al. 2010; Hunt and Lambe 2000; Marland et al. 2014;
Jansen et al. 2009; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Barnes and Milton 2015;
Thompson et al. 2013; Metayer 2013; Day 1994, 1999; Aghazadeh 2008,
2016; Smith and Raspin 2008; Davenport & Prusak 2000; Moorman and Rust
1999; Slater and Olson 2001; Sinkula et al. 1997; MacInnis 2011; Mavondo
et al. 2005; Dresner 2008; Kamel et al. 2012; Jaworski et al. 2002; Wright
2013; Barney 2011; Cameron and Green 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Kotter
2015; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Dess et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Ballard
et al. 2006; Robbins and Judge 2015; Tidd and Bessant 2014; Edgar and
Lockwood 2010; Gupta and Benson 2011; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b;
Srivastava et al. 1999; Hillman and Keim 2001).
Contribution to Marketology Hierarchy and Audience

Marketology hierarchy and audience are contributed to through providing
marketology products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE) compatible
with the attributes of target audiences and their location within the organi-
zational hierarchy.
4.4.8 Marketology Requests and Presentation

Diversified audiences or clients of marketology organizational contributions
(MOC) across the organization may have different market-related infor-
mational needs and requests for various intentions (for example, analysis,
decision-making, action-taking, and so on). However, there may be several
market-related informational demands and orders which are alike and com-
mon to the entire organization or at least one hierarchical level (i.e. strategic,
tactical, or operational). In this way the market-related informational needs
and requests of target audiences throughout an organization can be classified
according to two main categories: standard market information river (SMIR)
and order-based market information containers (OMIC). As a primary activ-
ity marketology launches a standard market information river (SMIR) in a
network format throughout the enterprise in which flows and feeds general
market DIKII. All people, units, and functions (PUF) within an organization
can utilize such market DIKII based on the access level. As a supporting activ-
ity marketology contributes to the requests of the target audiences (PUF) for
specific market DIKII throughout the organization by providing order-based
market information containers (OMIP). Thus the hyper-function of maketol-
ogy should attempt to contribute to the target audiences/clients through both
standard and customized marketology products (market DIKII) and services
(IGDEE). In addition the presentation of marketology products and services
might be in both tangible and intangible formats. For instance, the service of
gathering market data using several delegates of marketology can be consid-
ered as a tangible service; whereas analyzing the gathered data and transferring
the generated information via an electronic file to an audience can be regarded
as an intangible product and service.
316 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology organizational contributions (MOC) as SMIR and OMIC are

accomplished through the following process of primary and supportive activi-
ties. The target audiences (PUF) and their market DIKII needs are recognized
(either standard or ordered/customized); the right market data are gathered
from the right sources using the right methods and tools; the gathered data are
analyzed and interpreted; the useful market DIKII are generated; the right
market DIKII matched with the target audiences’ needs are flowed in rivers or
filled in containers and disseminated to them via the right transmitting channel;
the transferred products follow to be received by the target audiences and assis-
tance is provided for these to be applied; the feedbacks and evaluations are
collected; the steps of process and procedure are restarted by considering the
probable corrections and improvements (Hunt and Lambe 2000; Hakansson
and Snehota 1995; Marland et al. 2014; Jansen et al. 2009; Langley 1991;
Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Liyanage et al. 2009; March 1991; Nijssen and
Frambach 2001; Davenport 1997; Pfeffer and Sutton 2000; Piercy 1990;
Schlegelmilch and Chini 2003; Smith et al. 2006; Srivastava et al. 2001; Trim
2006; Ulwick 2012; Amit and Schoemaker 1993; Webster 1994; Gartner
2013; HP 2012; Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Howson 2008; SAS 2005; Hohhof
1994; Jaworski et al. 2002; Fiegenbaum et al. 1996; Jiang 2009; Fleisher and
Bensoussan 2003; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990; Baker
and Sinkula 1999; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002).
Contribution to Requests and Presentation

Responses to the requests of target audiences are contributed to by providing
marketology products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE) matched with
their needs—and presented in SMIR and OMIC formats. In general the
presentation of marketology products and services can be in tangible, intan-
gible, or both formats.
4.4.9 Marketology Value Proposition (MVP)

Marketology value proposition embraces all offerings of marketology to a busi-
ness/enterprise as marketology organizational contribution (MOC). However
the major elements of its value proposition include marketology products and
services as the main outputs of marketology system. In this regard the key ques-
tion is which market the marketology should focus? An enterprise may deal
with different markets: labor market, technology market, information market,
finance market, purchase market, and sales market. Marketology can be linked
or related to all mentioned markets; but it should focus more on sales market
in which an enterprise exchange and capture value (Otola et al. 2013; Peng
et al. 2009; Atwong and Rosenbloom 1995; Jaworski et al. 2002; Fiegenbaum
et al. 1996; Jiang 2009; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2003; Nasri 2012; Cognos-
IBM 2009a, b; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Boyer et al. 2010; Miguel 2011;
Dess et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Ballard et al. 2006; Robbins and Judge 2015;
Gibson et al. 2012; Kotter 2015; Kaplan 2010; Pant 2009; SAP 2015;
Sulkowski 2012; Czepiel and Kerin 2012; Zaltman 2006; Amit and Zott 2012;
Fuld 1995; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Osterwalder et al. 2005, 2015;
McNaughton et al. 2001; Doyle 2009; Marr 2015b; Argandona 2011; Best
2012; Kotler and Keller 2015; Strategyzer 2015a; Osterwalder and Pigneur
2013; Day 1990; Aaker 2010, 2014; Chernev 2014).
Contribution to Value Proposition

Marketology value proposition (MVP) is contributed to by MOB based on
MOD through providing marketology products (market DIKII) and ser-
vices (IGDEE) that are compatible with sales markets.

practice (MIP)
(4-4) MOC: Marketology-based contributions
Guideline (FOCUS)
Set out a report, present it to the class/organization,n and do an evaluation
1. Marketology-based contributions
2. Marketology success
3. Marketology design
4. Marketology behavior
5. Marketology strategic management (MSM) and governance
6. Marketology pillars
7. Marketology hierarchy and audience
8. Marketology requests and presentation

318 H. AGHAZADEH
4.5 MOC: Market DIKII and IGDEE Services
4.5.1 Marketology Products (Market DIKII) and Services (IGDEE)

The categories and focuses of marketology products and services are illustrated
in Figure 4.6.
Marketology products comprise market data, market information, market
knowledge, market intelligence, and market insight (market DIKII). In fact
the cycle of marketology products is fulfilled by the application of the products
which are considered in marketology services. Marketology services as the main
steps of its process include identification, generation, dissemination, exploita-
tion, and evaluation (IGDEE) services. The identification, generation, and dis-
semination (IGD) are the core services of marketology which result in delivering
the recognition to the target audiences. The exploitation and evaluation (EE) are
the complementary services of marketology which assist the target clients (i.e.
business analysts and executives) to apply the recognition and improve the pro-
cess (Sinkula et al. 1997; MacInnis 2011; Morgan and Turnell 2003; Auh and
Merlo 2012; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Webster 2008; Farrell and Oczkowski
2002; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Aghazadeh and Esfidani 2007; Aaker
2010; Narver and Slater 1990; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Cognos-IBM
2009a, b; Howson 2008; Osterwalder et al. 2015; SAS 2005; Doyle 2009; Kaur
2015; Rodrigues and Pinho 2012; Strategyzer 2015b; Gartner 2013; HP 2012;
Aghazadeh 2016; Sulkowski 2012; Czepiel and Kerin 2012; Zaltman 2006).
4.5.2
Dynamics of Market DIKII and IGDEE Services
It should be noted that the marketology products (market DIKII) and services
(IGDEE) are the fundamental marketology organizational contributions
(MOC) because they are the foundations for all marketology contributions. In
other words every contribution of marketology can be accomplished based on
marketology products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE). Obviously the
marketology products and services can be provided as foundations of marketol-
ogy contributions throughout the organization based on all the building blocks
of the marketology system such as MOA, MOD, MOB, and so on.12 The rela-
tionship between marketology products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE)
is illustrated in Figure 4.7 (Cognos-IBM 2009a, b; Howson 2008; Osterwalder
Category Focus
Marketology Market DIKII:
product data, information, knowledge, intelligence, and insight
Marketology IGDEE services:
service identification, generation, dissemination, exploitation, and evaluation
Figure 4.6 MOC: marketology products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE)
Complementary
services (EE)
Idenficaon
Evaluaon Generaon
Market Data,
Informaon,
Knowledge,
Intelligence, Insight
(DIKII)
Exploitaon Disseminaon
Core services (IGD)
Figure 4.7 Dynamics of market DIKII and IGDEE services
et al. 2005, 2015; SAS 2005; Doyle 2009; Kaur 2015; Rodrigues and Pinho
2012; Strategyzer 2015a, b; Gartner 2013; HP 2012; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015,
2016; Sulkowski 2012; Czepiel and Kerin 2012; Zaltman 2006; Amit and Zott
2012; Fuld 1995; McNaughton et al. 2001; Marr 2015b; Argandona 2011;
Best 2012; Kotler and Keller 2015; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Day 1990;
Aaker 2014; Chernev 2014; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999;
Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Rothaermel 2014; Kotler 2003; Campbell and
Craig 2011; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Jaworski et al. 2002).
MOC to Marketology Products and Services

The fundamental marketology organizational contributions (MOC) are
marketology products; these include market data, market information, mar-
ket knowledge, market intelligence, and market insight (market DIKII);
and also marketology services, which involve the identification, generation,
and dissemination (IGD: as core services), and exploitation and evaluation
(EE: as complementary services). Marketology products and services should
be provided by the complete capacity of the marketology system based on mar-
ketology strategic management (MSM), marketology organizational archi-
tecture (MOA), marketology organizational design (MOD), marketology
organizational behavior (MOB), and so on.
320 H. AGHAZADEH
4.5.3 MOC Versus Market-Related Functions

Marketology and market/marketing research may seem to be the same thing
and interchangeable yet they are quite different. There may be some contradic-
tions between the activities of marketology and market-related functions/units
of an organization such as strategy, business, marketing, and, also, market/
marketing research that are involved in gathering and analyzing market infor-
mation for their own use. In fact the market-related functions of strategy, busi-
ness, and marketing are not expected to gather, analyze, or generate market
DIKII; rather, they should be used to provided market DIKII to decide and
act appropriately in the relevant fields. Therefore, it is preferable that market
DIKII is provided by a specialized function such as marketology.
It may be argued that the fundamental responsibilities of market/market-
ing research are gathering, analyzing, and providing market information to
PUF; therefore it may overlap or be in conflict with marketology. The fact is
that market/marketing research is defined as a traditional, official, structured,
and mostly problem-oriented research process which entails complete research
procedure (time-consuming and costly) and mainly focuses on the marketing
concerns, issues, and areas; whereas marketology focuses market-related issues
and concerns across the enterprise that are beyond simply marketing issues and
furthermore beyond a classic research process.
In order to better understanding the importance of this to the business envi-
ronment, it would be useful to use the analogy of a situation of war (an intense
and ever-changing environment associated with a battlefield). Considering the
vital importance of gathering intelligence on the enemy’s activities in winning
on the battlefield, the situation must be monitored and updated constantly and
precisely. The competition rules are the same in the business field, the differ-
ence being that the fight for territory (e.g. market share, customer acquisition,
value creating, and so on) is against multiple competitors rather than living
soldiers in the field of battle. In this regard if an enterprise concentrates only
on market/marketing research and neglects marketology, it won’t be able to
obtain a pervasive and timely view on the competition field, and hence the
market position of the company may be threatened.
Marketology and market/marketing research are compared in Figure 4.8, based
on the aspects of analytical skills, analyst background, input needs, integration style,
orientation, information scope, communication method, and people and process.
In addition, marketology has advantages that distinguish it from market/
marketing research: being close to the market and in touch with the audiences;
providing needed and standard market DIKII; covering the entire organization
(PUF); preparing easy-access and updated flow of market DIKII; presenting
information interactively and in a user-friendly manner; acting quickly and flu-
ently away from red tape; applying IT and modern tools/infrastructures effec-
tively; using social media/networks (Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter,
and so on); working in an intelligent, integrative, and synergic way; and utilizing
economy of scale (Moran 2010; KPMG 2014a, b; Rietberg 2015; Murphy
2015; Robbins 2011; Barbu 2013; ESOMAR 2014; Micu et al. 2011; Kaden
et al. 2012; Raconteur 2015; Aghazadeh 2016; Ackermann and Eden 2011;
Marketology Market/marketing research
Analysis of business, market/ industry,
Analytical skills customers, competitors, business value Behavioral science
chain, and environmental dynamics
Analyst
Financial or business management Mathematical background
background
Input needs A wide set of information Traditional marketing research data
The company forecasting process, product

Integration style All aspects of the business
development process, and other business systems.
Constantly and comprehensively Periodically providing responses to the declared

Orientation
understanding market problems
Market, company (product/brand),

Information scope Highly focused on customers and market analysis
customer, competitor information
Providing an assessment of a specific issue, or

Communication
Full dialogue with client/decision maker measuring a specific market dynamic by limited
method
interaction
A closed-loop process which constantly
captures information from many sources, Focusing on answering specific questions, or

people and process
assesses it, and uses it during the ongoing tracking specific issues as defined tasks
business decision-making process.
Figure 4.8 MOC versus market/marketing research
Webster 2008; Farrell and Oczkowski 2002; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015;
Day 1990; Aaker 2010, 2013, 2014; Chernev 2014; Kotler 2003; Mason 1939;
Porter 1996; Gray and Stites 2013; Morgan et al. 2000; Moorman and Rust
1999; Slater and Olson 2001; Sinkula et al. 1997; MacInnis 2011; Morgan
and Turnell 2003; Auh and Merlo 2012; Hunt and Lambe 2000; Kohli and
Jaworski 1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Best 2012; Kotler and Keller 2015).
4.5.4 Cooperative MOC
In spite of the differences between marketology and market-related func-
tions of organization (business, strategy, marketing, and market/marketing
research) they can work together. In accordance with the maturity of marke-
tology within an enterprise marketology can be placed separately, interact with,
or be applied within the market-related functions at the different hierarchical
levels (strategic, tactical, and operational). The hyper-function of marketol-
322 H. AGHAZADEH
ogy is not launched separately but the executives believe that it is required to
work alongside market-related functions (business, strategy, marketing, and
market/marketing research). In this situation the activities of marketology can
be placed within one or several market-related functions. The hyper-function
of marketology is launched separately and works within a organization; simul-
taneously the market-related functions are working. In this situation marketol-
ogy can be set up separately or in cooperation with market-related functions.
Therefore, it can be concluded that in any situation marketology and market-
related functions would be better to work together in contributing market
DIKII and IGDEE services to assist the audiences (PUF) to make effective
market-related decisions and take efficient market-related actions. Similar to the
pervasive fields of project management and knowledge management, in which
such functions often are coordinated respectively by project management office
(PMO) and knowledge management office (KMO), the cooperative contribu-
tions of marketology can be coordinated by a marketology management center
(MMC)13 (Morgan and Turnell 2003; Auh and Merlo 2012; Hunt and Lambe
2000; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Aghazadeh 2008,
2015; Best 2012; Kotler and Keller 2015; Zaltman 2006; Phelps et al. 2007;
Beverland and Lockshin 2001; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Larcker and
Tayan 2013; GIA 2010c; Day 1990, 1992, 2003; Allard 2004; Crowley 2004;
Dobney 2015; Slater and Olson 2001; Meyer 1991; Varadarajan 2010; Day

practice (MIP)
(4-5) MOC: market DIKII and IGDEE services
Guideline (FOCUS)
• Marketology-based contributions
• Marketology products (market DIKII) and services (IGDEE)
• Dynamics of market DIKII and IGDEE services
• MOC versus market-related functions
• Cooperative MOC
• Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and

et al. 1990; Xin 2009; Wysocki et al. 2015; Moran 2010; KPMG 2014a, b;
Rietberg 2015; Murphy 2015; Robbins 2011; Barbu 2013; ESOMAR 2014;
Micu et al. 2011; Kaden et al. 2012; Raconteur 2015).
4.6 MOC: Marketology Content Analysis

(Engineering)
4.6.1 MOC Contents
The market DIKII and IGDEE services are vital and substantial matters for
marketology contributions, performance, success, and effectiveness in support-
ing business market-related analysis, decisions, and actions. Therefore, it would
be fruitful to examine and discuss the market DIKII and IGDEE services in
detail, with an emphasis on their content and component parts. The IGDEE
services, as the steps of marketology process, are explained and discussed fully
in Volume 1 of this book. The market DIKII, as the outputs of the marketol-
ogy system, are described extensively in both Volumes 1 and 2 of this book.
But the fact is that market DIKII still requires complementary examination to
integrate the pertaining materials in the form of a comprehensive expression.
In order to define the appropriate content of MOC first several issues/
dimensions should be examined; these include business life cycle (BLC), hier-
archy and audience, requests and presentation, marketology organizational
design (MOD), marketology organizational behavior (MOB), and so on. In
accordance with such aspects a more customized and fruitful content of MOC
can be contemplated. For instance, consider the two cases outlined below and
how each shows the different content of MOC or market DIKII:
Case (1): A business in the start-up stage of BLC, the hierarchy is the operational
level, the audience is the market analyst, the request is representing new market
opportunities to enter, and the presentation format is a descriptive market moni-
toring report.
Case (2): A business is in the decline stage of BLC, the hierarchy is at the strategic
level, the audience is the senior executive, the request is for an innovative field/prod-
uct to renew the business trend, and the presentation format is an executive summary.
In this way the elements, features, and priorities of the MOC content can
be determined precisely. For this purpose, the comprehensive business analy-
sis (CBA) and stakeholder view can be useful. However the CBA view covers
stakeholder view (Coyne and Horn 2009; Montgomery et al. 2005; Fahey
1999; Day and Nedungadi 1994; Dranove et al. 1998; Kumar et al. 1990;
Porter 2007; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Cognos-IBM 2010; Howson
2008; Osterwalder et al. 2015; Doyle 2009; Kaur 2015; Rodrigues and Pinho
2012; Gartner 2013; Sulkowski 2012; Czepiel and Kerin 2012; Zaltman 2006;
Otola et al. 2013; Peng et al. 2009; Jaworski et al. 2002; Fiegenbaum et al.
1996; Jiang 2009; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Nasri 2012; Aghazadeh
2016; Boyer et al. 2010; Miguel 2011; Dess et al. 2015).
324 H. AGHAZADEH
4.6.2 Comprehensive Business Analysis (CBA)

In accordance with a comprehensive business analysis (CBA) view the business
analysis includes environment analysis, market analysis, internal analysis, and
stakeholder analysis. The environment and market analysis refer to examining
opportunities, threats, trends, and scenarios of macro and micro environments
as well as the market. The internal analysis represents investigating strengths,
weaknesses, and trends of internal factors that affect organizational performance
and the management system. The stakeholder analysis depicts examining internal
and external role players who have a stake in business performance and success.
The macro environment comprises the political, economic, socio-cultural,
technological, legal, and ecological forces at national/local and international/
global levels. The micro environment comprises customers, suppliers, competi-
tors, mediators/channels, collaborators, and so on. Market analysis involves
determining the attractiveness and dynamics of the market, market size and
growth, market cost structure and profitability, market channels and infrastruc-
tures, emerging markets, and key success factors of market. The internal factors
comprise the elements of models such as classic functions (e.g. marketing, man-
ufacturing, and so on), value chain (e.g. primary and supportive activities),
European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) (e.g. enablers, results,
innovation, and so on), Balanced Scorecard (BSC) (e.g. customer, financial,
internal process, and so on), 7S (e.g. system, strategy, staff, and so on) and so on
(Aaker 2013; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2007; Smith and Raspin 2008; Dess et al.
2015; Reeves et al. 2014; McKinsey 2008; Banahene 2010; Qiu 2008; Clark
and Montgomery 1999; Peteraf and Bergen 2003; Coyne and Horn 2009;
Aghazadeh 2016, Montgomery et al. 2005; Fahey 1999; Day and Nedungadi
1994; Dranove et al. 1998; Kumar et al. 1990; Porter 2007; Teece 2010).
Note
The business environment analysis (both macro and micro), business
market analysis, business internal analysis, and business stakeholder analy-
sis (both external and internal) have been discussed in general repeatedly
in Volumes 1 and 2.14 Hence they will not be discussed further. But in
order to complete the content of marketology organizational contribu-
tions (MOC) it is required to explore business stakeholder analysis in
detail and investigate the stakeholders further.
4.6.3 Business Stakeholder Analysis (Engineering)

The stakeholders are the people, groups, and organizations that affect the
organization, are affected by the practices of the organization, and have a stake
in the organization’s performance and success. Stakeholder management is the
organizational strategy for identifying and responding to the interests, expecta-
tions, influence/power, and satisfaction of stakeholders.
Business stakeholders as depicted in Figure 4.9 and can be classified accord-
ing to two main categories: internal stakeholders and external stakeholders.
Collaborators
Government Channels
Shareholders
Suppliers
Managers Customers
Employees
NGOs & Unions

Public & Media
Competors
Figure 4.9 Business stakeholders
The main external stakeholders of business include the customer, competi-

tor, suppliers, strategic partners and networks, channel, company (as exposure
within market), government and institutions, public and society, media, NGOs,
and so on. The main internal stakeholders of business comprise shareholders,
managers, employees, groups, and departments.
The power-interest grid has been developed as a well-known method for
stakeholder analysis (stakeholder engineering). Also the business stakeholders
can be analyzed and examined further by consideration of their attributes and
behaviors as illustrated in Figure 4.10.
As depicted in Figure 4.10, the interests of stakeholders refer to the extent of
benefits, importance, or stakes that they have or expect to have in the business.
The power of stakeholders represents the extent of the influence, authority,
and pressure that they can assert in a business. Attributes of stakeholders refer
to their inherent characteristics, such as their demographic features; rather, the
behaviors or performances of stakeholders represent the process and conse-
quences of their decisions and actions. Business stakeholders can be analyzed
using both an interest-power matrix and attribute-behavior dimensions. It
should be noted that attributes and behaviors of stakeholders are not separate
326 H. AGHAZADEH
Figure 4.10 Business High

stakeholder analysis (engi-
neering) matrix Attributes Attributes
Behavior Behavior
Interest
Attributes Attributes
Low Behavior Behavior
Low High
Power
but share links and commonalities (Wysocki et al. 2015; Bryson 2004; IFC-WB
2005; Tidd & Bessant 2014; Schilling 2016; Walker and Madsen 2015; Lopez
2014; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Piercy 1998; Lehman and Winer 2007;
Miller and Smith 2011; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Aghazadeh 2015,
2016; Webster 2008; Kotler and Keller 2015; Grant and Jordan 2012; Bryson
et al. 2011; Chernev 2014; Lado et al. 1992; Teece 2010; Tonsetic 2012;
Katz 2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; Eden and
Ackermann 1998; Rothaermel 2014; Kotler 2003; Campbell and Craig 2011;
Mintzberg 2013; Boyer et al. 2010; Wright 2013; Weerawardena and O’Cass
2004; Ulrich et al. 2012; Davenport and Harris 2007; Coyne and Horn 2009;
Davenport et al. 2010a, b; Thompson et al. 2013).
4.6.4 Customer Analysis (Engineering)

The customer is considered as the vital stakeholder of a business and a key com-
ponent of the market. Actually the existence, survival, success, and continuity
of a business is intensely dependent upon customers and their manner of deal-
ings (behavior) with a business. This is why customers should be analyzed accu-
rately. Customer analysis (customer engineering) as a basis for MOC content,
can be carried out by examining the attributes and behaviors of customers.
Customer Attributes
The following issues can be considered as the attributes of customers:
Customer Versus Consumer

The terms customer and consumer are used interchangeably but they are dif-
ferent. Customers are those who are engaged with the company, product, and
brand; decide on; and pay for and purchase the intended product. Consumers
are those who use the product. It should be noted that the users can be those
who bought the product as a customer. In other words the customers and con-
sumers can be the same. Also there are differences between the various groups
of customers. Customers based on the probability of purchase may be grouped

in the form of a funnel as suspects (the farthest to buy), prospects, leads, and
customers (the most likely to buy). Some groups of customers and consumers
may be classified as non-customers and non-consumers. It should be noted
that even these groups can become customers/consumers of a business.
Segmentation and Target Customers

A business often deals mostly with target customers rather than all customers
within a widespread marketplace. Target customers are the most attractive,
compatible, and valuable group of customers which are selected out of the
segmented customers. The segmented customers are categorized groups of
customers who are classified among general customers. The general customers
are a mass or niche group of customers within a marketplace. It is worth bear-
ing in mind that such screening steps of reaching target customers are the same
as those for defining target market.
Individual Versus Organizational Customers

Customers (either potential or target) of a business may be individuals, groups,
or organizations. If customers are individuals the commercial relationship
between a business and its customers will be “B2C,” and it will be “B2B” if
the customers are businesses. Obviously it will be “B2G” if the customers are
governments. In this regard a business may run consumer marketing or busi-
ness marketing management.
Usual Versus Very Important Customers

All customers are not of equal worth for a business. In order to better serve the
customers that have the most value, companies often score and rank customers
based on the value they generate for a company. Customers with more value
will take a higher position in a business’s ranking mechanism. In this regard
companies use different models and programs to differentiate usual customers
from very important customers (VIC).15 For example, some businesses catego-
rize their customers into platinum, gold, silver, and bronze classes. They then
apply a relationship marketing strategy, customer relationship management
(CRM) system, and voice of customer (VOC) and customer club solutions,
and so on to be able to provide a more customized value proposition.
Customer Change, Switching, and Longevity

Customers are complex, turbulent, dynamic, and ever-changing. Their needs,
attitudes, preferences, and perceptions toward a company, product, or brand
may change periodically. In this regard businesses attempt to change them-
selves and adapt to customers’ circumstances to maintain a long-term mutual
beneficial relationship with them. In this regard several businesses handle cus-
tomer lifetime value (CLV) and customer satisfaction, loyalty, and intimacy
management programs. Further, some businesses operate customer lock-in
policies and enhance the cost of switching to another business to force custom-
ers to continue their relationship with the business.
328 H. AGHAZADEH
Old, Current, and New Customers

When businesses try to increase their customer base they first need to think of
finding and attracting new customers; yet this costs much more than keeping
and retaining satisfied existing customers. However, acquiring new customers
in turn is good policy which can keep businesses fresh. Several businesses could
get remarkable results in increasing their customer base and sales by simply
refining communication with them and convincing former customers who had
cut off or minimized their dealing with a business to return to it. Also some
businesses could obtain the same outcomes of increasing their customer base
by intensifying and improving their relationship with their existing customers
if they have had a weak interaction or few dealings with the business. In this
regard using the analytics, data mining, business intelligence (BI), and cus-
tomer intelligence (CI) tools and techniques can be helpful.
Current (Met) Versus New (Unmet) Needs of Customers

Businesses (either start-up or mature) often go through responding to the current
or apparent needs and wants of customers that have been met or are being met by
many companies. This is a privileged state which leads most businesses to enter and
compete violently within a red ocean with a bounded share of market/customer
and little margin. As a matter of fact there are plenty of opportunities in new or
latent needs and wants of customers that are as yet unmet by other businesses. By
focusing on this novel and innovative recognition businesses can enter into a blue
ocean, and create and respond to new/unmet needs of customers exclusively for a
given period of time. However, this is costly and risky work that only some com-
petent businesses such as market leaders can bear to do. This is what the world’s
leading and top-ranking brands have done recently to occupy top positions in
business rankings. In this regard the open innovation, customer participation and
co-creation, business and market intelligence/insight, new product/service devel-
opment (NPD/NSD), and so on competencies can be influential.
Customer Value
Customer value may embrace strategic and tactical components. The s trategic
elements include business identity/brand, history, responsibility, and gover-
nance. The tactical items involve product, price, place, promotion, process,
people, and properties of business. Each tactical component may have a counter-
part on the customer side, which respectively consist of solutions for the need/
problem, cost, access, communication, convenience, contact, and context.
When dealing with businesses, customers often look for the following
groups of values: economic, time, quality, information/guidance, relationship,
convenience, political/credibility, and emotional. The sources of value for cus-
tomers can be people, organization, and service.
Several businesses define their value proposition based only on their own
expectations (company-oriented) and some other businesses determine it sim-
ply according to customers’ expectations (customer-oriented); yet they should
consider simultaneously the expected value of target customers, the value
proposition of key competitors, and also the general condition of the market
beyond their own value expectation. Then the businesses could present a bal-
anced value proposition through which both customers and the company gain
the expected value to a satisfactory extent and the competitor prefers not to
or is unable to provide such value proposition. The optimum balanced value
(OBV) framework can be helpful.
Customer Knowledge Management

Customer knowledge management (CKM) may be associated with two direc-
tional concepts: knowledge/learning of business about customers, and knowl-
edge/learning of customers about business. While the first expression has been
widely used, the second depiction is also meaningful. In the area of participa-
tion, cooperation, collaboration, alliance, networking, and co-creation between
businesses and their customers it would be fruitful to examine the CKM recip-
rocally. The business first should identify, gather, analyze, use, and manage
the knowledge about customers to better form relationships and deal with
customers; secondly the businesses should identify, share, direct, and mange
knowledge about themselves with target customers for better relationship man-
agement. In this regard the business intelligence, market intelligence, customer
intelligence, market information system, and so on programs can be useful.
Electronic and Social Customer

Today the world of life and business has been dominated by electronic, mobile,
and social devices and solutions. In the arena in which the Internet of Things
(IoT) is emerging businesses must not overlook the e-market, e-competition,
e-customer, social customers, e-commerce, m-commerce, e-businesses, e-life,
e-work, and in total electronic and cyber space. However, there are plenty of
opportunities in the electronic and social networks and communities of cus-
tomer that insightful businesses should recognize and capture proactively. In
this regard trend analysis, scenario analysis, forecasting, foresighting, future
studies, and so on can be influential.
Customer Characteristics
In fact the characteristics of customers can be considered as many as the num-
ber of world’s population. But several factors have been identified as standard
elements of customer characteristics within customer demographics: age, sex,
family, education, occupation, economic circumstances, life cycle stage, person-
ality, lifestyle, motivation, needs and wants, attitudes and believes, perceptions,
and so on. To better identify its target customers and to better deal with them,
a business should continually monitor, review, and analyze these characteristics.
In this regard market and customer monitoring, survey, study, and analysis pro-
grams can be useful (Day 2003; Aaker 2013; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2007,
2015; Denisa and Jaroslav 2013; Smith and Raspin 2008; Gilligan and Wilson
2009; Best 2012; Brown 2005; Srivastava et al. 2001; Lavidge and Gary 1961;
Mothersbaugh and Hawkins 2015; Solomon 2015; Schiffman and Wisenblit
2014; Kotler and Keller 2015; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Davenport et al.
2006; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Kaplan and Norton 2001; Chandler & Ulrich
330 H. AGHAZADEH
2016; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Porter 2008; Ekerson 2007; Skyrius et al. 2013;
Ulwick 2012; Dess et al. 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Cravens and Piercy 2013;
Kotler 2003; Chernev 2014; Barney and Hesterly 2011; Grant 2013; Teece and
Pisano 1994; Kotter 2015; Kaplan 2010; Daft 2016; Morgan et al. 2000).

practice (MIP)
(4-6) MOC contents and customer analysis: attributes
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. MOC contents
2. Comprehensive business analysis (CBA)
3. Business stakeholder analysis (engineering)
4. Customer analysis (engineering)
5. Customer attributes
6. Customer versus consumer
7. Segmentation and target customers
8. Individual versus organizational customers
9. Usual versus VIC customer
10. Customer change, switching and longevity
11. Old, current and new customers
12. Current (met) versus new (unmet) needs of customers
13. Customer value
14. Customer knowledge management
15. Electronic and social customer
16. Customer characteristics

Customer Behavior
The terms “customer behavior” and “consumer behavior” are used inter-
changeably here. However, the prevalent concept is consumer behavior. The
following issues can be considered as customer behavior:
Consumer Behavior Model/Process

The major aspects of consumer behavior model or process are influencing fac-
tors or stimulus, decision-making and purchasing, and post-purchasing. In
this regard the three main stages can be considered from two perspectives.
However, both convey a common meaning.
–– Product perspective: product acquisition, product usage, and product
disposal
–– Purchase perspective: pre-purchase, purchasing, and post-purchase
Consumer Behavior Stimulus/Influencing Factors

The stimulus or influencing factors of consumer behavior may be environ-
mental, organizational, group, and individual. They involve political and legal,
economic, social and cultural, technological, business/marketing, and per-
sonal. Political and legal factors refer to global and local political situation that
may encourage or discourage the consuming motivations of people. Economic
factors represent income, savings, income expectations, liquid and fixed assets,
credit, and so on. Social factors demonstrate the family, reference groups, roles,
and status of consumer. Cultural factors comprise culture, subculture, and the
social class of the consumer. Technological factors point to the technological
information and technological (IT) progress and applications that influence
consumer behavior widely. Business/marketing factors depict business image/
brand, business vision and strategy, marketing mix (product, price, promotion,
place, people, process, and property), and marketing management. Personal
factors refer to the personal and psychological characteristics of the consumer
and include age, sex, family, education, occupation, economic circumstances,
life cycle stage, personality, lifestyle, motivation, needs and wants, attitudes and
believes, perceptions, and so on.
Hierarchical Effects/Response Models

The messages and actions of businesses and marketing have different effects
on consumers. In this regard the consumers respond and react differently.
Such responses have conceptualized as various effects models include the
AIDAS model (attention, interest, desire, action, and satisfaction), HEM
model (awareness, knowledge, liking, preference, conceive, and purchase),16
Innovation Adoption model (awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adop-
tion), and communication model (exposure, reception, cognitive response,
attitude, intention, and behavior). Regardless of the responding model, the
332 H. AGHAZADEH
consumers in reacting to the marketing activities of businesses go through

three main stages: cognition, affection, and action.
Consumer Behavior Roles (Decision Making Unit-DMU)

As part of the process of consumer behavior different people may play various
roles as a decision-making unit (DMU): initiator, influencer, decision-maker,
gatekeeper, buyer, payer, and consumer. While they are usually different per-
sons/groups, in some cases they all might be one person.
Consumer Decision-Making Process

The consumer decision-making process goes through the following steps:
need/problem identification, information search, alternatives analysis, pur-
chase intention, decision-making, negotiating and buying/purchasing, and
post-purchase behavior. The reasons for consumer purchase decision might
be product choice, brand choice, dealer choice, repurchase, and so on. The
post-purchase behaviors of consumers include consuming, product perfor-
mance assessing, reselling, recycling, giving away, disposing and discarding,
and so on.
Customer Bargaining Power

The bargaining power of customers may depend on several issues: conditions
of the market, the amount of demand and supply; buying volume of customers;
intensity of competition; the customer’s credit in the market; capabilities and
competitive advantages of a company; features of products to be exchanged;
and so on.
Organizational Consumer Behavior

The consumers or buyers may be organizations and form a B2B relationship
with a business. In this regard the organizational buying behavior should be
investigated. Actually the consumer and organizational buying behavior are
mainly the same but there are several differences between them. Organizational
buying behavior is more complicated and formal and also less emotional as
opposed to consumer buying behavior (Gibson et al. 2012; Cravens and
Piercy 2013; Kotler 2003; Chernev 2014; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Barney and
Hesterly 2011; Grant 2013; Teece and Pisano 1994; Kotter 2015; Kaplan 2010;
Daft 2016; Morgan et al. 2000; Mothersbaugh and Hawkins 2015; Solomon
2015; Schiffman and Wisenblit 2014; Kotler and Keller 2015; Fleisher and
Bensoussan 2007, 2015; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Davenport et al.
2006; Kaplan and Norton 2001; Day 2003; Aaker 2013; Denisa and Jaroslav
2013; Smith and Raspin 2008; Gilligan and Wilson 2009; Best 2012; Brown
2005; Srivastava et al. 2001; Lavidge and Gary 1961; Ulwick 2012; Dess
et al. 2015; Chandler & Ulrich 2016; Stewart and Rogers 2012; Porter 2008;
Ekerson 2007; Skyrius et al. 2013).
MOC to Customer Analysis (Engineering)

Regarding the complicated customer attributes and dynamic customer
behaviors, businesses have to apply intelligence providing systems and mecha-
nisms,17 such as business intelligence (BI), market intelligence (MI), cus-
tomer intelligence (CI), and so on. Marketology is a hyper-function system
that can provide the full range of needed intelligences (market DIKII). In
this way the MOC can focus on customer analysis (engineering) of both cus-
tomer attributes and customer behaviors.

practice (MIP)
(4-7) Customer analysis: behavior
Guideline (FOCUS)
previous parts, practice FOCUS for the following issues:
1. Customer behavior and Consumer behavior model/process
2. Consumer behavior stimulus/ influencing factors
3. Hierarchical effects/response models
4. Consumer behavior roles (decision making unit-DMU)
5. Consumer decision-making process
6. Organizational consumer behavior
the discussion.
4.6.5 Competitor Analysis (Competition Engineering)

Competitors are any business that attracts your actual or potential customers.
Competitor is a critical and undeniable part of the market and environment
that an enterprise should monitor. A competitor’s plans and actions should
be investigated precisely, wisely, and continually. In fact a company has no
choice when dealing with different competitors upon diversified competitive
334 H. AGHAZADEH
matters (e.g. brand, product, price, communication, delivering, services, and

so on) within various marketplaces. In this regard the executives of businesses
in order to make effective decisions and take efficient actions require intelligent
competitor analysis. Competitive analysis as a basis for content of MOC can be
carried out through competition engineering by examining the attributes and
behaviors of competitors.
ompetitor Analysis Process

C
It is worth bearing in mind that a firm should carry out competitor analysis
to know how to deal with current and potential competitors. The steps below
present the key questions that comprise the competitor analysis process:
1. Identifying competitors (Who are/will be the key competitors? Where

do/will they compete?)
2. Evaluating competitors (What are/will be the attributes/design and
behavior of key competitors? How do/will they compete?)
3. Dealing with competitors (Where and how the business competes/will
compete with key competitors?)
In fact competitor analysis can be carried out in a maturity process that

includes competitor awareness, competitor sensitivity, and competitor intel-
ligence stages.
ompetitor Analysis Perspectives

C
Various approaches can be adapted to carry out competitor analysis depending
on the purpose of a firm that looks to find out how to compete with key rivals.
For instance, when a firm’s concern is about forming reliable ties with trust-
worthy suppliers then the focus of competitor analysis will be on the industry
side and manufacturing; but when the firm struggles to increase its market-
share in a target market then the concentration of competitor analysis will be
on the market side and marketing and sales. In this way the following perspec-
tives can be taken into account for competitor analysis:
• Industry perspective:
This perspective focuses on companies offering the same products or ser-

vices. Based on the Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) model it covers the
following issues18:
–– Industry structure (e.g. number of competitors, entry/exit barriers,
and cost structure)
–– Industry conduct (e.g. competitive objectives, strategies, and relationship)
–– Industry performance (e.g. production, sales, margin/profit, and
progress)
• Market perspective:
This perspective emphasizes the companies satisfying the same customer

needs or serving the same customer groups. It refers to full recognition of a
broad range of products that are capable of satisfying customers’ needs; and
then identifying a broader set of actual and potential competitors that are capa-
ble of providing such products.
• Customer-based perspective:
This perspective represents two main bases to identify competitor sets: cus-
tomer choice and product-use association. Customer choice refers to which
competitors the target customers select to buy from. The product-use associa-
tion refers to the context that is most suited to the products of competitors
rather than the products of a company.
• Resource-based view (RBV)
According to this inside-out perspective the concentration of competitor

analysis is on competitors’ internal resource, assets, capabilities, and competen-
cies. In this regard the competitors may be classified according to their assets’
value to create and sustain competitive advantage in above-normal, normal,
and below-normal groups.
• Market-based view (MBV) or industrial organization view (IOV)
Based on this outside-in perspective which is known as industrial organiza-

tion (IO) the focus of competitor analysis is on the external environment and
the strategic actions of competitors within the industry and marketplace. In
this regard competitors may be classified based on their features and functions
to compete within the market with current, emerging, or substitute rivals; and
also competitors with cost-based, differentiation-based, or focused strategies.
A company regarding such identification of key competitors (within same stra-
tegic group) can manage its dealings with them.
• Dynamic capability view (DCV)
Dynamic capability view as an advancement of the previous two views (RBV

and MBV) tries to overcome their shortcomings and use their strengths to pro-
vide a combined and complete value as an ambidextrous view which contributes
simultaneously to outside-in and inside-out. On the basis of this perspective
companies will be able to identify the competitors that have or do not have
such capability of recognizing environmental requirements, arranging inter-
nal assets and competencies, and accordingly responding well to the m arket.
This perspective can effectively help firms to understand the most dynamically
capable competitors and to find out the proper ways of challenging them.
336 H. AGHAZADEH
• Strategic group perspective:
Strategic group is a group of firms with similar characteristics, competitive

strategies, and assets and competencies. On the basis of this perspective an
enterprise intends to know which strategic group is the most appropriate to
enter, invest, and compete with based on assets and competencies, and thus
adapt its competitive strategies. Therefore, the strategic group perspective
combines both resource-based view (RBV) and market-based view (MBV) in
the form of dynamic capability view (DCV).
• Strategic architectural perspective (SAP):
It would be fruitful to put all the above-mentioned approaches together and

form a strategic architectural perspective (SAP). In accordance with this compre-
hensive perspective the industry, market, internal components (RBV), external
forces (MBV), exinternal factors (DCV), strategic group, and so on are taken into
account. The competitors are contemplated as a business that pursues sustain-
able superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS) through business strategic manage-
ment (BSM) and business performance management (BPM) based on business
building blocks (BBB) that include business organizational design (BOD) and
business organizational behavior (BOB). In this regard the competitor attributes
can be considered as competitor organizational design (COD) and similarly the
competitor behavior can be regarded as competitor organizational behavior
(COB) (Amit and Schoemaker 1993; Barney 1986, 1991, 2001; Bettis and Hitt
1995; Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Makadok 2001; Nonaka 1994; Aghazadeh and
Esfidani 2007; Otola et al. 2013; Peng et al. 2009; Srivastava et al. 2001; Knecht
2014; Porter 1980, 1991, 1996, 2008; Mason 1939; Stigler 1986; Schmalensee
1988; Barney and Clark 2007; Bain 1951, 1956; McGahan and Porter 1997;
Teece 2007; Grant 1991; Peteraf 1993; Teece et al. 1997; Wernefelt 1984; Teece
and Pisano 1994; Prahald and Hamel 1990; Makhija 2003; Wilson and Gilligan
2005; Czepiel and Kerin 2011; Shankar and Carpenter 2011; Fahey 1999;
Day and Nedungadi 1994; Montgomery et al. 2005; Coyne and Horn 2009;
Gatignon et al. 1989; Stauffer 2003; Duncan et al. 1998; Bergen and Peteraf
2002; Clark and Montgomery 1999; Henderson 1983; Aghazadeh 2016; Qiu
2008; Banahene 2010; Peteraf and Bergen 2003; Reginald 2000; Tang and
Thomas 1992; Dranove et al. 1998; Kumar et al. 1990; Aaker 2013; Fleisher and
Bensoussan 2007; Denisa and Jaroslav 2013; Smith and Raspin 2008; Best 2012;
Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Davenport et al. 2006; Chandler & Ulrich 2016;
Stewart and Rogers 2012; Ekerson 2007; Skyrius et al. 2013; Ulwick 2012; Dess
et al. 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Kotler 2003).
Competitor Attributes
The following issues can be considered as competitor attributes:
Competitor Characteristics
An enormous range of elements can be represented as characteristics of
competitors. Some main factors have been pointed out to examine the
characteristics of competitors in terms of generalized and specific issues.

General organizational matters such as history/background, vision and mis-
sion, leadership/management style, ethical concerns, social responsibilities,
or creating shared value (CSV), size, financial situation, growth and profit-
ability, value proposition, image and positioning strategy, objectives and com-
mitment, current and past strategies, organization and culture, cost structure,
exit barriers, strengths and weaknesses; specific or functional issues such as
objectives, strategies, policies, tactics, activities, and performance of a given
functional area (e.g. marketing, production, HR, finance, MIS, and so on).
Competitor Typology
Based on their offering, product, or service, and also their serving markets
and customers, competiors may be classified as: direct, indirect, neighbor, and
remote rivals, as illustrated in Figure 4.11.
Direct Versus Indirect Competitor

Direct competitors offer similar products/services to similar customers.
Indirect competitors offer similar products/service in related industries or with
related capabilities. Indirect competitors often provide substitute products/
services and thus can be regarded as substitute competitors. In fact extreme
concentration on direct competitors sometimes leads companies to run the
risk of not being able “to see the forest for the trees.” In order to avoid such a
mistake businesses should view the whole competing ground and monitor the
moves and behaviors of all indirect, neighbor ,and remote rivals in an intel-
ligent manner.
Different
Indirect Remote
Market/
customer
Similar
Direct Neighbor
Similar Different
Product/service
Figure 4.11 Competitors typology based on market-product

338 H. AGHAZADEH
Neighbor Versus Remote Competitor

Neighbor competitors provide different products/services in similar indus-
tries/markets. Remote competitors present different products/services in
different industries/markets. The neighbor and remote competitors work on
different products/services; because of this many businesses usually do not pay
enough attention to them and their probable moves and risks. The businesses
should know that a neighbor competitor can easily become a direct competitor
by simply adding a similar product/service to its line. Also the remote competi-
tor can transfer to an indirect competitor by offering a similar product/service,
and can even change to a direct competitor by providing a similar product/
service in a similar market.
Potential Versus Existing Competitors

Competitors in general are two main groups: existing and potential. The current
competitors are those who apparently compete with a company either directly
or indirectly. The potential competitors are those who probably will enter to the
market. Some potential competitors are easily predictable but others cannot be
so easily forecast. In this regard several competitors may emerge owing to market
expansion or the product expansion of competitors, the background integration of
customers, the forward integration of suppliers, mergers and acquisitions (M&A),
and as, a consequences, the retaliatory or defensive strategies of competitors.
Electronic and Social Competitors

Today many of the competitors are appeared in electronic and cyber mar-
ketspaces either as electronic or non-electronic businesses. Thus the firms
must focus on e-market, e-competition, e-customer, social-customers, social-
competitors, e-commerce, m-commerce, e-businesses, e-life, e-work, and in
electronic and cyber space. In this way the companies can identify their com-
petitors in electronic marketspace and can better be prepared for competition.
Competitor BLC/PLC
It is vital for a business to know where the key competitors are located in their
business life cycle (BLC), and also where their products are placed in the prod-
uct life cycle (PLC). Certainly the nature of competition with a competitor or
product that is in the “growth” stage can be completely different from that
with a competitor or product in the “decline” stage.
Competitor Organizational Design (COD)

Adapting from business organizational design (BOD) in doing competitive
analysis based on COD following components should be examined precisely:
structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology, innovation, and commu-
nication of competitor.
Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) of a Competitor

Regarding the hyper-function of marketology as an influential organizational
capability for intelligently competing and succeeding, it would be useful similar
COD to examine the components of marketology organizational design

(MOD) of competitor too.
Competitor Value Proposition (CVP)

Competitors in light of their business model may create and deliver superior or
competitive value proposition to their key stakeholders and target customers.
The competitive value proposition include strategic components of identity/
brand, history, responsibility, and governance; and also the tactical components
of product, price, place, promotion, process, people, and properties.
Who Are the Key Competitors?

In accordance with competitors’ attributes one of the main purposes of com-
petitor analysis is to answer the following key questions:
–– Who are our competitors? Against whom do we usually compete?
–– Who are our most intensive competitors?
–– Who are our less intensive but serious competitors?
–– Who are the strong competitors? Who are the weak competitors?
–– Who are good competitors (fair competition)? Who are bad competi-
tors (Unethical competition)?
–– Who are the makers of substitute products?
–– Can competitors make strategic groups based on their assets, compe-
tencies, and/or strategies?
–– Who are potential competitive entrants? What are barriers to entry?
How can we discourage them?
–– Are the target competitive marketplaces blue or red? What are the
requirements for successful competition?
Between a business and other companies that are acting within a market-
place there may be conflict, competition, coexistence, co-creation, coopera-
tion, coopetition, and collusion. Thus it is useful for a business first to define
the type of relationship it has with other companies (Wilson and Gilligan 2005;
Czepiel and Kerin 2011; Shankar and Carpenter 2011; Fahey 1999; Day and
Nedungadi 1994; Montgomery et al. 2005; Coyne and Horn 2009; Stauffer
2003; Duncan et al. 1998; Bergen and Peteraf 2002; Clark and Montgomery
1999; Qiu 2008; Banahene 2010; Peteraf and Bergen 2003; Tang and Thomas
1992; Dranove et al. 1998; Mason 1939; Stigler 1986; Porter 1980, 1991,
1996; Barney and Clark 2007; Bain 1951, 1956; McGahan and Porter 1997;
Teece 2007, 2010; Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Daft 2016; Strategyzer 2015b;
Morgan et al. 2000; Yami et al. 2010; Rothaermel 2014; Campbell and
Craig 2011; Webster 2008; Kotler and Keller 2015; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016;
Grant 1991, 2013; Peteraf 1993; Teece et al. 1997; Wernefelt 1984; Teece
and Pisano 1994; Grant and Jordan 2012; Aaker 2014; Bryson et al. 2011;
Chernev 2014; Lado et al. 1992; Amit and Schoemaker 1993; Barney and
Hesterly 2011; Kotter 2015; Kaplan 2010; Tonsetic 2012; Bettis and Hitt
340 H. AGHAZADEH
1995; Makadok 2001; Nonaka 1994; Barney 2001; Otola et al. 2013; Peng
et al. 2009; Srivastava et al. 2001; Knecht 2014; Makhija 2003; Kumar et al.
1990; Prahalad and Hamel 1990).

practice (MIP)
(4-8) Competitor analysis: attributes
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Competitor analysis (competition engineering)
2. Competitor analysis process
3. Competitor analysis perspectives
4. Customer attributes:
5. Competitor attributes (COD)
6. Competitor characteristics
7. Competitor typology
8. Direct versus indirect competitor
9. Neighbor versus remote competitor
10. Potential versus existing competitors
11.. Competitor BLC/PLC
12. Competitor organizational design (COD)
13. Marketology organizational design (MOD) of competitor
14. Competitor value proposition (CVP)
15. Who are key competitors?

Competitor Behavior
Following issues can be considered as competitor behavior:
Sustainable Superior/Competitive Success (SSS/SCS) and Critical

Success Factors (CSF)
Success means different things for different businesses. This is true also for the
competitors. Needless to say that it can very helpful for a business to know
what are the intended superior or competitive success points of competitors
and also their critical success factors in the short, middle and long term. In this
way businesses can better plan for their own superior or competitive success
targets.
Competitor Behavior Process

In fact competitor behavior is its governance, leadership, or management
method in the form of competitor strategic management (CSM). In this regard
the competitor behavior process basically includes the following stages: analysis
(investigating both internal and external situation), crafting strategy (defining
mission, vision, values, strategic themes and objectives, strategies, policies, pro-
grams, and budget), executing strategy (conducting the defined programs and
projects match with budget and align with the strategies), evaluating strategy
(appraising the performance by examining the effectiveness of goals achieve-
ment, efficiency of resource usage and other needed measures, and feeding
back and probably revising the strategy, and so on).
Factors Influence Competitor Behavior

Different internal and external factors may affect competitor behavior. Several
significant groups of factors that substantially influence competitor behavior
(decisions and actions) involve the location of a competitor in its BLC, the
place of competitor’s products/services in their PLC, the competitive condi-
tion that a competitor acts in, the environmental (macro, micro and market)
forces, technology and information and communication technology (ICT), the
competitor’s organizational system and internal factors, and so on.
Competitor Response Profile (Porter’s Four Corners Model)

The competitor response profile, which is basically adapted from Porter’s four
corners model, as illustrated in Figure 4.12 refers to three main parts of factors
pertaining to competitors include drives/motivations, abilities/actions and
response profile of competitors.
As depicted in Figure 4.12 the drives/motivations of competitor involve the
following elements:
–– Future goals: future goals of competitors at all levels of management
and in multiple dimensions
–– Assumptions: competitors’ assumptions about themselves and the
market/industry
342 H. AGHAZADEH
Future goals Current

Strategies
Response patterns of
competitors
Assumptions Capabilities
Drives/ Abilities/ actions

motivations
Figure 4.12 Competitor response profile (Porter’s four corners model)
The abilities/actions of competitors consist of following factors:

–– Current strategy: how the competitor is currently competing; the com-
petitor’s current strategy; and the current and developing internal and
external pressures upon the organization
–– Capabilities: strengths and weaknesses; the power of the competitor’s
brand; the performance outcomes: over- and under-expectations; the
managerial ability and willingness to manage risk; the competitor’s
capabilities and the relevant leverages
In accordance with the drivers and abilities the response patterns of com-
petitors can be defined by answering the following key questions:
–– Satisfaction/dissatisfaction with current position and performance?
–– How aggressive/expansionist has the competitor been?

–– How has it responded to competitor’s move and with what level of
success?
–– Is there any new thinking within the competitor’s management team?
–– Is there a decline in any part of the competitor’s market which requires
a change in its strategy?
–– Ability of competitor to respond to challenges and with what level of
commitment and market insight?
–– Moves and strategy shifts of competitor in the short and long term?
–– The most vulnerable concern for the competitor in the short and long
term?
–– Effective retaliation by the competitor? Areas unlikely to retaliate?
Competitor Reaction/Response
Actually competitor responses refer to the competitive strategies that competi-
tors develop to better perform and succeed in the marketplace. In this regard
competitors first examine their competitive position, resources and capabilities,
offerings, and other strategic and tactical issues and then set a proper strat-
egy to compete well. The competitors as a consequence of their analysis may
decide on responding to the market in the following ways: laid back (retreat),
selective, tiger (offensive), stochastic (casual), or a combination of all of these.
However, the competitors may respond to market by other methods too.
Competitor Organizational Behavior (COB)

In adapting the business organizational behavior (BOB) in carrying out com-
petitive analysis the following components of COB should be examined pre-
cisely: governance, strategy, environmental factors analysis, internal factors,
stakeholder analysis, value, and performance.
Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB) of a Competitor

Regarding the hyper-function of marketology as an influential organizational
capability for intelligently competing and succeeding, it would be similarly use-
ful, as with COB, to examine the components of marketology organizational
design (MOD) of the competitor too.
Creating Sustainable Competitive Advantage (SCA)

Competitive advantage is a reciprocal concept; on the one hand it can be the
origin and basis for crafting strategy; on the other hand it can be the destination
and purpose of strategy execution. Actually these two views are not contradic-
tory. A competitor builds strategy based on current competitive advantages
and leads the strategy to create new and enhanced competitive advantages.
Through competitive advantage a competitor is located in an above-normal
position, by competitive parity its position is normal, and by competitive dis-
advantage its position is below normal. Competitors attempt to achieve sus-
tainable competitive advantages by making their advantages valuable, rare,
344 H. AGHAZADEH
not-imitable, and organized (VRIO). SCA can be achieved by competitive

advantage which in turn can be created based on distinctive/core competen-
cies which can be obtained applying capabilities which can be developed using
resources and assets.19
How Do They Compete? And How Do We Compete with Them?

Competitors may adopt different types of competition in a marketplace such as
direct or indirect, fair or unfair, blue or red, aggressive or defensive, conserva-
tive or competitive, and so on. A business first should clarify how its key com-
petitors do compete and then accordingly define its style of competition within
the competitive marketplace. Certainly the competitive manner of a business
may vary for each competitor or group of competitors.
According to the competitors’ behaviors one of the main purposes of com-
petitor analysis is to answer the following questions about the key competitors
(primarily within a strategic group):
–– Who are the most successful/unsuccessful competitors over time?
Why?
–– What are their objectives and strategies? How much do they commit to
accomplish objectives and strategies?
–– What are the competitors’ cost structures? Do they have cost advan-
tage/disadvantage? What are their exit barriers?
–– What are their brand, image, and positioning strategies?
–– What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)
of each competitor or strategic group?
–– What leverage points (our weaknesses or customer problems and
unmet needs) could competitors exploit to enter the market or become
more serious competitors?
–– What are their assets, market relations, dynamic capabilities, core and
distinctive competencies, sources of competitive advantage, and critical
success factors (CSF)?
–– What are their competitive advantages and sustainable competitive
advantages (SCA)? What are their failures and obstacles to succeed and
competitive disadvantages?
–– Can they create and deliver superior or competitive value to the key
stakeholders?
–– How much do they provide economic value to the customer (EVC)?
–– How good are they in carrying out their value chain primary and sup-
portive activities?
–– How much do they capture returns from their investments, business
units, product lines, and brands portfolios?
–– To what extent are they satisfied with their market, competitive, cus-
tomer, product, and brand performance?
–– What is the worth of their business (both financial and non-financial)
performance?
–– Generally how will they behave and compete in the future?
Competitor Capability Grid (CCG)

The competitor capability grid includes the issues outlined below. Note that
following matters are only a standard sample of factors and each business in
examining competitors can consider many other needed elements.
–– Management: quality of top and middle management, knowledge of
business, culture, strategic goals and plans, entrepreneurial thrust,
planning/operation system, loyalty–turnover, quality of strategic
decision-making
–– Innovation: product/service superiority, NPD/NSD, R&D, technolo-
gies, and patents
–– Marketing: product quality reputation, product characteristics/differ-
entiation, brand name recognition, breath of the product line-systems
capability, customer orientation, segmentation/focus, distribution,
retailer relationship, advertising/promotion skills, sales force, and cus-
tomer/product support
–– Customer care: size and loyalty, market share, growth of segments
served
–– Manufacturing: cost structure, flexible production operations, equip-
ment, access to raw materials, vertical integration, workforce attitude
and motivation, and capacity
–– Finance-access to capital: from operations, from net short-term assets,
ability to use debt and equity financing, parents’ willingness to finance
The results of analyzing competitor attributes and behaviors should help
businesses to reach a comprehensive and customized conclusion to bench-
mark the main strengths of key competitors (Schmalensee 1988; Porter 1980,
1991 1996, 1997, 2007; Barney and Clark 2007; Bain 1951, 1956; McGahan
and Porter 1997; Teece 2007; Grant 1991; Peteraf 1993; Teece et al. 1997;
Wernefelt 1984; Teece and Pisano 1994; Barney 1986, 1991, 2001; Prahalad
and Hamel 1990; Amit and Schoemaker 1993; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b;
Duncan et al. 1998; Bergen and Peteraf 2002; Clark and Montgomery 1999;
Henderson 1983; Qiu 2008; Bettis and Hitt 1995; Hamel and Prahalad 1994;
Makadok 2001; Aghazadeh and Esfidani 2007; Nonaka 1994; Otola et al.
2013; Peng et al. 2009; Srivastava et al. 2001; Knecht 2014; Makhija 2003;
Boyer et al. 2010; Wright 2013; Weerawardena and O’Cass 2004; Ulrich
et al. 2012; Davenport and Harris 2007; Mintzberg 2013; Aghazadeh 2015,
2016; Osterwalder et al. 2005; Strategyzer 2015a; Osterwalder and Pigneur
2013; Day 1990; Aaker 2010; Ballard et al. 2006; Moorman and Rust 1999;
Slater and Olson 2001; Wilson and Gilligan 2005; Czepiel and Kerin 2011;
Shankar and Carpenter 2011; Fahey 1999; Day and Nedungadi 1994; Katz
2009; Hatch and Cunliffe 2013; Banahene 2010; Peteraf and Bergen 2003;
Reginald 2000; Tang and Thomas 1992; Dranove et al. 1998; Kumar et al.
1990; Mason 1939; Stigler 1986; Montgomery et al. 2005; Coyne and Horn
2009; Gatignon et al. 1989; Stauffer 2003).
346 H. AGHAZADEH
MOC to Competitor Analysis

Considering the sophisticated competitor attributes and changing competitor
behaviors businesses have to apply intelligence providing systems and mecha-
nisms such as business intelligence (BI), market intelligence (MI), competi-
tor intelligence system (CIS), and so on. Marketology is a hyper-function
system that can provide the full range of required intelligences (market
DIKII). In this way the MOC can concentrate on competitor analysis (com-
petition engineering) in sections of competitor analysis process and perspec-
tives, and competitor attributes (competitor organizational design (COD)
and competitor behavior (competitor organizational behavior (COB)).

practice (MIP)
(4-9) Competitor analysis: behavior
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Competitor behavior (COB)
2. Sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS) and critical success factors (CSF)
3. Competitor behavior process:
4. Factors influence competitor behavior:
5. Competitor response profile (Porter’s four corners model)
6. Competitor reaction/response:
7. Competitor organizational behavior (COB)
8. Marketology organizational behavior (MOB) of competitor
9. Creating sustainable competitive advantage (SCA)
10. How do they compete? And how do we compete with them?
11. Competitor capability grid (CCG)
the discussion.
4.6.6 Channel Analysis (Engineering)

Channels as a key group of collaborators substantially contribute to the business
value chain or value network in two main directions: (1) backward/upstream:
as supplying mediator between a company and its suppliers in creating value,
and (2) forward/downstream: as selling mediator between a company and its
customers in delivering value. Hence channels are milestones for the success
of a business value chain in the sense that most companies perhaps cannot
do inbound and outbound logistic activities of their value chain well without
cooperating with channels in the two above-mentioned directions (upstream
and downstream). In this regard channels that are to be managed effectively
should be analyzed intelligently through channel engineering by investigating
their attributes and behaviors.
Channel Attributes
The following issues can be considered as channel attributes or channel design:
Channel Characteristics
Channel characteristics refer to the type, level, length, members, relationship,
and other features of channels. In this regard channel organizational design
contains the following components: structure, culture, people, process, asset,
technology, innovation, and communication of competitor.
Channels Versus Supply Chains

The channels are mediators between a company and its customers or suppliers,
whereas the supply chains are upstream and downstream value-added flows of
materials, final goods, and related information among suppliers, the company,
resellers, and final consumers. In fact channel management has an “inside the
chain” view while the supply chain management (SCM) has an” view.
Upstream Versus Downstream Channels

Upstream channel refers to the intermediaries between suppliers and a com-
pany that make the suppliers’ value available and usable to the company as a
customer by B2B commercial relationship. Downstream channel represents the
mediators between a company and its customers (either business or consumer)
that make the company’s value available and usable to the customers by either
B2B or B2C commercial relationship.
Business Channels, Supply Channels or Marketing Channels

In fact channels can be regarded as part of the overall value network. Effective
channels can contribute and facilitate to creating and delivering value for both
suppliers and the company. Regarding the two-directional contribution of
channels (upstream and downstream) it would be better to call it in general
terms the “business channel” and specifically from one side the “supply/buy
channel,” and on the other side the “marketing/sale channel.” However in
348 H. AGHAZADEH
both academic and practical references, and here, the focus is mainly on the
marketing channel.
Marketing Logistics (or Physical Distribution)

Marketing logistics embrace planning, implementing, and controlling the physical flow
of materials, final goods, and related information from the origin to the consumption
points to satisfy customers at a profit for the company. There are three main types of
marketing logistics: inbound, outbound, and reverse. The reverse distribution refers to
the moving of broken, unwanted, or excess products returned by consumers or
resellers. The major functions of marketing logistics involve warehousing, inventory
management, transportation, and logistics information management. The marketing
logistics might be handled by a distribution center, integrated logistics management, or
a third-party logistics (3PL) provider.
Marketing Channel Definition

External contractual and interdependent individuals and firms contribute to delivering a
product or service for use or consumption by consumers or business users.
Marketing Channels: Communication, Distribution or Service Channels

There are three main types of marketing channels: communication channels,
distribution channels, and service channels. The communication channels are
different methods of connecting to the customers through media (television,
radio, newspapers, mail, internet, social networks, and so on) to exchange
information. The distribution channels are the ways of linking customers to
display, sell, and deliver a product or service to the buyers. The service channels
are the mechanisms to transact with the buyers (such as transportation, insur-
ance, payment, and banks).
Channel Level and Length: Direct Versus Indirect Marketing Channel

Channel level refers to the layer of marketing mediators that bring the main
part of the value proposition (i.e. the product) closer to the consumer. The
number of intermediary levels depicts channel length. Direct marketing chan-
nel has no intermediary levels; while indirect marketing channel contains one
or more intermediary levels.
Channel as Persons Versus as Companies (Small to Large)

The channel members (either supply or marketing) may be a person who works
as a distributor or a company that acts as a mediator. The intermediary person
might have their own assets and facilities or shape and use a network of distri-
bution. The intermediary company might be micro, small, medium or large
and may work separately or within a network. The producer and final consumer
are also part of every channel.
Consumer Versus Business/Industrial Channel

Channels may bridge the distance between a company and its ultimate
consumers or with business/industrial customers. The former, called the

consumer channel,” embraces the members: producer, agent, wholesaler,

“
retailor, and consumer. The later, called the “business/industrial channel,”
comprises the members: producer, manufacturer’s representatives or sales
branch (Agent), business distributor, and business customer.
Marketing Channel Examples

There are several mechanisms of direct and indirect marketing channels
within both cyber/electronic and real/actual spaces:
–– Indirect methods: sales agent, wholesaler/distributor, consul-
tant, dealer, value-added reseller (VAR), retail (mass merchandis-
ers, independent representatives, department stores, chain stores,
convenience stores, specialty stores, discount and off-price stores,
direct mail stores, internet, mobile and electronic stores, and so
on)
–– Direct methods: direct sales (sales team), company-owned offices
(branches), franchises, company-dominated dealerships, televi-
sion programs and infomercials, catalog, internet, mobile, and
so on.
Single Versus Hybrid/Multiple Distribution Channels

Enterprises often have to use hybrid/multiple distribution channels; never-
theless a company that depends on its business model and market conditions
may prefer to use a single distribution channel. In a multichannel distribution
system a single firm sets up two or more marketing channels to cover one or
more customer segments.
Conventional Marketing Channel Versus Vertical Marketing System

(VMS)
A conventional marketing channel comprises one or more autonomous pro-
ducers, wholesalers, and retailers, as a discrete business looks for maximizing
its own profits, even at the expense of profits for the overall system. Whereas a
vertical marketing system (VMS) is a distribution channel in which producers,
wholesalers, and retailers act as an integrated system by a closed relationship
with other channel members in the following forms: corporate VMS, contrac-
tual VMS, franchise organization, and administered VMS. The horizontal mar-
keting system is a channel in which two or more members at one level partner
together to obtain a new marketing opportunity (Kim and Frazier 1996; Amato
and Amato 2009; Deusen et al. 2007; Kotler and Keller 2015; Gunasekaran
and Ngai 2005; Love et al. 2004; Rangan and Jaikumar 1991; Ensign 2006;
Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Lambert et al.
1998, 2005; Coughlan et al. 2006; Pelton et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 1997;
Lambert 2014; Atwong and Rosenbloom 1995; Buzzell and Ortmeyer 1994;
Desiraju and Moorthy 1997; Friedman and Furey 1999; Cox 1999; Chopra
350 H. AGHAZADEH
and Meindl 2015; Bechtel and Jayaram 1997; Rosenbloom 2013; Lee 1996;
Guan 2010; Capgemini 2011; Holmqvist and Linde 2011; Schilling 2016;
Walker and Madsen 2015; Lopez 2014; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Doyle
and Stern 2006; Piercy 1998; Lehman and Winer 2007; Day 1990, 1994,
2003; Osterwalder et al. 2005, 2015; Doyle 2009; Marr 2015b; Aaker 2014;
Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Denisa and Jaroslav 2013; Smith and Raspin
2008; Strategyzer 2015a; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Moorman and Rust
1999).

practice (MIP)
(4-10) Channel analysis: attributes
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Channel analysis (engineering)
2. Channel attributes
3. Channel characteristics
4. Channels versus supply chains
5. Upstream versus downstream channels
6. Business channels, supply channels or marketing channels
7. Marketing channels: communication, distribution, or service channels
8. Channel level and length: direct versus indirect marketing channel
9. Channel as persons versus as companies (small to large)
10. Consumer versus business/industrial channel
11. Single versus hybrid/multiple distribution channels
12. Conventional marketing channel versus vertical marketing system (VMS)

Channel Behavior
The following issues can be considered as channel behavior or channel
management:
Channel Behavior
Channel behavior represents the manner and process of functioning, perfor-
mance, management, evaluating, and the dynamics of a channel. In this regard
the channel organizational behavior comprises the following elements: gov-
ernance, strategy, environmental factors analysis, internal factors, stakeholder
analysis, value, and performance.
Channel as Value Provision Network (VPN)

The traditional linear channel relationship between supplier, producer and con-
sumer may, today, be too limited and owing to technological progress and
information and communication technology expansions, companies need to
form more sophisticated relationships as part of their value provision network
(VPN). VPN is a network that contains the producer, suppliers, distributors,
and consumers who work together to enhance the performance of the entire
system of value provision network.
Channel Value Added (CVA) Flows

In the process of delivering products and services to consumers, the channel
value added (CVA) may be accomplished through the following flows: infor-
mation, promotion, communication/relationship/contact, product/service,
ownership, matching, buying, negotiation, physical distribution/logistics, sell-
ing, transferring, transportation, storage, ordering, order processing, financ-
ing, payment, and risk-taking.
Partner Relationship Management (PRM)

The channels are not only the intermediaries between a company and its cus-
tomers but also can be the first-line customers and partners of a company. Thus
in order to build long-term partnerships with channel members the businesses
could practice partner relationship management (PRM).
Marketing Channel Design and Management

Designing marketing channels includes customer needs analysis, channel
objectives definition, and channel alternatives identification, evaluation, and
selection. In order to effectively select each alternative they can be evaluated by
economic, control, and adaptability criteria. The marketing channels based on
the used number of intermediaries may be classified as: intensive (many), exclu-
sive (limited), or selective (a few). Marketing channel management involves
selecting, managing, and motivating channel members and evaluating and
improving their performance over time.
352 H. AGHAZADEH
Channel Strategic Issues Versus Tactical Issues

The key issues and decisions of business channel can be considered at two main
levels: strategic and tactical. Strategic issues often focus on the levels, numbers,
and relationship forms of channel. Tactical issues usually emphasize motivat-
ing, empowering, evaluating, refining, and performance and management of
channel. In fact designing a channel can be viewed as the strategic part, and
the managing of a channel can be seen as the tactical part of marketing channel
management.
Marketing Channel Conflicts

Conflicts are disagreements among the members of a marketing channel that
might occur because of goals, roles, and rewards. The conflicts might be
horizontal (among the members at the same level of the channel) or vertical
(between different levels of the same channel). One of the key functions of
channel management is to identify and resolve channel conflicts in a timely
way.
Factors Influence Channel Behavior

There are several key factors that may substantially affect channel behavior:
environmental factors (political, economic, social, cultural, technological,
legal, and ecological), consumer/business users factors, product factors, pro-
ducer factors, channel competition factors, and channel (intermediary) organi-
zational factors. A business can affect the channel through these factors based
on an intelligent investigation of them.
Evaluating, Enhancing, or Changing Marketing Channels

In light of marketing channel management the channel performance should
be evaluated steadily. The channel’s performance can be evaluated by finan-
cial and non-financial measures (i.e. efficiency, effectiveness, integration,
adaptability, and synergy). In accordance with the result of such evaluation
a company can decide on enhancing, expanding, switching, or changing the
channel.
Marketing Channel Bargaining Power

Bargaining power is a key matter in dealing with and contracting a com-
pany with marketing channels. The extent of channel bargaining power
depends on several issues: quantitative and qualitative conditions of market,
demand, supply, customers, and producers; organizational and financial
capability of company rather than other producers; logistical and financial
capability of channels, the features of products to be moved into the chan-
nel; and so on.
Warning: Channels as Potential Competitors

The companies who use contractual or outsourced marketing channels should
be aware that that some of the channel members might be the potential com-
petitors within their target market. As a matter of fact it is very likely they
will become serious emerging competitors in the near future. This is primarily
because of the relationships that they build with customers; managerial and
operational knowledge, learning and experience about the business in which
they are involved; and also the financial capability and credit that they obtain
in the market.
Marketing Channel and Other Components of Marketing Mix

Marketing channel as a cornerstone for creating and delivering value of a com-
pany to its key stakeholders are closely related to other components in the
marketing mix,20 and include product, price, promotion, people, process, and
property. It should be noted that the marketing channel along with other com-
ponents of the marketing mix, comprises the main part (tactical) of a business’s
value proposition. In fact a value proposition of a company cannot be accom-
plished without marketing channel (Osterwalder et al. 2005, 2015; Day 1990,
1999; Moorman and Rust 1999; Slater and Olson 2001; Sinkula et al. 1997;
Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Coyne and Horn 2009; Cravens and Piercy
2013; Kotler 2003; Schiffman and Wisenblit 2014; Gilligan and Wilson 2009;
Best 2012; Brown 2005; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Srivastava et al. 2001;
Aaker 2010; Webster 2008; Chernev 2014; Lado et al. 1992; Ulrich et al.
2012; Davenport and Harris 2007; Kotler and Keller 2015; Davenport et al.
2010a, b; Argandona 2011; Friedman and Furey 1999; Lambert et al. 1998,
2005; Cox 1999; Chopra and Meindl 2015; Bechtel and Jayaram 1997;
Rosenbloom 2013; Lee 1996; Guan 2010; Capgemini 2011; Holmqvist and
Linde 2011; Ensign 2006; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Coughlan et al.
2006; Pelton et al. 2014; Amato and Amato 2009; Anderson et al. 1997; Kim
and Frazier 1996; Deusen et al. 2007; Gunasekaran and Ngai 2005; Love et al.
2004; Rangan and Jaikumar 1991; Lambert 2014; Atwong and Rosenbloom
1995; Buzzell and Ortmeyer 1994; Desiraju and Moorthy 1997).
MOC to Channel Analysis (Engineering)

Considering the channel attributes and behaviors, businesses have to use
intelligence providing systems and mechanisms such as business intelligence
(BI) and market intelligence channel intelligence, and so on. Marketology
is a hyper-function system that can provide the full range of required intel-
ligences (market DIKII). In this way MOC can focus on channel analysis
(engineering) in two parts: channel attributes and channel behavior.
354 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
(4-11) Channel analysis: behavior
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Competitor behavior (COB)
2. Channel behavior
3. Channel as value provision network (VPN)
4. Channel value added (CVA) flows
5. Partner relationship management (PRM)
6. Marketing channel design and management
7. Channel strategic issues versus tactical issues
8. Marketing channel conflicts
9. Factors influence channel behavior
10. Evaluating, enhancing or changing marketing channels:
11. Marketing channel bargaining power
12. Warning: channels as potential competitors
13. Marketing channel and other components of marketing mix

4.6.7 Supplier Analysis (Engineering)

Suppliers as the origins of the business supply chain, initiators of business value
chain, and key collaborators of business value network can contribute sub-
stantially in accomplishing a business’s superior/competitive success. In fact
good and qualified suppliers can foster business success; by contrast bad and
unqualified suppliers can hinder business success. It is worth bearing in mind

that suppliers can provide everything a business needs to create value, such as
the raw material, human resource, data and information, technology, finance,
equipment, hardware and software, and so on. Regarding the significance of
suppliers for business competitive performance and success, the executives of
businesses should identify and analyze them through supplier engineering, and
then communicate with them effectively and manage the relationship with
them mutual beneficially through examining their attributes and behaviors.
Supplier Attributes
The following issues can be considered as channel attributes:
Supplier Characteristics (Profile)

Ownership, geographical location, vision and mission, ethical and environmen-
tal (green) concerns, social responsibilities, size, growth and profitability, pro-
duction facilities and capacity, past business performance, attitude, reputation
and position in industry, financial position, dependency, political stability of
the supplier’s country, commitment, business life cycle (BLC), exit probabil-
ity, strengths and weaknesses, critical success factors (CSF), strategies, policies,
tactics, and so on.
Supplier Typology
Person (C2B) or company/business (B2B); sizes of micro, small, medium and
large; single or multiple; electronic or conventional.
Supplier Organizational Design (SOD)

Structure, culture, people, process, asset, technology, innovation, and com-
munication of competitor. Additional components can be trust, outlook for
the future, strategic fit and flexibility, functional and technological compat-
ibility, technological and engineering capabilities (IT and HSE- healthy, safety,
environmental), operational speed, communication, interaction, long-term
relationship, and so on.
Supplier Value Proposition (SVP)

Strategic components of identity/brand, history, responsibility, and gover-
nance; and also the tactical components of product, price, place, promotion,
process, people, and properties.
Supplier Behavior
The following issues can be considered as supplier behavior:
Supplier Behavior Process In fact suppliers are businesses who create and
deliver value to their customers (the companies who buy the products of suppli-
ers). In this regard they would behave as a business enterprise and go through
the stages of: analyzing and identifying target business customers and their
intended values/products; communicating and contracting with c ustomers/
356 H. AGHAZADEH
companies; producing and delivering values/products; and evaluating and

improving performance and relationship with customers/companies.
Supplier Organizational Behavior (SOB) Governance, strategy, environ-

mental factors analysis, internal factors, stakeholder analysis, value and per-
formance. Additional and detailed elements can be quality of products and
functions, delivery, warranties and claim, policies, price, technical capability,
communication system, procedural compliance, impression, desire for busi-
ness, operating controls, service, packaging ability, training assists, reciprocal
arrangements, management and organization, and total performance.
Factors Influence Supplier Behavior Position of supplier in its BLC, the

position of the supplier’s products/services in the PLC, the competitive condi-
tion that the suppliers acts in, the environmental (macro, micro, and market)
forces, technology and information and communication technology (ICT), the
supplier’s organizational system and internal factors, and so on.
Supplier Audit Grid (SAG) In addition to the factors mentioned previously

such as the components of SOD and SOB, the following factors can be used
to audit suppliers:
–– Management: operations management, customer satisfaction, quality
work procedures, risk management, management capability, flexibility,
conflict resolution, innovativeness, responsiveness, contract compli-
ance, productivity, benchmarking, process control, customer feedback
to improve operations and processes, long-range perspective, problem
solving, leadership/management commitment, participation, integra-
tion, and so on.
–– Quality: quality philosophy; planning, assessment, control and assur-
ance; quality performance of deliveries; reliability; standardization;
conformance quality; consistent delivery; prompt response to custom-
ers; training; statistical ensuring good quality; organization and man-
agement of quality systems; and related systems.
–– Performance and service: cooperation and after-market support; prod-
uct acceptance rejection rate; flexibility; delivery; service capability;
sourcing and subcontractor performance; performance experience;
customer satisfaction; certificates and prizes; brand and reputation;
delivery speed and timeliness; product development time; partnership
formation time; lead time; time in business/market; length of time to
process orders; logistics and operations; quantity and capacity of opera-
tion and transportation; frequency and/or volume of order processing;
order backlog; and so on.
–– Competence and product development: product technology; industrial

engineering; customer support and relationship; electronic commu-
nication; capacity; integrity; certification and licensing (e.g. ISO);
electronic capabilities; testing capabilities; normal and sustainable com-
petitive advantages (SCA); documented system/procedures; learning
capabilities; market/customer/process orientation; product develop-
ment process and project support; product engineering experience and
technology; R&D and prototypes; design changes; product volume
changes; new product/service development (NPD/NSD); and so on.
–– Financial: pricing; payment terms: financial strength and weaknesses;
market share; distribution cost; low initial price; cost analysis system;
cost reduction activities; sectoral price behavior; financial evaluation;
total cost; cost targets; product/service expedite; balanced sheets;
income statement; profit/loss statement; and so on.
Supplier Management Needless to say, suppliers should be managed actively

by companies. This can be easier for those companies who have an influence
on suppliers. Supplier management includes the following: identifying and ana-
lyzing; selecting and communicating; contracting and cooperating; evaluating
and improving/changing. Suppliers and their performance can be appraised
by certain indicators (such as delivery, quality, efficiency, effectiveness, com-
petitiveness, and performance experience). Further their satisfaction should be
examined in relation to the above-mentioned measures (such as payment time,
procedure and terms and condition; and extent of cooperation). In accordance
with such evaluations the executives of a company can decide on expanding/
limiting cooperation, and improving or changing suppliers (Lamberson et al.
1976; Monezka et al. 1981; Bragg and Hahn 1989; Browning et al. 1983; Buffa
and Jackson 1983; Bender et al. 1985; Ghodsypour and O’Brien 1998; Ansari
and Modarress 1986; Hahn et al. 1986; Soukup 1987; Burton 1988; Bernard
1989; Chapman 1989; Güler 2008; Beil 2009; Shil 2010; Thompson 1990;
Ghodyspour and O’Brien 2001; Cakravastia and Takahashi 2004; Cardozo and
Cagley 1971; Davidrajuh 2003; Bai and Sarki 2009; Dickson 1966; Karpak
et al. 1999; Narasimhan 1983; Timmerman 1986; Weber and Current 1993;
Lin 2012; William et al. 2011; Chernev 2014; Aaker 2010; Moorman and Rust
1999; Slater and Olson 2001; Sinkula et al. 1997; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016;
Coyne and Horn 2009; Dodgson et al. 2015; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b;
Osterwalder et al. 2015; McNaughton et al. 2001; Doyle 2009; Marr 2015b;
Argandona 2011; Walker and Madsen 2015; Denisa and Jaroslav 2013; Smith
and Raspin 2008; Best 2012; Srivastava et al. 2001; Fleisher and Bensoussan
2015; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Webster 2008; Kotler and Keller 2015; Grant
and Jordan 2012; Bryson et al. 2011; Ackermann and Eden 2011; Lehman
and Winer 2007; Chaffey 2014; Lambert 2014; Auh and Merlo 2012; Dess
et al. 2013; Day 2013).
358 H. AGHAZADEH
MOC to Supplier Analysis (Engineering)

Regarding the supplier attributes and behaviors, companies should apply intel-
ligence systems and mechanisms such as business intelligence (BI) and mar-
ket intelligence, supplier intelligence, and so on to better cooperate with them.
Marketology is a hyper-function system that can provide the full range of
required intelligences (market DIKII). In this way the MOC can focus on sup-
plier analysis (engineering) in two parts of supplier attributes and behaviors.

practice (MIP)
(4-12) Supplier analysis : attributes and behavior
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Supplier analysis (engineering)
2. Supplier attributes
3. Supplier characteristics (profile)
4. Supplier typology
5. Supplier organizational design (SOD)
6. Supplier value proposition (SVP)
7. Supplier critical success factors (CSF)
8. Supplier behavior
9. Supplier behavior process
10. Supplier organizational behavior (SOB)
11. Factors influence supplier behavior
12. Supplier audit grid (SAG)
13. Supplier management

4.6.8 Company Analysis (Engineering)

The company is the main foundation for applying business and market-related
issues. In fact all the pertaining concepts, models, methods, tools and tech-
niques originate from the company field and are aimed at assisting the com-
pany to provide superior value to the key stakeholders and in return capture
satisfactory value. Therefore, the attributes and behaviors of a company should
be analyzed and engineered thoroughly.
ompany Analysis Perspectives

C
The company can be examined based on the following points of view: inter-
nal, external, and exinternal. In internal perspective such as resource-based
view (RBV) a company is an organizational system which creates and delivers
value to the market and in return captures its expected value from the market
based on its assets and capabilities. In the external approach, similar to that of
the market-based view (MBV), a company is an open system which interacts
and exchanges value with the market based on the requirements of market.
In the exinternal perspective, such as the dynamic capability view (DCV), a
company is an open organizational system that considers market requests and
internal capabilities and then responds to them by providing a balanced value
which is beneficial for both the company and the stakeholders (particularly
customers). It can be inferred that the common essence of all perspectives is
the business value system (BVS) through which the balanced value is creat-
ing and delivering to the stakeholders and capturing value for the company.
But the changing matter between different views is the focus of the company.
ompany Internal Analysis

C
In this view the focus of the company is primarily on the internal factors and
stakeholders. The internal attributes of the company involve internal stake-
holders and the components of business organizational design (BOD). The
internal behavior of the company involves interacting with internal stakehold-
ers and the components of business organizational behavior (BOB).
ompany External Analysis

C
By this perspective the focus of the company is primarily on the external fac-
tors and stakeholders. The external attributes of the company involves external
stakeholders and the components of business environment (macro, micro and
market). The external behavior of the company involves interacting with external
stakeholders and the components of business organizational behavior (BOB).
ompany Exinternal Analysis

C
According to this approach the focus of the company is ambidextrous: both
outside/inside and external/internal factors and stakeholders. The exinternal
attributes and behaviors of the company incorporate both external and internal
attributes and behaviors in an integrative manner.21
360 H. AGHAZADEH
ut of Context Analysis: Company Evaluation from the Eyes of Stakeholders

O
The discussions that have been represented about the company analysis all
are from the eyes or thoughts of the company itself. What about the others’
ideas about company attributes and behaviors? To answer this key question it
would be useful to view the company from the eyes of its key stakeholders. For
instance, how do shareholders, managers, employees, customers, competitors,
suppliers, channels, NGOs, government, unions, media, and community evalu-
ate the brand, social responsiveness, financial strength, political relationships,
innovations, electronic appearance, tax payment, and components of BOD and
BOB, and so on. This can be carried out easily just by examining all the dis-
cussed issues of company analysis (internal, external and exinternal) from the
eyes of key stakeholders. Definitely this investigation gives quite a different and
useful assessment of company attributes and behaviors. For this purpose, using
the matrix in Figure 4.13 as a company analysis by stakeholders can be helpful
(Webster 2008; Kotler and Keller 2015; Grant and Jordan 2012; Bryson et al.
Company analysis
Attributes Behaviors Total
Score Evaluation Score Evaluation score
(0-9) (0-9)
Internal stakeholders
Customer
Competitor
Supplier
Evaluators of company
Channel
Government
NGOs
Union
Media
Community
Figure 4.13 Matrix for company analysis by stakeholders: an out-of-context

evaluation
2011; Chernev 2014; Lado et al. 1992; Davenport et al. 2006; Aghazadeh
2008; Kaplan and Norton 2001; Chandler & Ulrich 2016; Strategyzer 2015b;
Stewart and Rogers 2012; Porter 1985, 2008; Aghazadeh and Esfidani
2007; Aaker 2010; Smith and Raspin 2008; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015;
Best 2012; Barney and Hesterly 2011; Grant 2013; Teece et al. 1997; Teece
and Pisano 1994; Kotter 2015; Strategyzer 2015a; Kaplan 2010; Hamel and
Prahalad 1994; Daft 2016; Morgan et al. 2000; Yami et al. 2010; Walker and
Madsen 2015).
MOC to Company Analysis (Engineering)

Regarding the company attributes and behaviors from different eyes, sev-
eral intelligence systems and mechanisms such as business intelligence (BI)
and market intelligence (MI) are required to better manage the company.
Marketology is a hyper-function system that can provide the full range of
required intelligences (market DIKII). In this way the MOC can focus on
company analysis (engineering) in two parts: attributes and behaviors.
4.6.9 Condition/Context of Market Analysis (Market Engineering)

Needless to say that the fate of every business closely depends on the market.
Actually businesses get the idea of value creation from the market, deliver
value to the market, and capture value from the market. Hence the attributes
and behaviors of the business environment (macro and micro) and the market
(general and target) should be analyzed and engineered precisely and perma-
nently. The attributes of the market refer to its characteristics, factors, and
forces. The behaviors of the market represent the dynamics and interactive
relationships and effects of embracing components (such as supplier, com-
pany, competitor, channel, and customer). The issues of the business envi-
ronment and the market have been discussed widely in previous sections;
thus there is no need to explain them further here (Smith and Raspin 2008;
Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Best 2012; Barney and Hesterly 2011; Grant
2013; Porter 1985; Teece et al. 1997; Teece and Pisano 1994; Kotter 2015;
Strategyzer 2015a; Kaplan 2010; Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Daft 2016;
Morgan et al. 2000; Yami et al. 2010; Walker and Madsen 2015; Davenport
et al. 2010a, b; Day 1994, 2013; Osterwalder et al. 2005, 2015; Boyer et al.
2010; Wright 2013; Thompson et al. 2013; Olszak 2014; Doyle and Stern
2006; Doyle 2009; Rothaermel 2014; Ekerson 2007; Skyrius et al. 2013;
Ulwick 2012; Dess et al. 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Cravens and Piercy 2013;
Kotler 2003; Aghazadeh 2016; Campbell and Craig 2011; Osterwalder and
Pigneur 2013).
362 H. AGHAZADEH
MOC to Condition of Analysis (Market Engineering)

Regarding the market attributes and behaviors, several intelligence systems
and mechanisms such as business intelligence (BI) and market intelligence
(MI) are required to better interact and deal with market. Marketology is
a hyper-function system that can provide the full range of required intelli-
gences (market DIKII). In this way the MOC can focus on market analysis
(engineering) in two parts: attributes and behaviors.
4.6.10
Community, Media, NGOs, Unions and Government
Analysis (Engineering)
Community, media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), unions, and
government are the key groups of business stakeholders other than those previ-
ously examined (which include customer, competitor, channel and supplier).22
Community which may be used interchangeably with society, public, social
community, or social networks refers to a social unit or a group of people who
are related and connected and share common attitudes and values within a
defined geographical area or cyber space in the form of local, national, interna-
tional, and virtual communities. Considering the extreme penetration of social
networks into people’s lives/work, and organizations’ functions/success such
networks should be concentrated more seriously.
Media have a remarkable role and influences on the community for people
and organizations. The media come in many forms which include print media
(books, magazines, and newspapers), television, movies, video games, music,
cell/smartphones, social media, various kinds of software, and the internet.
Media of all kind particularly social media can affect the business brand, image,
reputation, performance, and success significantly (both positively and nega-
tively). Then the media should be taken into account by business precisely.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are both not-for-profit business
organizations and non-government organizations. NGOs may be formed by
people and citizens to pursue different aims and objectives; and be funded by
government, foundations, businesses, or individuals. NGOs may take differ-
ent forms such as charitable, service, participatory, empowering, development,
right protections (e.g. environment and animal), awakening, and so on. The
NGOs may be formed at different levels such as community-based, city/state-
wide, national, and international/global.
Unions which may be used interchangeably with associations represent a
group of people or organizations that join together and shape a new identity as
a specific organization for the purpose of realizing their common interests and
enhancing their conditions/positions. Unions/associations may take different
forms depending on their members and their mission, for example, they may
be scientific associations, trade unions, labor unions, and so on.
Beyond the political, economic, and legal factors in the macro environment
within the micro environment, which is closer to the company’s government,
are the specific organizations and institutions that can directly influence the
establishing/launching, licensing/certifying, performing/functioning, moni-
toring/evaluation, and controlling/closing aspects of businesses.
Business functions, performance, and success are influenced considerably
by the community, media, NGOs, unions, and government. Hence businesses
have to examine the attributes and behaviors of these key stakeholders through
analyzing/engineering them to find mutually beneficial ways of interacting
with them. For this purpose, the businesses should first identify the target
groups of these stakeholders or the intended matters pertaining to them, and
second analyze the attributes and behaviors related to the identified groups or
matters (Ricciardi 2014; Vervest et al. 2009; Luo et al. 2006; Dagnino and
Padula 2002; Kossyva et al. 2014; UNIDO 2002; Hakansson and Snehota
1995; Marland et al. 2014; Jansen et al. 2009; Hakansson and Ford 2002;
Aghazadeh 2016; Grefen et al. 2007; Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996;
ACG 2016; Morgan et al. 2000; Moorman and Rust 1999; Slater and Olson
2001; Sinkula et al. 1997; MacInnis 2011; Morgan and Turnell 2003; Auh
and Merlo 2012; Hunt and Lambe 2000; OECD 2015a, b; Kendall and
Kendall 1998; Larcker and Tayan 2013; GIA 2010c; Day 1990; Allard 2004;
Crowley 2004; Dobney 2015; Wysocki et al. 2015; Bryson 2004; IFC-WB
2005; Smith and Raspin 2008; Gilligan and Wilson 2009; Best 2012; Brown
2005; Dess et al. 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Kotter 2015; Daft 2016; Grant
and Jordan 2012; Aaker 2014; Bryson et al. 2011; Kotler and Keller 2015).
MOC to Community, Media, NGOs, Unions, and Government Analysis

(Engineering)
Regarding the attributes and behaviors of a community, the media, NGOs,
unions and government, the businesses should apply intelligence systems and
mechanisms such as business intelligence (BI) and market intelligence, com-
munity intelligence, media intelligence, NGO intelligence, government
intelligence, and so on to better interact with them. Marketology is a hyper-
function system that can provide the full range of required intelligences
(market DIKII). By this way the MOC can focus on community, media,
NGOs, unions and government analysis (engineering) in two parts: their
attributes and behaviors.
364 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
(4-13) Company, Condition and Community analysis
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Company analysis (engineering)
2. Company analysis perspectives
3. Company internal analysis
4. Company external analysis
5. Company exinternal analysis
6. Out of context analysis: company evaluation (attributes and behavior) from the eyes of
stakeholders
7. Condition/context of market analysis (engineering)
8. Community, Media, NGOs, Unions and Government analysis (engineering)
9. Community analysis (attributes and behavior)
10. Media and social media analysis (attributes and behavior)
11. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) analysis (attributes and behavior)
12. Unions analysis (attributes and behavior)
13. Government analysis (attributes and behavior)

4.6.11 Collaborator Analysis (Engineering)

To create and deliver value to the key stakeholders and in return capture their
own expected value, businesses and their supply/value chain have to be related
and interact with different groups of stakeholders both intra-organization and
inter-organization. Working together with such internal and external bodies/
parties to accomplish common goals is called “collaboration.” Collaboration has
several equivalents such as coordination, coalition, cooperation, coopetition, par-
ticipation, integration, partnership, strategic alliance, and business networking.23
In accordance with the “value net” framework the company is located at the cen-
ter and works with all of the main collaborators (including suppliers, customers,
competitors, and complementors) in a 360-degree collaboration. As a matter of
fact, today, because of intense competition and expanded networking capacities
and technologies, collaboration has become much more vital and beneficial for
businesses than ever before. By this, businesses must attempt to deploy and utilize
collaboration appropriately to achieve sustainable superior/competitive success
(SSS/SCS) in a participatory or networked manner. For this purpose, the attri-
butes and behaviors of business collaborators should be analyzed as “collaborator
engineering” to find out the effective ways of interacting and managing them.
apping Business Collaborators

M
Underlying the supply chain, value chain, and value network frameworks and
based on business stakeholder perspective the main groups of business collab-
orators can be defined as follows: business (firm), customer, supplier, channel,
competitor, government, NGOs, community, media, unions, beyond industry
partners, and market condition/context. Through such mapping the collab-
orative relationships can be identified between all the collaborators recip-
rocally. It should be noted that all these collaborators have been discussed,
analyzed, and engineered in previous sections. In this part their interaction
dynamics are examined as an integrative concept of business collaborations.
Collaborator Attributes
The following issues can be considered as collaborator attributes:
Collaborator Characteristics Business collaborator characteristics refer to the

type, level, direction, members, generation, and other features of collaborators.
Considering the collaborators as organizations, the collaborator organizational
design includes the following components: structure, culture, people, process,
asset, technology, innovation, and communication of competitor.
Collaboration 1.0 Versus 2.0 Business collaboration has experienced a

mutation from generation 1.0 to generation 2.0. The collaboration 1.0 refers
to traditional document-based partnerships whereas the collaboration 2.0 as a
modern partnership focuses on people and social sharing based on social net-
working technologies. In fact technology deployment and utilization can result
in improved performance and return of collaboration.
366 H. AGHAZADEH
Collaboration Types Business collaborations may take different forms: busi-

ness cluster, business ecosystem, business network, innovation hub, triple helix,
hierarchical relations, equity investment, cooperatives, strategic cooperative
agreements, cartels, franchising, subcontractor networks, industry standards
groups, action sets, market relations, licensing, cross-licensing, second sourc-
ing agreement, mutual second sourcing agreements, joint R&D agreements
and consortia, minority equity, joint ventures, joint marketing/promotion;
joint sale/distribution; production; design; technology licensing; other out-
sourcing purposes; and project-oriented alliances.
Strategic or Operational Collaborators Business collaborations based on

their purposes of formation might be strategic or tactical/operational: strategic
purposes such as diversification, growth, protection against threats, exploiting
opportunities, and commitment; operational purposes such as resource efficiency,
better asset utilization, enhance core competency, and bridge performance gaps.
Competitor Versus Non-competitor Collaborators Business collaborations

based on the parties can be classified as competitors (existing, potential, indi-
rect, and new entrant competitors) and non-competitors (such as customers,
suppliers, channels, and so on).
Upstream Versus Downstream Collaborators Along a supply chain the busi-

ness collaborators can be grouped as upstream (e.g. suppliers), midstream (e.g.
complementary producer) and downstream (e.g. customers) collaborators.
Vertical Versus Horizontal Collaborators In accordance with the value

chain or value net framework business collaborators may be categorized as
vertical (e.g. supplier or customer), horizontal (e.g. competitor or production
partner), and diagonal/network (e.g. R&D cooperator).
Competition Versus Coopetition Collaborators Working together from the

lowest to the highest extent can take various forms: independence, coordination,
cooperation, collaboration, and integration. In this regard the interfirm collabo-
ration of a business with its competitors and the consequences may take different
forms within a continuum; these include: competition (win-lose); cooperation
(win-win); dyadic coopetition (win-win-lose); multifaceted coopetition (win-
win-win). In fact coopetition strategy is a new kind of interfirm dynamics which
can lead to the co-creation of knowledge value and economic value (UNIDO
2002; Hakansson and Snehota 1995; Marland et al. 2014; Jansen et al. 2009;
Hakansson and Ford 2002; Grefen et al. 2007; Brandenburger and Nalebuff
1996; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Davenport et al. 2006; Ulwick 2012;
GPS 2007; Zamir et al. 2014; Aghazadeh and Esfidani 2007; Holmberg and
Cummings 2009; Kale and Singh 2009; Gonzalez 2001; Sheth and Parvatiyar
1992; Elmuti and Kathawala 2001; Das and Teng 1998; Rusko 2012; Ullah
et al. 2014; Yami et al. 2010; Dagnino and Elena 2009; ACG 2016; Morgan
et al. 2000; Moorman and Rust 1999; Slater and Olson 2001; Sinkula et al.
1997; MacInnis 2011; Morgan and Turnell 2003; Auh and Merlo 2012; Hunt
and Lambe 2000; Teece 1986; Stank et al. 2001; GSA 2012; Gray and Stites
2013; EIU 2008; Isoraite 2009a, b; Bengtsson and Kock 2000; Ricciardi 2014;
Vervest et al. 2009; Luo et al. 2006; Dagnino and Padula 2002; Kossyva et al.
2014; Dess et al. 2015; Gibson et al. 2012; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Barney
and Hesterly 2011; Aghazadeh 2016; Grant 2013; Kotter 2015; Daft 2016).

practice (MIP)
(4-14) Collaborator analysis: attributes
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Collaborator analysis (engineering)
2. Collaborator characteristics
3. Collaboration 1.0 versus 2.0
4. Collaboration types
5. Strategic or operational collaborators
6. Competitor versus non-competitor collaborators
7. Upstream versus downstream collaborators
8. Vertical versus horizontal collaborators
9. Competition versus coopetition collaborators

368 H. AGHAZADEH
Collaborator Behavior
The following issues can be considered as collaborator behavior:
Collaborator Behavior Collaborator behavior represents the manner, pro-

cess, fields, motives/objectives, CSFs, risks, affecting factors, and manage-
ment of collaborators. In this regard the collaborator organizational behavior
contains the following elements: governance, strategy, environmental factors
analysis, internal factors, stakeholder analysis, value, and performance.
Collaborator Behavior Process Business collaboration behavior process

comprises the following main steps: pre-formation and collaborator selec-
tion; agreement and formation; design and governance; and post-formation
behavior.
Collaboration Fields Business collaborations can be formed and handled in

the following key areas: components of business organizational design (BOD),
components of business organizational behavior (BOB). They can play a finan-
cial, technological, physical, managerial, efficiency, effectiveness, innovation
capabilities, and social role.
Collaboration Motivations/Objectives While in the 1970s business col-

laborations were for the purposes of product performance improvement
and in the 1980s they were for promoting the position of the sector, more
recently it has become for the purposes of enhancing capabilities and compe-
tencies. The main reasons for collaboration can be expressed as legitimacy-
oriented, competency-oriented, resource-oriented, and society-oriented,
increased market share, improved time-to-market, business process innova-
tion, knowledge transfer and organizational learning, new organizational
capabilities; reduction or neutralization of competitive threat, risk mitiga-
tion/sharing portfolio, increased brand recognition, improved customer
satisfaction, improved strategic plans, enhanced value creation capability,
growth strategies and enter new market; to obtain new technology and/or
best quality or cheapest cost, reduce financial risk and costs of R&D, achieve
or ensure competitive advantage; and to strengthen customer value prop-
osition, product mix and diversification, effective cost position/structure,
spread risks, speed to market, enhance firm’s intangible assets and organiza-
tion skills, increase net income, strengthen defensive competitive position,
market seeking, empowering distribution, access to new technology, learning
and internalization of skills, economies of scale, vertical integration, extend-
ing supply links, diversifying into new businesses, restructuring, improving

performance, cost sharing and pooling of resources, new product/service
developing (NPD/NSD), reducing and diversifying risk, developing techni-
cal standards, cooperation with potential rivals, pre-emptying competitors,
completing goods/services to markets, co-specialization, overcoming legal/
regulatory barriers, acquiring legitimization, value co-creation, cobranding,
and following industry trends.
Collaboration CSFs Critical success factors of business collaborations can

be categorized as task-related CSFs and partner-related CSFs that involve
senior management’s commitment; like-minded management philosophies;
frequent performance feedback; effective and strong management team;
clearly defined; shared goals and objectives; shared power; shared under-
standing interdependence; mutual respect & trust; shared control; shared
accountability; thorough planning; clearly understood roles; international
vision; partner selection; communication between partners; and maintaining
relationships
Collaboration Risks Business collaborations may encounter several risks such

as cultural incompatibility; lack of clear goals and objectives; lack of trust; lack
of coordination between management team; differences in operating proce-
dures and attitudes among partners; relational risks; performance risk; and cre-
ating a future/potential, local/global competitor.
Factors Affecting Collaboration Behavior The factors that may impact

business collaboration behavior are as follows:
–– Drivers of collaboration formation: social perceptions, expecta-
tions and preferences, technological developments, concerns about
globalization, regulatory environment, and decline in government
efficacy.
–– Motivations for collaboration: legitimacy-oriented, competency-
oriented, resource-oriented, and society-oriented motivations.
–– Collaborator characteristics: resource profile, representation, power
dynamics, cultural fit, collaboration experience, time horizons, and
collaborator reputation.
–– Process Issues: exploring differences, creating a shared vision, agree-
ing on norms, building trust, handling conflict, reaching consensus,
devising accountability criteria, sharing power and ensuring voice, and
fostering effective leadership.
370 H. AGHAZADEH
–– Outcomes: reputation, learning and innovation, process integration,

accountability, voice, quality of life and control of life, culturally accept-
able solutions, inter-organization coordination, norms for governance,
and attention to sustainability.
Collaborator Management Managing business collaborators require the

following: identify the collaboration opportunities; analyze business capa-
bilities and CSFs to meet the opportunities; identify suitable collaborators;
design a suitable collaboration model; establish relevant collaboration gov-
ernance and management requirements; form and set up the collaboration;
direct and manage the collaboration; evaluate the collaboration perfor-
mance; and expand or terminate the collaboration (ACG 2016; Morgan
et al. 2000; Holmberg and Cummings 2009; Kale and Singh 2009;
Gonzalez 2001; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1992; Elmuti and Kathawala 2001;
Das and Teng 1998; Rusko 2012; Ullah et al. 2014; Yami et al. 2010;
Dagnino and Elena 2009; Bengtsson and Kock 2000; Ricciardi 2014;
Vervest et al. 2009; Luo et al. 2006; Dagnino and Padula 2002; Moorman
and Rust 1999; Slater and Olson 2001; Sinkula et al. 1997; MacInnis
2011; Morgan and Turnell 2003; Auh and Merlo 2012; Hunt and Lambe
2000; Teece 1986, 2010; Stank et al. 2001; GSA 2012; Gray and Stites
2013; EIU 2008; Isoraite 2009a, b; GPS 2007; Zamir et al. 2014; Grefen
et al. 2007; Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996; Grant 2013; Kotter 2015;
Daft 2016; Campbell and Craig 2011; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Webster
2008; Kotler and Keller 2015; Grant and Jordan 2012; Aaker 2014; Bryson
et al. 2011; Chernev 2014; Lado et al. 1992; Katz 2009; Hatch and
Cunliffe 2013; Porter 2007; Mintzberg 2013; Boyer et al. 2010; Wright
2013; Ulrich et al. 2012; Kossyva et al. 2014; UNIDO 2002; Hakansson
and Snehota 1995; Marland et al. 2014; Jansen et al. 2009; Hakansson and
Ford 2002).
MOC to Collaborators Analysis (Engineering)

Regarding the attributes and behaviors of business collaborators, the busi-
nesses should use intelligence systems and mechanisms such as business intel-
ligence (BI) and market intelligence, collaborator intelligence, and so on to
better interacting with them. Marketology is a hyper-function system that
can provide the full range of required intelligences (market DIKII). By this
way the MOC can focus on business collaborator analysis (engineering) in
two parts: attributes and behaviors.

practice (MIP)
(4-15) Collaborator analysis: behavior
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Collaborator analysis (engineering)
2. Collaborator behavior
3. Collaborator behavior process
4. Collaboration fields
5. Collaboration motivations/objectives
6. Collaboration CSFs
7. Collaboration risk
8. Factors affecting collaboration behavior
9. Collaborator management

372 H. AGHAZADEH
4.6.12 Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC)

Canvas: Completion of Pieces
Regarding the descriptive explanations about business-based contributions,
marketology-based contributions, market DIKII, and IGDEE services, Figure
4.14 shows that all four pieces become complete and, accordingly, the MOC
Marketology
Organizaonal
Design (MOD)
Figure 4.14 Marketology organization contribution (MOC) canvas: completion of

pieces
4.7 Marketology in Practice (MIP)
Marketology in Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB)

practice (MIP)
Cumulating and integrating the components of MOB
Chapter-End
Previous marketology in practice (MIP) sections have provided a practical viewpoint on the
chapter’s discussions about the subjects and matters of marketology organizational
contribution (MOC), such as business-based and marketology-based contribution. Some
practical tools and techniques of marketology were not directly applicable to the subjects
discussed in the chapter, whereas they are suitable to be used here. Therefore, the following
tools/techniques of marketology are applied and exercises provided at the end of the
chapter (MOC) to cover and integrate the main subjects:
MIP 4-16: MOC Client Inquiry Analysis (MOC-CIA): (a) matrix and (b) inquiry form
MIP 4-17: MOC Importance Performance Assessment (MOC-IPD): (a) Diagram, and
(b) Matrix
MIP 4-18: MOC Product & Service Profile Matrix (MOC-PSPM)
MIP 4-19: MOC Functional Compatibility Diagram (MOC-FCD)
MIP 4-20: MOC Business Support Matrix (MOC-BSM)
MIP 4-21: MOC Primary Function Matrix (MOC-PFM)
MIP 4-22: Marketology Effectiveness & Maturity Evaluation (MEME)
MIP 4-23: Marketology & Organization Mutual Contribution (MOMC)
MIP 4-24: Case study: MOC and entire business organization
Marketology in MOC Client Inquiry Analysis (MOC-CIA)

practice (MIP)
Audiences/ clients analysis matrix
(4-16) (a)
Guidelines: In the following marketology organizational contribution client inquiry analysis (MOC-CIA):
1. Determine the market-related target audiences/clients. Note that you can add/remove any client.
2. Clarify the hierarchical level and priority of each audience.
3. Specify the market-related decision points or action areas of each client which requires MOC.
4. In accordance with the previous items delineate the market-related inquires (marketology
contributions) of each audience include:
(a) Order types: SMIR and OMIC
(b) Needed informational products: market DIKII
(c) Required supporting services: IGDEE
5. Use the MOC Inquiry Form (MIP 4-1b) as a client to place/submit requests on market-related
informational products (market DIKII), supporting services, and so on.
Analysis guidelines: use the results of MOC client inquiry analysis (MOC-CIA); and the identified
audiences, their levels, priorities, and decision/action points, order types, and required informational
products and services to analyze the inquiry of them separately and fully.
Analysis of MOC clients inquiry:

MIP 4-16 (a): MOC client inquiry analysis (MOC-CIA) matrix
374
Market-related Hierarchical Priority to Market-related Market-related inquiry (marketology contribution)

target audiences/ level contribute decision/action
Order type:
clients (S/T/O)1 (H/M/L)2 area Informational products: market DIKII4 Supporting Services: IGDEE5
SMIR & OMIC3
Individuals/ people
H. AGHAZADEH
Units/ departments
Functions
Committees/ groups
Analysts/ experts
Executives/ managers
Decision-makers
Action-takers
1
S strategic, T tactical, O operational
2
H high, M medium, L low
3
SMIR standard market-related information river, OMIC order-based market-related information container
4
DIKII data, information, knowledge, intelligence, insight
5
IGDEE identification, generation, dissemination, exploitation, evaluation
Marketology in MOC Client Inquiry Analysis (MOC-CIA)

practice (MIP)
(4-16) (b) MOC Inquiry Form
Marketology organizational contribution (MOC) Inquiry No.:

Date of inquiry:
Inquiry Form Inquiry due date:
Type: People Unit Function Name:
Client info.
Organizational ID No. Organizational unit:
Organizational position (Job): Hierarchical level:

Strategic Tactical Operational
Other: ……………………………………..
Aim: Market-related matter:
Decision-making Action-taking
Other: ………………………………………………..
Request info.
Order form: Key issues (highlights):

- Market-related informational product (market DIKII)
- Supporting services (IGDEE) Both
- Other: ………………………………………………..
Order type: SMIR OMIC Both Priority: High Medium Low
Request background: Improvement comments:
Market data: Market information:

informational product
(market DIKII)
Market-related
Market intelligence: Market knowledge:
Market insight: Other:
Identification: Generation:
Supporting services
(IGDEE)
Dissemination: Exploitation:
Evaluation: Other:
Contributions by client: Other considerations:

inquiry
Ending
Marketology in MOC Importance Performance Assessment (MOC-IPA)

practice (MIP)
Importance-performance comparative mapping diagram
(4-17) (a)
Guidelines: In the following MOC importance performance assessment (MOC-IPA) diagram:

1. Determine the importance score of each MOC element at left side of diagram within a continuum: 0–9.
2. Determine the performance score of each MOC element at right side of diagram within a continuum: 0–9.
3. Punctuate the determined importance and performance scores of each element upon the graded continuum
on the left and right side respectively.
4. Calculate the average scores for importance and performance of market DIKII, IGDEE services and total
MOC; and also external marketology, internal marketology and total MOC; and then perform the above steps.
5. Connect the punctuated points and plot a line from the top to the bottom of the diagram.
In this way the importance and performance of elements/components and total MOC can be compared.
376
Important Performance
MOC element Diagram
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (0-9) (0-9) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Data
Information
H. AGHAZADEH
Knowledge
Intelligence
Insight
Market DIKII (Average)
Identification
Generation
Dissemination
Exploitation
Evaluation
IGDEE services (Average)
Total MOC (Average) = Market
DIKII + IGDEE
External marketology
Internal marketology
Total marketology (Average) =
External + Internal marketology
MIP 4-17 (a): MOC Importance Performance Assessment (MOC-IPD)
Marketology in MOC Importance Performance Assessment (MOC-IPA)
practice (MIP)
Importance-performance comparative positioning matrix
(4-17) (b)
Guidelines: using the facts and figures from the above diagram, in the MOC importance performance
Assessment (MOC-IPM) matrix below, specify the importance and performance position of market
DIKII, IGDEE services, total MOC, external marketology, internal marketology, and total marketology.
In this way the position of MOC and its elements/components can be located.
High
Importance
Low
Low 5 High
Performance
Analysis guidelines: use the results of the MOC importance performance assessment (MOC-IPD)
diagram and matrix, and the identified comparative scores, plots, and positions for importance and
performance of the elements and components of MOC, market DIKII, IGDEE services, total MOC,
external marketology, internal marketology, and total marketology to analyze the
importance-performance of them separately and comparatively.
Analysis of importance-performance elements, components and total MOC/marketology:
Marketology in MOC Product & Service Profile Matrix (MOC-PSPM)

practice (MIP)
Market-related informational products and services
(4-18)
Guidelines: In the MOC product & service profile matrix (MOC-PSPM) below, determine
the score of each main and sub item in columns for each row. Then calculate the totals
(averages) for the defined rows and columns. Note that the scoring range is a continuum:
0–100% in a way that the sum of each main item in columns must not exceed 100% for each
row. For example the sum scores of first main item in column (orientation) for first row (data)
can be as decision (60%) and action (40%).
Analysis guidelines: use the results of MOC product & service profile matrix (MOC-PSPM), and the
identified scores for market DIKII, IGDEE services, total MOC, and the profiled items to analyze them
Analysis of profile of MOC products and services:
378 H. AGHAZADEH
Total (average)
Note: the scoring range is 0–100% in a way that the sum of each main item in columns must not exceed 100% for each row. For example the sum of
Overall impact factor
Performance Effectiveness
Efficiency
Value Cost
Benefit
Key feature Accuracy
Speed
Performance Quantity
indicator Quality
Automation rate
Executives
Analysts
Clients
Committees
composition
score of first main item in column (orientation) for first row (data) can be as decision (60%) and action (40%)
Units
Functions
Equipment
Resource HR
dependency Money
Time
Other market-related
functions cooperation rate
MIP 4-18: MOC Product & Service Profile Matrix (MOC-PSPM)
Procedures New
Current
Technology
Focus
HR (Labor)
Clients satisfaction
Priority for clients/
organization
maturity degree
Application rate
Request frequency
Operational
Hierarchical
Tactical
Level
Strategic
OMIC
Order type
SMIR
Action
Orientation
Decision
Total MOC (average) = Market
MOC product/service
IGDEE services (average)

Market DIKII (average)
DIKII + IGDEE
Dissemination
Identification
Exploitation
Information
Intelligence
Knowledge
Generation
Evaluation
Insight
Data
Marketology in MOC Functional Compatibility Diagram (MOC-FCD)

practice (MIP)
Interaction of MOC and other market-related functions
(4-19)
Guidelines: In the MOC functional compatibility diagram (MOC-FCD) below, determine the extent of
cooperation and conflict between MOC and other market-related functions throughout the organization;
and then specify the interaction manner between them as: compatible, conflictive compatible, indifferent,
and incompatible.
Cooperation
High
Conflictive Compatible
Compatible
Conflict
High Low
Incompatible Indifferent
Low
Analysis guidelines: use the results of MOC functional compatibility diagram (MOC-FCD); and the
identified interactions manner between MOC and other market-related functions to analyze their
compatibility separately and comparatively.
Analysis of compatibility of MOC and other market-related functions:
Marketology in MOC Business Support Matrix (MOC-BSM)

practice (MIP)
Business-based supportive contributions
(4-20)
Guidelines: In the MOC business support matrix (MOC-BSM) below, fill in the defined items in columns
for each row. Note that you can add/remove any rows in considering the characteristics and conditions
of your intended company. By completion of this matrix (MOC-BSM) the supportive contributions of
marketology to businesses (external marketology) will be defined. This can help business executives and
marketology delegates to do well in running the business.
Analysis guidelines: use the results of MOC business support matrix (MOC-BSM), and the identified
supports of MOC to businesses to analyze the supportive contributions separately and entirely.
Analysis of supports of MOC to businesses:

MIP 4-20: MOC Business Support Matrix (MOC-BSM)
380
Contribution Contribution focus Contribution products Contribution services Receivable coverages

Contribution area
clients & level (decision/action issues) (market DIKII) (IGDEE) from organization
Business success
Business design
H. AGHAZADEH
Business structure
Business culture
Business people
Business process
Business asset
Business innovation
Business technology
Business communication
Business life cycle (BLC)
Business behavior
Business governance
Business strategic management
Business strategic issues
Business external analysis

Contribution Contribution focus Contribution products Contribution services Receivable coverages
Contribution area
clients & level (decision/action issues) (market DIKII) (IGDEE) from organization
Business internal analysis
Business stakeholders
Business value proposition
Business performance
Customer analysis (engineering)
Competitor analysis (engineering)
Channel analysis (engineering)
Supplier analysis (engineering)
Company analysis (engineering)
Context of market analysis (engineering)
Community, Media, NGOs, Unions and
Government analysis (engineering)
Collaborator analysis (engineering)
MIP (4-20) MOC Business Support Matrix (MOC-BSM) (continued …)

MARKETOLOGY ORGANIZATIONAL CONTRIBUTION (MOC)
381
382 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in MOC Primary Function Matrix (MOC-PFM)

practice (MIP)
Marketology-based primary contributions
(4-21)
Guidelines: In the MOC primary function matrix (MOC-PFM) below, fill in the defined items in
columns for each row. Note that you can add/remove any rows considering the characteristics and
conditions of the hyper-function of marketology in your intended company. By completion of this
matrix (MOC-PFM) the primary contributions to marketology system (internal marletology) will be
defined. This can help business executives and marketology delegates to do well on managing
marketology throughout the business.
Analysis guidelines: use the results of MOC primary function matrix (MOC-PFM), and the identified main
functions of MOC to internal marketology to analyze the primary contributions separately and entirely.
Analysis of primary functions of MOC:
MIP 4-21: MOC primary function matrix (MOC-PFM)
Receivable coverages
Primary contributions What to contribute? How to contribute? Performance/effectiveness? Improvements/ developments?
from organization
Marketology success
Marketology strategic management (MSM)
Marketology pillars
Marketology hierarchy and audience
Marketology maturity
Marketology design
Marketology structure
Marketology culture
Marketology people
Marketology process
Marketology asset
Marketology innovation
Marketology technology
Marketology communication
Marketology behavior
Marketology governance
Marketology strategy
MARKETOLOGY ORGANIZATIONAL CONTRIBUTION (MOC)
Marketology external analysis
Marketology internal analysis

383
Receivable coverages
384
Primary contributions What to contribute? How to contribute? Performance/effectiveness? Improvements/ developments?

from organization
Marketology stakeholders
Marketology value proposition
Marketology performance
H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology requests and presentation
Internal marketology
External marketology
Marketology products
Market data
Market information
Market knowledge
Market intelligence
Market insight
Marketology services
Identification
Generation
Dissemination
Exploitation
Evaluation
MIP 4-21: MOC primary function matrix (MOC-PFM) (continued …)

Marketology in Marketology Effectiveness & Maturity Evaluation (MEME)
practice (MIP)
Extent of effectiveness and degree of maturity
(4-22)
Guidelines: In the marketology effectiveness and maturity evaluation (MEME) matrix below, consider
all previous investigations about MOC determine marketology’s degree of maturity and marketology’s
extent of effectiveness within an organization. By this way it can be revealed if the functionality of
marketology is congruent with its evolution trend in organization or no.
Mature
Maturity
Immature
Ineffective Effective
Effectiveness
Analysis guideline: use the results of marketology effectiveness and maturity evaluation (MEME) matrix;
and the degree of maturity and extent of effectiveness of marketology to analyze the identified modes.
Analysis of maturity and effectiveness of marketology:
Marketology in Marketology & Organization Mutual Contribution (MOMC)

practice (MIP)
Evaluation of O2M and M2O contributions
(4-23)
Guidelines: Considering all the previous discussions on contributions of marketology to organization (M2O)
and reciprocally the contributions (coverages) of organization to marketology (O2M); in the below marketology
& organization mutual contribution (MOMC) matrix, generally determine the extent of M2O and O2M
contributions as scarce, moderate, and full ranges. Then determine the location of an intended case as
position (A), position (B), and position (C).
Full
A
O2M contribution
Moderate
B
Scarce
C
Scarce Moderate Full
M2O contribution
Analysis guidelines: use the results of marketology & organization mutual contribution (MOMC) matrix, and the extent of M2O and
O2M contribution to analyze the mutual contributions between marketology and organization based on the identified positions.
Analysis mutual contributions between marketology and organization:
386 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
MOC and entire business organization
(4-24)
Guidelines: Consider a given company/organization for which you may have access to primary or
secondary data about its entire business organization, strategy and market, in general, and specifically
the components of business organizational design (BOD) and business organizational behavior (BOB),
business building blocks (BBB), business strategic management and success, marketology system,
components of marketology organizational design (MOD) and marketology organizational behavior
(MOB), marketology organizational architecture (MOA) marketology organizational contributions
(MOC), and other useful data. In the case of not being able to access usable data you can consider a
presumptive case company/organization. Reviewing the chapter-end “marketology in practice (MIP),”
conduct the analyses below with a focus on the entire business organization and marketology
organizational contributions (MOC) for the intended case using the accessible data individually
or in a group:
– MOC Client Inquiry Analysis (MOC-CIA): (a) matrix, and (b) inquiry form
– MOC Importance Performance Assessment (MOC-IPD): (a) Diagram, and (b) Matrix
– MOC Product & Service Profile Matrix (MOC-PSPM)
– MOC Functional Compatibility Diagram (MOC-FCD)
– MOC Business Support Matrix (MOC-BSM)
– MOC Primary Function Matrix (MOC-PFM)
– Marketology & Organization Mutual Contribution (MOMC)
– Marketology Effectiveness & Maturity Evaluation (MEME)
– Case study: MOC and entire business organization
Draw conclusions about the case company/organization in the fields of investigated issues and
present an analytical case report.
4.8 Conclusion
Considering the described and discussed issues of the chapter it can be con-
cluded that:
• Marketology organizational contribution (MOC) as a consequential

component of MOA or piece of SMC facilitates and accelerates achieving
business sustainable superior/competitive success (SSS/SCS) based on
MOD as contextual piece and MOB as managerial piece.
• The hyper-function of marketology contributes to accomplishing BPM
and achieving business success by supporting market-related decisions
and actions of businesses through providing market DIKII and IGDEE
services across the organization/enterprise.
• MOC includes the key components of business-based contributions,
marketology-based contributions, marketology products (market DIKII)
and marketology services (IGDEE).
• The hyper-function of marketology can contribute every market-related
informational products and services to business decision-makers and
action-takers. However the most needed subjects/issues are majorly rel-
evant to key components of market as stakeholders of business. In this
regard they can be considered as main contents of MOC and can be

investigated descriptively as marketology content analysis (engineering).
• Key business stakeholders that can be analyzed as MOC contents include:
Customer, Competitor, Channel, Supplier, Company, Condition/context,
Community, Media, NGOs, Unions, Government, Collaborator, and so on.
• The functionality and relationship of MOC and its key components
within business organization can be evaluated, practiced, and developed
using tools and techniques that are exercised in practical parts called MIP
during and at the end of chapter.

1. In this chapter the following issues are discussed generally within business
organization context and specifically within marketology context as differ-
ent sections: marketology organizational contribution (MOC), business-
based contributions, marketology-based contributions, market DIKII and
IGDEE services, and marketology content analysis (engineering).
2. Each of the above-mentioned subjects has been exercised using applied
tools and techniques of marketology in practical parts called “marketol-
ogy in practice (MIP)” during and at the end of section. The final part of
each section completes one piece of the MOC canvas.
3. Several issues and subjects of the chapter that were not directly applicable
to the chapter but are valuable exercises are provided, so as to be an inte-
grative method, in practical sections called “MIP: Chapter-End”.
4. At the end of this chapter by completing the third and final (MOC) the
SMC has been fulfilled.
A Glance to the Next Chapter

Considering the theoretical conceptualization of marketology in Volume 1 of
this book, as well as the practical fulfilment of marketology at the end of this
chapter, as MOA/SMC embracing MOD, MOB and MOC, the key questions
that remain to be answered in the following chapters are:
–– What is the future of marketology regarding the future of business, tech-
nology, market, organizations, community, people, internet, and so on?
–– What is a comprehensive, integrative, and practical manual for prac-
ticing the hyper-function of marketology within organizations/
enterprises?
The first question will be answered in Chap. 5 as “Future of Marketology
(FOM)” and the second question will be answered in Chap.6 (last chapter of
the book) as “Handbook of Marketology (HOM).”

Discuss, answer, and practice the following issues with your colleagues or class-
388 H. AGHAZADEH

Contribution (MOC)

–– MIP 4-1: Marketology organizational contributions (MOC)
–– MIP 4-4: MOC: Marketology -based contributions
–– MIP 4-5: MOC: market DIKII and IGDEE services
–– MIP 4-6: MOC contents and customer analysis: attributes
–– MIP 4-7: Customer analysis: behavior
–– MIP 4-8: Competitor analysis: attributes
–– MIP 4-9: Competitor analysis: behavior
–– MIP 4-10: Channel analysis: attributes
–– MIP 4-11: Channel analysis: behavior
–– MIP 4-12: Supplier analysis
–– MIP 4-13: Company, Condition and Community analysis
–– MIP 4-14: Collaborator analysis: attributes
–– MIP 4-15: Collaborator analysis: behavior
arketology Organizational Contribution (MOC) Integrated
M
Frameworks
–– MIP 4-16: MOC Client Inquiry Analysis (MOC-CIA): (a) matrix
and (b) inquiry form
–– MIP 4-17: MOC Importance Performance Assessment (MOC-
IPD): (a) Diagram, and (b) Matrix
–– MIP 4-18: MOC Product & Service Profile Matrix (MOC-PSPM)
–– MIP 4-19: MOC Functional Compatibility Diagram
(MOC-FCD)
–– MIP 4-20: MOC Business Support Matrix (MOC-BSM)
–– MIP 4-21: MOC Primary Function Matrix (MOC-PFM)
–– MIP 4-22: Marketology Effectiveness & Maturity Evaluation
(MEME)
–– MIP 4-23: Marketology & Organization Mutual Contribution
(MOMC)
–– MIP 4-24: Case study: MOC and entire business organization
Notes
1. For more information see Chap. 7: Marketology Organizational
Architecture (MOA).
2. See the subject: “the role of hyper-function of marketology on business
competitive success” in Chap. 7 of this volume.
3. In Chap. 8 of this volume the relationship between marketology and

the components of BOD is explained in detail. For more information
see Chap. 8: Marketology Organizational Design (MOD).
4. In Chap. 8 of this volume the relationship between marketology and
the components of BOB is explained in detail. For more information
see Chap. 8: Marketology Organizational Design (MOD).
5. In Chap. 9 of this volume corporate governance is explained in detail.
For more information see Chap. 9: Marketology Organizational
Behavior (MOB).
6. In Chap. 9 of this volume the strategy and strategic management was
explained in detail. For more information see Chap. 9: Marketology
Organizational Behavior (MOB).
Behavior (MOB) of this volume; and Aghazadeh (2016), ch. 6, titled
“Business, Environment, and Market Analysis (BEMA) Framework.”
8. In Chap. 8 of this volume the components of MOD are explained in
detail. For more information, see Chap. 8: Marketology Organizational
Design (MOD).
9. In Chap. 8 of this volume the components of MOB are explained
descriptively. For more information, see Chap. 8: Marketology
Organizational Design (MOD).
10. In Chap. 9 of this volume the marketology strategic management

(MSM) and governance are explained in detail. For more information
see Chap. 9: Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB).
11. For more information see Aghazadeh (2016), ch. 2, “Definition and
Evolution of Marketology.”
12. In Chap. 9 of this volume the marketology product and services are
explained in detail. For more information see Chap. 9: Marketology
Organizational Behavior (MOB).
13. For more information about MMC see the structure section of Chap.
8: Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) of this book.
14. In Aghazadeh 2016, ch. 6, and in Chap. 9 of this volume the business
environment, market, internal and stakeholder analysis are explained in
detail. For more information see Chap. 9: Marketology Organizational
Behavior (MOB).
15. This term basically is known as VIP: very important people.
16. Hierarchy of Effects Model (HEM); for more information see Lavidge
Robert J. and Gary A. Steiner (1961).
17. For more information see Volume 1 of this book: Aghazadeh 2016, ch.
5, titled “Business, Market and Competitive Analysis (BMCA) Tools
and Techniques” and ch. 6 titled Business, Environment, and Market
18. For more information on the Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP)
model,see Bain (1951).
390 H. AGHAZADEH

Behavior (MOB).
20. One may ask how about the contribution of marketology on the com-
ponents of marketing mix other than channel? It should be answered
that marketing channel has been discussed as a key stakeholder, and
other components have been covered as tactical part of business value
proposition which can be pursued in other sections.
21. Some other elements may be included in internal, external, and exinter-
nal company analysis which can be seen in the previoussections on com-
petitor attributes and behaviors. Also the company or business analysis
has been discussed repeatedly in Volumes 1 and 2 of this book. Thus
there is no need to repeat and explain them again.
22. The community, media, (NGOs), unions, and government are signifi-
cant stakeholders that can be examined in depth but describing them is
beyond the scope of this discussion.
23. Here, the term “collaboration” is used instead of all these equivalents.
CHAPTER 5
Future of Marketology (FOM)

Future trends and priorities of business and technology
• World megatrends
• Strategic technology trends and priorities
• Strategic business trends and priorities
Future big changes of modern business environment
• Big data
• Cloud computing
• Infonomics
• Analytics
Future of marketology foundations
• Future of business
• Future of technology
• Future of business intelligence (BI)
• Future of decision-making
• Future of strategy
• Future of strategic marketing
• Future of market research
• Future of business markets and stakeholders
• Future of consumer
• Future of market orientation

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54833-7_5
392 H. AGHAZADEH
Future of marketology functionalities
• Future of business functions supported by marketology: future of busi-

ness Sustainable Competitive Success (SCS)/Sustainable Superior Success
(SSS), future of Business Performance Management (BPM), future of
BOD, and future of BOB.
• Future of marketology functions performed by marketology system:
future of Marketology Strategic Management (MSM), future of MOA,
future of MOD, future of MOB, and future of MOC.
Future of marketology: Cloud Marketology Canvas (CMC)
• Marketology canvas: standard versus cloud

• EIS evolution: from MIS to marketology
• Marketology evolution
• Marketology maturity
• Marketology and decision-making interaction approaches
• Future of marketology
• Cloud marketology canvas (CMC)
• Crafting cloud marketology canvas (CMC)
• Execution of cloud marketology canvas (CMC)
Marketology in practice (MIP): Future of marketology (FOM)

–– MIP 5-1: Future trends and priorities of business and technology
–– MIP 5-2: Future big changes of modern business environment
–– MIP 5-3: Future of marketology foundations
–– MIP 5-4: Future of market orientation
–– MIP 5-5: Future of marketology functionalities
–– MIP 5-6: Marketology evolution and maturity
–– MIP 5-7: Clouds of future marketology
–– MIP 5-8: Cloud marketology canvas (CMC) (1)
–– MIP 5-10: Cloud IGDEE services and cloud market DIKII
Future of marketology (FOM) Integrated Framework
–– MIP 5-11: Technology and business trend evaluation (TBTE)
matrix
–– MIP 5-12(a): Big Data exploitation assessment (BDEA) matrix
–– MIP 5-12(b): Big Data 5V Assessment (BD5VA) matrix
FUTURE OF MARKETOLOGY (FOM) 393
–– MIP 5-13: Cloud computing readiness assessment (CCRA)

matrix
–– MIP 5-14: Infonomics valuation matrix (IVM)
–– MIP 5-15: Business analytics capability matrix (BACM)
–– MIP 5-16: Future foundations requirement response (FFRR)
matrix
–– MIP 5-17: Future functionality & marketology interaction
(FFMI) matrix
–– MIP 5-18: Future market-related functions & marketology
(FMRFM) matrix
–– MIP 5-19: Marketology maturity assessment matrix (MMAM)
–– MIP 5-20: Future decision-making profile (FDMP)
–– MIP 5-21: Cloud marketology canvas assessment (CMCA)
matrix
–– MIP 5-22: Case study: future of marketology (FOM)
5.1 Introduction
In Chap. 1, the MOA was mapped as standard marketology canvas (SMC)
from a practical view including three main elements: (1) MOD as contextual
piece, (2) MOB as managerial piece, and (3) MOC as consequential piece. In
Chap. 2 the first main piece (i.e. MOD), in Chap. 3 the second main piece (i.e.
MOB), and in Chap. 4 the third main piece (i.e. MOC) have been explained,
analyzed, discussed and completed practically; then ultimately the SMC has
been fulfilled. Now in this Chap. 5 the future of marketology is explored prac-
tically by looking at the future of key related matters and factors in five main
sections: Sect. 5.2: Future trends and priorities of business and technology; Sect.
5.3: Future big changes of modern business environment; Sect. 5.4: Future of mar-
ketology foundations;1 Sect. 5.5: Future of marketology functionalities;2 and Sect.
5.6: Future of marketology: cloud marketology canvas (CMC). In each section
first the subject is explained within business organization context and mar-
ketology context in brief, second the trends, evolutions and predictions are
provided, and third issues of the section are exercised using applied tools and
techniques of marketology in practical parts called marketology in practice
(MIP). At the end of chapter the key issues and subjects are practiced in an
integrative method in Sect. 5.7: MIP.
In fact the remarkable finding/fulfillment of this chapter on exploring the
future of marketology is reengineering and extending the standard marketol-
ogy canvas (SMC) in form of cloud marketology canvas (CMC) including
following components: cloud marketology strategic management (CMSM),
cloud marketology organizational architecture (CMOA), cloud marketology
organizational design (CMOD), cloud marketology organizational behavior
(CMOB), and cloud marketology organizational contribution (CMOC).
394 H. AGHAZADEH
In last Chap. 6 of the book the Handbook of Marketology (HOM) will be

provided.
5.2 Future Trends and Priorities of Business

and Technology
5.2.1 World Megatrends
Businesses will face and be challenged by several world megatrends. Significant
world future megatrends from now to 2030–2050 and major dimensions and
aspects of these megatrends with an emphasis on business and economics
are illustrated in Figure 5.1 (EY 2015, 2016a, b; Price 2014; Shibulal 2013;
Franklin and Andrews 2012; KPMG 2013; PwC 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016a;
Hajkowicz et al. 2012; WBCSD 2010; Wile 2012; Nellis 2011; IMD 2015;
Singh 2014; Ward 2012):
Businesses, analysts and executives should therefore use using predictive
analytics to be proactive and ready to deal with probable opportunities or
threats of such world megatrends.
5.2.2 Strategic Technology Trends and Priorities

Technology as a dynamic issue is changing very quickly. As with business mat-
ters, different technology concerns might be prioritized by the involved C-suites
of enterprise in different periods of time (e.g. every year). In accordance with
Gartner’s reports, chief information officers (CIOs) prioritized the technology
subjects as Figure 5.2 indicates (Gartner 2013; Pettey and Goasduff 2012):
The technology megatrends that will shape the future of society in
2030–2050 can be anticipated as follows (Brechbuhl 2015):
–– People and the Internet: people’s association and interaction with the
web as a mental, social and physical extension of themselves
–– Computing, communications and storage everywhere: the ability to
interface with digital technology, data and the web anywhere, anytime
on any device
–– The Internet of Things (IoT): the digital linking of inanimate objects
–– Artificial intelligence (AI) and big data: the ability to access and analyze
vast amounts of disparate data, along with the ability for computers to
make decisions based on this data
–– The sharing economy and distributed trust: digitally enabled trans-
parency and trust mechanisms that allow direct exchange of goods,
services or money between parties outside of traditional establishments
such as stores and banks
–– The digitization of matter: 3D-printing and the creating of physical
materials on the spot (personalized or on a small scale) based on digi-
tally transmitted parameters
World megatrends Aspects/dimensions

– Digital future – Changing business and value creation models
– Entrepreneurship – Increasing mobile device adoption is driving a mobile first world

growing
– Global marketplace – Changing the relationship between businesses and their stakeholders
– Urban world: rapid – Changing the market context and competitive landscape of most industries
urbanization – Threatening data protection, intellectual property, and personal information security
– Resourceful planet – Increasing the agility of work styles and talent engagement
– Health reimagined – Rising the power of digital and robotic technologies to be replaced with workers
– Demographic shifts – Increasing internet-based decision-making devices and internet-controlled systems

– Shift in global
– Growing artificial intelligence (AI) as devices that will make decisions on human behalf
economic power
– Climate change and – The need to focus on the long term
resource
scarcity – The need for resilient dynamism and inclusive growth
– Technological
– Social contracts and the role of enterprises
breakthroughs
– Rise of individual – Macro environment: economic power, fracturing social fabric, geopolitics and security, and
growing stakeholder demands
– Enabling technology – Inputs landscape: capital, knowledge, labor, pressure on resources and technology
– Economic
– Playing field: consumer landscape, industry landscape, and shifting market landscape
interconnectedness
– Public debt – Sustainable value creation: triple bottom line
– Economic power – People and relationships: Not quite destiny, The health of nations, women’s world, friends
shifts
indeed, and cultural revolutions
– Heaven and earth: believe it or not, feeling the heat, The future of war: the weak become strong,
freedom’s ragged march, and taming leviathan: the state of the state
– Economy and business: The age of emerging markets, globalization, growth and the Asian
century, The great levelling, Schumpeter incorporate, and market momentum
– Knowledge and progress: What (and where) next for science, ad astra, the web of knowledge,
Distance is dead. Long live location, and of predictions and progress: more for less
Figure 5.1 World megatrends from now to 2030–2050
–– Teleportation and Holoportation (Chou 2013; Liu 2014; Microsoft

2016; Owano 2016)
The strategic technology trends for CEOs, CIOs, and CMOs are switching
rapidly (at least every year). Gartner’s last report on strategic technology trends
are appeared in Figure 5.3 (Cearley 2014; Levy 2015; Cearley et al. 2015;
Aron et al. 2014; Pettey 2011, 2012)
CEOs, CMOs and CIOs wanting to succeed in using the above technol-
ogy priorities and trends should perform based on the following innovative
396 H. AGHAZADEH
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1. BI/ analytics 1. BI/ analytics 1. BI/analytics 1. BI/ analytics 1. BI/ analytics
2. Mobile 2. Mobile 2. Infrastructure and data 2. Infrastructure and data 2. Cloud
technologies technologies center center 3. Mobile
3. Cloud computing 3. Cloud computing 3. Cloud 3. Mobile 4. Digitization/
(SaaS, IaaS, PaaS) 4. Collaboration 4. ERP 4. ERP digital marketing
4. Collaboration technologies 5. Mobile 5. Cloud 5. Infrastructure
technologies (workflow) 6. Digitalization/digital 6. Networking, voice and and data center
(workflow) 5. Legacy marketing data communications 6. ERP
5. Virtualization modernization 7. Security 7. Digitalization/ digital 7. Security
6. Legacy 6. IT management 8. Networking, voice and marketing 8. Industry specific
Modernization 7. CRM data communications 8. Security applications
7. IT Management 8. Virtualization 9. Customer relationship/ 9. Industry-specific 9. CRM
8. CRM 9. Security experience applications 10. Networking/
9. ERP Applications 10.ERP Applications 10.Industry-specific 10.Customer relationship/ voice/ data
10.Security applications experience communications
Figure 5.2 Top 10 CIO technology priorities
approaches: business/value platform, leadership platform, talent platform,

delivery platform, and technical platform (Gartner 2015a, b, 2016a, b; Weldon
2016; Rivera 2013).
5.2.3 Strategic Business Trends and Priorities

Business and the business environment are changing constantly. Depending
on internal and external conditions/factors, different business concerns might
be prioritized by the involved C-suites of enterprise in different periods of
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
· Human experience · Human experience · Converging forces · Merging the Real World · The digital mesh:
1. Media tablets 1. Mobile Device 1. Mobile Device and the Virtual World 1. The device mesh
and beyond Battles Diversity and 1. Computing 2. Ambient user
2. Mobile-centric 2. Mobile Management everywhere experience
applications Applications 2. Mobile Apps and 2. The internet of things 3. 3D-printing
and interfaces and HTML5 Applications (IoT) martials
3. Contextual and 3. Personal Cloud 3. The Internet of 3. 3D Printing · Smart machines:
social user 4. Enterprise App Everything · Intelligence Everywhere 4. Information of
experience Stores 4. Hybrid Cloud and 4. Advanced, pervasive everything
· Business experience 5. The Internet of IT as Service and invisible 5. Advanced machine
4. Internet of Things Broker analytics learning
things 6. Hybrid IT and 5. Context-rich systems 6. Autonomous agent
5. App stores and Cloud · Derivative impact 6. Smart machines and things
marketplaces Computing 5. Cloud/Client · The New IT Reality · The new reality:
6. Next- · Business Architecture Emerges 7. Adaptive security
generation experience 6. The Era of Personal 7. Cloud/client architecture
analytics 7. Strategic Big Cloud computing 8. Advanced system
· IT Department Data 7. Software Defined 8. Software-defined architecture
experience 8. Actionable Anything applications and 9. Mesh app and
7. Big data Analytics 8. Web-Scale IT infrastructure service architecture
8. In-memory 9. In Memory 9. Web-Scale IT 10. IoT architecture
computing Computing · Future disruption 10. Risk-based security and platform
9. Extreme low- 10. Integrated 9. Smart Machines and self-protection
energy servers Ecosystems 10. 3-D Printing
10. Cloud
computing
Figure 5.3 Gartner top 10 strategic technology trends

398 H. AGHAZADEH
2012 2013 2014
1. Increasing enterprise growth 1. Increasing enterprise growth 1. Increasing enterprise growth
2. Attracting and retaining new 2. Delivering operational results 2. Improving operations
customers 3. Reducing enterprise costs 3. Attracting and retaining new
3. Reducing enterprise costs 4. Attracting and retaining new customers
4. Creating new products and customers 4. Creating new products and
services (innovation) 5. Improving IT applications services (innovation)
5. Delivering operational and infrastructure 5. Expanding into new markets
results 6. Creating new products and and geographies
6. Improving efficiency services (innovation) 6. Reducing enterprise costs
7. Improving profitability 7. Improving efficiency 7. Improving the technical
(margins) 8. Attracting and retaining the infrastructure
8. Attracting and retaining the workforce 8. Attracting and retaining the
workforce 9. Implementing analytics and workforce
9. Improving marketing and big data 9. Introducing and improving
sales effectiveness 10.Improving business business channels
10.Expanding into new markets processes 10.Improving enterprise
and geographies efficiency
Figure 5.4 Top 10 CIO business priorities
time (e.g. every year). In accordance with Gartner’s reports the CIOs priori-
tized the strategic business subjects as Figure 5.4 (Gartner 2013; Pettey and
Goasduff 2012):
The world of business has become IT-enabled, widely relying on critical
change agents and key enablers including big data, sensors and actuators,
cloud computing, mobile technology, natural user interfaces, computation,
storage, and networks. Several forecasted and significant trends and their cor-
responding requirements are depicted in Figure 5.5 (Sarma 2016; Bughin
et al. 2013, 2015; Bughin and Chui 2010, 2013; Gartner 2011; Chui et al.
2010; Manyika et al. 2011; Biesdorf et al. 2013; Brynjolfsson et al. 2011;
Gantz and Reinsel 2012; Annabelle 2010; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; McAfee
2009; EY 2014):

practice (MIP)
(5-1) Future trends and priorities of business and technology
Guideline (FOCUS)
previous parts, practice FOCUS for below issues:
1. World megatrends;
2. Top technology priorities;
3. Strategic technology trends;
4. Top business priorities;
5. Strategic business trends;

5.3 Future Big Changes of Modern Business

Environment
5.3.1 Big Data
A business can become big (with big insights and big returns) by appropriately
using big data (with social, external/outsource, and internal/insource data
sources) relying on big business, IT and analytics capabilities. Sometimes big
data, master data and metadata may be considered synonymous or interchange-
able while in fact they are different. “Master data is the consistent and uniform
set of attributes and identifiers that defines the core entities of the enterprise
(e.g. customers, employees, suppliers, assets, partners, policies, products/
services, etc.) and is used across multiple business processes (Radcliffe 2007;
Radcliffe 2012)”. Metadata is “data about data” or “data that describes other
data”. Metadata provides context to raw data (Giordano 2015; CIMA 2008;
Parenteau et al. 2016; GIA 2007; Hedin et al. 2014)
In today’s business environments and markets big data has become a pop-
ular term among specialists, experts and business executives insofar as many
corporations allocate remarkable resources to run big data projects aimed at
extracting business value through data them for better decision-making and
action-taking.
400 H. AGHAZADEH
Business trends Corresponding requirements
Social matrix and Social interaction to solve problems, innovate, and go beyond traditional
pervasiveness boundaries of organizations
Internet of Things Connecting all things (machinery, equipment, and other physical assets) with
1
(IoT) networked sensors and actuators to obtain data, make devices to collaborate and
manage performance
Big data and advanced Gathering, analyzing, and utilizing ever-larger and more complex data sets;
analytics taking real-time data flows for making insights to effective decision making and
results
Realizing anything as Making services accessed over the Internet and creating new asset-light business
a service models
Automation of Automating knowledge work tasks through artificial intelligence (AI), profound
knowledge work learning, big data, and natural user interfaces
Integrated digital/ Incorporating digital interactions with physical experiences by providing data
physical experiences and information to mobile Internet devices
Me + free + ease: Increasing expectations of consumer to receive Internet services (either online or
offline) with prompt access to information, transparency, customization, low
prices, and ease of use
The evolution of New kinds of online markets, payment systems, and business models are
commerce empowered by low-cost, high-speed, and seamless information exchange
The next three billion Joining of the next three billion people to the digital economy via mobile Internet
digital citizens creates enormous emerging opportunities: financial capacities, entrepreneurship,
and new business models
Transformation of Improved service delivery and increased transparency of government, health
government, health care, and education sectors using the rising power and reach of IT to enhance
care, and education productivity
a
The Internet of Things (IoT) is the network of physical objects – devices, vehicles, buildings and other items
embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and network connectivity – that enables these objects to collect
and exchange data. British entrepreneur Kevin Ashton first coined the term in 1999 while working at Auto-ID
Labs (originally called Auto-ID centers, referring to a global network of objects connected to radio-frequency
identification, or RFID). Typically, IoT is expected to offer advanced connectivity of devices, systems, and ser-
vices that goes beyond machine-to-machine (M2M) communications and covers a variety of protocols, domains,
and applications. The interconnection of these embedded devices (including smart objects), is expected to usher
in automation in nearly all fields, while also enabling advanced applications like a Smart Grid, and expanding to
the areas such as smart cities (Wikipedia 2016e, “Internet of Things”)
Figure 5.5 IT-enabled business trends and corresponding requirements

Big data is a disruptive force that transforms current business trends and
models, and provides undeniable opportunities to the leaders of public sector,
business and information technology. In a new digital era, big data leverages
businesses to create competitive advantage in generating and delivering value
to key stakeholders and accordingly achieves success.
Big data embraces both transaction and interaction data in form of data sets
with size and complexity over the capacity of currently applied technologies to
acquire, process and manage at justifiable cost and time. In fact Big Data is the
integration of three major technology trends including Big Transaction Data
(e.g. online analytical processing (OLAP), relational online analytical process-
ing (ROLAP), online transactional processing (OLTP), Data Warehouse (DW)
application, Clouds); Big Interaction Data (e.g. social media/network); and
Big Data Processing (e.g. Hadoop Apache).
The big data for business analytics can be derived from combinations of
smartphone location data, video feeds, internal process data, text documents,
weather forecast, and many other various types of sources that are available
both internally and externally today (Informatica 2011; GIA 2010a, b; Robbins
and Judge 2015; NISO 2004).
Significant Definitions of Big Data (Lake and Drake 2015)

• Big data is a high-volume, high-velocity and high-variety informa-
tion asset that demands cost-effective, innovative forms of informa-
tion processing for enhanced insight and decision-making (Gartner
2015b; Laney et al. 2015).
• Big data is the process of applying serious computing power – the
latest in machine learning and artificial intelligence – to seriously
massive and often highly complex sets of information. Big data has
the power to drive practical insights that just weren’t possible before.
It’s about managing all that data and providing tools that enable
everyone to answers questions– questions they might not have even
known they had. That’s the vision we have (Redmond 2012).
• Big data refers to digital data volume, velocity, variety and/or verac-
ity that enable novel approaches to frontier questions previously,
inaccessible or impractical using current or conventional methods;
and/or exceed the capacity or capability of current or conventional
methods and systems (NIST 2015).
• Big data refers to datasets whose size is beyond the ability of typical data-
base software tools to capture, store, manage, and analyze (MGI 2011).
• Big data is a term describing the storage and analysis of large and/
or complex data sets using a series of techniques, but not limited to
NoSQL, MapReduce, and machine learning (Ward and Barker 2013).
402 H. AGHAZADEH
ive Vs of Big Data

F
The emergence of big data pertains to the new data generation with extraor-
dinary speed; and advanced technology and enhanced ability to store, process
and analyze that data. Then big data can be described by 4+1 Vs:
–– Volume (amount of data generated every second),
–– Velocity (speed of new data generation and moves around),
–– Variety (different types of data),
–– Veracity (messiness or trustworthiness of the data); and also
–– Value (ability turn data into value)
In fact, good big data is valuable big data. Big data is valuable when can
lead to more insightful decisions within a smarter business that ensure busi-
ness success (Galbraith 2014; Marr 2015a, c; Laney et al. 2014; LaValle et al.
2011).
ig Data Opportunities and Benefits

B
According to Gartner’s reports, big data pays much attention to C-suites such
as CEOs, CIOs, VPs of information management (IM) and marketing man-
agement, enterprises architects, business analysts, and so on. The function of
CEOs is considered as “data-driven decision-making and delivering the most
strategic value to the business”. In fact better data can provide better under-
standing of the internal and external conditions and stakeholders (e.g. custom-
ers) and accordingly better decisions and actions (Laney et al. 2015).
Effective and creative exploitation of big data can lead to changes and
improvements in business processes, data sources, infrastructure, architecture,
skills, organizational structures, customer insight, internal business process;
operational excellence, customer intimacy, risk management, new business
development, and inspiration from industry (being involved and other indus-
tries). The enterprises can utilize the benefits and opportunities of big data by
ensuring following requirements: exploring how big data initiatives are unique;
creating big ideas for big data; reinforcing business leadership belief in big data;
encompassing investment justification; providing infrastructure adequacy;
preparations for business risks; developing current analytics skill; and modify-
ing organization structures (Buytendijk 2015; Sicular and Collins 2015; Laney
and Beyer 2015).
Using big data (extractable from social groups, sales records, Internet
behavior, sensor data, and so on) senior business executives can identify mar-
ket trends, gain valuable and real-time insights about their intended subjects
(e.g. customer or competitor behavior), enabling them to make effective deci-
sions and take effective actions across the enterprise without relying on con-
ventional techniques (such as focus groups) (Intel 2013; LaValle et al. 2011;
Parise 2012; PwC 2016b; Radcliffe 2007, 2012; Giordano 2015; CIMA 2008;
Parenteau et al. 2016; GIA 2007; Hedin et al. 2014; Lake and Drake 2015;
Gartner 2015a, b; Laney et al. 2014, 2015; Redmond 2012; NIST 2015; MGI
2011; Ward and Barker 2013; Informatica 2011; GIA 2010a, b; Robbins and
Judge 2015; NISO 2004; Galbraith 2014; Marr 2015a, c; Buytendijk 2015;
Sicular and Collins 2015; Laney and Beyer 2015; Sallam et al. 2015; Meer and
Dasgupta 2013; Berner et al. 2014; Manyika et al. 2011).
5.3.2 Cloud Computing
Cloud computing refers to storing and accessing data and programs over the
Internet instead of on the computer’s hard drive. Cloud computing, as on-
demand delivery of IT resources and applications via the Internet, is a kind of
Internet-based computing that provides shared processing resources and data
to computers and other devices on demand. With cloud computing accessing
data is faster and easier than using others’ computers or other local networks.
With an online connection, cloud computing can be done anywhere, anytime.
The cloud is not about hard drive or dedicated network attached storage
(NAS) hardware or server in residence. With some NAS it may be possible to
access things remotely over the Internet; such NAS can be called My Cloud.
Storing data on or run programs from the hard drive called local storage and
computing (AWS 2013).
usiness Cloud Computing: SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS

B
It should be noted that cloud computing for individual consumers (those
who work at home or in small-to-medium offices and use the Internet on a
regular basis) is entirely different from the cloud computing of large busi-
nesses. Businesses considering their needs may implement following types of
cloud computing: Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) (subscribing to an application
to access over the Internet); Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) (creating its own
custom applications for use by all in the company); and Infrastructure-as-a-
Service (IaaS) (players like Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Rackspace pro-
vide a backbone that can be rented out by other companies) (Griffith 2015).
loud Computing Models

C
There are different models of cloud computing including private, public, hybrid,
community, distributed, inter-cloud, and multi-cloud. Private: cloud infrastruc-
ture operated for a single organization, managed and hosted either internally or
externally (a third-party). Public: cloud services are rendered over a network that is
open (and may be free) for public use. Hybrid: composition of two or more clouds
(private, community or public) as distinct entities but are related together with
benefits of multiple models. Community: cloud between several organizations
from a specific community with common concerns (security, environment protec-
tion, health, etc.) managed and hosted either internally or externally. Distributed:
assembled cloud from distributed set of machines in different locations which is
connected to a single network or hub service. Inter-cloud: interconnected global
cloud of clouds and an extension of the Internet network of networks on which it
is based. Multi-cloud: multiple cloud services in a single heterogeneous architec-
ture to reduce reliance on single vendors, increase flexibility, resist against disas-
ters, etc. The private and public clouds are generation one (cloud 1.0) and the
hybrid and other combined clods are generation two (cloud 2.0).
404 H. AGHAZADEH
Cloud computing for the future is a crucial matter for big data analytics
and businesses success. Cloud architecture, design and management should
be taken into account by business executives and cloud engineering should be
conducted by business analysts with great care and exactitude. Cloud engineer-
ing refers to the application of engineering principles to cloud computing as
systems, software, web, performance, information, security, platform, risk, and
quality engineering (AWS 2013; Griffith 2015; Natis et al. 2015; T-Systems
2010; Plummer 2012, 2014; Smith et al. 2009; HP 2011; Hassan 2011; Mell
and Timothy 2011; SUN 2009; IBM 2016; Curino et al. 2011; Gorelik 2013;
Mosco 2016; Regalado 2011; CloudTech 2015; CBP 2014; Davis 2016;
Paessler 2015; Malone 2016; Cukier 2015; Smith 2014; Linden 2014; Cantara
2015; Plummer et al. 2015; Wikipedia 2016c – Cloud Computing).
5.3.3 Infonomics
Just as there is as yet no consensus about whether or not information should
be seen as an asset, so there is a challenging debate called the information value
gap about whether information value is intrinsically valuable or whether its
value depends on its use.3 Hence it can be argued that big data equates to big
potential value though it does not inherently equate to big realized value. In
order to close up so-called gap, the information should be considered similar to
other conventional assets (e.g. financial, material and certain intangibles) and
then information asset management should be exerted.
Infonomics as a novel concept can resolve this contradiction through bring-
ing all together and regarding information as an asset encompassing both
potential and realized value. Based on the economic theory of information
it considers information as a new asset class, and accordingly manages and
deploys information as any other organizational asset. The underlying mean-
ings of this conception can be applied to all data and particularly to big data.
In line with the notion of infonomics, information is an actual asset (if not
a recognized asset class), information has both potential and realized value,
information’s value can be quantified, information should be accounted for as
an asset (internally), information’s realized value should be maximized, infor-
mation’s value should be used to help budget IT and business initiatives, and
information should be managed as an asset (Laney 2015).
“Infonomics is the economic theory of information as new asset class, and the
discipline of accounting for and managing information as any other enterprise
asset” (Laney 2013). “Infonomics is the emerging discipline of managing and
accounting for information with the same or similar rigor and formality as other
traditional assets (e.g., financial, physical, intangible, human capital). Infonomics
posits that information itself meets all the criteria of formal company assets,
and, although not yet recognized by generally accepted accounting practices,
increasingly, it is incumbent on organizations to behave as if it were to optimize
information’s ability to generate business value” (Gartner 2016b). Therefore,
infonomics treats information as a new and valuable organizational asset through
which a business can make better informed decisions and can create better value.
No. Model Title Explanation
1 Intrinsic Value of How good and easy to use is the data versus how likely are
Information (IVI) others outside the organization to have it also?
2 Business Value of The value of information to a business process
Information (BVI)
3 Loss value of The cost of not having information
information (LVI)
4 Performance Value of Value of information to business objectives, represented as
Information (PVI) key performance indicator (KPI) targets
5 Economic Value of The bottom-line financial value for the information asset
Information (EVI)
6 Market Value of The income that can be generated by selling, renting or
Information (MVI) bartering with this information.
Figure 5.6 Information asset valuation models
Information asset valuation can be calculated by accounting information-

related benefits (process/function performance gain + revenue/margin
contribution) and information-related costs (cost to acquire + cost to admin-
ister + cost to apply + revenue lost if we don’t have it). As well as information
asset valuation can be done using following models as Figure 5.6 ( Laney 2011,
2012a, 2013; Gartner 2016a, b; Garifova 2015).
The major benefits of infonomics are as below:
–– Creating a common language for IT, business leaders and CFOs to
communicate
–– Enabling more info-centric business (optimizing, eliminating,
innovating)
–– Justifying and proving benefits of IT initiatives
–– Leveraging one of the enterprise’s most underutilized resources
–– Improving the management of information and making better
informed decisions (by enhancing relevance, usability, believability,
clarity, objectivity, and scarcity.
–– Driving improved corporate market valuations (accuracy, integrity,
consistency, completeness, accessibility, precision, and timeliness).
Key principles of infonomics include: information is an actual asset (if not a
recognized asset class), information has both potential and realized value, infor-
406 H. AGHAZADEH
mation’s value can be quantified, information should be accounted for as an asset

(internally), information’s realized value should be maximized, information’s
value should be used to help budget IT and business initiatives, and information
should be managed as an asset (Laney 2011, 2012a, b, 2013, 2015; Gartner
2016a, b; Garifova 2015; Bender and Croisier 2014; Malgorzata 2010; SAS 2008;
Davenport 2006; Davenport and Harris 2007; Cosic et al. 2012; Olszak 2014).
5.3.4 Analytics
The significance of analytics can be expressed thus: “data is the coal; analytics
reveals the diamonds (PwC 2016b)”. Analytics has been used for a long time;
but today it has become vital to enterprises due to the huge amount of valuable
data available both inside and outside of organizations (big data), the emer-
gence of Internet-based facilities (cloud computing), and rise of information
value as a key asset (infonomics). While traditional systems are unable to effec-
tively manage, analyze and elicit business value from widespread data, analytics
as a contemporary method can do precisely this.
In an analytics-driven enterprise the intelligences/insights taken from pre-
dictive analytics can disrupt everything from creating competitive advantage
and value (strategic issues) to day-to-day business processes (operational issues)
(SAS 2008; Accenture 2013).
In order to make effective decisions and take efficient actions to accomplish busi-
ness competitive success, C-suites need the right intelligence/insight. That right
information at the right time becomes a valued asset for the company and should
be transformed into actionable intelligence/insight through the use of predictive
analytics.
Today data is widely and easily available, but making right decisions has
become hard and complex. Using driver analytics can enable enterprises to facil-
itate and accelerate their strategic and operational decision-making (as driver-
based decision-making4); to mathematically link business strategies with market,
competitor, operational and financial forces; to increase business insights and the
quality of decision-making and action-taking; to prevent wasting time and money
on collecting, formatting and analyzing immaterial or distracting data points; and
ultimately to drive and enhance business value (Meer and Dasgupta 2013).
Within a data-spread business environment the technology-driven analytics
can influentially impact business performance through the following key steps:
–– Understand business problems and recognize growth opportunities
–– Collect the information needed to tackle problem and discover related insights
–– Perform the analytics back to the business problem and opportunities
–– Act on the findings of predictive analytics by adapting design and
behavior
–– Manage risk and environmental pressures and improve business
performance
Thus, enterprises using analytics-based management based on data-driven,
information-led, technology-driven, predictive and driver analytics can deliver
competitive value (EY 2013a, b).
Analytics Visualization
Building relationships between business data and visualizing them in form of
business graphs/infographics can make business data more understandable and
valuable for the clients (business analysts, decision-makers, and action-takers).5
In fact data relationships and using relationship-based or graph database in
conjunction with NoSQL database management systems (DBMS) can facili-
tate conducting business analytics, accelerate conveying the reports of business
analytics, and also raise effectiveness of business analytics.6
Accordingly, enterprises in healthcare, financial services, insurance, telecom-
munications, and government sectors can create data relationships/graphs in
their existing data and improve efforts in: master data management, network
and IT operations, graph-based search, identity and access management, fraud
detection, recommendations, and social capability.
Additionally, data relationships and graph databases are best suited for effec-
tive business analytics in the context of Internet of Things (IoT) through which
connected devices communicate with each other and external data (such as
weather statistics, geo-spatial information, and maintenance records) become
incorporated (Nixon 2015; Podeswa 2009).
Business Analytics
Business analytics (BA) is defined as the extensive use of data, statistical and
quantitative analysis, explanatory and predictive models, and fact-based man-
agement to proactively manage risk, enhance business decisions, drive business
value and improve business performance.
Business analytics incorporates the dimensions of analytics (knowledge about
data and analytics), analytics models (statistical, predictive, or data-mining),
business knowledge (knowledge about business products, services and opera-
tions), information technology (knowledge about tools and infrastructure),
infrastructure (applications, software components and services, platforms for
managing and processing data, and producing and using models to make
alarms, make decisions, and take actions), and operations (processes of using
models to make decisions and take actions of extracting business value) (Press
2013; Grossman 2009; Galbraith 2008).
Business analytics is the foundation for enterprise information management
(EIM) and related capabilities and systems such as master data management
(MDM), knowledge management (KM), business intelligence (BI), market
intelligence (MI), data-driven management, and also marketology.
The future of business analytics will be quite different from what it has been
till now. Among predictions on the future of business analytics are suggestions
that data will get bigger (and uglier), agile and self-service business intelli-
gence will be required, and cloud computing will expand as an alternative to
in-memory technologies.
The maturity of business analytics in five main stages/levels referring to
analytics types, styles, and consequences are depicted in Figure 5.7 (SAS 2008;
Cosic et al. 2012; Dutta et al. 2015; RBT 2013).
It should be noted that the more mature the business analytics the more
value and sustainable competitive advantage is achieved by the enterprise.
408 H. AGHAZADEH
Stages/ Analytics Analytics Analytics

Analytics style (content)
levels types capability consequence
Analytically Detached analytics (Random

1 Non-existent
Impaired cases)
Hindsight
Localized Descriptive analytics (What
2 Initial
Analytics happened?)
Analytical Diagnostic analytics (Why did it

3 Intermediate
Aspirations happen?)
Insight
Analytical Predictive analytics (What will
4 Advanced
Company happen?)
Analytical Prescriptive analytics (How we

5 Optimized Foresight
Competitor can make it happen?)
Ref. SAS (2008) Cosic et al. (2012) Dutta et al. (2015) RBT (2013)
Figure 5.7 Business analytics maturity
An enterprise should know how to design and apply the analytics capability
within the organization to support data-driven decisions and actions across all
functions throughout the company and thereby drive sustainable competitive
advantage and business value (Davenport 2006; Manyika et al. 2011). It is
often recommended that the analytics should be administrated by the analyti-
cal center of excellence (ACE) within an organization. Although the analytics
may be applied for various organizational matters and concerns, marketology
is a hyper-functional capability through which the market-related analytics can
be done to support market-related decisions and actions across the organiza-
tion. While a business’s analytical issues are mostly market-related, its business
analytics would be better handled by marketology management center (MMC)
compatible with the design and behavior of organization (i.e. BOD and BOB).
However, some cases the ACE of an enterprise can be separate from MMC.
The structure of business analytics (either ACE or MMC) can be formed
both at department/unit (operational level) or entire organization (strategic
level); and the business analytics can be structured by centralized, decentral-
ized, and hybrid models within organization. Thus the functions of business
analytics may outsourced”, “centralized in-house” or “scattered/distributed
in-house” consistent with the design of ACE or MMC (Berner et al. 2014;
Laney 2001; Manyika et al. 2011; Davenport 2006; White 2009; Parmar et al.
2014; Galbraith 2014; PwC 2016a, b; SAS 2008; Accenture 2013; Meer and
Dasgupta 2013; Nixon 2015; Podeswa 2009; Press 2013; Grossman 2009;
Aghazadeh 2016; Galbraith 2008; Cosic et al. 2012; Dutta et al. 2015; RBT
2013; EY 2013a, b, 2016a; Balboni et al. 2010; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; HP
2014; Tonsetic 2012; Kumar et al. 1990; Chandler et al. 2011; Parenteau et al.
2016; Grigsby 2015; Artun and Levin 2015; Winston 2014).

practice (MIP)
(5-2) Future big changes of modern business environment
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Big data;
2. Five Vs of big data;
3. Big data opportunities and benefits;
4. Cloud computing;
5. Business cloud computing: SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS;
6. Cloud computing models;
7. Analytics;
8. Analytics visualization;
9. Business analytics;

5.4 Future of Marketology Foundations

The hyper-function of marketology is defined as a multi-disciplinary and multi-
dexterous concept which has been founded upon following issues: business,
technology, business intelligence (BI), decision-making: data-driven manage-
ment, strategy, strategic marketing, market research, business markets and
stakeholders, consumer and market orientation. In what follows the future of
these subjects is discussed.
5.4.1 Future of Business
Business analysts and executives wishing to know about and interpret the future
of business should understand how can they make sense of the waves of changes
coming toward businesses and map a future path for their enterprise. They should
410 H. AGHAZADEH
think about the future of the whole and elements of the industry or business
environment, and also the whole and components of business as an enterprise.
Businesses today are witnessing frequent, rapid and massive changes in both
the business environment and business organization. In previous sections the
future trends and changes of business have been reviewed. The most important
have been identified as social network dominance, device connectivity, big data,
digital experiences, development of e-commerce, digital citizens, transformation
of government, enterprise costs reduction and operations improvement, new
markets and customers, innovative products/services and workforce retaining.
Here some more issues are described about the future of business (with an
emphasis on business environment). In later sections the future changes of
business organization (inside the enterprise) will be discussed.
Here are some key quotes that business analysts and leaders would do well to
take into account for mapping the future of business (Solis 2013; Solis 2014):
1. Social media is less about technology and more about sociology; and
social media paves the way for conveying the messages of every individ-
ual; democratization of contents, information and ideas sharing; inspir-
ing changes; making people as content producers; building many-to-many
model relationships,
2. Every business in the digital world is threatened by the changes of con-
sumer, society and technology which evolve faster than the ability of
enterprises to adapt to them.
3. Brands are co-created by consumers through shared experiences and
online searches and conversations; this will be the new era of marketing
and service of businesses.
4. Shared experiences are forms of social currency and shape future changes
and success/failure; the key to the future success of businesses is con-
tinual innovation.
5. The business of the future should treat people and customers as human
beings and should be involved with their native cultures through long-
term participation.
6. What creates value and makes profit are the answers, directions and solutions
that people are looking for, not messages, services or products to be sold.
Global forces and the advances of science and technology impact the future
of businesses. Several global forces, and scientific and technological advances rel-
evant to teh future of business t should be taken into account by business analysts
and leaders: these are summarized in Figure 5.8 (Talwar 2015a, b; Barton 2010).
In the new world of business, collaboration and connection are replacing
the traditional hierarchy and bureaucracy; the traditional (“alpha”) aggressive
management style has been transformed into the modern cooperative (“beta”)
leadership style which operates within a business context featured by increased
connectivity, companies as communities, strategic partnerships, and new eco-
systems (Ardi 2014).
Talwar’s framework is a useful method that can help business leaders to ana-
lyze future factors that may shape business choices and gain insights to shape the
Global forces Scientific and technological advances
- New Computing Architectures
- Rise of emerging markets as centers of - Hyperconnected Internet of Humanity
consumerism and innovation - Immersivity / Mixed Reality Living
- Food Chain Transformation
- Imperative to improve developed-market - Energy Innovation
productivity - Robotics / Drones
- Brain Uploading
- Ever-expanding global networks - Blockchain Technology
- Healthcare Transformation
- Tension between rapidly rising resource - Nanotechnology / Atomically Precise
consumption and sustainability Manufacturing
- Artificial Intelligence / Conscious Technology
- Increasingly larger role of government as a - Synthetic Biology
business regulator and partner - Human Augmentation
- 3D / 4D printing
Barton (2010)- McKinsey Talwar (2015a); Talwar (2015b)
Figure 5.8 Summary of factors for future of business
To Be Created for Future or Creating Future?

The business leaders who think of the short future (1–12 months) should
focus on “operational excellence”; those who think of a middle future
(1–3 years) should concentrate on “drive for growth”; and the leaders
who think of a distant future (4–10 years) should emphasize “creating
the future” (Talwar 2015b).
future business strategy. This framework embraces the following ten key elements.
Five of these elements are market facing decisions and behaviors including mis-
sion (what do businesses do), markets (target markets and customers), magic
(brand outstanding), models (business/value model), and message (commu-
nication in social media). The other five are internal choices include: myths
(culture), mastery (capability), muscle (competitive advantages), mindset (stra-
tegic thinking), and management (governance and leadership) (Solis 2013,
2014; Clark 2013; Talwar 2015a, b; Barton 2010; Gantz and Reinsel 2012;
Annabelle 2010; Davenport et al 2010a, b; McAfee 2009; EY 2014; Gitman
and McDaniel 2008; Ardi 2014; Gartner 2011; Chui et al. 2010; Bughin et al.
2015; Manyika et al. 2011; Biesdorf et al. 2013; Brynjolfsson et al. 2011).
412 H. AGHAZADEH
5.4.2 Future of Technology
Technology is disrupting all areas of businesses across all industries and in all
geographies leveraged by the convergence of social, mobile, cloud, Big Data,
and rising demand for anytime anywhere access to information. The digital pro-
gresses create numerous opportunities for enterprises to utilize the advantages of
connected devices empowered by the Internet of Things (IoT) to obtain great
amounts of information, enter new markets, modify current products, and intro-
duce new business and value models. By contrast technology advances may also
have significant challenges for enterprises, including new competition, chang-
ing customer engagement and business models, substantial transparency, privacy
concerns, and cybersecurity threats. The enterprises that can grasp the opportu-
nities of technology and digital improvements will gain substantially while those
that cannot may lose out (Gartner 2013, 2015a, b, 2016a, b; Weldon 2016;
Rivera 2013; Dutta et al. 2015; Georghiou et al. 2009; Hopkins and Gillett
2013; McKinnon 2015; Pettey and Goasduff 2012; Brechbuhl 2015; Cearley
2014; Levy 2015; Cearley et al. 2015; Aron et al. 2014; Pettey 2011, 2012).
op Emerging/Evolving Technologies
T
Top emerging technologies that the professionals and analysts of enterprise
informational architecture (EIA), enterprise information management (EIM),
business intelligence, market intelligence, and marketology should take into
account are as follows: (Hopkins and Gillett 2013; McKinnon 2015; Vermesan
and Friess 2014; Georghiou et al. 2009):
− Analytics applications − Mobile services

− Big Data − Data and information protection/security
− Business intelligence − Enterprise content management (ECM)
− Cloud computing − Data integration
− Data warehousing (DW) − Data management
− Enterprise collaboration − Master data management (MDM)
− Enterprise mobile devices − Data modeling
− Devices connectivity − Data quality and data governance
− Internet of things (IoT) − Data virtualization
− Enterprise mobility − Database management systems (DMS)
− Enterprise portals and search − Machine learning
− Identity and access management (IAM)
etworked Readiness Index (NRI)

N
An organization for better exploiting the benefits and opportunities of new
technologies and social networks should continually evaluate the drivers and
impacts of network using the “networked readiness index (NRI)”. The NRI
consists following indexes (Dutta et al. 2015):
• Environment: 1. political and regulatory environment; and 2. business

and innovation environment
• Readiness: 3. infrastructure, 4. affordability, and 5. Skills
• Usage: 6. individual usage, 7. business usage, and 8. government usage

• Impacts: 9. economic impacts and 10. social impacts
5.4.3 Future of Business Intelligence (BI)

In the past, the use of Business Intelligence and analytics was restricted primar-
ily to IT departments because of the complexity and cost of these systems and
the need for high levels of technical expertise. The major user groups of BI
might be business executives (casual users) or business analysts (power users).
Today, with self-service BI and democratized analytics, their benefits can
be exploited across the entire business thanks to increased accessibility and
improved decision-making processes. For example, data visualization makes
BI widely accessible and conveniently understandable to the clients, and self-
service BI is faster, better, cheaper, more visual, interactive, analytical, scalable,
manageable, collaborative and mobile.
Thus modern enterprises have no choice other than making use of BI. Yet
technological, infrastructural, financial, technical or administrative challenges
are frequently encountered. In some cases cloud mobile BI can help overcome
barriers and offer the benefits of having BI by empowering the enterprise to use
BI where it is needed (MBI a, b, c, d).
Although BI has become a significant capability for business success, it has
to be updated, modified, and developed in accordance with innovations in
markets, business and technology. Such innovations might be categorized as
front-end and back-end technologies. Front-end refers to visual, interactive,
and easy interactions; back-end represents memories, disks, central processing
unit (CPU), analytical databases and platforms (Chaudhuri et al. 2011; James
2013; TechTarget 2016a, b; Khan and Quadri 2012; Parenteau et al. 2016;
IBM 2010, 2011).
BI Maturity
Different business intelligence (BI) maturity models have been developed.
Several significant models are listed in Figure 5.9 (Gartner 2009; Cates et al.
2005; Fisher 2005; Sen et al. 2006; Topfer 2008; Williams and Thomann 2003;
Williams and Williams 2007; Hagerty 2006; Deng 2007; Rajteric 2010; Chuah
2010; Shaaban et al. 2011; De Bruin 2009; Eckerson 2007; Celina 2014; Van
Roekel et al. 2009; Hostmann 2007; Hostmann et al. 2006; Davenport and
Harris 2007; Tan et al. 2011; Watson et al. 2001; Hatcher and Prentice 2004;
SAS 2009; Olszak 2013; HP 2009).
“Gartner’s Business Intelligence and Performance Management Maturity
Model” is a well-known model in which five maturity levels have been designed for
BI, as indicated below (Hostmann et al. 2006; Hostmann 2007; Gartner 2009):
–– Unaware: lack of awareness, spreadsheet and information anarchy, and
one-off report requesting
–– Tactical: no business and IT executive in charge, limited users, data
inconsistency and silo system
414 H. AGHAZADEH
Model Reference
Maturity Model for data warehousing (MMDW) Watson et al. 2001
The Business Information Maturity Model Williams and Thomann, 2003;
Williams and Williams, 2007
SAS Information Evolution Model Hatcher and Prentice, 2004;
SAS, 2009
Ladder of Business Intelligence (LOBI) Maturity Model Cates et al. 2005
Enterprise Data Management Maturity Model Fisher, 2005
Data Warehousing Maturity Model Sen et al. 2006
AMR Research's Business Intelligence/Performance Management Maturity Model II Hagerty, 2006
Gartner’s Business Intelligence and Performance Management Maturity Model Hostmann et al. 2006;
Hostmann, 2007
The Data Warehouse Institute (TDWI) Business Intelligence Maturity Model Eckerson, 2007
Davenport’s Maturity of Analytical Capability by Stage Davenport and Harris, 2007
Business Intelligence Maturity Hierarchy Deng, 2007
Teradata BI and DW MM Topfer, 2008
HP Business Intelligence Maturity Model Hewlett Packard (HP), 2009
Logica’s maturity model Van Roekel et al. 2009
Business Analytics Capability Maturity Model (BACMM) De Bruin, 2009
The Infrastructure Optimization Maturity Model Rajteric, 2010
Enterprise Business Intelligence Maturity Model (EBIMM) Chuah M-hooi. 2010
The Enterprise Business Intelligence Maturity (EBIM) Model Tan et al. 2011
Service Oriented Business Intelligence Maturity Model (SOBIMM) Shaaban et al. 2011
Figure 5.9 Business intelligence (BI) maturity models
–– Focused: funding from business units on a project-by-project basis,

successful focus on a specific business need, specific set of users is real-
izing value, BICC in place
–– Strategic: business objectives drive BI and performance management
strategies, establish a balanced portfolio of standards, governance poli-
cies are defined and enforced, deploy an enterprise metrics framework
–– Pervasive: information is trusted across the company, analytics are
inserted into and around the business process, use of BI is extended to
suppliers, customers, and business partners
rends and Generations of BI

T
It is crucial for business executives and analysts to know what the changes and pre-
dictions of BI transformations are and also how they can cope with and utilize the
benefits of new and enhanced BI. The predictions and future trends of BI depicted
in Figure 5.10 may be worth considering (Nanduri 2014, 2015; Fields 2015).
Trends for 2015 Trends for 2016 Trends for 2016
1. The lines will blur between data 1. The big bang you hear 1. Governance and self-service analytics
scientists and data analysts is the explosion of become best friends
2. Microsoft and Salesforce will innovation. 2. Visual analytics becomes a common
take a dominant share of the 2. We must adapt or die language
cloud-based business intelligence 3. Whose BI will you 3. The data product chain becomes
3. Data preparation replaces Big buy? democratized
Data as the hottest topic in BI 4. Enough about data – 4. Data integration gets exciting
4. Hadoop faces a make-or-break where’s the 5. Advanced analytics is no longer just for
year in the larger enterprise information? analysts
market 5. Death by desktop 6. Cloud data and cloud analytics take off
5. Marketing will be the primary 6. We’ll see just as many 7. The analytics Centre of Excellence (ACE)
driver of BI decisions CDO1 hired as fired! becomes excellent
6. Internet of Things Gets Real for 8. Mobile analytics stands on its own
B2B 9. People begin to dig into IoT data
10.New technologies rise to fill the gaps
Nanduri (2014) Nanduri (2015) Fields (2015)
Chief Digital Officer (CDO)

a
Figure 5.10 Predictions and future trends of BI
Figure 5.11 shows the evolutionary generations of business intelligence

including BI 1.0, BI 2.0 and BI 3.0 (Evelson 2015; Elliott 2010; Eckerson
2011a, b; Gratton 2016).
BI 3.0, the new generation of BI, calls for coping with big data warehouse;
big master data; big data foundations (both insource and outsource data, col-
laborative, social, simple, seamless, and strategic); mobile-application-like user
interfaces and user experiences; self-regulated BI platforms;
The technologies that should be regarded for applying future/new BI are:
1. Data warehouse (DW/DWH) or enterprise data warehouse (EDW)

2. Dashboards (visual representation of data using graphs and charts)
3. Ad hoc reporting (answering a specific business question)
4. Data/knowledge discovery (finding an understandable structure among
databases)
5. Cloud data services: access IT resources, data storage, customer relation-
ship management, enterprise resource planning (ERP), and marketing
automation from anywhere at any time, providing unprecedented speed,
agility, reliability and security. Nonphysical data integration, transforma-
tion, management, quality maintenance and security activities with low
overhead and easy scalability.
416 H. AGHAZADEH
BI 1.0 (Tool-centricity) BI 2.0 (Web-centricity) BI 3.0 (App-centricity)
Community Focus Enterprise Focus Collaborator Focus
IT Control Hybrid Control Self-Regulated
Data Scientist Data Explorer Social Workgroup
Batch Near Real-time In-process
Client Web Multi-device
Capability Scalability Usability
Operational Reconciliation Enterprise Alignment Social Empowerment
Creation, Delivery and

Delivery Only Creation and Delivery
Management
Figure 5.11 Generations of business intelligence (BI)
The key question in respect of future trends inbusiness, market and technology
is how the “next-generation BI” will play out. In order to provide proper analysis
and reporting, next-generation BI should be composed of four main intelligences:
business intelligence, continuous intelligence, analytics intelligence and content
intelligence in an integrative manner. The future BI framework should incorporate
top-down BI (enterprise BI), bottom-up BI (agile BI) and user-friendly BI (self-
service BI) (Evelson 2015; Elliott 2010; Jonker et al. 2011; Van Unen et al. 2012;
McDonald and Christopher 2003; Montgomery and Weinberg 1998; Chaudhuri
et al. 2011; Livari 1992; Eckerson 2011a, b; Parenteau et al. 2016; Schlegel 2013;
Casonato et al. 2011; Gratton 2016; Davenport et al. 2006; Teece et al. 1997;
James 2013; TechTarget 2016a, b; Ranjan 2009; Chaudhuri and Dayal 1997;
Khan and Quadri 2012; Radcliffe 2012; IBM 2010, 2011).
5.4.4 Future of Decision Making: Data-Driven Management

Data-driven management has become a substantial capability for businesses
due to impressive expansion of diversified data (i.e. big data) both inside and
utside of business; and also because decision support systems of enterprises

o
have been developed and tended to data-driven manners through the maturity
levels include: (1) ad hoc, (2) business intelligence, and (3) integrated deci-
sion support. In accordance data-driven management the enterprises should
get away from traditional ways and adopt new approach of working as com-
pared below (EY 2013a, b; Schank et al. 2010; LaValle 2009a, b; Altman 2014;
McAfee 2010):
–– Fact-driven versus instinct and intuition
–– Directive versus corrective
–– Short timeframe (hours, minutes, seconds) versus long timeframe
(years, months, weeks)
–– Applied semantics versus human insight
–– Visualized versus too much data presentation
–– Action and decision support versus decision support
–– Optimized versus efficient performance
–– Decision culture data culture
–– Data-to-decision process versus one-off visualizations
Among all available data types, the following groups are significant and
orthy for consideration by executives for better data-driven management of
w
business: website data, share of customer base/market, brand surveys, products,
previously purchased, CRM data, customer data, competition, demographic,
behavioral data, online transactions, sales leads, social metrics, campaign met-
rics, and so on.
Succeeding in data-driven management needs following requirements:
–– Encouraging senior management support and leadership
–– Providing training opportunities for executives and staff across the
enterprise
–– Hiring and motivating right people
–– Helping business decision-makers and action-takers become comfort-
able with data
–– Keeping the customer front and center
–– Starting with small, winnable pilot projects and build from there
–– Approach data-driven marketing strategically
–– Integrating data and make IT accessible to all decision makers and
action takers who need it
–– Building flexibility and being ready to change rapidly as circumstances require
–– Having relevant, insightful content
–– Having a comprehensive, smart view of the customer
–– Having a tailored, dynamic buying experience
–– Accomplishing business results
By using such important data and taking advantae of data-driven manage-
ment enterprises can achieve following outcomes: customer loyalty, satisfaction,
and retention; gaining new customers; increasing revenues and profitability;
better connection to customers and audiences; enhancing current revenue
418 H. AGHAZADEH
sources; promoting brand loyalty/equity; adding new revenue sources; improv-

ing decision-making; accelerated time to market; increasing employee efficiency;
expanding channel engagement; greater transparency in customer segments;
and so on (Kovac et al. 2015; Alfieri 2015; Jackson 2013a, b; Mankins and
Sherer 2014).
5.4.5 Future of Strategy
Strategy is not an isolated phenomenon; rather, is a pervasive subject that
relates both to the internal and external factors of an enterprise. Strategy is
also a dynamic and futuristic issue which often transforms and copes with
new and upcoming circumstances. In these cases the future of strategy is
closely related to the future of the business’s internal and external matters.
Contemporary business strategic management is quite different from con-
ventional/classic strategic management. It focuses on creating and deliver-
ing value to the stakeholders as agile management through customer value,
innovation, networking, delivering, communications, and value-driven
contributions. The main principles of future strategy involve: inspiration
from the future, organizationally inclusive, portfolio approach, and strategy
innovation by design. It follows that strategy-making in the future world of
business will also be data-driven, analytics-based and focused on new tech-
nologies, devices, networks, communications and totally will be compatible
with business, technology, data and analytics future trends ( Williams 1991,
1993; Carlopio 2011; Aurik et al. 2014a, b; Lindgren and Bandhold 2003;
Gray 2015; Economist 1998; Toner et al. 2015; Cummings and Daellenbach
2009; Fabel 2015; Keller and von der Gracht 2014; Eden and Ackermann
1998; Dess et al. 2015; Porter 2008; Thompson et al. 2013; Fleisher and
Bensoussan 2015; Smith and Raspin 2008; Grant 2013; Mintzberg 2013;
Lopez 2014; Wright 2013; Aghazadeh 2016; Davenport et al. 2010a, b;
Campbell and Craig 2011; Hitt et al. 2015; Daft 2016; Barney 2011; Teece
2010; Walker and Madsen 2015; Slater et al. 2011; Grant and Jordan 2012;
Aghazadeh 2015; Kotter 2015).
5.4.6 Future of Strategic Marketing

Marketing in the future as a cross-functional subsystem will become a necessity
and not a choice for most businesses, and it will have an enhanced strategic role
rather than only its current operational role.
Major predictions, challenges, and changes of marketing in the future are
summarized in Figure 5.12 (Aaker 2005; Nguyen 2011; Wierenga 2008; TCS
2015; Wilkinson and Young 2013; Anderson 2012; Hult et al. 2004, 2007;
Morgan et al. 2005; Aghazadeh and Esfidani 2007; Morgan et al. 2009; Doyle
2009; Johnson et al. 2004; Slater and Narver 1995; Shankar and Carpenter
2011; Brinker 2014).
Predictions Challenges Changes
- 3D advertising, augmented reality and - Brand-building programs - New forms of
Internet in the contact lenses need creative thinking, interaction
- Telekinetic powers and neuro-marketing organizational tolerance for - Massive amounts of
- Matrix like world – the future shopping change, and execution talent addressable data
experience - Business development - Affordability,
- Creating firm personalities: the likeability drivers require creativity and analytics and
effect a willingness to go beyond automation
- Targeting and building relationships with boundaries - Customers know more
key authoritative people - Relationship-based customer and demand more
- The end of postmodern marketing and the loyalty by going beyond - Customers are more
beginning of future or new generation product-centered approaches expected and less
marketing - Effective brand management patient
- Biotechnology and nanotechnology- humans to optimize marketing - Businesses expect
living for hundreds of years, cloning, and investment and leverage more
creating life that never existed before cross-market insights and - Internationalization/
- Robots and jobs data globalization expand
- Marketing in a global catastrophe – war, - Making sure that the firm more
poverty, climate change, natural disasters, produces offerings that - Social stakeholders
and scarcity of resources customers want to buy in (NGOs and social

1
- Marketing in a type 1 civilization – dynamic competitive markets media) gain more
sustainable energy and flying cars interest/power
Nguyen Bang (2011) Aaker David (2005) Anderson (2012)
a
The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization’s level of technological advancement, based on the
amount of energy a civilization is able to direct toward communication. The scale has three designated categories
called Type I, II, and III. A Type I civilization is able to utilize and store energy available from its neighboring
star which reaches their planet, Type II is able to harness the energy of the entire star (the most popular hypo-
thetic concept being the Dyson sphere – a device which would encompass the entire star and transfer its energy
to the planet), and Type III civilization are in control of energy on the scale of their entire host galaxy (Wikipedia
2016f, “Kardashev”)
Figure 5.12 Future of marketing: predictions, challenges, and changes
eta-Trends of Modern Marketing

M
The substantial metatrends of modern marketing that impact the prevalent
marketing are depicted in Figure 5.13 (Brinker 2014; EIU 2015; Collins et al.
2011; Plinke 2015; FitzRoy 1998; Mongay 2006; Hult et al. 2004, 2007;
Morgan et al. 2005, 2009; Johnson et al. 2004; Slater and Narver 1995;
420 H. AGHAZADEH
Traditional marketing Modern marketing
- Traditional - Digital
- Media silos - Converged media
- Outbound - Inbound
- Communications - Experiences
- Art and copy - Code and data
- Rigid plans - Agile iterations
- Agencies’ - In-house marketing
Figure 5.13 Meta-trends of marketing (from traditional to modern marketing)
Kyriakopoulos and Moorman 2004; Atuahene-Gima 2005; Aaker 2014;

Levinthal and March 1993; Vorhies et al. 2011; Nixon 2015; Hamel and
Prahalad 2013; Day 1994; Rodenberg 2007; Lum 2016)
Marketing 3.0
In line with drastic changes in the business environment, market, consumers/
customers, and organization, the philosophy and manner of marketing have
also been changing and evolving. In former times, after the industrial revolu-
tion, marketing’s first generation (marketing 1.0) was product-centric market-
ing; with the expansion of information technology and the occurrence of the
information revolution, marketing’s second generation (marketing 2.0) became
consumer-centric marketing; and now, facing the future with the emergence and
pervasiveness of new wave technology, marketing’s third generation (marketing
3.0) is to the fore and value-driven marketing seems to be effective.
Regardless of the attributes of marketing 1.0 and 2.0, the characteristics of

marketing 3.0 are:
–– Objective: makes the world a better place for everybody
–– Key marketing concept and concentration: values and character/
identity building (branding)
–– Market and consumers: whole human with mind, heart and spirit
–– Value proposition: functional, emotional and spiritual
–– Company marketing guideline: corporate mission, vision, and values
–– Interaction with consumers: many-to-many collaboration
–– Enabling forces: new wave technologies, digital connections and social
networks
The major changes (stimulus) and the consequent problems that are
responded by marketing 3.0 are depicted in Figure 5.14 as the formation pro-
cess of marketing 3.0 (Kotler et al. 2010; Modinger 2011; Edison Research
2014; WBCSD 2010; EIU 2006, 2016)
In accordance with Figure 5.14, the marketing 3.0 as value-driven market-
ing should respond key stakeholders in collaborative, cultural, spiritual and
shared value-based manners. For this purpose a company engaging in market-
ing 3.0 should communicate the marketing mission to its consumers, its values
Solutions: Responses
Stimulus: Major Problems:
Offerings Marketing 3.0 Practices:
changes Consequences
Fields 2C+2S
Technology People Participation Content Collaborative marketing
Political-Legal,
Economy and Socio- Globalization Paradox Context Cultural marketing
Cultural
Market and consumer Creative Society Contact Spiritual marketing
Modern and Shared value-based

Organization Communication
Responsible marketing
Figure 5.14 Formation of marketing 3.0: stimulus, problems and solutions

422 H. AGHAZADEH
to employees and partners, and the vision to shareholders, delivering socio-

cultural transformation, creating emerging market entrepreneurs, and striving
for environmental sustainability (Kotler et al. 2010; Aaker 2016; Kotler and
Armstrong 2015a, b; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Best 2012; Modinger 2011;
Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Aghazadeh 2016; Osterwalder et al. 2015; Day
2013; Smith and Raspin 2008; Edison Research 2014; WBCSD 2010; EIU
2006, 2016; Chernev 2014).
arketing Responsibilities and Competences

M
The responsibilities of marketing profession/function of enterprises and their
corresponding requirements are expressed in Figure 5.15 (Anderson 2012;
Ritter and Andersen 2010; Bao et al. 2012; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Aaker
2013; Aghazadeh 2015; Webster 2008; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Kotler
and Keller 2015):
To able to properly utilize the benefits of modern marketing and its opportu-
nistic meta-trends and also to better dealing and exchanging value with market
and customers enterprises should be equipped with substantial market com-
petencies, as illustrated in Figure 5.16. These include: market sensing, market
relating, market prioritizing, and market creating (Anderson 2012; Ritter
2006a, b; Ritter and Andersen 2010; Casson and Lee 2011; Danciu 2013; Kahn
1998; Gummesson 1998; Morgan 2012; Bao et al. 2012; Cravens and Piercy
2013; Aaker 2010; Kotler and Keller 2015; Walker and Madsen 2015; Baker
and Anderson 2010; Webster 2008; Srivastava et al. 2013; Kotler 2003; Smith
et al. 2006; Aghazadeh 2008; Lings and Greenley 2009; Lambin and Schuiling
2012; McDonald and Christopher 2003; Doyle and Stern 2006; McDonald
et al. 2014).
Responsibilities of marketing profession Corresponding requirements
Knowing the customer. Understanding each customer as an individual.
Defining what to market, and how to market. Maximizing value creation at every touch.
Protecting the brand promise. Designing authentic culture and brand
Figure 5.15 Responsibilities of marketing profession and corresponding requirements

Market
sensing
Market Market-related Market

creang competencies relang
Market
priorizing
Figure 5.16 Market-related competencies
Market Sensing Obtaining market knowledge in general and customer

knowledge in particular through market research, customer surveys, trend
studies, field tests, etc.
Market Relating Interacting with customers via integrated market communi-

cation (IMC), customer relationship management (CRM), website, etc.
Market Prioritizing Ranking and targeting customers according to their signific

ance by customer nominations, production schedules, campaign planning, etc.
Market Creating Eexpanding the market as a whole (i.e. changing the rules
of the market) through standardization, business and market development,
new product/service development (NPD/NSD).
5.4.7 Future of Market Research

Market research or marketing research and marketing information system (MkIS)
have been traditional and classic methods of providing market information to
the enterprise (majorly to the executives). In fact, the drastic transformations in
business environment and market, technology, enterprise inside and particularly
shifts in requests and preferences of market information clients/audiences (e.g.
managers), have forced market researchers to think of big changes. For instance,
the emergence and rapid expansion of big data, social media and mobile plat-
forms seem to have presented major threats to traditional market research.
424 H. AGHAZADEH
Regarding recent and forthcoming shifts in market data collection, process-

ing and provision methodology and technology, the market research delegates,
managers and professionals and agencies have to make intensive changes in
their work processes, outcomes reports, and interaction mode with their clients.
Accordingly, market research is expected to become more efficient and effec-
tive – to ensure that the findings are actually used by the clients and r ecognizing
that its effectiveness depends fully on the quality, speed and diversity of the
reporting process. The major challenges that market research will face include
methodology, clientele, outcomes, technologies (Big Data, mobile technolo-
gies, and social media), reliable inputs and data sources, differentiation, quality,
internal talent, old and new methods, big companies, communication, soci-
etal, positional, perceptual, linguistic, speed, market structure, human capital,
global and economic (Rietberg 2015; Murphy 2015; Robbins 2011).
Thus, to meet these challenges, market research practitioners and the mar-
ket research body of an enterprise must know how to adapt and deal with
changing circumstances. For this they should take the future trends of market
research into account (trends). They should also identify solutions to bet-
ter deal with such challenges (solutions). They should look for concepts that
can adapted according to changing conditions (substitutes). The trends, solu-
tions, and substitutes of market research in the future are illustrated in Figure
5.17 (Moran 2010; KPMG 2014a, b; Rietberg 2015; Murphy 2015; Robbins
2011; Barbu 2013; ESOMAR 2011, 2012, 2014; Micu et al. 2011; Kaden
et al. 2012; Raconteur 2015; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; McDonald
and Christopher 2003; Aghazadeh 2016; Day 2013; Litan et al. 2010).
Trends Solutions Substitutes
- Rethinking working concepts as basic as the well- - Setting new name for - Modern
known purchase funnel; market research and market
- Integrating the digital medium into research techniques; expanding its scope research
- Investigating the consumer through passive techniques; - Building integration - Insight(s)
- Dealing with the era of big data; across strategic - Fact-based
- Translating consumers’ word-of-mouth into insights; decision making consulting
- Balancing in-depth technical knowledge and process - Data-driven
understanding of the ‘the big picture’; - Conducting and using consulting
- Adopting international innovation locally; foresights - Strategic
- Facing potential data privacy issues - Insight management insight
- Impactful, consultative and cohesive reporting - Speed, nimbleness and - Strategic
- Data management and make sense of all the data points Global Clock foresight
Barbu (2013)
Moran (2010) Moran (2010)
Figure 5.17 Future of market research: trends, solutions, and substitutes


practice (MIP)
(5-3) Future of foundations of marketology
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Future of business;
2. Future of technology;
3. Top emerging/evolving technologies;
4. Networked readiness index (NRI);
5. Future of business intelligence (BI);
6. BI maturity;
7. Trends and generations of BI;
8. Future of decision making: data-driven management;
9. Future of strategy;
10. Future of strategic marketing;
11. Meta-trends of modern marketing;
12. Marketing 3.0;
13. Marketing responsibilities and competences;
14. Future of market research;
15. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and close the
discussion.
5.4.8 Future of Business Markets and Stakeholders

Business markets and stakeholders can be classified as internal or external.
Internal market refers to the space (either physical or cyber) and all includ-
ing components within organizational boundary. Everybody (employees, man-
426 H. AGHAZADEH
gers, shareholders, etc.) within the internal market will therefore be an internal
stakeholder. External market represents the space (either physical or cyber) and
most containing elements outside the organizational boundary. Accordingly,
most of the forces (individuals, groups, organizations, etc.) within the external
market will be external stakeholders of a firm. As widely and frequently noted
the whole business, and external and internal markets and stakeholders, are
changing due to drastic, quick and big changes of technology, human, and
environment. It is anticipated that markets and stakeholders will be change
more and find new shapes, interaction forms and rules of the game in the
future. The changes and future situation of markets, businesses, and most of
the stakeholders have been discussed previously in this book. The future of the
consumer/customer as the key stakeholders and market elements of business is
explained in detail below (Wysocki et al. 2015; IFC-WB 2005; Tidd & Bessant
2014; Schilling 2016; Walker and Madsen 2015; Lopez 2014; Ackermann
and Eden 2011; Miller and Smith 2011; Osterwalder et al. 2015; Aghazadeh
2016; Webster 2008; Kotler and Keller 2015; Grant and Jordan 2012; Bryson
et al. 2011; Chernev 2014; Teece 2010; Tonsetic 2012; Hatch and Cunliffe
2013; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; Eden and Ackermann 1998; Dess et al.
2015; Rothaermel 2014; Kotler 2003; Campbell and Craig 2011; Boyer et al.
2010; Wright 2013; Ulrich et al. 2012; Coyne and Horn 2009; Davenport
et al. 2010a, b; Thompson et al. 2013; Kotler et al. 2010; Aaker 2016; Best
2012; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Fleisher and Bensoussan 2015; Kotler and
Armstrong 2015a, b; Day 2013; Smith and Raspin 2008).
5.4.9 Future of Consumer
Congruent with social, technological, environmental and market changes and
future perspectives, the consumers, their attributes and behaviors are also chang-
ing substantially. Several major consumer trends are shown in Figure 5.18.
Customers ask enterprises to identify them by considering following issues:
demographic (needs, attributes and characteristics), transaction (transactions,
orders, payment history, usage history, and purchase stage), interaction (email/
chat, call canter notes, web click-streams, and in-person dialogs), and behav-
ioral (desires, preferences, and opinions).
The main touchpoints and data exchange instruments between enterprises
and customers are: in-store POS, kiosks, websites, search, online advertising,
mobile, emails, SMS/MMS, social media, customer service, call canter/client
center, events, postal mail, etc. (Ericsson 2015; TerndWatching 2016; Nunes
et al. 2013; Mothersbaugh and Hawkins 2015; Solomon 2015; Schiffman
and Wisenblit 2014; Aghazadeh and Esfidani 2007; Kotler and Keller 2015;
Chernev 2014; Franz and Kirchmer 2013; Kotler 2003; Kotler et al. 2010;
Aaker 2016; Best 2012; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Fleisher and Bensoussan
2015; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Day 2013; Smith and Raspin 2008).
These changes may have opportunities and threats for businesses. In
accordance with data-driven management, enterprises should monitor, ana-
Main trend Explanation
The lifestyle with diversifying online use, social effects like crowd intelligence and the
network effect sharing economy multiply
Streaming natives teenagers watch more YouTube video content daily than other age groups
AI ends the screen artificial intelligence (AI) will enable interaction with objects without the need
age for a smartphone screen
consumers want virtual technology for everyday activities such as sports, and
Virtual gets real
3D food printing
bricks used to build homes could include sensors that monitor mold, leaks and
Sensing homes
electricity issues
commuters want to use their time meaningfully and not feel like passive objects
Smart commuters
in transit
Emergency chat social networks may become the preferred way to contact emergency services
internal sensors in our bodies that measure wellbeing may become the new
Internables
wearables
Everything gets
most smartphone users believe hacking and viruses will continue to be an issue
hacked
consumers share more information than ever and believe it increases their
Netizen journalists
influence on society
Emerging changes status and perspective shifts, contextual omnipresence, insider trading,
of consumers beneficial intelligence, etc.
Figure 5.18 Changing consumer trends
lyze, decide and act on such changes in order to take advantage of them. So,
consumer-led growth leaders are advised to take account of the following
(Ericsson 2015; TerndWatching 2016; Nunes et al. 2013):
–– An analytical toolkit: using advanced analytics to identify and bridge
gaps between business and consumers.
–– An adaptive mindset: regarding disruption as an opportunity to shape
industry’s long-term direction.
–– An agile organization: reacting flexibly to changing consumer behavior
and scaling offerings rapidly
428 H. AGHAZADEH
5.4.10 Future of Market Orientation
arket Orientation Conceptualization

M
Market Orientation Definitions So far in this book we have presented diver-
sified definitions of market orientation. The most original and fundamental
definitions are:
–– “Market orientation is the organization wide generation of market
intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs, dissemi-
nation of the intelligence across departments, and organization wide
responsiveness to it” (Kohli and Jaworski 1990: 6).
–– “Market orientation is the very heart of modem marketing manage-
ment and strategy (p. 20). Market orientation is the organization cul-
ture that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviors
for the creation of superior value for buyers and, thus, continuous
superior performance for the business market orientation consists of
three behavioral components- customer orientation, competitor ori-
entation, and inter-functional coordination-and two decision criteria-
long-term focus and profitability”(Narver and Slater 1990: 20–21).
–– Cadogan and Diamatopoulos (1995) reconstructed a new concept
of market orientation by combining the cultural conceptualization of
Narver and Slater (1990) with behavioral conceptualization of Kohli
and Jaworski (1990). They depicted the new concept of market orien-
tation as coordinated behavior of intelligence generation, intelligence
dissemination and responsiveness based on customer orientation and
competitor orientation perspectives.
–– Market orientation refers to intelligent behavior, strategic response
management, and coordinated systems. Intelligent behavior includes
generating and disseminating market, customer and competitor intel-
ligence. Strategic response management embraces analyzing, design-
ing, executing and evaluating strategic response. Coordinated systems
indicate internal coordination and integration between organizational
systems, units and functions (Aghazadeh 2008, 2015).
The later definitions of market orientation (either external or internal), simi-
lar to reconceptualization of Cadogan and Diamatopoulos (1995), have largely
been reconstructed according to the models of Kohli and Jaworski (1990)
and Narver and Slater (1990), in their article describing the conceptual model
called “marketing intelligence implementation process (MIIP)” (Dong et al.
2016). There seems no need therefore to give more definitions of market ori-
entation (Slater and Narver 1994a; Harris and Watkins 1998; Harris and Piercy
1997, 1999; Bisp 1999; Harris 1996a, b, 1998; Homburg et al. 2004; Fang
et al. 2014; Gounaris et al. 2010; Aghazadeh 2008).
External Versus Internal Market Orientation Market orientation has been

quoted as the implementation of the marketing concept (Kohli and Jaworski
1990; Narver and Slater 1990). The more market-oriented an organization
is the more market-related activities it has. Several scholars have divided and
defined market orientation into external and internal market orientation.
External market orientation (congruent with external marketing) refers to the
basic definition of market orientation focusing on market, customer, com-
petitor and other components of business environment. Internal market ori-
entation (congruent with internal marketing) deploys the elements of basic
concept of market orientation within organization concentrating on employees
(Rodrigues and Pinho 2012; Lancaster and van der Velden 2004; Castro et al.
2005; Cervera et al. 2001; Aghazadeh 2008; Wrenn 1997; Slater and Narver
1994b; Farrell 2002; Felton 1959; Park and Zaltman 1987; Bigne et al. 2000;
Dobni and Luffman 2003).
Antecedents and Consequences of Market Orientation Market orientation

is impacted by some antecedents (either directly or indirectly) and leads to
consequences in business performance (either directly or indirectly). Several
important antecedents of market orientation are: senior management factors,
organizational systems, interdepartmental dynamics (as internal factors); com-
petition, market turbulence, macro environment forces (as external factors).
Several key consequences of market orientation are: business performance,
innovation consequences, employee response and customer response. Several
critical moderators are: supply-side, demand-side, and environmental forces
(Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Zebal 2003; Kirca et al.
2005; Kim 2003; Tortosa et al. 2009; Lings and Greenley 2010; Kirca and
Hult 2009; Harris and Ogbonna 2001; Aghazadeh 2008; Voon 2006; Bigne
et al. 2004; Maydeu-Olivares and Lado 2003; Han et al. 1998; Shoham et al.
2005; Silva et al. 2009).
Business Orientations Market orientation is in relation with other business

orientations such as strategic, market, customer, competitor, information, inno-
vation, entrepreneurship, learning, service, quality, stakeholder, and so on. In
such relationships the other business orientations might be in antecedent, con-
sequence or mediator positions (Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater
1990; Lafferty and Hult 2001; Baker and Sinkula 1999; Farrell and Oczkowski
2002; Mavondo et al. 2005; Gatignon and Xuereb 1997; Zhou et al. 2005;
Lambin 2007; Sorensen 2009; Mahmoud and Yusif 2012; Aghazadeh 2008;
Zebal and Saber 2014).
Market-Driven Versus Market-Driving These two concepts sometimes

may be used interchangeable with market orientation, but in fact they are two
types of market orientation. Market driven refers to reactive business logic or
logic indicating the acceptance of the market as given. Market-driving focuses
proactive business logic involving changing the composition of market players
(Jaworski et al. 2000; Day 1994; Tuominen et al. 2004; Kumar et al. 2000;
Lam et al. 2010; Aghazadeh 2008; Matsuno et al. 2002; Matsuno and Mentzer
2000; Van Raaij and Stoelhorst 2008; McClure 2010; Didonet et al. 2012;
Subramanian et al. 2009; Ketchen et al. 2007).
430 H. AGHAZADEH
Market Orientation Scales Many scales have been generated to mea-

sure market orientation of an enterprise. Among the more well-known and
frequently used scales of market orientation are: MKTOR (Narver and Slater
1990), MARKOR (Kohli et al. 1993; Jaworski and Kohli 1993), Combined
(MKTOR+MRKOR) (Gray et al. 1998), Deshpande et al. Scale (Deshpande
et al. 1993), Deng and Dart Scale (Deng and Dart 1994) and MORTN
(Deshpande and Farley 1998).
Market Orientation Perspectives Different perspectives have been developed

for market orientation. The significant perspectives of market orientation are as
following: market-driving, market driving, decision-making, market intelligence,
culturally based behavioral, strategic, customer orientation, managerial, cultural,
systems-based, programmatic, adaptive, and combination perspectives (Kumar
et al. 2000; Tuominen et al. 2004; Jaworski et al. 2000; Esteban et al. 2002;
Shapiro 1988; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990; Ruekert 1992;
Deshpande et al. 1993; Lafferty and Hult 2001; Becker and Homburg 1999).
arket Orientation Development

M
Market Orientation Evolution Market orientation in line with the histori-
cal evolution of strategy, marketing and marketing management, has evolved
through the following stages (Zebal 2003; Esteban et al. 2002; Liu 1996;
Dalgic 1998; Dong et al. 2016):
–– Stage (1) Introduction (1950s to the early 1960s)
–– Stage (2) Barriers and Revision (mid-1960s to the early 1980s)
–– Stage (3) Conceptualization and implementation (early 1980s to the
early 1990s)
–– Stage (4) Establishment and replication (early 1990s to 2010)
–– Stage (5) Development and updated (early 2010s to date and future)
Barriers to Development of Market Orientation There are frequent barriers

against market orientation development. Several key barriers to developing market
orientation are: strategic, structural, systematic, general, organizational, system-
based, human-based, management low experience, imperfect integration, lack
of managerial power, behavioral obstacles, assumption, value, artifacts, symbols,
ignorance of market orientation, limited resources, perceived inappropriateness,
contentment with the status quo, short-termism, unclear view of the customer,
lack of competitive differentiation, personal beliefs, climate, human resource
management (HRM), management characteristics, complexity, weak managerial
support, employee incuriosity, instrument orientation, etc. (Lings 1999; Lings
and Greenley 2009; Harris and Watkins 1998; Harris and Piercy 1997, 1999;
Aghazadeh 2008; Bisp 1999; Harris 1996a, b, 1998; Homburg et al. 2004).
Stakeholder Orientation (SO) Versus Market Orientation (MO) While

market orientation mostly focuses on market and its key components include
customer and competitor, the fact is that today businesses have to consider all
key stakeholders, including customers, community, employees, channels, sup-

pliers, collaborators, investors, government, media, sustainability, and so on.
Thus enterprises are advised to go beyond market orientation and take stake-
holder orientation and strategic orientation into account (Ferrell et al. 2010;
Morgan and Strong 1998; Mahmoud and Yusif 2012; Pulendran et al. 2003;
Aghazadeh 2008; Harris 2000; Sahi et al. 2013; Elg 2003; Gonzalez-Benito
et al. 2009; Song and Parry 2009).
arket Orientation Extensions

M
Market orientation has recently been extended across different dimensions
such as alliance, balanced, sustainable, and inter-firm market orientation. These
market orientation developments are described below.
Alliance Market Orientation (AMO) Exchange is a fundamental concept

of marketing. According to exchange-based thought, there are many inter-
organizational relationships such as the relations between buyers and suppliers;
manufacturers and distributors; service providers and clients; and strategic alli-
ances. The inter-organizational relations are major determinants of competitive
advantage, and accordingly such relations can be a basis for success in business-
to-business markets. Alliance is the collaborative efforts between two or more
firms in which the firms pool their resources in an effort to achieve mutually
compatible goals that they could not achieve easily alone. Therefore the indi-
vidual firm’s market orientation can be completed as new concept of alliance
market orientation and its potential effect on inter-organizational cooperation.
Alliance market orientation is a collaborative and cooperative effort and market-
oriented behaviors of an alliance to drive its strategies. Alliance market orienta-
tion focuses on the role of networks in the economy and the rise of alliances and
network competition as a capability that enables an alliance to gather market
intelligence jointly and systematically (from competitor and customer analysis);
to coordinate and disseminate the knowledge originated from the gathered
market intelligence inter-organizationally; and respond to the coordinated and
disseminated knowledge efficiently and effectively (Lambe et al. 2002; Morgan
and Hunt 1994; Hunt and Morgan 1997; Gulati 1999; Kandemir et al. 2006;
Leisen et al. 2002; Luo et al. 2007; Bicen and Hunt 2012; Hunt 1997).
Balanced Market Orientation (BMO) Balanced market orientation

(BMO) has been developed as a new concept, concentrating on the inte-
gration of internal marketing and external marketing. Considering internal
marketing (focused on employees) as well as external marketing (focused on
customers) and potential interlinks between them under an integrated mar-
keting philosophy (as a management function), the balanced viewpoint can
result in balanced market orientation in an organization. The components
of balanced market orientation are market orientation adoption, internal
marketing implementation and systematic monitoring of the service delivery
process. The concept of balanced market orientation identifies and fulfills
the key gaps between managers, employees and customers in three sepa-
432 H. AGHAZADEH
rate levels through incorporating all management philosophy, customers’

desires and employees’ mindset relying on integrated marketing philosophy
in which managers’ perspective is intertwined with employees’ viewpoint
and customers’ feedback. While external market orientation refers to exter-
nal customers and internal market orientation (internal marketing) pertains
to employees, balanced market orientation can be achieved through the
implementation of the external marketing concept (i.e. market orientation)
in order to better cater customers’ desires and needs and the application
of internal marketing practices within the firm to foster a firm environ-
ment that contributes to the fulfillment of employees’ needs (Greene et al.
1994; Lings 1999; Lings and Greenley 2009; Piercy 1995; Avlonitis and
Giannopoulos 2012; Slater and Narver 1994b; Day and Nedungadi 1994).
Sustainable Market Orientation (SMO) Market orientation has been noted

a corporate marketing management which focuses on an enterprise’s internal
dynamics to obtain efficiency, effectiveness and profitability through market-
ing management. In an ever-changing business environment there has been an
urgent need to expanding the core concept and reconceptualization of mar-
ket orientation to cover the environmental concerns of corporates. However,
in accordance with macromarketing, the stakeholder view, and sustainability
issues, corporate performance is now closely related to the development of
constructive, long-term external social, ecological and economic interactions
to be enhanced continually. Sustainable market orientation (SMO), as a com-
prehensive perspective to corporate marketing by developing the traditional
emphasis of marketing management on customers and market, proposes more
strategic marketing effectiveness through an enhanced understanding of soci-
etal and ecological systems. In this way corporate strategies can be introduced
and societal and environmental considerations can be effectively integrated
with economic management, and accordingly the long-term corporate market-
ing performance can be improved and sustained. Exploitation of SMO leads to
significant long-term benefits for corporate, and both primary and secondary
corporate stakeholders (Mitchell et al. 2010; Reuvid 2006; Stubbs and Cocklin
2008; Steurer et al. 2005; Sangle and Babu 2007; Shrivastava 1995)
Inter-Firm Market Orientation (IMO) Inter-firm market orientation (IMO)

as re-conceptualization of conventional market orientation is a dynamic capa-
bility related to knowledge creation that empowers an enterprise to achieve
and sustain a competitive advantage. It should be noted that corporates can
create value for and with customers and markets using their internal resources
(i.e. intra-firm MO) as well as external relationships (i.e. inter-firm MO). In
accordance with IMO, business executives and analysts should think beyond
the boundaries of a single firm (its internal organizational structures and sys-
tems) and view customers not only as a source of business but also as a business
partner that can create value jointly with firm. The IMO can also be developed
and expanded to the context of channel relationships by considering inter-
industry networks. The benefits of developing IMO in inter-industry networks,
comparing with firm-retailer relations, is the capacity for breakthrough innova-

tions based on collaboration between enterprises from different business fields
and industries (Cambra-Fierro et al. 2011; Gupta and Polonsky 2014; David
et al. 2014; Homburg et al. 2015; Jebarajakirthy et al. 2015).

practice (MIP)
(5-4) Future of market orientation
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Future of business markets;
2. Future of business stakeholders;
3. Future of consumer;
4. Future of market orientation;
5. Antecedents and consequences of market orientation;
6. Market-driven versus market-driving;
7. Market orientation perspectives;
8. Market orientation evolution;
9. Stakeholder orientation (SO) versus market orientation (MO);
10. Market orientation developments;
11. Alliance market orientation (AMO);
12. Balanced market orientation (BMO);
13. Sustainable Market Orientation (SMO);
14. Inter-firm market orientation (IMO);
15. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and close the discussion.
434 H. AGHAZADEH
5.5 Future of Marketology Functionalities

The hyper-function of marketology has been considered as an organizational
subsystem (hyper-function) that contributes on accomplishing business com-
petitive success through supporting market-related effective decisions and
efficient actions relying market DIKII provided by IGDEE services. These
functionalities of marketology have been mapped as Marketology-Driven
Business Performance Canvas (MDBPC) in which business functions are sup-
ported by marketology and marketology functions are performed by marketol-
ogy system. Below the future of these subjects are discussed.7
5.5.1 Future of Business Functions and Marketology Functions

Marketology as a hyper-function operates the functions within an organization
(often business enterprise) to help accomplishment of business competitive/
sustainable success (SCS/SSS), business performance management (BPM),
business organizational design (BOD) (involves structure, culture, people,
process, asset, technology, innovation, and communication), and business
organizational behavior (BOB) (includes governance, strategy, business and
stakeholder analysis, value, and performance) through supporting market-
related decisions and actions of key stakeholders (often business executives
and analysts) throughout the enterprise. The hyper-function of marketology
performs such supporting functions as marketology strategic management
(MSM) relying on marketology organizational architecture (MOA) include
marketology organizational design (MOD), marketology organizational
behavior (MOB), and marketology organizational contribution (MOC).
The detailed descriptions of changes and future of marketology functional-
ities have been presented in previous sections and chapters that can be used for
contemplating the future of marketology in needed cases. Such marketology
functionalities involve below matters:
(a) Future of business functions supported by marketology:
• Future of business SCS/SSS

• Future of BPM
• Future of BOD
• Future of BOB
(b) Future of marketology functions performed by marketology system:
• Future of MSM
• Future of MOA8
• Future of MOD9
• Future of MOB10
• Future of MOC11
Then there is no need to explain them more and repetitive

Several key questions and areas of change for the business future are sum-
marized in Figure 5.19. Business analysts or leaders who think about or
design the future of business should answer the key questions about business
including where they are now and how they will be improved in the future.
Moreover, areas of change must be taken into account and be transformed
into the future of business (Talwar 2015a, b; Aghazadeh 2016; Barton 2010;
Ardi 2014).
As noted previously, businesses and their environments are changing and
will continue to change substantially. In the same way, marketology function-
alities will be change remarkably. This means that business success and busi-
ness performance management as well as the designs and behaviors of business
organizations will take new forms and dimensions quite different from what
they were before. The stakeholders of marketology across the enterprise (espe-
cially senior executives, managers, analysts, experts, decision-makers, action-
takers) will place diversified orders and requests very different from ever. For
instance, once business success by customer loyalty could be evaluated by the
amount of received acknowledgement letters or calls from customers compar-
ing with rivals; nowadays and in the future it will be assessed by the number
of likes on Facebook or Instagram profiles and positive tweets on customer’s
tweet accounts. Once the senior executives requested from market research
unit to provide the information of a new “intended to enter market” as a hard-
copy report at least in six months and to revise it every six months; while now
Fields of question Areas of change
- Strategy - Visions of the future
- Workforce - Tomorrow’s global order
- Human enhancement - Emerging societal landscape
- Resources - Social technologies
- Mindset - Disruptive developments
- Artificial intelligence - Surviving and thriving
- Automation - Industry features
- Unemployment - Embracing the future
- Money - Framing the future
- Purpose
Talwar (2015a); Talwar (2015b)
Figure 5.19 Questions and changes for the future of business

436 H. AGHAZADEH
and for the future business analysts and executives will order from a market
intelligence unit to deliver the insights about a new “intended to enter market”
as soft and infographic report through dashboard or mobile devices at least in 1
month and to revise it per week (Solis 2013, 2014; Clark 2013; Talwar 2015a,
b; Barton 2010; Gantz and Reinsel 2012; Annabelle 2010; Aghazadeh 2016;
Davenport et al. 2010a, b; McAfee 2009; EY 2014; Gitman and McDaniel
2008; Ardi 2014; Gartner 2011; Chui et al. 2010; Bughin et al. 2015; Kotler
et al. 2010; Manyika et al. 2011; Biesdorf et al. 2013; Brynjolfsson et al. 2011;
Aaker 2016; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Best
2012; Chernev 2014).

practice (MIP)
(5-5) Future of marketology functionalities
Guideline (FOCUS)
(a) Form groups of students (in class) or colleagues (in organization) composed of 3 or 5 members
(b) Organize a leader and select a name/label for your group
(c) Consider a case or subject for investigation and analysis
(d) Understand, discuss and work on the issue as a teamwork
(e) Set out a report, present it to the class/organization and do an evaluation
1. Future of business competitive/sustainable success (SCS/SSS);
2. Fields of questions for future of business;
3. Areas of change for future of business;
4. Future of business performance management (BPM);
5. Future of business organizational design (BOD);
6. Future of business organizational behavior (BOB);
7. Future of market ology stakeholders;
the discussion.
5.6 Future of Marketology: Cloud Marketology

Canvas (CMC)
5.6.1
Marketology Canvas: Standard Versus Cloud
In accordance with “marketology canvas” the core function of marketology
is contributing to business success (SSS/SCS), design (BOD) and behavior
(BOB) through supporting market-related decisions and actions relying on
market DIKII provided by IGDEE services. The hyper-function of marketol-
ogy as an organizational sub-system is directed by marketology strategic man-
agement (MSM) through which the marketology organizational contributions
(MOC) are produced and provided on the basis of marketology organizational
design (MOD) and marketology organizational behavior (MOB). In fact this
is the normal and currently workable system of marketology which can be
called standard marketology canvas (SMC). Obviously by mentioned drastic
and diversified changes and future predictions of business, the future marke-
tology should be transformed innovatively rather than the current and take
an enhanced version as cloud marketology canvas (CMC) (Aghazadeh 2016;
Aaker 2016; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Strategyzer 2015a, b; Best 2012;
Chernev 2014; Osterwalder et al. 2015).
In this regard first several evolutionary issues of marketology are reviewed,
second the interactions of marketology and decision-making and action-taking
are discussed, third issues of the future of marketology are concluded.
5.6.2 EIS Evolution: From MIS to Marketology

Although conventional enterprise information systems (EIS) such as strategic
information systems (SIS), management information systems (MIS), marketing
information systems (MkIS), decision support systems (DSS), enterprise system
(ES), executive information systems (EIS), knowledge management (KM), and
extraction transformation load (ETL)12 have been supporting the audiences and
specifically executives across the organizations for decades, but today many IT
systems have become deficient in responding the informational requests. As a
matter of fact they are not able to meet sufficiently the informational needs
and expectations of enterprise analysts, decision makers and managers. It means
that regarding the high volume, complicated, and updated informational needs
of executives for real-time decision-making and action taking; an advanced,
IT-enabled, strategy-focused, business-centric, market- oriented, intelligent,
insightful, and comprehensive systems such as strategic BI and MI initiatives and
marketology seem to be suitable. As illustrated in Figure 5.20 this can be under-
stood below in the evolutionary development steps of management information
systems from simple MIS in the past and more complex BI, MI and marketology
in now and for the future (Muhammad et al. 2014; Olszak and Ziemba 2003,
2004, 2006, 2007; Aghazadeh 2008, 2016; Herschel and Jones 2005):
438 H. AGHAZADEH
MI / Marketology
BI
EIS
ES
DSS
MIS
Figure 5.20 Evolution of enterprise information systems: from MIS to Marketology
1. MIS: databases, algorithms of processing

2. DSS: data models and interface
3. ES: reasoning bases and knowledge bases
4. EIS: reporting and data visualization
5. BI: data mining, OLAP,13 and data warehousing
6. MI/marketology: supporting market-related decisions and actions of
business
As shown in the figure, the MI (market intelligence/insight) or marketol-

ogy is considered as an advanced management information system (with spe-
cific focus on market) which supports market-related decisions and actions of
business organizations relying on former management information systems
(like BI, EIS, etc.) through contributing IGDEE services and market DIKII
products (Clark 2013; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; Gartner 2011; Aaker 2010,
2016; Webster 2008; Kotler et al. 2010; Aghazadeh 2016; Best 2012; Chernev
2014; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Cravens and Piercy 2013).
5.6.3 Marketology Evolution
Marketology has been an underlying philosophy for businesses for long time
with different perspectives in different areas. In line with the historical evo-
lution of strategy, marketing, marketing management, and market orienta-
tion, the marketology has been evolved through below stages (Ansoff 1957;
Murphy and Enis 1986; Baum and Haveman 1997; Chang et al. 1999; Guo
2002; Javalgi et al. 2005; Narver and Slater 1990; Shapiro 1988; Aghazadeh
2016; Hamel and Prahalad 2013; Cadogan and Diamatopoulos 1995; Aaker
2016; Chernev 2014; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b):
–– Stage (1) Customer oriented perspective (1950s)
–– Stage (2) Strategic market oriented perspective (1980s)
–– Stage (3) Company oriented perspective (1990s)
–– Stage (4) Balanced value oriented perspective (2000s)
–– Stage (5) Data, social and technology oriented perspective (2010s)
5.6.4 Marketology Maturity
It has been frequently noted that the proper type of marketology is that of
organization wide which supports the clients/audiences entire the enterprise.
Considering this situation as full version, marketology maturity can be ful-
filled through an evolutionary process including five levels: Unknown, Initial,
Scattered, Established, and Strategic marketology as illustrated in Figure 5.21
(Aghazadeh 2016; Becker and Homburg 1999; Dobni and Luffman 2003;
Maturity Degree of marketology within Interactions with market-related (e.g. marketing), IT-driven (e.g. MIS) and intelligence-
Stage
level organization based (e.g. BI) functions/units of organization
Market-related functions are only Market-related functions are organized and conducted by units other than marketology (e.g.
1 Unknown
similar to those of marketology marketing, market research, etc.)
Initial Marketology is introduced and Marketology is within market-related units and request from marketology are responded by
2
marketology formed primarily within a unit these units
Scattered Marketology is growing and Marketology is located in market-related units throughout the enterprise to real-time support
3
marketology distributed to many units decisions and actions
Established Marketology is grown/ well- Marketology takes a devoted high-level department which interact with people, units and
4
marketology accepted and own central unit functions all over the enterprise to respond well the requests
Pervasive Marketology is mature and have Marketology becomes part of business, have strategic position and cooperate with all people,
5
marketology enterprise-wide coverage units and functions both inside and outside of enterprise as external and internal marketology
Figure 5.21 Marketology maturity

440 H. AGHAZADEH
Lafferty and Hult 2001; Esteban et al. 2002; Deshpande et al. 1993; Kohli and
Jaworski 1990; Ruekert 1992).
In fact every organization has a degree of marketology even if unknown
marketology. The matter of maturity assessment within an organization is the
depth of marketology rather than marketology’s being or not being.
It worth bearing in mind that an enterprise/corporation with mature mar-
ketology will be proficient in utilizing the following benefits of huge changes
in technology, environment, market, and business such as the expansion of big
data (Laney et al. 2015):
–– Exploring pleasant business opportunities and value through better-
informed decision-makings, deciphering latent insights, and automat-
ing business processes.
–– Entering into a new world of data sources exploiting both internal and
external data to the company like public sources of data (social media
and government), and enterprise’s email archives, warranty forms, and
call center recordings as sources of potential business value.
–– Obtaining innovation, cultural change, analytical mindset and new
skills as influential results of coercive investing in more than technol-
ogy to gain business value from big data through boosting the usage
of information entire organization in a way that the big data is being
employed as oil or coal for fueling business performance.
Marketology maturity is clearly different in large corporations than
MSMEs (micro, small and medium-sized enterprises) according to the
degree of integration, alignment, agility, flexibility, congruency, consistency,
etc. It is therefore better to assess the maturity of marketology based on the
characteristics of the given company (Hostmann 2007; Laney et al. 2015;
Avlonitis and Gounaris 1999; Hamel and Prahalad 1989; Aghazadeh 2008,
2016; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Best 2012; Webster 2008; Olszak
2013; HP 2009; Davenport and Harris 2007; Williams and Williams 2007;
Hagerty 2006; Deng 2007; Rajteric 2010; Chuah 2010; Gartner 2009;
Cates et al. 2005).
5.6.5 Marketology and Decision-Making Interaction Approaches

The approaches of interaction between marketology and decision-making in
enterprises as demonstrated in Figure 5.22 can be classified into three basic
groups:14 (1) Information technology (IT), (2) Information management, and
(3) Business excellence (IBM 2011; Schank al. 2010; LaValle 2009a, b; Altman
2014; Aghazadeh 2016; McAfee 2010; Kovac et al. 2015).
In order to select a best marketology approach and decision-making
impact, an enterprise first should consider its own characteristics in accor-
dance with above dimensions (e.g. purpose and function, governance style,
Approach
(1) Information technology (2) Information management (3) Business excellence
Dimension
Focus/concentration IT-centric Management-focused Predictive insight
Time horizon Past tense Real-time Future tense
Foundation Engineering Management Social science
Purpose and function Efficiency; reactive fixing Effectiveness; decision making Agility; anticipatory opportunism
Business analysis and scenario

Key competency Reporting models Decision modeling
modeling
Relationship management and business

Governance style Top-down directives Executive management
solutions partnering
Enterprise resource planning Project management office (PMO) with

Supporting structure Business transformation office
(ERP) team business process center of excellence
Reactive fixes and isolated Immediate decisions with knowledge

Decision form Agility and business opportunism
predictive attempts management and decision support
Effectiveness (increased revenue and Client lock-in and business model

Sort of impact Operational efficiency
customer satisfaction) transformation
CIO role Owner Leadership Educator/mentor
Time frame and

Past tense; reactive Present tense; active Future tense; proactive
viewpoint
Business decision
Low Middle High
intensity
Working method Tools and reporting Applications and messaging Business models and scenarios
Performance
Lagging indicators Performance management Leading indicators
indicators
Type of initiative IT-driven Decision-driven Success-driven
Figure 5.22 Approaches of marketology and decision-making interaction
supporting structure, decision form, business decision intensity, etc.); then

should match the features with the profile of approaches; finally it should
choose the most fitting approach. Some enterprises may select a combi-
nation of three approaches (each to different extent). In fact the selected
approach should be compatible with the enterprise’s marketology maturity
level (Chaudhuri and Dayal 1997; Khan and Quadri 2012; Radcliffe 2012;
Parenteau et al. 2016; Gratton 2016; Evelson 2015; Gantz and Reinsel 2012;
IBM 2011; Schank al. 2010; Osterwalder et al. 2015; LaValle 2009a, b;
Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Altman 2014; Strategyzer 2015a, b; McAfee 2010;
Kovac et al. 2015; Alfieri 2015; Jackson 2013a, b; Mankins and Sherer 2014;
Ranjan 2009; Annabelle 2010; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; McAfee 2009; EY
442 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
(5-6) Marketology evolution and maturity
Guideline (FOCUS)
(a) Form groups of students (in class) or colleagues (in organization) composed of 3 or 5 members
(b) Organize a leader and select a name/label for your group
(c) Consider a case or subject for investigation and analysis
(d) Understand, discuss and work on the issue as a teamwork
(e) Set out a report, present it to the class/organization and do an evaluation
1. Marketology canvas: standard versus cloud;
2. EIS evolution: from MIS to Marketology;
3. Marketology evolution;
4. Marketology maturity;
5. Marketology and decision making interaction approaches;

2014; Gitman and McDaniel 2008; Ardi 2014; Gartner 2011; Osterwalder
and Pigneur 2013; Best 2012; Chernev 2014).
5.6.6 Future of Marketology
Today everything is changing and transforming remarkably and rapidly: the
world, businesses, markets, environments, technologies, societies, cultures,
economics, politics, partners/collaborators, channels, suppliers, customers,
competitors, governments, medias, NGOs, relationships, industries, enter-
prises/organizations, lives, individuals, groups, families, devices, connec-
tions/interactions, and so on. Several instances of the changes that have
occurred and are predicted to expand in the future data areanalytics, big
data, overflow of information, visualization, social media/engagement/
network, co-creation, Internet of things (IoT), real-time platform, seman-

tic web (web 3.0),15 cloud computing, cognitive computing, wearable tech-
nologies, any device, mobile (including mobile devices), infonomics, trust,
security, enterprise business intelligence, and consumerization of IT. In this
chapter the future changes of business and marketology have been summa-
rized and classified into the following categories (Gartner 2011; Biesdorf
et al. 2013; Aaker 2016; Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Cravens and Piercy
2013; Best 2012; Chernev 2014; Kotler and Keller 2015; Anderson 2012;
AWS 2013; Natis et al. 2015; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Aghazadeh
2008, 2015, 2016; Smith et al. 2009; HP 2011; SUN 2009; IBM 2016;
Mosco 2016; CloudTech 2015; Kotler et al. 2010; Strategyzer 2015a, b;
Aghazadeh and Esfidani 2007; Malone 2016; Smith 2014; Osterwalder et al.
2015; Cantara 2015; Plummer et al. 2015; Solis 2014; Talwar 2015a; Barton
2010; Annabelle 2010; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; Ardi 2014; Webster 2008;
Bughin et al. 2015; Lambin and Schuiling 2012; Walker and Madsen 2015;
Baker and Anderson 2010):
1. Future trends and priorities of business and technology (Cloud 1): world
megatrends, business priorities, technology priorities, strategic technol-
ogy trends, and IT-enabled business trends
2. Future big changes of modern business environment (Cloud 2): Big Data,
cloud computing, infonomics, and analytics
3. Future of marketology foundations (Cloud 3): future of business,
technology, business intelligence (BI), decision-making, strategy,

strategic marketing, business markets and stakeholders, and market

orientation
4. Future of marketology functionalities (Cloud 4): future of business com-
petitive/sustainable success (SCS/SSS), business performance
management (BPM), business organizational design (BOD), business
organizational behavior (BOB)
5. Future of marketology: future of marketology strategic management
(MSM), marketology organizational design (MOD), marketology
organizational behavior (MOB), and marketology organizational contri-
bution (MOC) (business-based and marketology-based)
Note
The first three categories of change mentioned above have been dis-
cussed in previous sections and considered as periphery clouds of changes
around cloud marketology canvas-CMC. The fourth category is the sub-
ject of this section, which is explained further below.
444 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
(5-7) Clouds of future marketology
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Future of marketology;
2. Cloud 1: Future trends and priorities of business and technology;
3. Cloud 2: Future big changes of modern business environment;
4. Cloud 3: Future of foundations of marketology;
5. Cloud 4: Future of functionalities of marketology;

5.6.7 Cloud Marketology Canvas (CMC)

Apparently in current and upcoming circumstances of business world the old
and even existing methods and technologies won’t be useful enough and then
some innovative methods will be required to be compatible with future con-
ditions. Marketology is no exception indeed and should be transformed and
enhanced substantially. For this purpose as pointed earlier the CMC (Figure
5.23) as an innovative and upgraded version of existing marketology canvas
can be fruitful for the future of business and marketology. CMC refers to an
upgraded version of standard marketology canvas (SMC) which is clouded by
major predicated changes for the future of business and marketology.
This demonstration of CMC using the logic of cloud computing shows that
the enhanced version of marketology will be compatible with categories of
changes predicated for the future of business and marketology. Thus the CMC
is expected to be equipped with advanced professionals and know-hows, tools
and techniques, methods and technologies, innovation and relations, skills
and capabilities, insights and vision, strategies and tactics, plans and programs,
Future big changes of modern

Future trends and priorities of
business environment
business and technology
Cloud 2:
Cloud 1:
Technology
Communicaon
Asset
Culture
Process
People
Innovaon
Structure
Future of marketolog
Future of marketology
functionalities
Cloud 4:
foundations
Cloud 3:
Organizaon/Enterprise and internal stakeholders
Figure 5.23 Cloud Marketology Canvas (CMC)
resources and assets, people and processes, structure and culture, and value and
performance (Kotler et al. 2010; Aghazadeh and Esfidani 2007; Malone 2016;
Smith 2014; Cantara 2015; Plummer et al. 2015; Solis 2014; Talwar 2015a;
Barton 2010; Annabelle 2010; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Gartner 2011;
Biesdorf et al. 2013; Aaker 2016; Strategyzer 2015a, b; Kotler and Armstrong
2015a, b; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Best 2012; Chernev 2014; Kotler and
Keller 2015; Anderson 2012; AWS 2013; Natis et al. 2015; Aghazadeh 2008,
2015, 2016; Smith et al. 2009; HP 2011; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; Ardi 2014;
446 H. AGHAZADEH
Webster 2008; Bughin et al. 2015; Lambin and Schuiling 2012; Osterwalder
et al. 2015; SUN 2009; IBM 2016; Mosco 2016; CloudTech 2015; Walker
and Madsen 2015; Baker and Anderson 2010).

practice (MIP)
(5-8) Cloud marketology canvas (CMC) (1)
Guideline (FOCUS)
- Understand, discuss and work on the issue as a teamwork
- Set out a report, present it to the class/organization and do an evaluation
1. Cloud marketology canvas (CMC);
2. Cloud marketology strategic management (CMSM);
3. Cloud marketology organizational architecture (CMOA);
4. Cloud marketology organizational design (CMOD);
5. Cloud marketology structure;
6. Cloud marketology culture;
7. Cloud marketology people;
8. Cloud marketology process;
9. Cloud marketology asset;
10. Cloud marketology technology;
11. Cloud marketology innovation;
12. Cloud marketology communication;
the discussion.
5.6.8 Crafting Cloud Marketology Canvas (CMC)

Through the marketology canvas reengineering (MCR) the whole canvas and
all containing components will be developed and transformed as a cloud mar-
ketology canvas (CMC) compatible with the future requirements of business
and marketology. All components will be adapted with clouded conditions and
take new names similar with marketology canvas. Future marketology in the
form of the cloud marketology canvas (CMC) design/plan will include the fol-
lowing principle components:
–– Cloud marketology strategic management (CMSM)
–– Cloud marketology organizational architecture (CMOA)
–– Cloud marketology organizational design (CMOD): cloud marketol-
ogy structure, cloud marketology culture, cloud marketology people,
cloud marketology process, cloud marketology asset, cloud marketol-
ogy technology, cloud marketology innovation, and cloud marketol-
ogy communication,
–– Cloud marketology organizational behavior (CMOB): cloud marke-
tology governance, cloud marketology strategy, cloud marketology
business and stakeholder analysis, cloud marketology value, and cloud
marketology performance,
–– Cloud marketology organizational contribution (CMOC): cloud business-
based contributions, and cloud marketology-based contributions (majorly
include cloud IGDEE services: cloud identification, cloud generation,
cloud dissemination, cloud exploitation and cloud evaluation; and cloud
market DIKII (cloud market data, cloud market information, cloud mar-
ket knowledge, cloud market intelligence, and cloud market insight).
It should be noted that the components of cloud marketology canvas (CMC)
should be reengineered, enhanced and set up to be compatible with the character-
istics of future changes which are depicted as periphery clouds (including future
trends and priorities of business and technology, future big changes of modern busi-
ness environment, and future of foundations and functionalities of marketology).
Several future changes or considerations of components of CMC can be
highlighted: strategic thinking, close to practice, agile, flexible, quick, inte-
grative, data-driven, big data driven, cloud computing based, insight-driven,
analytics-driven, social-oriented, network-linked, technology-enabled, govern-
ment interaction, community oriented, business oriented, strategic oriented,
stakeholder oriented, hybrid/federated structure, encouraging and supporting
culture/climate, automated process, motivated and professional people, valu-
able assets, core competencies, competitive advantages, modern technologies,
advanced devices, updated connections, data relationships, mobile applications,
cloud computing and capacities, utilizing Internet of things (IoT), innovations,
wide, open, mobile and integrative communication, market oriented, infonom-
ics based, transformational leadership, visionary and competent governance,
effective strategies, data-driven and insightful decisions and actions, enhanced
IGDEE services, cloud market DIKII, contributed to business competitive suc-
cess and business performance management, and so on. Although this list can be
448 H. AGHAZADEH
ongoing but it has been confined here (Anderson 2012; AWS 2013; Natis et al.
2015; Aghazadeh 2008, 2015, 2016; Smith et al. 2009; HP 2011; Aaker 2016;
Kotler and Armstrong 2015a, b; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Best 2012; Chernev
2014; Kotler and Keller 2015; Strategyzer 2015a, b; Mosco 2016; CloudTech
2015; Bughin et al. 2015; Walker and Madsen 2015; Baker and Anderson 2010;
Osterwalder and Pigneur 2013; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; Ardi 2014; Webster
2008; Lambin and Schuiling 2012; SUN 2009; Osterwalder et al. 2015; IBM
2016; Kotler et al. 2010; Aghazadeh and Esfidani 2007; Malone 2016; Smith
2014; Cantara 2015; Plummer et al. 2015; Solis 2014; Talwar 2015a; Barton
2010; Annabelle 2010; Gartner 2011; Biesdorf et al. 2013).

practice (MIP)
(5-9) Cloud marketology canvas (CMC) (2)
Guideline (FOCUS)
- Set out a report, present it to the class/organization and do an evaluation
1. Cloud marketology organizational behavior (CMOB);
2. Cloud marketology governance;
3. Cloud marketology strategy;
4. Cloud marketology business and stakeholder analysis;
5. Cloud marketology value;
6. Cloud marketology performance;
7. Cloud marketology organizational contribution (CMOC);
8. Cloud business-based contributions;
9. Cloud marketology-based contributions;

5.6.9 Execution of Cloud Marketology Canvas (CMC)

To effectively conduct marketology that copes with the future conditions
of businesses, company executives and marketology delegates are advised to
exploit the strategic framework of the cloud marketology canvas (CMC). For
this purpose they should obtain the support of top management and key stake-
holders, develop marketology design and behavior consistent with those of
organization; build a competent (skilled and knowledgeable) governance body,
enhance the marketology capabilities of enterprise constantly; and put marke-
tology at the heart of the enterprise information system (EIS).
In order to better execute the CMC the hyper-function of marketology or the
in-charge body of enterprise (i.e. MMC) should be equipped with certain capa-
bilities including master data management (MDM), information management
(IM), knowledge management (KM), managerial commitment and support,
talent management, business analytics, data-driven management, and strategic,
futuristic and opportunistic thinking, IT-driven management, and data-driven
and insight-driven decision-making and action-taking; as well as professional
teams with advanced analytical, visualizing, predicting, training, consulting,
information retrieving, networking, and management and leadership skills. The
composition of such professional team should involve strategists, technologists,
analysts (business analysts) and marketologists who cooperate together within
the hyper-function of marketology to support effective decision-making and
efficient action-taking through the providing market DIKII relying on IGDEE
services in a dynamic manner compatible with changing circumstances (KPMG
2014a, b; Deloitte 2016; SAP 2014; Nurmi 2014; Radcliffe 2007, 2012;
Aghazadeh 2016; Accenture 2013; SAS 2008; White et al. 2006).
Business analytics has been predicted as a key function of the future of busi-
ness and marketology which can be handled by an enterprise either insourced
or outsourced. In accordance with the cloud marketology canvas (CMC) busi-
ness analytics can be conducted by the hyper-function of marketology as an
organizational unit/function which is in-charge of business analytics (through
MMC) to support market-related decisions and actions all over the enterprise
by providing market DIKII relying on IGDEE services through following
sequential steps: D2Inf (data to information), Inf2K (information to knowl-
edge), K2Int (knowledge to intelligence), Int2Ins (intelligence to insight), and
Ins2V (insight to value/outcomes) (Radcliffe 2007, 2012; Aghazadeh 2016;
Accenture 2013; SAS 2008; White et al. 2006).
Despite the potential opportunities of future changes of business, envi-
ronment, technology (such as the potential benefits of big data), only those
organizations that invest, arrange and execute hyper-function of marketology
(specifically cloud marketology) can realize such benefits through supporting
faster decisions, reasonable cost and time, and shared learnings and ideas.16
Today, as a result of the internet and social networks, rapid and intensive devel-
opment, digital connections, cloud computing, technology advances, and enor-
mous and various in-source and outsource data production, big data has emerged
and is expanding exponentially. This can make big o pportunities for businesses
to create sustainable competitive advantages and achieve competitive success if
450 H. AGHAZADEH
they are able to deliver value using big data and its corresponding opportunities.
For this purpose the enterprise should be well prepared with a big data analytics
framework (BDAF) consisting of real-time data collecting and complex analytics
capabilities as well as the right culture, people, structure, architecture, technol-
ogy and so forth. This can be well done by using the cloud marketology can-
vas (CMC) relying on CMOD, CMOB, and CMOC. Cloud marketology thus
appears to be the right choice to enable an organization to properly do the busi-
ness analytics and use the opportunities of future changes for business success
in the marketplace (White et al. 2006; Radcliffe 2007, 2012; Osterwalder et al.
2015; Accenture 2013; SAS 2008; KPMG 2014a, b; Deloitte 2016; SAP 2014;
Nurmi 2014; Cravens and Piercy 2013; Best 2012; Chernev 2014; Osterwalder
and Pigneur 2013; Aghazadeh 2015, 2016; Davenport et al. 2010a, b; Ardi 2014;
Strategyzer 2015a, b; Webster 2008; Lambin and Schuiling 2012; SUN 2009;
IBM 2016; Kotler et al. 2010; Kotler and Keller 2015; Mosco 2016; CloudTech
2015; Bughin et al. 2015; Walker and Madsen 2015; Baker and Anderson 2010).

practice (MIP)
(5–10) Cloudmarket DIKIIand cloud IGDEE services
Guideline (FOCUS)
- Set a report, present it to the class/organization and do an evaluation
1. Cloud IGDEE services;
2. Cloud identification;
3. Cloud generation;
4. Cloud dissemination;
5. Cloud exploitation;
6. Cloud evaluation;
7. Cloud market DIKII;
8. Cloud market data;
9. Cloud market information;
10. Cloud market knowledge;
11. Cloud market intelligence;
12. Cloud market insight;
13. Execution of cloud marketology canvas (CMC);
14. Fulfill a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and
5.7 Marketology In Practice (MIP)
Marketology in Future of Marketology (FOM)

practice (MIP)
Chapter-End Cloud Marketology Canvas (CMC)
Previous marketology in practice (MIP) sections have provided a practical view on sections’
discussions about the subjects and matters of future of marketology (FOM) such as trends and
priorities of business and technology; big changes of business environment; and future of
foundations and functionalities of marketology. Some practical tools and techniques of
marketology were not applicable for the subjects within the chapter, where as they are suitable
here. This is why the following marketology tools/techniques are applied an exercised at the
end of chapter (FOM):
MIP 5-11: Technology and business trend evaluation (TBTE) Matrix
MIP 5-12(a): Big Data Exploitation Assessment (BDEA) Matrix
MIP 5-12(b): Big Data 5V Assessment (BD5VA) Matrix
MIP 5-13: Cloud Computing Readiness Assessment (CCRA) Matrix
MIP 5-14: Infonomics Valuation Matrix (IVM)
MIP 5-15: Business Analytics Capability Matrix (BACM)
MIP 5-16: Future Foundations Requirement Response (FFRR) Matrix
MIP 5-17: Future Functionality & Marketology Interaction (FFMI) Matrix
MIP 5-18: Future Market-Related Functions & Marketology (FMRFM) Matrix
MIP 5-19: Marketology Maturity Assessment Matrix (MMAM)
MIP 5-20: Future Decision-Making Profile (FDMP)
MIP 5-21: Cloud Marketology Canvas Assessment (CMCA) Matrix
MIP 5-22: Case study: Future of Marketology (FOM)

Marketology in Technology and business trend evaluation(TBTE) Matrix
practice (MIP)
(5–11) Evaluating reaction power to technology and business trends
Guideline: To the following technology and business trend analysis (TBTA) matrix;
1. In column one (C1) define five top technology and business trends that may impact the
enterprise and marketology
2. In column two (C2) determine whether each defined trend leads to opportunity or threat for
the enterprise and marketology
3. In column three (C3) determine the weight of each trend (O/T) by percent within a
continuum: 0
4. In column four (C4) determine the score of each trend (O/T) in accordance with determined
continuums: T: 0 ≤ ≤ 4.5 and O: 4.5 < ≤ 9
5. In column five (C5) determine the weighted score of each trend (O/T) by multiplying C3 * C4.
6. Calculate the totals as located in matrix (Total Technology Trend, Total Business Trend,
and Total Trend)
In this way the weighted score of each top five technology and business trends, total technology trend,
total business trend, and also total trend can be comparedtogether upon the drawn matrix.
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of technology and business trend analysis (TBTA) matrix; and the
identified comparative scores and positions for top five and total technology and business trends; analyze
their positions and the reaction power of enterprise/ marketology to them separately and comparatively.
Analysis of reaction power of enterprise/ marketology to technology and business trends:
MIP 5-11: technology and business trend analysis (TBTA) matrix
(C3) (C4) Score:

(C2) (C5) Weighted
(C1) Trends title: TT/ BT Weight O: . < ≤
O/T Score: C3*C4
(0–100%) T: ≤ ≤ .
TT1:
TT2:
TT3:
TT4:
TT5:
Total Technology Trend SUM= AVG= SUM=
BT1:
BT2:
BT3:
BT4:
BT5:
Total Business Trend SUM= AVG= SUM=
Total Trend 100% AVG= SUM=

Technology (total trend)

O+/T- O+ +
4.5
T- - T-/O+
0
0 4.5 9
Business (total trend)
Note: “TT” stands for Technology Trend (TT); “BT” stands for Business Trend (BT); “O” stands for
Opportunities; “T” stands for Threats; Weight represents the significance degree; Score refers to response/
reaction power.
Marketology in Big Data Exploitation Assessment (BDEA) Matrix

practice (MIP)
(5-12) (a) Evaluating accessibility and applicability of big data
Guideline: To the following big data exploitation assessment (BDEA) matrix;
1. In column one (C1) specify three intended big data for each group of big transaction data
(BTD), big interaction data (BID), and big data processing (BDP).
2. In column two (C2) determine the weight of each specified big data by percent within a
continuum: 0–100%. Note that the sum of all items should not exceed 100%.
3. In column group three (C3) determine the score of accessibility to each specified big data by
speed/time, cost, technology, relationship in accordance with determined continuum: 0≤X≤9.
Note that the score of cost should reverse means that more access cost gets less score. Then
determine the average score of accessibility to each specified big data.
4. In column group four (C4) determine the score of analyzability of each specified big data by
speed/time, cost, technology, expertise in accordance with determined continuum: 0≤X≤9.
Note that the score of cost should reverse means that more analysis cost gets less score. Then
determine the average score of analyzability of each specified big data.
5. In column group five (C5) determine the score of applicability of each specified big data by
the extent of opportunities/benefits/added values that offers to total business use and market-
related use in accordance with determined continuum: 0≤X≤9. Then determine the average
score of applicability of each specified big data.

454 H. AGHAZADEH
6. In column group six (C6) first calculate the total average of columns C3, C4 and C5 for
each specified big data. Then calculate the weighted total average for each specified big
data.
In this way the weighted score of exploitation for each specified big data, each group of big data
(BTD, BID, and BDP), and also total big data of business can be compared together.
MIP 5-12 (a) Big Data Exploitation Assessment (BDEA) Matrix

(C3) Accessibility (C4) Analyzability (C5) Applicability (C6) Total
(C2)
Weighted Total
Total Average
Market-related
Total business
Average (C3)
Average (C4)
Average (C5)
Speed/ Time
Speed/ Time
Relationship
Technology
Technology
(C3,C4,C5)
(C1) Big Data Weight
Expertise
Average
Cost
Cost
use
use
(0–100%)
BTD1:
BTD2:
BTD3:
Total Big Transaction Data (BTD)
BID1:
BID2:
BID3:
Total Big Interaction Data (BID)
BDP1:
BDP2:
BDP3:
Total Big Data Processing (BDP)
Total Big Data 100%
Note: “BTD” stands for Big Transaction Data; “BID” stands for Big Interaction Data; “BDP” stands for Big
Data Processing (BDP)
Marketology in Big Data 5V Assessment (BD5VA) Matrix

practice (MIP)
(5-12) (b) Evaluating 5 Vs of big data
Guideline: To the following Big Data 5V Assessment (BD5VA) Matrix;

1. In column one (C1) five Vs of big data are pointed include: Volume (amount of data generated
every second), Velocity (speed of new data generation and moves around), Variety (different types
of data), Veracity (messiness or trustworthiness of the data); and Value (ability turn data into
value)
2. In column two (C2) determine the weight of each V of big data by percent within a continuum: 0-
100%. Note that the sum of all items should not exceed 100%.
3. In column three (C3) determine the score (raw and weighted) of enterprise for each V of big data
within continuum: 0≤X≤9.
4. In column four (C4) determine the score (raw and weighted) of industry for each V of big data
within continuum: 0≤X≤9. Note that the score of industry refers to average score of all main
companies that operate and compete within an industry.
5. In column group five (C5) determine the score (raw and weighted) of best practice company or
best rival within a marketplace for each V of big data within continuum: 0≤X≤9.
In this way the weighted score of 5 Vs of big data and also total big data for an enterprise, industry
and best practice company/ rival can be compared together upon the drawn spider diagram.
MIP 5-12 (b) Big Data 5V Assessment (BD5VA) Matrix

(C2) (C3) Enterprise (C4) Industry (C5) Best practice/Rival
(C1) Big Data Weight Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted
(0-100%) score score score score score score
Volume
Velocity
Variety
Veracity
Value
Total Big Data 100%
Volume
9
8
7
6
5
4
Value 3 Velocity
2
1
0
Veracity Variety
Analysis guideline: regarding the results of big data exploitation assessment (BDEA) Matrix and big data 5V
assessment (BD5VA) matrix ; analyze the exploitation of big data by accessibility, analyzability, and applicability; and
also analyze the five Vs of big data for enterprise, industry average and best practice separately and comparatively.
.
Analysis of exploitation and 5 Vs of big data:

456 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in Cloud Computing Readiness Assessment (CCRA) Matrix

practice (MIP)
(5-13) Evaluating readiness of enterprise to use cloud computing
Guideline: To the following cloud computing readiness assessment (CCRA) matrix;
1. In column one (C1) specify the types and models of cloud computing in enterprise for each category of
SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS.
2. In column two (C2) determine the weight of each specified types and models of cloud computing by
percent within a continuum: 0–100%. Note that the sum of all items should not exceed 100%.
3. In column group three (C3) determine the score of accessibility to each specified types and models of
cloud computing by speed/time, cost, technology, and expertise within continuum: 0≤X≤9.Note that the
score of cost should reverse means that more access cost gets less score. Then determine the average
score of accessibility to each specified types and models of cloud computing.
4. In column group four (C4) determine the score of applicability to each specified types and models of
cloud computing by speed/time, cost, technology, expertise, and security within continuum: 0≤X≤9.
Note that the score of cost should reverse means that more application cost gets less score. Then
determine the average score of applicability to each specified types and models of cloud computing.
5. In column group five (C5) determine the score of added value of each specified types and models of
cloud computing by the extent of opportunities/benefits that offers to total business use and market-
related use within continuum: 0≤X≤9.Then determine the average score of added value each specified
type of cloud computing.
6. In column group six (C6) first calculate the total average of columns C3, C4 and C5; second calculate
the weighted total average; and third determine and compare the scores of industry and best practice/
rival for each specified types and models of cloud computing.
In this way the weighted score of enterprise readiness for each specified types and models of cloud
computing, and also total cloud computing of enterprise can be compared together and with industry
and best practice/ rival upon the drawn spider diagrams.
MIP 5-13: Cloud Computing Readiness Assessment (CCRA) Matrix

(C3) Accessibility (C4) Applicability (C5) Added Value (C6) Total
(C2)
Weighted Total
Industry Score
Total Average
Market-related
Best Practice/
Total business
Average (C3)
Average (C4)
Average (C5)
(C1) Cloud
Speed/ Time
Speed/ Time
Rival Score
Technology
Technology
(C3,C4,C5)
Weight
Expertise
Expertise
Average
Security
Computing
Cost
Cost
use
use
(0–100%)
SaaS
PaaS
IaaS
Total Cloud
Computing Types
Private
Public
Hybrid
Total Cloud
Computing Models
Total Enterprise
Cloud Computing
SaaS Private
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
IaaS PaaS Hybrid Public
Cloud Computing Types Cloud Computing Models

Note: “SaaS” stands for Software-as-a-Service; “PaaS” stands for Platform-as-a-Service; and “IaaS” stands for
Infrastructure-as-a-Service
Analysis guideline: use the results of the cloud computing readiness assessment (CCRA) matrix to analyze the
readiness of an enterprise , industry and best practice/ rival to use cloud computing types (SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS) and
models (Private, Public, and Hybrid) for business and market-related decisions and actions separately and comparatively.
Analysis of the readiness of an enterprise to use cloud computing comparing to industry and best practice/rival:
458 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in Infonomics Valuation Matrix (IVM)

practice (MIP)
(5-14) Assessing the value of enterprise information
Guideline: To the following infonomics valuation matrix (IVM);
1. In column one (C1) determine 5 key business/ market information unit or pack pertaining to
enterprise
2. In column group two (C2) the score of value of information as Intrinsic Value of Information
(IVI), Business Value of Information (BVI), Market Value of Information (MVI), Performance
Value of Information (PVI), Loss value of information (LVI), and Economic Value of
Information (EVI) for each business/market information unit of enterprise within continuum:
0≤X≤9.Then calculate total average of the determined scores as total score of enterprise for
each business/market information unit. Then after determine the total information value score
of industry and best practice/ rival for each business/market information unit.
In this way the scores of information value of an enterprise, industry and best practice company/
rival can be compared together as a whole and by each business/market information unit upon
spider diagram.
MIP 5-14: Infonomics Valuation Matrix (IVM)

(C2) Value of Information
Performance(PVI)
Economic (EVI)
Business (BVI)
Market (MVI)
Intrinsic (IVI)
Best Practice
Total Average
(Enterprise)
Loss (LVI)
(C1) Infonomics
Industry
Business/Market Info 1:
Total Business/Market Information
Intrinsic (IVI)
9
8
7
6
Economic (EVI) 5 Business (BVI)
4
3
2
1
0
Loss (LVI) Market (MVI)
Performance (PVI)
Note on abbreviations: Intrinsic Value of Information (IVI), Business Value of Information (BVI), Loss value of information (LVI),
Performance Value of Information (PVI),Economic Value of Information (EVI), and MarketValue of Information (MVI)
Analysis guideline: with the results of the Infonomics Valuation Matrix (IVM), analyze the value of business/market
information units/packs of enterprise, industry and best practice/ rival separately and comparatively.
Analysis of information value of enterprise comparing to industry and best practice/ rival :
Marketology in Business Analytics Capability Matrix (BACM)

practice (MIP)
(5-15) Evaluating capability of enterprise to run business analytics
Guideline: To the following Business Analytics Capability Matrix (BACM);

1. In column one, specify the intended business analytics groups to be done in enterprise for business’s
general or market-related issues.
2. In columns two to nine, evaluate the capability of enterprise to conduct business analytics respectively
by determining the score of speed, cost, technology, expertise, structure (i.e. structural mechanism),
maturity, total business use, and market-related use to each specified group of business analytics within
continuum: 0≤X≤9.Note that the score of cost should reverse means that more analytics cost gets less
score.
3. In last three columns first calculate the total average score of each business analytics group as the
score of enterprise, second determine the score of industry and best practice/ rival for each business
analytics group.
In this way the score of enterprise capability for each specified business analytics group, and also
total business analytics can be compared together and with industry and best practice/ rival upon the
drawn spider diagrams.

460 H. AGHAZADEH
MIP 5-15: Business Analytics Capability Matrix (BACM)

Business Analytics Capability
Best Practice/Rival
Market-related use
Total business use
Total Average
Speed/ Time
Technology
Expertise
Industry
Structure
Maturity
Business Analytics (BA)
Cost
BA1:
BA2:
BA3:
BA4:
BA5:
Total Business Analytics
Speed
9
8
7
Market use Cost
6
5
4
3
2
1
Business use 0 Technology
Maturity Experse
Structure
Analysis guideline: use the results of Business Analytics Capability Matrix (BACM) to analyze the capability of
enterprise, industry and best practice/ rival to conduct business analytics separately and comparatively.
Analysis of business analytics capability of enterprise comparing to industry and best practice/ rival :
Marketology in Future Foundations Requirement Response (FFRR) Matrix

practice (MIP)
(5-16) Capability of marketology to respond future foundations
Guideline: To the following future foundations requirement response (FFRR) matrix;
1. In column one, the categories of future foundations are pointed.
2. In column two, specify 3 top requirements (include requirement, opportunity, and threat) of each
category of pointed future foundation.

3. In column three determine the weight of each specified requirements of future foundations by percent
within a continuum: 0–100%.

100%. Note that the sum of all items should not exceed 100%.
4. In columns four to six, evaluate the capability of marketology respectively by determining the score of
pro-acting, acting/reacting, and driving to respond each specified requirement within continuum:
0≤X≤9.
5. In last three columns first calculate the total average score of each specified requirement and also each
future foundation category as the score of enterprise second determine the score of industry and best
practice/ rival for each business analytics group.
In this way the score of enterprise’s marketology capability for each specified requirement, each future
foundation category, and also total future foundations can be compared together and with industry and
best practice/ rival upon the drawn spider diagrams.
MIP 5-16: Future Foundations Requirement Response (FFRR) Matrix

Marketology Capability
Requirements /
Future Weight Weighted Best
Opportunities/ Pro- Acting/
foundation (0-100%) Driven Driving Total Industry Practice/
Threats acting Reacting
Average Rival
Biz 1:
Biz 2:
Business
Biz 3:
Biz total
Tech 1:
Tech 2:
Technology
Tech 3:
Tech total
BI 1:
Business BI 2:
intelligence BI 3:
BI total
DM 1:
Decision- DM 2:
making DM 3:
DM total
STR 1:
STR 2:
Strategy
STR 3:
STR total
MKT 1:
MKT 2:
Marketing
MKT 3:
MKT total
BS 1:
Business BS 2:
stakeholder BS 3:
BS total
MO 1:
Market MO 2:
orientation MO 3:
MO total
Total future foundations 100%

462 H. AGHAZADEH
Business
9
8
7
Market orientaon Technology
6
5
4
3
2
1
Business stakeholder 0 Business intelligence
Markeng Decision-making
Strategy
Analysis guideline: use the results of Future Foundations Requirement Response (FFRR) Matrix to analyze the
marketology capability of enterprise, industry and best practice/ rival to respond requirements of future foundations
Analysis of marketology capability of enterprise comparing to industry and best practice/ rival :
Marketology in Future Functionality & Marketology Interaction (FFMI) Matrix

practice (MIP)
(5-17) Interaction of marketology with future functionalities
Guideline: To the following Future Functionality & Marketology Interaction (FFMI) Matrix;
1. In column one, the categories of future functionalities are pointed.
2. In column group two, determine impacts of functionalities on marketology respectively by
determining the score of “future needs to marketology”, “the extent of future coverage of marketology”
and “the extent to be friendly to implement marketology” for each future functionality within
continuum: 0≤X≤9. Then calculate the total average score of the impacts of functionalities on
marketology.
3. In column group three, determine impacts of marketology on functionalities respectively by
determining the score of “readiness to adaptwith future functionalities” “the extent of supporting /
enabling future functionalities” and “the extent of driving/ changingfuture functionalities” for each
future functionality within continuum: 0≤X≤9. Then calculate the total average score of the impacts of
marketology on functionalities.
In this way the interactions between future functionalities and marketology within the enterprise can
be compared together upon the drawn matrix.
Analysis guideline: use the results of Future Functionality & Marketology Interaction (FFMI) Matrix to analyze
the interactions between future functionalities and marketology within the enterprise separately and comparatively.
Analysis of the interactions between future functionalities and marketology:

MIP 5-17: Future Functionality & Marketology Interaction (FFMI) Matrix

Impacts of functionality on marketology Impacts of marketology on functionality
Future functionality Marketology Marketology Marketology Total Readiness Supporting Driving/ Total
Needed Coverage Friendly Average to adapt / Enabling Changing Average
Business success (SSS/SCS)
Business performance management
(BPM)
External
Marketology
stakeholders Internal
Structure
Culture
People
business Process
organizational
Asset
design (BOD)
Technology
Innovation
Communication
Governance
Strategy
business
organizational Business and
behavior Stakeholder
(BOB) Value
Performance
Total future functionality
9
marketology on functionality
+- ++
Impacts of
4.5
-- -+
0
0 4.5 9
Impacts of functionality on marketology

464 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in Future Market-Related Functions & Marketology (FMRFM) Matrix

practice (MIP)
(5-18) Evaluating congruenceof market-related functions and marketology
Guideline: To the following Future Market-Related Functions & Marketology (FMRFM) Matrix;
1. In column one, the categories of future market-related functions/units are pointed.
2. In column two determine the maturity/ performance background of each pointed market-related
function/unit within continuum: 0≤X≤9.
3. In column group three, specify the extent of covering functions without marketology respectively
by determining the score of “strategic/ entirely coverage”, “tactical/ departmental coverage”, and
“effectiveness/ performance of coverage” for each market-related function/unit within continuum:
0≤X≤9. Then calculate the total average.
4. In column group four, specify the extent of collaborating functions with marketology respectively
by determining the score of “the extent need/demand to marketology in the future”, “the extent of
future congruence with marketology”, and “the extent of future cooperation with marketology”
for each market-related function/unit within continuum: 0≤X≤9. Then calculate the total average.
In this way the intersection between future market-related functions/units and marketology within the
enterprise can be compared together upon the drawn matrix.
Analysis guideline: use the results of Future Market-Related Functions & Marketology (FMRFM) Matrix to
analyze the intersection between future market-related functions/units and marketology within the enterprise
Analysis of the intersection between future market-related functions/units and marketology:

MIP 5-18: Future Market-Related Functions & Marketology (FMRFM) Matrix
Covering functions (without marketology): Collaborating functions (with marketology):
Maturity/ Marketology - Marketology +
Future market-related functions/units
Background Strategic/ Tactical/ Effectiveness/ Total Need to Total
Congruence Cooperation
entirely departmental performance Average marketology Average
Marketing
Strategic marketing
Marketing Management
Marketing research
Market research
Market orientation (MO)
Marketing- Integrated Marketing
based communications (IMC)
function Contact centers/ Customer
(MBF) clubs
Public relations
Customer relations
management CRM
Research and Development
(R&D)
Total Marketing
Business Intelligence (BI)
Intelligence Market Intelligence (MI)
-based
function Competitor/ Customer
(IBF) Intelligence (CI)
Total Intelligence
Strategic thinking
Strategy- Strategic planning
based
function Business analysis
(SBF)
Total Strategy
Other market-related functions/units

Total future functionality
FUTURE OF MARKETOLOGY (FOM)
465
466 H. AGHAZADEH
(A) Total intersection (B) Intersection: marketing-based functions (MBF)
9 9
With marketology (Marketology +)

4.5 4.5
0 0
0 4.5 9 0 4.5 9
Without marketology (Marketology -) Without marketology (Marketology -)
(B) Intersection: Intelligence-based functions (IBF) (B) Intersection: strategy-based functions (SBF)
9 9
4.5 4.5
0 0
0 4.5 9 0 4.5 9
Without marketology (Marketology -) Without marketology (Marketology -)
Marketology in Marketology Maturity Assessment Matrix (MMAM)

practice (MIP)
(5-19) Evaluating marketology maturity of enterprise
Guideline: To the following Marketology Maturity Assessment Matrix (MMAM);
1. In column one five levels of marketology maturity are pointed include: unknown, initial,
scattered, established, and pervasive marketology .
2. In columns two to four determine the score of enterprise, industry and of best practice
company or best rival for each maturity level within continuum: 0≤X≤9.Note that maturity of
marketology of enterprises dose not locate in only one level and often is combined. This is
why every five levels are considered to be scored.

In this way the marketology maturity composition of enterprise, industry and best practice company/
rival can be compared together upon the drawn spider diagram.
MIP 5-19: Marketology Maturity Assessment Matrix (MMAM)

Score
Marketology maturity
Enterprise Industry Practice/Rival
Unknown
Initial marketology
Scattered marketology
Established marketology
Pervasive marketology
Unknown
9
8
7
6
5
4
Pervasive marketology 3 Inial marketology
2
1
0
Established marketology Scaered marketology
Analysis guideline: use the results of Marketology Maturity Assessment Matrix (MMAM) to analyze the
marketology maturity combination of enterprise, industry and best practice/ rival separately and comparatively.
Analysis of marketology maturity combination of enterprise, industry and best practice/ rival:
468 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in Future Decision Making Profile (FDMP)

practice (MIP)
Evaluating characteristics of future decisions and actions
(5-20)
Guideline: To the Future Decision-making Profile (FDMP); in column one future decision-making
and marketology readiness are pointed. In columns two to thirteen determine the score of the defined
criteria of profile for “decision-making” and “marketology readiness to adapt and drive” within
continuum: 0≤X≤9. Then calculate the total average. In row four calculate the gap between the
features of “future decision-making profile” and “marketology readiness to adapt and drive the future
decisions” as C= B – A. In this way future decision -making profile, marketology readiness to adapt
and drive, and also the gap between the features of decisions and readiness of marketology of
enterprise can be revealed, and marketology delegates can be better prepared to serve business
executives, analysts, decision-makers and action-takers as key stakeholders in the future.
MIP 5-20: Future Decision Making Profile (FDMP)

Market-related
Data-driven and big data based
Analytics and data relation based
Intelligence/Insight-based
Social & Network oriented
Cloud computing & IT-enabled
Strategic-oriented
Business success oriented
Self-service oriented
Fast/ Real-time
Value and Infonomics based
Close to action-taking
Total Average
Future decision-making profile
A. Future decision-making
B. Marketology readiness to adapt and drive
C. Gap = B - A
Analysis guideline: use the results of Future Decision-making Profile (FDMP) to analyze the future decision-making
profile and readiness of marketology of enterprise separately and comparatively.
Analysis of future decision-making and readiness of marketology of enterprise:

MIP 5-20: Future Decision-making Profile (FDMP)
Future Market- Data- Analytics Intelligence/ Social & Cloud Strategic- Business Self- Fast/ Value and Close Total
decision- related driven and data Insight-based Network computing oriented success service Real- Infonomics to Average
making profile and big relation oriented & oriented oriented time based action-
data based IT-enabled taking
based
A. Future
decision-
making
B. Marketology
readiness to
adapt and drive
C. Gap =
B – A
Analysis guideline: use the results of Future Decision-making Profile (FDMP) to analyze the future decision-making profile and readiness of marketology of
enterprise separately and comparatively.
Analysis of future decision-making and readiness of marketology of enterprise:
FUTURE OF MARKETOLOGY (FOM)
469
470 H. AGHAZADEH
Marketology in Cloud Marketology Canvas Assessment (CMCA) Matrix

practice (MIP)
(5-21) Evaluating responsiveness of CMC
Guideline: To the cloud marketology canvas assessment (CMCA) matrix; in columns one to
three the components of cloud marketology canvas (CMC) are pointed in detailed. The main
categories include: cloud marketology organizational design (CMOD), cloud marketology
organizational behavior (CMOB), cloud marketology organizational architecture (CMOA), cloud
marketology organizational contribution (CMOC), and cloud marketology strategic management
(CMSM). In columns four to seven, evaluate the extent of adaption of cloud marketology canvas
(CMC) with clouds by determining the score of each component of CMC in adapting with each cloud
group (cloud 1-4) in each column within continuum: 0≤X≤9. Then calculate the total average. By this
way the readiness of cloud marketology canvas (CMC) and its components to adapt with future
changes (clouds) can be identified and compared . Such recognition will help the marketology
delegates to better formulate and execute the CMC in the future.
Analysis guideline: use the results of cloud marketology canvas assessment (CMCA) matrix; analyze
readiness of cloud marketology canvas (CMC) and its components to adapt with future changes (clouds) in
enterprise separately and comparatively.
Analysis of readiness of cloud marketology canvas (CMC) to adapt with future changes (clouds):
MIP 5-21: Cloud Marketology Canvas Assessment (CMCA) Matrix

Cloud 1: Cloud 2: Cloud 3: Cloud 4:
Total
Cloud Marketology Canvas (CMC) Future Future Future of Future of
Average
trends big changes foundations functionalities
Cloud marketology structure
Cloud marketology culture
Cloud marketology people
Cloud
Cloud marketology process
marketology
Cloud marketology asset
organizational
Cloud marketology technology
Cloud marketology organizational architecture (CMOA)
design
Cloud marketology innovation
(CMOD)
Cloud marketology
communication
Total CMOD
Cloud marketology governance
Cloud Cloud marketology strategy

marketology Cloud marketology function and
organizational stakeholder analysis
behavior Cloud marketology value
(CMOB) Cloud marketology performance
Total CMBOD
Cloud business-based
Cloud contributions
marketology Cloud marketology-based
organizational contributions
contribution Cloud market DIKII
(CMOC) Cloud IGDEE services
Total CMOC
Total CMOA
Cloud marketology strategic management (CMSM)
Total Cloud Marketology Canvas (CMC)

practice (MIP)
(5-22) Future of Marketology (FOM)
Guideline: Consider a company or organization whose primary or secondary data on its entire business
organization, strategy and market in general, you have access to and, specifically the components of
business organizational design (BOD) and business organizational behavior (BOB), business building blocks
(BBB), business strategic management and success, marketology system, components of marketology
organizational design (MOD) and marketology organizational behavior (MOB), marketology organizational
architecture (MOA) marketology organizational contributions (MOC), and other useful data. If you do not
have access to usable data you can consider a presump tive case company or organization. Reviewing the
chapter-end ‘marketology in practice (MIP)’ conduct the following analyses with a focus on the entire business
organization and future of marketology (FOM) about the intended case using the accessible data individually or
in a group:
– Technology and business trend evaluation (TBTE) Matrix
– Big Data Exploitation Assessment (BDEA) Matrix
– Big Data 5V Assessment (BD5VA) Matrix

472 H. AGHAZADEH
– Cloud Computing Readiness Assessment (CCRA) Matrix
– Infonomics Valuation Matrix (IVM)
– Business Analytics Capability Matrix (BACM)
– Future Foundations Requirement Response (FFRR) Matrix
– Future Functionality & Marketology Interaction (FFMI) Matrix
– Future Market-Related Functions & Marketology (FMRFM) Matrix
– Marketology Maturity Assessment Matrix (MMAM)
– Future Decision-Making Profile (FDMP)
– Cloud Marketology Canvas Assessment (CMCA) Matrix
– Case study: Future of Marketology (FOM)
Conclude about case company/organization in the fields of investigated issues and present an analytical case
report.
5.8 Conclusion
Considering the issues explored in the chapter it can be concluded that:
• In accordance with marketology-driven business performance canvas

(MDBPC) the hyper-function of marketology contributes on accomplishing
business competitive success through supporting market-related effective deci-
sions and efficient actions relying market DIKII provided by IGDEE services.
• The hyper-function of marketology operates to assist accomplishment of
business competitive/sustainable success (SCS/SSS), business performance
management (BPM), business organizational design (BOD), and business
organizational behavior (BOB) by supporting market-related decisions and
actions of key audiences through performing marketology strategic manage-
ment (MSM) relying on marketology organizational architecture (MOA)
include marketology organizational design (MOD), marketology organiza-
tional behavior (MOB), and marketology organizational contribution (MOC).
• As a matter of fact, today, the only thing that is constant is change. In
this way all matters and factors that impact marketology or are affected
by marketology are changing and will transformed rapidly and drastically.
Therefore the hyper-function of marketology must change too and its
future should be contemplated precisely.
• The issues and elements which will impact the future of marketology and are
considered as clouds around standard marketology canvas (SMC) are: cloud
(1) future trends and priorities of business and technology; cloud (2) future
big changes of modern business environment; cloud (3) future of marketol-
ogy foundations; and cloud (4) future of marketology functionalities.
• Future of marketology can be crafted by reengineering and extending the
SMC in form of cloud marketology canvas (CMC).
• The CMC can be executed and leveraged by key components of: cloud
marketology strategic management (CMSM), cloud marketology organi-
zational architecture (CMOA), cloud marketology organizational design
(CMOD), cloud marketology organizational behavior (CMOB), and

cloud marketology organizational contribution (CMOC).
• For future marketology to be performed well and to succeed requires
strategists, technologists, analysts (business analysts) and marketologists
to cooperate in an innovative and synergic manner.
• The issues and subjects pertaining to the future of marketology can be
evaluated, practiced and developed using tools and techniques that are
exercised in practical parts called MIP during and at the end of the chapter.
• All issues and subjects related to the hyper-function of marketology can
be practiced in a comprehensive and integrative manner in Chap. 6 using
the Handbook of Marketology (HOM).

1. During this chapter following issues have been discussed generally within
business organization context and specifically within marketology con-
text as different sections: future trends and priorities of business and
technology; future big changes of modern business environment; future
of marketology foundations; future of marketology functionalities; and
future of marketology: cloud marketology canvas (CMC).
2. Each of the abovementioned issues and subjects has been exercised using
applied tools and techniques of marketology in practical parts called mar-
ketology in practice (MIP) during and at the end of chapter.
3. The achievement of this chapter in exploring the future of marketology
has been contemplating CMC which covers CMSM, CMOA, CMOD,
CMOB, and CMOC.
4. By the end of this chapter the descriptions and exercises of “practicing
principles of marketology” have been fulfilled.
5. By the end of next Chap. 6 the comprehensive manuals/guidelines of prac-
ticing principles of marketology will be provided in an integrative manner.

Bearing in mind the theoretical conceptualization of marketology
described in first volume of this book, together with the practical ful-
filment of marketology at the end of previous chapter as MOA/SMC
embracing MOD, MOB and MOC and the predictive contemplation
of the future of marketology (FOM) as the cloud marketology canvas
(CMC) at the end of this chapter, the descriptions and exercises of ‘prac-
ticing principles of marketology’ have been fulfilled.
The only matter that remains to be covered in next chapter is an inte-
grative manual for practicing the hyper-function of marketology within
organizations/enterprises. Therefore, in Chap. 6, the comprehensive
marketology practice manuals/guidelines will be provided in an integra-
tive manner as the Handbook of Marketology (HOM). Accordingly, the
second volume of this book (Principles of Marketology, Volume 2: Practice)
will draw to a close!
474 H. AGHAZADEH

Discuss, answer and practice the following issues with your colleagues or class-
Future of Marketology (FOM) Marketology FOCUS Box

–– MIP 5-1: Future trends and priorities of business and technology
–– MIP 5-2: Future big changes of modern business environment
–– MIP 5-3: Future of marketology foundations
–– MIP 5-4: Future of market orientation
–– MIP 5-5: Future of marketology functionalities
–– MIP 5-6: Marketology evolution and maturity
–– MIP 5-7: Clouds of future marketology
–– MIP 5-10: Cloud IGDEE services and cloud market DIKII
Future of Marketology (FOM) Integrated Frameworks

–– MIP 5-11: Technology and business trend evaluation (TBTE)
Matrix
–– MIP 5-12(a): Big Data Exploitation Assessment (BDEA) Matrix
–– MIP 5-12(b): Big Data 5V Assessment (BD5VA) Matrix
–– MIP 5-13: Cloud Computing Readiness Assessment (CCRA)
Matrix
–– MIP 5-14: Infonomics Valuation Matrix (IVM)
–– MIP 5-15: Business Analytics Capability Matrix (BACM)
–– MIP 5-16: Future Foundations Requirement Response (FFRR)
Matrix
–– MIP 5-17: Future Functionality & Marketology Interaction (FFMI)
Matrix
–– MIP 5-18: Future Market-Related Functions & Marketology
(FMRFM) Matrix
–– MIP 5-19: Marketology Maturity Assessment Matrix (MMAM)
–– MIP 5-20: Future Decision-making Profile (FDMP)
–– MIP 5-21: Cloud Marketology Canvas Assessment (CMCA) Matrix
–– MIP 5-22: Case study: Future of Marketology (FOM)
Notes
1. For more information see Aghazadeh (2016): Principles of Marketology,
Volume 1.
2. For more information see Chaps. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this volume.
3. The argument on whether the value of information depends on its use,
or whether it contains an intrinsic value (used or not like any asset); for
more information please refer to Laney (2015): ‘Infonomics’.
4. Driver-based decision-making/planning is a managerial approach to
identify an enterprise’s crucial business drivers and creates a series of
business plans that mathematically model how those things most neces-
sary for the organization’s success would be affected by different vari-
ables (TechTarget 2016b: ‘driver-based planning’).
5. An infographic (information graphic) is a representation of information
in a graphic format designed to make the data easily understandable at
a glance (TechTarget 2016c: ‘infographics’).
6. SQL (Structured Query Language) is a special-purpose programming
language designed for managing data or stream processing in a rela-
tional database management system (RDBMS). A NoSQL (originally
referring to ‘non SQL’ or ‘non-relational’) database provides a mecha-
nism for storage and retrieval of data which is modeled in means other
than the tabular relations used in relational databases. The term
‘NoSQL’ can be confusing because it does not mean that a database
doesn’t use SQL, it stands for ‘Not Only SQL’ (Wikipedia, 2016i:
‘SQL’; Wikipedia, 2016g: ‘NoSQL’).
7. For more information see the ‘Introduction to practice marketology’ in
the introduction to this volume.
8. For more information on business SCS/SSS, BPM, BOD, BOB, MSM,
and MOA see Chap. 7: MOA’ of this volume.
9. For more information see ‘Chap. 2: MOD’ of this volume.
10. For more information see ‘Chap. 3: MOB’ of this volume.
11. For more information see ‘Chap. 4: MOC’ of this volume.
12. Extraction Transformation Load (ETL) refers to a process in database
usage and especially in data warehousing that Extracts data from homo-
geneous or heterogeneous data sources; Transforms the data for storing
it in proper format or structure for querying and analysis purpose; and
Loads it into the final target (database, more specifically, operational
data store, data mart, or data warehouse). For more information refer
to Wikipedia (2016d): ‘ETL’.
13. Online Analytical Processing (OLAP) is part of the broader category of
business intelligence, which also encompasses relational database,
report writing and data mining. Typical applications of OLAP include
business reporting for sales, marketing, management reporting, busi-
ness process management (BPM), budgeting and forecasting, financial
476 H. AGHAZADEH
reporting and similar areas, with new applications coming up, such as
agriculture. The term OLAP was created as a slight modification of the
traditional database term online transaction processing (OLTP). For
more information refer to Wikipedia (2016h): ‘OLAP’.
14. These approaches are majorly adapted from ‘A step-by-step approach to
successful Business Intelligence’. In this regard marketology is consid-
ered similar to business intelligence (BI). For more detailed informa-
tion see IBM (2011).
15. Semantic web or Web 3.0 represents a third phase in the evolution of
the World Wide Web as an extension of Web 2.0, based on the idea that
the Internet understands the pieces of information it stores and is able
to make logical connections between them. Web 2.0 refers to the sec-
ond stage of development of the Internet, characterized especially by
the change from static web pages (Web 1.0) to dynamic or user-
generated content and the growth of social media.
16. Hyper-function of marketology is used interchangeably with marketol-
ogy system.
CHAPTER 6
Handbook of Marketology (HOM)

In this chapter, the following topics are discussed:
Practicing Subjects and Issues of Principles of Marketology, Volume 1:
Theory
–– MIP 6-1-1: Business Success (Chapter 1)
–– MIP 6-1-2: Definition and Evolution of Marketology (Chapter 2)
–– MIP 6-1-3: Sphere of Marketology (Chapter 3)
–– MIP 6-1-4: Marketology System (Chapter 4)
–– MIP 6-1-5: Business, Market and Competitive Analysis (BMCA)
(Chapter 5)
–– MIP 6-1-6: Business, Environment and Market Analysis (BEMA)
(Chapter 6)
Practicing Subjects and Issues of Principles of Marketology, Volume 2:
Practice
–– MIP 6-2-1: Marketology Organizational Architecture (MOA)
(Chapter 1)
–– MIP 6-2-2: Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) (Chapter 2)
–– MIP 6-2-3: Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB) (Chapter 3)
–– MIP 6-2-4: Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC)
(Chapter 4)
–– MIP 6-2-5: Future of Marketology (FOM) (Chapter 5)
–– MIP 6-2-6: Handbook of Marketology (HOM) (Chapter 6)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54833-7_6
478 H. AGHAZADEH
Introduction
In this closing chapter of the book, key subjects and issues from both the first
and second volumes have been reviewed and explored from practical view in a
comprehensive and integrative manner as a Handbook of Marketology (HOM)
(Figure 6.1).
The key subjects and issues of the chapters of Principles of Marketology,
Volume 1: Theory are practiced using ‘Marketology in Practice (MIP)’. To this
end, first an abstract of each chapter has been represented then key features of
each chapter have been practiced in MIP.
The key subjects and issues of Principles of Marketology, Volume 2: Practice
are practiced by reviewing the ‘Marketology in Practice (MIP)’ elements used
in between or at the end of chapters. In order to avoid repetition of MIP
content and related analyses, only their referable master list are presented.
Obviously in case of need one can refer to and review the content of intended
MIP in different parts of the book (volume 2).
Once again it would be fruitful to mention that the hyper-function of
marketology assists the accomplishment of business competitive/sustainable
success (SCS/SSS) by supporting market-related decisions and actions all over
the enterprises through providing market DIKII and IGDEE services rely-
ing on marketology organizational architecture (MOA) includes marketology
organizational design (MOD), marketology organizational behavior (MOB),
and marketology organizational contribution (MOC).
In fact, the conceptual foundations (majorly adapted from volume 1) and
practical facets (majorly adapted from volume 2) of the above-mentioned func-
tions of marketology are practiced as dimensions/components of Handbook
of Marketology (HOM).
Principles of Marketology, Principles of Marketology,
Volume 1: Theory Volume 2: Practice
MIP 6-1-1: Business success (Ch.1) Chapter 6: MIP 6-2-1: MOA (Ch.1)
MIP 6-1-2: Def. of Marketology (Ch.2) Handbook of MIP 6-2-2: MOD (Ch.2)
Marketology (HOM)
MIP 6-1-3: Sphere of Marketology (Ch.3) MIP 6-2-3: MOB (Ch.3)
MIP 6-1-4: Marketology system (Ch.4) MIP 6-2-4: MOC (Ch.4)
MIP 6-1-5: BMCA (Ch.5) MIP 6-2-5: FOM (Ch.5)
MIP 6-1-6: BEMA (Ch.6) MIP 6-2-6: HOM (Ch.6)
Figure. 6.1 Handbook of Marketology (HOM): Content

HANDBOOK OF MARKETOLOGY (HOM) 479
6.1 Practicing Subjects and Issues of Principles of

Marketology, Volume 1: Theory
6.1.1
Achieving Business Success Through Marketology
(Chapter 1- Abstract)
The chapter begins with the assumption that “everybody and every business
always look for success”. First, “success” as a complex subject is described
by focusing on its origin, conceptualization, types, dimensions, approaches,
levels, ladders, drivers, barriers, failure, critical success factors, strategy
and measurement. Secondly, the issue of “business success” is explained
by referring to its meaning, model, CSFs, internal and external factors,
system, value, and performance. Thereafter, assuming that “success well-
recognized is half-achieved”, the function of “recognition” is considered
as a pivotal initiative for accomplishing business success. Finally, regarding
the significance of market for businesses breathing today, the new notion
of “marketology” is welcomed as an appropriate solution for realizing busi-
ness success.
6.1.2
Definition and Evolution of Marketology
The main idea of this chapter is to bring together the whole ambiguous
jungle of market-related (or market+) subjects as a pervasive puzzle coined
“marketology”. First the concept of market and subjects such as market
recognition, research, monitoring, analysis, assessment, knowledge, intel-

practice (MIP)
(6-1-1)
Volume1: Chapter 1
Business Success
Guideline (FOCUS)
(continued)
480 H. AGHAZADEH
(continued)
1. Concept of success for the given business
2. Approaches of success of the given business
3. Dimensions of success of the given business
4. Combination of success of the given business
5. Drivers of success of the given business
6. Barriers of success of the given business
7. Ladder of success of the given business
8. Strategy of success of the given business
9. Business model of the given business
10. Critical success factors (CSFs) of the given business
11. Internal factors of the given business
12. External factors of the given business
13. Value of success of the given business
14. Recognition capability of the given business
15. Marketology of the given business
Analysis: regarding the results of Marketology in practice (MIP) (6-1-1) Marketology FOCUS Box:
Volume1: Chapter 1: Business Success, analyze how to achieve business success through marketology
Analysis of how to achieve business success through marketology
ligence, orientation, competitive intelligence are explained. As a mathemati-

cal equation, the marketology is placed in one side and all market-related
subjects are placed on the opposite side. Marketology is defined as a sys-
tem of recognizing market-related informational needs, generating and
disseminating market insights, supporting and following their application
for insightful decisions and actions to ensure delivery of superior value to the
key stakeholders. Finally, answering WH questions about marketology and
reviewing the evolution of strategy and marketing, the evolution of marke-
tology is concluded.

practice (MIP)
(6-1-2)
Definition and evolution of Marketology
Volume1: Chapter 2
Guideline (FOCUS)
Discussion: Regarding the subjects and contents that have been provided and explained in previous parts,
practice FOCUS for the following issues:
1. Market definition 17. Marketing intelligence
2. Market identification 18. Competitive intelligence
3. Market recognition 19. Market discovering and exploring
4. Market study 20. Market driven and driving
5. Market survey 21. Market orientation
6. Market research 22. Market dealing and interaction
7. Marketing research 23. Puzzle of marketology
8. Market monitoring 24. What is marketology?
9. Market evaluation 25. Why marketology should be studied?
10. Market review 26. Where marketology is considered?
11. Market understanding 27. Who is marketology for?
12. Market analysis 28. When marketology is needed?
13. Market assessment 29. Evolution of strategy and marketing
14. Market knowledge 30. Evolution of strategic market management
15. Market intelligence 31. Evolution of market orientation
16. Business intelligence 32. Evolution of marketology
the discussion.
Volume1: Chapter 2: Definition and evolution of Marketology, analyze definition and evolution of
marketology?
Analysis of definition and evolution of marketology

482 H. AGHAZADEH
6.1.3 Sphere of Marketology: Spectrum, Scope, Nature, Stakeholders,

Features and Functions (Chapter 3- Abstract)
This chapter explores the sphere of marketology today. Its spectrum involves
vertical and horizontal dimensions, and total and partial versions. Its scope cov-
ers the areas of environment, competitors, technology, and decision location
and decision-makers. X-marketology and its XBOX refer to apparent and latent
deals between enterprise and market. Its forms beyond the business context are
mega, macro, and micro marketology. Its stakeholders are primary and second-
ary. Its deliverables are market data, information, knowledge, intelligence, and
insight. The pillars of marketology (as core competency) and market intelli-
gence/insight (as intellectual capital) are informational, relational, and execu-
tional. Its features are primary and supportive; its functions are absolute and
affiliate; and its underlying viewpoints are retrospective, currentspective, and
prospective.

practice (MIP)
(6-1-3)
Volume1: Chapter 3
Sphere of marketology
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. What is the spectrum of marketology?
2. What is the scope of marketology?
3. What are the axes of the spectrum of marketology?
4. How do you explain the spectrum of marketology in business context?
5. How do you compare total versus partial marketology?
6. What is X-marketology and X-marketology BOX?
7. How do you describe marketology in beyond business context?
8. What are the approaches for identifying the stakeholders of marketology?
9. What are the categories of the stakeholders of marketology?
10. How do you map the stakeholders of marketology?
11. What is the nature of market intelligence/insight?
12. What is the classification of market intelligence/insight?
13. How do you explain the audiences of market intelligence/insight based on their distance and approach?
14. What are the principle types of market intelligence/insight?
15. What is the nature of marketology?
16. What are the pillars of marketology?
17. What are the features of marketology?
(continued)
18. What are the functions of marketology?
19. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and close the discussion.
Analysis: regarding the results of Marketology in practice (MIP) (6-1-3)Marketology FOCUS Box:
Volume1: Chapter 3: Sphere of marketology, analyze sphere of marketology.
Analysis of sphere of marketology
6.1.4 Marketology System, Input, Process, Output, Feedback

This chapter specifies role of marketology system in supporting market-related
decisions of business via market intelligence/insight. The system contains inter-
linked components of inputs, process, outputs, and feedbacks. The inputs are
from internal and external sources. The outputs are market data, information,
knowledge, intelligence, and insight for internal/external users. The process
involves the steps of identification; generation; dissemination; and exploita-
tion of offerings; and evaluation of whole system. The readiness of enterprises
for marketology is investigated by examining management, culture, infrastruc-
tures, structure, and considerations. The evaluation is for assessing streams,
performances, and feedbacks in pre, during, and post conducting phases. The
feedbacks reveal pros and cons of system, inputs, processes, outputs; applicabil-
ity of products; and probable problems, unmet/new needs, and expansions.

practice (MIP)
(6-1-4)
Marketology system
Volume1: Chapter 4
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. System of the marketology: inputs, process, outputs, feedbacks
2. Inputs of marketology: Internal and External
3. Process of marketology
3.1. Identification of market intelligence/insight
3.2. Generation of market intelligence/insight
3.3. Dissemination of market intelligence/insight
3.4. Exploitation of market intelligence/insight
3.5. Evaluation of marketology
(continued)
484 H. AGHAZADEH
(continued)
4. Identification of market intelligence/insight
4.1. The position of market intelligence/insight
4.2. The audiences of market intelligence/insight
4.3. The needed market intelligence/insight
4.4. The situation of organization for marketology
5. Generation of market intelligence/insight
5.1. Strategies of market intelligence/insight generation: market-focused, collaborative,
experimentation-based, and experience-based
5.2. Steps of market intelligence/insight generation: designing a plan, conducting the plan (tasks),
and producing the required market-related products
6. Dissemination of market intelligence/insight: Preparing, Transferring, Communicating and
Warehousing
7. Exploitation of market intelligence/insight
7.1. Following the delivery
7.2. Assisting the target audiences
7.3. Institutionalizing the market intelligence/insight
8. Evaluation of marketology system: pre-conducting, during-conducting and post-conducting
9. Outputs of marketology: External-direct/indirect and Internal-direct/indirect
10. Feedbacks of marketology
10.1. Monitoring the stream
10.2. Apprising performance
10.3. Getting feedbacks
10.4. Recognizing expansions
11. Market-related products of marketology
11.1. Market data
11.2. Market information
11.3. Market knowledge
11.4. Market intelligence/insight
11.5. Other supplementary market-related products
12. Types of market intelligence/insight
12.1. Standard-Immediate (SI-MI)
12.2. Standard-Distant (SD-MI)
12.3. Customized-Immediate (CI-MI)
12.4. Customized-Distant (CD-MI)
13. Situational factors of marketology system
13.1. Management
13.2. Culture/climate
13.3. Infrastructures
13.4. Structure/system
13.5. Key issues/considerations
14. Organizational challenge associated with marketology
15. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and close the
discussion.
Volume1: Chapter 4: marketology system, analyze marketology system.
Analysis of marketology system
6.1.5 Business, Market and Competitive Analysis

(BMCA) Tools and Techniques (Chapter 5- Abstract)
This chapter explains the business, market and competitive analysis (BMCA)
referring to concept, tools/techniques, exigency, audiences, barriers, context
and process. Groupings of BMC analysis techniques are: FAROUT-based
(competitive, enterprise, environmental, evolutionary, financial, probabilities,
and statistical); business strategy (investigate situation, consider perspectives,
analysis needs, evaluate options, define requirements, and manage change);
competitive intelligence (strategic, product-oriented, customer-oriented,
financial, behavioral, industry structure, competitiveness, future market size,
customer intelligence, growth path, competitor’s management team profil-
ing, future trends, competitive strategy exploration, and strategic planning);
and key intelligence topics (KIT) models. The BMC scanning behaviors of
executives are analysts, categorist, monitors, and viewers. The fruitful BMC
analysis converts market data/information into valuable market knowledge/
intelligence/insight to help decisions/actions for creating superior value to
key stakeholders.

practice (MIP)
(6-1-5)
Volume1: Chapter 5
Business, market and competitive analysis (BMCA)
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. What is the concept of business, market and competitive analysis (BMCA)?
2. Why should BMC analysis be considered and applied?
3. Who are the audiences and users of BMC analysis?
4. What is the suitable context of BMC analysis?
5. What are the pitfalls and barriers of BMC analysis?

6. What is the process and method of conducting BMC analysis?
7. What is the concept of BMC analysis tools and techniques?
8. What are the groupings and classifications of the tools and techniques of BMCA?
9. What are the 24 FAROUT-based techniques of business and market analysis?

9.1. What are the techniques of competitive section?
9.2. What are the techniques of enterprise section?
(continued)
486 H. AGHAZADEH
(continued)
9.3. What are the techniques of environmental section?
9.4. What are the techniques of evolutionary section?
9.5. What are the techniques of financial, probabilities, and statistical section?
10. What are the 72 business analysis techniques as essential tools for success?
10.1. What are the techniques of ‘business strategy and objectives’ category?
10.2. What are the techniques of ‘investigating situation’ category?
10.3. What are the techniques of ‘consider perspectives’ category?
10.4. What are the techniques of ‘analysis needs’ category?
10.5. What are the techniques of ‘evaluate options’ category?
10.6. What are the techniques of ‘define requirements’ category?
10.7. What are the techniques of ‘manage change’ category?
11. What are the tools and techniques for developing competitive intelligence?
11.1. What are the techniques of strategic category?
11.2. What are the techniques of product-oriented category?
11.3. What are the techniques of customer-oriented category?
11.4. What are the techniques of financial category?
11.5. What are the techniques of behavioral category?
12. What are the 46 analysis techniques for competitive intelligence or strategic planning?
12.1. What are the techniques of industry structure and competitiveness group?
12.2. What are the techniques of future market size estimation and analysis group?
12.3. What are the techniques of customer intelligence group?
12.4. What are the techniques of growth path analysis group?
12.5. What are the techniques of financial analysis (for the non-financial specialist) group?
12.6. What are the techniques of competitor’s the management team profiling group?
12.7. What are the techniques of future trends analysis group?
12.8. What are the techniques of competitive strategy exploration group?
12.9. What are the techniques of predicting competitors’ future strategy group?
13. What are analytical and advanced techniques of competitive intelligence and strategic analysis?
13.1. What are the techniques of analytical models of competitive intelligence as the key
intelligence topics (KIT) category?
13.2. What are techniques of advanced techniques of competitive intelligence as KIT category?
13.3. What are the techniques of strategic analysis tools category?

14. Are there any other BMC tools and techniques? Could you design a new BMC tool or technique
customized withy our firm's internal and external condition?
(continued)
15. How the BMC analysis can be effective?
16. What are the typologies of BMC scanning and analysis?
16. 1. What is the concept of the analysts? 16. 3. What is the concept of the monitors?
16. 2. What is the concept of the categorist? 16. 4. What is the concept of the viewers?
17. Which type of BMC scanning /analysis is the best way to understand the business environment?
18. What are the pros and cons the types of BMC analysis and scanning behavior?
19. What is the concept of the mix of scanning behavioral types? Why should it be formed?
How it can be developed?
20. What is the market contexts fitted with the mix of scanning behavioral types?
21. How firms can create market intelligence/insight through transmitting data to information to
knowledge to intelligence/insight?
22. How the market intelligence/insight can be valuable?
23. Conduct an open discussion about BMC tools, techniques, and scanning behavior.
24. Undertake a supplementary discussion with other groups and coach/professor/mentor, and conclude
the discussion.
Volume1: Chapter 5: Business, market and competitive analysis (BMCA), analyze BMCA.
Analysis of Business, market and competitive analysis (BMCA)
6.1.6 Business, Environment and Market Analysis

(BEMA) Framework (Chapter 6- Abstract)
This chapter describes the business, market and competitive analysis (BEMA)
framework. It embraces business internal (performance and strategy based);
external (macro/general/remote and micro/operating/task/industry envi-
ronment); market; customer (segmentation, motivation, and unmet needs);
competitor (characteristics, behavior, and understanding); and comprehensive
business analysis (CBA). The remote environment (demographic, economic,
natural, technological, legal, political, and cultural forces) is far from—and
the task environment/market (customers, suppliers, intermediaries, custom-
ers, competitors, publics, and value proposition of a business) closer to—the
enterprise that looks for survival, profitability and growth. The auditing mar-
ket (attractiveness, dynamics, size, growth, profitability, cost structure, chan-
nels, and trends) and assessing market complexity and turbulence are pursued.
Finally, the market is defined as “a space in which buyers and sellers come in.”
488 H. AGHAZADEH

practice (MIP)
(6-1-6)
Business, environment and market analysis (BEMA)
Volume1: Chapter 6
Guideline (FOCUS)
1. Business, market and competitive analysis (BEMA)
2. Functions of business external and internal analysis
3. Business internal analysis: performance-based and strategy-based perspectives
4. Business external analysis: macro, general or remote environment; micro, operating, task or
industry environment analysis; and market analysis
5. Market audit: concept and framework
6. Customer analysis: investigating customer segmentation, motivation, and unmet needs
7. Competitor analysis: investigating characteristics and behaviors of competitors
8. Identifying competitors in accordance with customer-based and strategic group approaches
9. Understanding competitors and obtaining information about competitors
10. Strategic business analysis
11. Comprehensive business analysis (CBA)
12. Understanding the market and concluding a contemporary definition of market
13. Understanding the market complexity and turbulence: components of customer, channel,
competitor, remote environment, and value proposition
14. Understanding market complexity: prerequisites, nature of components, and process of evaluating
15. Understating market turbulence: nature of the components and process for evaluating
16. Combining the assessment of market complexity and market turbulence
conclude the discussion.
Volume1: Chapter 6: Business, environment and market analysis (BEMA), analyze BEMA.
Analysis of Business, environment and market analysis (BEMA)
Section 6.2: Practicing Subjects and Issues of Principles of

Marketology, Volume 2: Practice
MIP 6-2-1: Marketology Organizational Architecture (MOA) (Chapter 1)

MIP 6-2-2: Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) (Chapter 2)
Continued
MIP 6-2-3: Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB) (Chapter 3)

MIP 6-2-4: Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC)
(Chapter 4)
MIP 6-2-5: Future of Marketology (FOM) (Chapter 5)
MIP 6-2-6: Handbook of Marketology (HOM) (Chapter 6)
6.2 Practicing Subjects and Issues of Principles of

Marketology, Volume 2: Practice
6.2.1
Marketology Organizational Architecture (MOA)
(Chapter 1- MIPs)

practice (MIP)
(6-2-1)
Marketology Organizational Architecture (MOA)
Volume 2: Chapter 1
6.2.2 Marketology Organizational Design (MOD)

(Chapter 2- MIPs)
Marketology FOCUS Box, Section-End and

Marketology in Chapter-End
practice (MIP)
(6-2-2)
Volume 2: Chapter 2
Marketology Organizational Design (MOD)
MIP: Structure
– MIP 2-1: Organization design and structure
– MIP 2-2: Marketology structure
– MIP 2-3: Marketology Management Center (MMC)
– MIP 2-4: Marketology coverage, manifest and contribute (MCMC) analysis framework
– MIP 2-5: Marketology match matrix (MMM)
(continued)
490 H. AGHAZADEH
(continued)
MIP: Culture
– MIP 2-6: Marketology culture and climate
MIP: People
– MIP 2-9: Marketology people and group
MIP: Asset
– MIP 2-12: Organizational asset, capabilities and competencies
– MIP 2-13: Marketology asset
– MIP 2-15 Marketology match matrix (MMM)
MIP: Process
– MIP 2-16: Marketology process management
MIP: Technology
– MIP 2-19: Marketology and technology
MIP: Innovation
– MIP 2-22: Marketology and innovation
MIP: Communication
– MIP 2-25: Marketology and communication

(continued)
MIP: Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) Integrated Frameworks
– MIP 2-28: Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
– MIP 2-29: Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD)
– MIP 2-30: Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)
– MIP 2-31: Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
– MIP 2-32: Case study: Marketology and business organizational design (BOD)
6.2.3 Marketology
Organizational Behavior (MOB) (Chapter 3- MIPs)
Marketology FOCUS Box, Section-End,
Marketology in Chapter-End and Cumulative

practice (MIP)
(6-2-3)
Volume 2: Chapter 3 Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB)
MIP: Business and Stakeholder Analysis (Internal and External)
– MIP 3-1: Business and stakeholder analysis (internal and external)
– MIP 3-2: Business, marketology and stakeholder analysis
MIP: Governance
– MIP 3-5: Good corporate governance
– MIP 3-6: Good marketology governance
– MIP 3-7: Organizational decisions and actions (ODA)
– MIP 3-8: Marketology, decisions and actions
MIP: Strategy
– MIP 3-11: Marketology strategy
– MIP 3-12: Marketology strategic management (MSM)
(continued)
492 H. AGHAZADEH
(continued)
MIP: Value and Performance
– MIP 3-15: Value
– MIP 3-16: Performance
MIP: Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB) Integrated Frameworks
– MIP 3-19: Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
– MIP 3-20: Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram (MORPD)
– MIP 3-21: Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)
– MIP 3-22: Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
– MIP 3-23: Case study: Marketology and business organizational behavior (BOB)
MIP: Cumulative: Cumulating MOD (Ch. 2) and MOB (Ch. 3)
– MIP Cumulative (2): Marketology status analysis matrix (MSAM)
– MIP Cumulative (3): Marketology and organization relationship perspectives diagram
(MORPD)
– MIP Cumulative (4): Marketology and organization directional effects matrix (MODEM)
– MIP Cumulative (5): Marketology benchmark matrix (MBM)
– MIP Cumulative (6): Marketology Impact Assessment Matrix (MIAM)
– MIP Cumulative (7): Case study: Marketology and entire business organization
6.2.4 Marketology Organizational Contribution

(MOC) (Chapter 4- MIPs)
Marketology FOCUS Box and Chapter-End

Marketology in
practice (MIP)
(6-2-4)
Volume 2: Chapter 4 Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC)
MIP: Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC)
– MIP 4-1: Marketology organizational contributions (MOC)
– MIP 4-2: MOC: Business-based contributions (1)
– MIP 4-3: MOC: Business-based contributions (2)

(continued)
– MIP 4-4: MOC: Marketology -based contributions
– MIP 4-5: MOC: market DIKII and IGDEE services
– MIP 4-6: MOC contents and customer analysis: attributes
– MIP 4-7: Customer analysis: behavior
– MIP 4-8: Competitor analysis: attributes
– MIP 4-9: Competitor analysis: behavior
– MIP 4-10: Channel analysis: attributes
– MIP 4-11: Channel analysis: behavior
– MIP 4-12: Supplier analysis
– MIP 4-13: Company, Condition and Community analysis
– MIP 4-14: Collaborator analysis: attributes
– MIP 4-15: Collaborator analysis: behavior
MIP: Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC) Integrated Frameworks
– MIP 4-16: MOC Client Inquiry Analysis (MOC-CIA): (a) matrix and (b) inquiry form
– MIP 4-17: MOC Importance Performance Assessment (MOC-IPD): (a) Diagram, and
(b) Matrix
– MIP 4-18: MOC Product & Service Profile Matrix (MOC-PSPM)
– MIP 4-19: MOC Functional Compatibility Diagram (MOC-FCD)
– MIP 4-20: MOC Business Support Matrix (MOC-BSM)
– MIP 4-21: MOC Primary Function Matrix (MOC-PFM)
– MIP 4-22: Marketology Effectiveness & Maturity Evaluation (MEME)
– MIP 4-23: Marketology & Organization Mutual Contribution (MOMC)
– MIP 4-24: Case study: MOC and entire business organization

494 H. AGHAZADEH
6.2.5
Future of Marketology (FOM) (Chapter 5- MIPs)
Marketology in Marketology FOCUS Box and Chapter-End

practice (MIP)
(6-2-5)
Volume 2: Chapter5
Future of Marketology (FOM)
MIP: Future of Marketology (FOM)
– MIP 5-1: Future trends and priorities of business and technology
– MIP 5-2: Future big changes of modern business environment
– MIP 5-3: Future of marketology foundations
– MIP 5-4: Future of market orientation
– MIP 5-5: Future of marketology functionalities
– MIP 5-6: Marketology evolution and maturity
– MIP 5-7: Clouds of future marketology
– MIP 5-8: Cloud marketology canvas (CMC) (1)
– MIP 5-9: Cloud marketology canvas (CMC) (2)
– MIP 5-10: Cloud IGDEE services and cloud market DIKII
MIP: Future of Marketology (FOM) Integrated Frameworks
– MIP 5-11: Technology and business trend evaluation (TBTE) Matrix
– MIP 5-12(a): Big Data Exploitation Assessment (BDEA) Matrix
– MIP 5-12(b): Big Data 5V Assessment (BD5VA) Matrix
– MIP 5-13: Cloud Computing Readiness Assessment (CCRA) Matrix
– MIP 5-14: Infonomics Valuation Matrix (IVM)
– MIP 5-15: Business Analytics Capability Matrix (BACM)
– MIP 5-16: Future Foundations Requirement Response (FFRR) Matrix
– MIP 5-17: Future Functionality & Marketology Interaction (FFMI) Matrix
– MIP 5-18: Future Market-Related Functions & Marketology (FMRFM) Matrix
– MIP 5-19: Marketology Maturity Assessment Matrix (MMAM)
– MIP 5-20: Future Decision Making Profile (FDMP)
– MIP 5-21: Cloud Marketology Canvas Assessment (CMCA) Matrix
– MIP 5-22: Case study: Future of Marketology (FOM)

6.2.6 Handbook of Marketology (HOM) (Chapter 6- MIPs)
Marketology in Practical Review and Practice Principles of Marketology

practice (MIP)
(6-2-6)
Volume 2: Chapter 6 Handbook of Marketology (HOM)
MIP: Practicing subjects and issues of Principles of Marketology, Volume 1: Theory
MIP 6-1-1: Business success (Chapter 1)
MIP 6-1-2: Definition and evolution of Marketology (Chapter 2)
MIP 6-1-3: Sphere of Marketology (Chapter 3)
MIP 6-1-4: Marketology system (Chapter 4)
MIP 6-1-5: Business, market and competitive analysis (BMCA) (Chapter 5)
MIP 6-1-6: Business, environment and market analysis (BEMA) (Chapter 6)
MIP: Practicing subjects and issues of Principles of Marketology, Volume 2: Practice
MIP 6-2-4: Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC) (Chapter 4)
6.3 Conclusion
Considering the reviewed and practiced subjects and issues of the chapter it can
be concluded that Handbook of Marketology (HOM) is a comprehensive and
integrative practical manual/guideline for reviewing and practicing the key sub-
jects and issues of both Principles of Marketology, Volume 1: Theory and Principles
of Marketology, Volume 2: Practice using Marketology in Practice (MIP).

In this chapter the key subjects and issues of both Principles of Marketology,
Volume 1: Theory and Principles of Marketology, Volume 2: Practice have been
reviewed and practiced using Marketology in Practice (MIP). The major cat-
egories of issues actively explored can be seen in ‘MIP 6-2-6: Handbook of
Marketology (HOM) (Chap. 6)’ and the details can be in seen in the MIP
boxes throughout this chapter. By the end of this last chapter of volume 2 the
book can draw to a close, having provided an integrative and practical hand-
book to the practicing principles of marketology.
496 H. AGHAZADEH
A Glance at the Next Step!

An outstanding issue from the previous chapter has been covered by pro-
viding an integrative manual for practicing the hyper-function of marke-
tology within organizations/enterprises.
Now the big question is about the next step.
The dominant perspectives of these two volumes have been largely
practical, as they explored the business and organizational context as the
hyper-function of marketology representing the market-related behaviors
of businesses and enterprises.
What remains to be investigated in the next step is considering marke-
tology from a philosophical perspective in a scientific context and con-
templating marketology as a science of market on a par with sociology
(as science of society) and psychology (as science of psyche). However,
these perspectives are outlined in brief in preface of this book (volume 2).
Moreover, the author hopes in due course to provide further valuable and
influential scientific work in this field.

Discuss, review and practice the following issues with your colleagues or class-
Practicing subjects and issues of Principles of marketology, Volume 1: Theory
MIP 6-1-1: Business success (Chapter 1)
MIP 6-1-2: Definition and evolution of Marketology (Chapter 2)
MIP 6-1-3: Sphere of Marketology (Chapter 3)
MIP 6-1-4: Marketology system (Chapter 4)
MIP 6-1-5: Business, market and competitive analysis (BMCA) (Chapter 5)
MIP 6-1-6: Business, environment and market analysis (BEMA) (Chapter 6)
Practicing subjects and issues of Principles of Marketology, Volume 2: Practice
MIP 6-2-4: Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC) (Chapter 4)

References
Aaker, D. (1989). Managing assets and skills: The key to sustainable competitive advan-
tage. California Management Review, 31(2), 25–40.
Aaker, D. (2005). The future of marketing: A perspective from David Aaker, prophet, a
strategic brand and marketing consultancy. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
https://www.prophet.com/downloads/articles/aaker-future-of-marketing.pdf
Aaker, D. (2010). Building strong brands. New York: Pocket Books.
Aaker, D. A. (2013). Strategic market management. New York: Wiley.
Aaker, D. (2014). Aaker on branding: 20 principles that drive success. New York: Morgan
James Publishing.
Aaker, D. (2016). What is brand equity and why is it valuable? Prophet. Retrieved at
January 20, 2016, from https://www.prophet.com/blog/aakeronbrands/156-
what-is-brand-equity-and-why-is-it-valuable
Accenture. (2012). Moving from insights to action building a competitive advantage with
commercial analytics in consumer packaged goods (CPG), Accenture interactive.
Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.accenture.com/
SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-Commercial-Analytics-Insights-CGS-
PDF.pdf
Accenture. (2013). Building an analytics-driven organization: Organizing, governing,
sourcing and growing analytics capabilities in CPG, Accenture. Retrieved at March
20, 2016, from https://www.accenture.com/us-en/~/media/Accenture/
Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Industries_2/Accenture-
Building-Analytics-Driven-Organization.pdf
ACG. (2016). Definition of corporate governance. Applied Corporate Governance
(ACG). Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.applied-corporate-
governance.com/definition-of-corporate-governance.html
Achrol, R. S. (1997). Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in market-
ing: Toward a network paradigm, marketing in the 21st century. Journal of The
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), 56–71.
Achrol, R. S., & Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing in the network economy. Journal of
Marketing, 63(Special issue), 146–163.
ACI. (2015). The analytic framework: Cross-competitor analysis. Academy of Competitive
Intelligence (ACI). Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://www.academyci.
com/

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54833-7
498 References
Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and
practice. Long Range Planning, 44, 179–196.
ACM. (2008). Information technology. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from https://www.acm.org/education/curricula/
IT2008%20Curriculum.pdf
Adler, L. (1967). Systems approach to marketing. Harvard Business Review, 45,
104–111.
Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabili-
ties. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011–1025.
AEA. (2016). Definition of economics. American Economic Association (AEA). Retrieved
at April 10, 2016, from https://www.aeaweb.org/resources/students/
what-is-economics
Agha, S., Alrubaiee, L., & Jamhour, M. (2012). Effect of core competence on competi-
tive advantage and organizational performance. International Journal of Business
and Management, 7(1), 192–204.
Aghazadeh, H. (2008). Designing a strategic model of market orientation for Iran com-
mercial banks. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran.
Aghazadeh, H. (2015, October). Strategic marketing management: Achieving superior
business performance through intelligent marketing strategy. Procedia—Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 207, 125–134. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815052945
Aghazadeh, H. (2016). Principles of marketology, volume 1: Theory. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Aghazadeh, H., & Esfidani, M. R. (2007). Internet marketing strategies. Iranian
Economic Review, 12(18), 179–191. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://
ier.ut.ac.ir/article_31009_80fc8b9e09816d3c449c038fec82a2fa.pdf
Aguilar, F. J. (1967). Scanning the business environment. New York: Macmillan.
Aguinis, H. (2012). Performance management. Boston: Pearson.
Ahituv, N., Zif, J., & Machlin, I. (1998). Environmental scanning and information
systems in relation to success in introducing new products. Journal of Information &
Management, 33(4), 201–211.
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., & Keskin, H. (2007). Organizational intelligence: A structura-
tion view. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), 272–289. Retrieved
at March 25, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810710740137
Alderson, W. (1954). Problem solving and marketing science, the Charles Coolidge Parlin
memorial lecture. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from https://marketing.wharton.
upenn.edu/mktg/assets/File/problem_solving_and_marketing_science.pdf
Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action: A functionalist approach
to marketing theory. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.
Alderson, W. (1965). Dynamic marketing behavior. Homewood: Irwin.
Alderson, W., & Cox, R. (1948). Towards a theory of marketing. Journal of Marketing,
13, 137–152.
Alderson, W., & Cox, R. (2006). Towards a theory of marketing, chapter 3 in Wooliscroft
Ben, Tamilia Robert D. and Shapiro Stanly J. A twenty-first century guide to
Aldersonian marketing thought. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer
Science and Business Media.
Alexandra, G. (2005). A user-friendly marketing decision support system for the prod-
uct line design using evolutionary algorithms. Decision Support Systems, 38(4),
495–509.
References 499
Alfieri, P. (2015). Data driven and digitally savvy: The rise of the new marketing organi-
zation: The growing advantage gap between data-driven and traditional marketing
approaches, Forbes Insight in association with TURN. Retrieved at March 20, 2016,
from https://www.turn.com/livingbreathing/assets/089259_Data-Driven_and_
Digitally_Savvy_The_Rise_of_the_New_Marketing_Organization.pdf
Allaire, Y., & Firsirotu, M. E. (1984, July). Theories of organizational culture.
Organization Studies, 5(3), 193–226. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://
organisationsethnologie.de/index_htm_files/Allaire_1984.pdf. Available online in
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/5/3/193.abstract
Allard, K. (2004). Business as war: Battling for competitive advantage. Hoboken: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Alldredge, M., & Nilan, K. (2000). 3M’s leadership competency model: An internally
developed solution. Human Resource Management, 39(2/3), 133–145.
Almquist, E., & Lee, J. (2009, April). What do customers really want? Harvard Business
Review, p. 23.
Altman, T. A. (2014). Data is easy; deciding is hard, ugly research. Retrieved at March
20, 2016, from http://uglyresearch.com/UglyResearch_DataEasy_DecidingHard.
pdf
AMA. (2016). Definition of marketing and marketing research. American Marketing
Association (AMA). Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from https://www.ama.org/
AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx
Amato, L. H., & Amato, C. H. (2009). Changing retail power and performance in
distribution channels. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
37(12), 1057–1076.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic
Management Journal, 14, 33–46.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT
Sloan Management Review. Retrieved at March 05, 2016, from http://sloanreview.
mit.edu/article/creating-value-through-business-model-innovation/
Anaeto, G. S. (2010). Managing organizational culture for effective communication.
The Social Science, 5(2), 70–75. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://docs-
drive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/sscience/2010/70-75.pdf
Anderson, P. F. (1982). Marketing, strategic planning and the theory of the firm.
Journal of Marketing, 46(Spring), 15–26.
Anderson, M. L. (1994). Marketing science: Where’s the beef? Business Horizons, 37(1),
article/pii/S0007681305802216
Anderson, E. (2012). The future of marketing, IBM corporation, enterprise marketing
management. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://www.ama.org/events-
training/Conferences/Documents/Elana%20Anderson%2013_03%20AMA%20
-%20The%20Future%20of%20Marketing.pdf
Anderson, J. C., Hakansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1994). Dyadic business relationships
within a business network context. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1–15.
Anderson, E., Day, G. S., & Rangan, V. K. (1997). Strategic channel design. Solan
Management Review, 38(4), 59–69.
Andre, R. (2007). Organizational behavior: An introduction to your life in organizations
(chapter 3: Decision making). Prentice Hall. Available online at http://www.pren-
hall.com/behindthebook/013185495X/. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from
http://www.prenhall.com/behindthebook/013185495X/pdf/Andre_CH03.pdf
500 References
Andrew, P. M., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Fischhoff, B. (2007, December). Maximizers
versus satisfiers: Decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes. Judgment and
Decision Making, 2(6), 342–350. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://jour-
nal.sjdm.org/jdm7830.pdf
Annabelle, G. (2010). Platforms, markets and innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Ansari, A., & Modarress, B. (1986). Justin- time purchasing: Problems and solutions.
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 22(3), 11–15.
Ansoff, I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 35(5),
113–124.
APA. (2016). Definition of psychology. American Psychological Association (APA).
Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from http://www.apa.org/support/about-apa.
aspx?item=7
APQC. (2016). APQC process classification framework (PCF)—Cross industry. American
Productivity and Quality Center. Retrieved at January 30, 2016, from https://www.
apqc.org/knowledge-base/documents/apqc-process-classification-framework-
pcf-cross-industry-pdf-version-611
Araujo, L., Finch, J., & Kjellberg, H. (2010). Reconnecting marketing to markets.
New York: Oxford University.
Ardi, D. (2014). The future of business: 4 ways companies will change, fast company, fast
company and Inc. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.fastcompany.
com/3027865/leadership-now/the-future-of-business-4-ways-companies-
will-change
Ardley, B. (2011). Marketing theory and critical phenomenology. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, 29(7), 628–642. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/02634501111178668
Argandona, A. (2011). Stakeholder theory and value creation (Working Paper, IESE
Business School, WP-922, pp. 1–13). Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://
www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/di-0922-e.pdf
Armstrong, M. (2010). Armstrong’s essential human resource management practice: A
guide to people management. London: Kogan Page.
Armstrong, M. (2016). Armstrong’s handbook of strategic human resource management.
London: Kogan Page.
Aron, D., Waller, G., & Weldon, L. (2014). Gartner executive programs; executive sum-
mary- flipping to digital leadership: The 2015 CIO Agenda. Gartner. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/cio/pdf/cio_agenda_
execsum2015.pdf
Arrow, K. J., & Lind, R. C. (2003). Risk and uncertainty, in Layard Richard and
Glaister Stephen, cost-benefit analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Arthur, W. B. (2011). The nature of technology. New York: Free Press.
Artun, O., & Levin, D. (2015). Predictive marketing: Easy ways every marketer can use
customer analytics and big data. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
ASA. (2016). Definition of sociology. American Sociological Association (ASA). Retrieved
at April 10, 2016, from http://www.asanet.org/about/sociology.cfm
Atkinson, T., & Frechette, H. (2008, March). Forum climate survey validation project.
The Forum Corporation.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product
innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–83.
References 501
Atwong, C. T., & Rosenbloom, B. (1995). A spatial approach to measuring functional

spin-offs in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 3(4),
58–72.
Auh, S., & Merlo, O. (2012). The power of marketing within the firm: Its contribution
to business performance and the effect of power asymmetry. Industrial Marketing
Management, 41(5), 861–873. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.
Aurik, J., Fabel, M., & Jonk, G. (2014a). The future of strategy: A transformative
approach to strategy for a world that won’t stand still. AT Kearney Inc./McGraw-Hill
Education. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://www.atkearney.com/docu-
ments/10192/5323965/The+Future+of+Strategy+Miniprint.pdf/
b0d4c819-4e08-47ae-bdc8-834bfc7d9ca8
Aurik, J., Fabel, M., & Jonk, G. (2014b). The history of strategy and its future prospects.
AT Kearney Inc. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://www.atkearney.com/
documents/10192/4260571/History+of+Strategy+and+Its+Future+Prospects.
pdf/29f8c6e8-7cdb-4a25-8acc-b0c39e4439e1
Avlonitis, J. G., & Giannopoulos, A. A. (2012). Balanced market orientation: Qualitative
findings on a fragile equilibrium. Managing Service Quality, 22(6), 565–579.
Avlonitis, J. G., & Gounaris, P. S. (1999). Marketing orientation and its determinants:
An empirical analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11/12), 1003–1037.
AWS. (2013). What is cloud computing? Amazon Web Services (AWS). Retrieved March
10, 2016, from http://aws.amazon.com/what-is-cloud-computing/
Babatunde, B. O., & Adebisi, A. O. (2012). Strategic environmental scanning and
organization performance in a competitive business environment. Economic
Insights—Trends and Challenges, LXIV(1), 24–34. Retrieved at January 25, 2016,
from http://www.upg-bulletin-se.ro/archive/2012-1/3.%20Babatunde_Adebisi.
pdf
Bagozzi, R. P. (1984). A prospectus for theory construction in marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 48(Winter), 11–29.
Bai, C., & Sarki, J. (2009, June). Supplier selection and sustainability: A grey rough set
evaluation (George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, Working Paper No.
2009-05, pp. 1–28). Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://www.clarku.
edu/departments/marsh/news/WP2009-05.pdf
Bain, J. S. (1951). The relation of profit rate to industry concentration: American
Manufacturing, 1963–1940. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 65(3), 293–324.
Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://qje.oxfordjournals.org/con-
tent/65/3/293.abstract
Bain, J. (1956). Barriers to new competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bain, J. S. (1959). Industrial organization. New York: Wiley.
Baker, H. K., & Anderson, R. (2010). Corporate governance: A synthesis of theory,
research, and practice. New York: Wiley.
Baker, E. W., & Sinkula, M. J. (1999). Learning orientation, market orientation, and
innovation: Integrating and extending models of organizational performance.
Journal of Market—Focused Management, 4(4), 295–308.
Bakken, H. (1953). Theory of markets and marketing. Madison: Mimir.
Bakker, H., Jones, W., & Nochols, M. (1994). Using core competencies to develop new
businesses. Long Range Planning, 27(6), 13–27.
Balachandran, V., & Chandrasekaran, V. (2011). Corporate governance: Ethics and social
responsibility. New Delhi: PHI Learning.
502 References
Balboni, F., Haydock, M., Kasdan, D., Kinser, C., & White, K. (2010). Analytics: The
new path to value- how the smartest organizations are embedding analytics to trans-
form insights into action. Research Report, Fall, MIT Sloan Management Review and
the IBM Institute for Business Value. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://
c0004013.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/MIT-SMR-IBM-Analytics-The-
New-Path-to-Value-Fall-2010.pdf
Baligh, H. H., & Burton, R. M. (1979). Marketing in moderation—the marketing con-
cept and the organisation’s structure. Long Range Planning, 12(2), 92–96.
Ballard, C., Abdel-Hamid, A., Frankus, R., Hasegawa, F., Larrechart, J., Leo, P., &
Ramos, J. (2006). Improving business performance insight … with business intelligence
and business process management. International Business Machines (IBM)
Corporation. Retrieved January 10, 2016, from http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/
redbooks/pdfs/sg247210.pdf
Banahene, S. (2010). Competitor identification and analysis—how do you do yours? Social
Science Research Network (SSRN). Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://
ssrn.com/abstract=1653884
Banerjee, P. (2003). Resource dependence and core competence: Insights from Indian
software firms. Technovation, 23(3), 251–263.
Bansal, H. S., Mendelson, M. B., & Sharma, B. (2001). The impact of internal market-
ing activities on external marketing outcomes. Journal of Quality Management, 6,
61–76.
Bao, Y., Sheng, S., & Zhou, K. Z. (2012). Network-based market knowledge and prod-
uct innovativeness. Marketing Letters, 23, 309–324. Retrieved at March 01, 2016,
from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11002-011-9155-0
Barbu, A. (2013). Eight contemporary trends in the market research industry.
Management and Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 8(3), 429–450.
Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://www.managementmarketing.ro/pdf/
articole/320.pdf
Barnes, S., & Milton, N. (2015). Designing a successful KM strategy: A guide for the
knowledge management professional. Medford: Information Today, Inc.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy.
Management Science, 32, 1231–1241.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Executive, 9(4), 49–61.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic man-
agement research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.
Barney, J. B. (2010). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hal.
Barney, J. B. (2011). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. New York: Phi
Learning.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining
competitive advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barney, J. B., & Griffin, R. (1991). The management of organizations: Strategy, struc-
ture, and behavior. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, S. W. (2011). Strategic management and competitive advan-
tage: Concepts. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Bartels, R. (1941). Marketing literature—development and appraisal. PhD dissertation,
The Ohio State University, Columbus.
References 503
Bartels, R. (1944). Marketing principles. Journal of Marketing, 8, 151–157.

Bartels, R. (1951a). Can marketing be a science? Journal of Marketing, 15, 319–328.
Bartels, R. (1951b). Influences on the development of marketing thought: 1900–1923.
Journal of Marketing, 16(1), 1–17.
Bartels, R. (1959). Sociologists and marketologists. Journal of Marketing, 24, 37–40.
Bartels, R. (1962). The development of marketing thought. Homewood: Irwin.
Bartels, R. (1965). Marketing technology, tasks, and relationships. Journal of Marketing,
stable/1248781
Bartels, R. (1968). The general theory of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 32, 29–33.
Bartels, R. (1970). Marketing theory and metatheory. Homewood: Irwin.
Bartels, R. (1974). The identity crisis in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 38, 73–76.
Bartels, R. (1976). The history of marketing thought (2nd ed.). Columbus: Grid.
Bartels, R. (1988). The history of marketing thought (3rd ed.). Columbus: Publishing
Horizons.
Bartels, R., & Roger, J. (1977). Macromarketing. Journal of Marketing, 41, 17–20.
Barton, D. (2010). Global forces shaping the future of business and society (Interview-
November). McKinsey Insights, McKinsey and Company. Retrieved at March 20,
2016, from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-
corporate-f inance/our-insights/global-for ces-shaping-the-futur e-of-
business-and-society
Basu, A., Lal, R., Srinivasan, V., & Staelin, R. (1985). Salesforce compensation plans:
An agency theoretic perspective. Marketing Science, 4, 267–291.
Baum, J. A. C., & Haveman, H. A. (1997). Love thy neighbor? Differentiation and
agglomeration in the Manhattan hotel industry: 1898–1990. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42(2), 304–338.
BCPSA. (2015). Core competencies for strategic leaders. British Colombia Public Service
Agency. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/local/myhr/
documents/jobs_hiring/strategic_leaders_competency_guide.pdf
Beal, R. M. (2000). Competing effectively: Environmental scanning, competitive strat-
egy and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small
Business Management, 38(1), 27–47.
Bechtel, C., & Jayaram, J. (1997). Supply chain management: A strategic perspective.
The International Journal of Logistics Management, 8(1), 15–34.
Beck, P. W. (1982). Corporate planning for an uncertain future. Long Range Planning,
15, 12–21.
Becker, J., & Homburg, C. (1999). Market-oriented management: A systems-based
perspective. Journal of Market—Focused Management, 4(1), 17–41. Retrieved
at March 15, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/
A%3A1009804011447
Bednall, D. H. B., & Valos, M. J. (2005). Marketing research performance and strategy.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(5/6),
438–450.
Beil, D. (2009, July). Supplier selection, Stephen M. Ross school of business (Working
Paper). Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www-personal.umich.
edu/~dbeil/Supplier_Selection_Beil-EORMS.pdf
Bender, N., & Croisier, S. (2014, November 13). Infonomics, HEG– RSD (presenta-
tion). DLM Forum, Lisbon. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://dlmlis-
504 References
bon2014.dlmforum.eu/slides/Keynote%204%20-%20Infonomics%20
DLMForum2014.pdf
Bender, P. S., Brown, R. W., Isaac, M. H., & Shapiro, J. F. (1985). Improving purchas-
ing productivity at IBM with a normative decision support system. Interfaces, 15(3),
106–115.
Bengston, D. N. (2013). Horizon scanning for environmental foresight: A review of issues
and approaches. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved at February 20,
2016, from http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/nrs_gtr121.pdf
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition in business networks—to cooperate
and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 411–426; Sion
in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.
Retrieved at February 10, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/222667582_Coopetition_in_Business_Networks-To_Cooperate_and_
Compete_Simultaneously
Bennett, R. C., & Cooper, R. G. (1981). The misuse of marketing: An American trag-
edy. Business Horizons, 24, 51–61.
Bennis, W. (2009). On becoming a leader. New York: Basic Book/Perseus Books Group.
Bennis, W., Sample, S. B., & Asghar, R. (2015). The art and adventure of leadership:
Understanding failure, resilience and success. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Bergen, M., & Peteraf, A. M. (2002). Competitor identification and competitor analy-
sis: A broad-based managerial approach. Managerial and Decision Economics, 23,
157–169.
Berkowitz, E. N. (2011). Essentials of health care marketing. Jones and Bartlett learning
LLC., USA. Chapter 1: The meaning of marketing. Retrieved at January 20, 2016,
from http://samples.jbpub.com/9780763783334/83334_CH01_5713.pdf. The
book is available online in http://www.jblearning.com/catalog/9780763783334/
Bernard, P. (1989). Managing vendor performance. Production and Inventory
Management Journal, 30(1), 1–7.
Berner, M., Graupner, E., & Maedche, A. (2014). The information Panopticon in the
big data era. Journal of Organization Design, 3(1), Special issue: Big data and orga-
nization design, 14–19.
Berns, M., Townend, A., Khayat, Z., Balagopal, B., Reeves, M., Hopkins, M. S., &
Kruschwitz, N. (2009). Sustainability and competitive advantage. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 51(1, Fall), 19–26. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
https://www.bcg.com/documents/file32201.pdf
Best, R. (2012). Market-based management. New York: Prentice Hall.
Best, R., & de Valence, G. (1999). Building in value: Pre-design issues. New York:
Routledge-Taylor & Francis Group.
Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic
Management Journal, 16(Summer Special Issue), 7–19.
Beverland, M., & Lockshin, L. S. (2001). Organizational life cycles in small New
Zealand wineries. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(4), 354–362.
Bhalla, V., Caye, J.-M., Dyer, A., Dymond, L., Morieux, Y., & Orlander, P. (2011).
High-performance organizations: The secrets of their success. Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from https://www.bcg.com/documents/file84953.pdf
Bicen, P., & Hunt, D. S. (2012). Alliance market orientation, new product develop-
ment, and resource advantage theory. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
27(7), 592–600.
References 505
Biesdorf, S., Court, D., & Willmott, P. (2013). Big data: What’s your plan. The
McKinsey quarterly. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.mckinsey.
com/business-functions/business-technology/our-insights/
big-data-whats-your-plan
Biggadike, E. R. (1981). The contributions of marketing to strategic management.
Bigne, E., Vila-López, N., & Küster-Boluda, I. (2000). Competitive positioning and
market orientation: Two interrelated constructs. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 3(4), 190–198. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/14601060010352443
Bigne, J., Enrique, B. A., Küster, I., & Andreu, L. (2004). Market orientation: An
antecedent to the industrial manufacturer’s power. European Journal of Marketing,
38(1/2), 175–193. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/03090560410511177
Bishop, P. (2009). Horizon scanning why is it so hard? Houston: University of Houston.
Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/thester/
courses/Emerging%20Tech%202011/Horizon%20Scanning.pdf
Bisp, S. (1999, June). Barriers to increased market-oriented activity: What the literature sug-
gests. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(1), 77–92. Retrieved at March 15, 2016,
from http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1009808112356.pdf
Bitsani, E. (2013). Theoretical approaches to the organizational culture and the orga-
nizational climate: Exploratory research examples and best policies in health care
services. Journal of Human Resource Management, 1(4), 48–58. Retrieved at January
20, 2016, from http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jhrm.
20130104.11.pdf
Bogdana, P. I., Felicia, A., & Delia, B. (2009). The role of business intelligence in business
performance management. Annals of Faculty of Economics, 4(1), 1025–1029. Available
online at http://econpapers.repec.org/article/orajournl/v_3a4_3ay_3a2009_3ai_
3a1_3ap_3a1025-1029.htm. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://econpapers.
r e p e c . o r g / s c r i p t s / r e d i r. p f ? u = h t t p % 3 A % 2 F % 2 F s t e c o n o m i c e . u o r a d e a .
ro%2Fanale%2Fvolume%2F2009%2Fv4-management-and-marketing%2F210.pdf;h=r
epec:ora:journl:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:1025-1029
Bogner, W. C., Thomas, H., & McGee, J. (1999). Competence and competitive advan-
tage: Toward a dynamic model. British Journal of Management, 10, 275–290.
Bousso, R. (2002). The holographic principle. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(3),
825–874. Available online at http://journals.aps.org/rmp/pdf/10.1103/
RevModPhys.74.825. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://arxiv.org/pdf/
hep-th/0203101
Boyd, K. B., & Janet, F. (1996). Executive scanning and perceived uncertainty: A mul-
tidimensional model. Journal of Management, 22(1), 1–22.
Boyer, J., Frank, B., Green, B., Harris, T., & Van De Vanter, K. (2010). Business intel-
ligence strategy: A practical guide for achieving BI excellence. IBM Corporation, MC
Press Online, LLC.
BPEP- Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. (2011). Baldrige 20/20: An execu-
tive’s guide to the criteria for performance. Gaithersburg: Baldrige Performance
Excellence Program.
BPMSG. (2005). Business performance management: Industry framework document.
BPM Standards Group, BPM Partners. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://
www.bpmpartners.com/documents/BPMIndustryFramework-V5.pdf
506 References
Bragg, D. J., & Hahn, C. K. (1989). Material requirements planning and purchasing.
Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1995). The right game: Use game theory to
shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 57–71.
Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Currency
Doubleplay.
Brechbuhl, H. (2015). Six technology mega-trends shaping the future of society. World
Economic Forum (WEF). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.weforum.
org/agenda/2015/09/6-technology-mega-trends-shaping-the-future-of-society/
Brennan, N., & Connell, B. (2000). Intellectual capital: Current issues and policy
implications. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 206–240.
Bressler, S. M. (2012, September). How small businesses master the art of competition
through superior competitive advantage. Journal of Management and Marketing
Research, 11. Retrieved at 5 February 5, 2016, from http://www.aabri.com/manu-
scripts/121156.pdf
Brinker, S. (2014). A new brand of marketing: The 7 meta-trends of modern marketing
as a technology-powered discipline. Chief Marketing Technologist Blog. Retrieved at
March 20, 2016, from http://cdn.chiefmartec.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/
03/a_new_brand_of_marketing.pdf
Brophy, M., & Kiely, T. (2002). Competencies: A new sector. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 26(2/3/4), 165–176.
Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Hourihan, G., & Larsson, R. (2006a, February). The
seasoned executive’s decision-making style. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from
http://www.asme.org.uk/images/pdfs/2013/DLH_number_6.pdf
Brown, S. (2001). Art or science? Fifty years of marketing debate. The Marketing
Review, 2, 89–119. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.cfs.purdue.
edu/richardfeinberg/csr%20331%20consumer%20behavior%20%20spring%20
2011/readings/marketig%20as%20science.pdf
Brown, S. A. (2005). Strategic customer care: An evolutionary approach to increasing
customer value and profitability. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, D. (2007). Horizon scanning and the business environment: The implications
for risk management. BT Technology Journal, 25(1), 208–214. Available online at
Februar y 20, 2016, in http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10550
-007-0022-8
Brown, R. B., & Brooks, I. (2002). Emotion at work: Identifying the emotional climate
of night nursing. Journal of Management Medicine, 16(5), 327–344.
Browning, J. M., Zabriskie, N. B., & Huellmantel, A. B. (1983). Strategic purchasing
planning. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 19(1), 19–24.
Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Whittington, R., & Wensley, R. (1994). The new marketing
myopia: Critical perspectives on theory and research in marketing—introduction.
European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 6–12.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L., & Kim, H. (2011). Strength in numbers: How does data-
driven decision making affect firm performance? Social Science Research Network.
Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://ebusiness.mit.edu/research/
papers/2011.12_Brynjolfsson_Hitt_Kim_Strength%20in%20Numbers_302.pdf
Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification
and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53. Retrieved at
References 507
February 25, 2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14719

030410001675722
Bryson, J., Cunningham, G., & Lokkesmoe K. (2002). What to do when stakeholders
matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American men project of
Hennepin county Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 568–84.
Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downl
oad?doi=10.1.1.198.9952&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Bryson, J. M., Patton, M. Q., & Bowman, R. A. (2011). Working with evaluation stake-
holders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 34, 1–12. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from https://depts.washing-
ton.edu/uwleah/sites/default/files/seminarFiles/2011_Bryson.pdf
BSI. (2015). Balanced scorecard basics, balanced scorecard institute: Strategy manage-
ment group. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://balancedscorecard.org/
Resources/About-the-Balanced-Scorecard
Buffa, F. P., & Jackson, W. M. (1983). A goal programming model for purchase plan-
ning. Journal of Purchasing and Material Management, 19(3), 27–34.
Bughin, J., & Chui, M. (2010). The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its
payday. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.mck-
i n s e y. c o m / i n d u s t r i e s / h i g h - t e c h / o u r - i n s i g h t s / t h e - r i s e - o f - t h e -
networked-enterprise-web-20-finds-its-payday
Bughin, J., & Chui, M. (2013). Evolution of the networked enterprise: McKinsey
global survey results. The McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/business-technology/our-
insights/evolution-of-the-networked-enterprise-mckinsey-global-survey-results
Bughin, J., Chui, M., & Manyika, J. (2013). Ten IT-enabled business trends for the
decade ahead. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://
w w w. m c k i n s e y. c o m / i n d u s t r i e s / h i g h - t e c h / o u r - i n s i g h t s /
ten-it-enabled-business-trends-for-the-decade-ahead
Bughin, J., Chui, M., & Manyika, J. (2015). An executive’s guide to the internet of
things. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.mck-
i n s e y. c o m / b u s i n e s s - f u n c t i o n s / b u s i n e s s - t e c h n o l o g y / o u r- i n s i g h t s /
an-executives-guide-to-the-internet-of-things
Burke, W., & Litwin, G. A. (1992). Causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545. Available online at http://jom.
sagepub.com/content/18/3/523.abstract. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from
http://documents.reflectlearn.org/Offline%20OA%20Models%20and%20
Frameworks/BurkeLitwin_ACausalModelofOrganizationalPerformance.pdf
Burton, T. T. (1988). JIT/repetitive sourcing strategies: Tying the knot with your sup-
pliers. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 29(4), 38–41.
Burton, D. (2001). Critical marketing theory: The blueprint? European Journal of
Marketing, 35(5/6), 722–743. Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/03090560110388187
Burton, B., Geishecker, L., Hostmann, B., Friedman, T., & Newman, D. (2006a).
Organizational structure: Business intelligence and information management.
Gartner, Inc. Available online at https://www.gartner.com/doc/490966/
organizational-structure-business-intelligence-information. Retrieved at January 10,
2016, from https://wiki.doit.wisc.edu/confluence/download/attachments/
44634709/Burton_Gartner_OrgStructure_BI_2006.pdf
508 References
Burton, B., Hostmann, B., Geishecker, L., Herschel, G., & Friedman, T. (2006b).
Activity cycle overview: Business intelligence and information management. Gartner,
Inc. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://lib-resources.unimelb.edu.au/
gartner/research/138700/138711/138711.pdf
Bush, T., & Middlewood, D. (2013). Leading and managing people in education.
London: SAGE publications Ltd. Chapter 4: Organizational cultures, 47–60.
Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/
files/upm-binaries/9740_036187.pdf, the complete book is available online in
https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/mst/leading-and-managing-people-in-
education/book239346#description
Business Dictionary. (2016). Competence. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/competence.html#ixzz3imkIy1aY
Buttle, F., & Maklan, S. (2015). Customer relationship management: Concepts and tech-
nologies. New York: Routledge.
Buytendijk, F. (2015). The art of big data innovation (chapter three). In D. Laney
(Ed.), Big data: Big data means big business. Gartner Inc. Financial Times (FT).
Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/
e91a32d0-2bac-11e3-bfe2-00144feab7de.pdf
Buzzell, R. D. (1963, January–February). Is marketing a science? Harvard Business
Review, 41, 32–34.
Buzzell, R. D., & Ortmeyer, G. (1994). Channel partnerships streamline distribution.
Sloan Management Review, 36(3), 85–96.
Cadle, J., Paul, D., & Turner, P. (2010). Business analysis techniques: 72 essential tools for
success. British Informatics Society Limited (BISL), British Computer Society (BCS),
The Chartered Institute for IT. Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://www.
fieldi.com/jamescadle/temp/preview.pdf
Cadogan, J. W., & Diamatopoulos, A. (1995). Narver and Slater, Kohli and Jaworski
and market orientation construct: Integration and internationalization. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 3, 41–60. Retrieved at March 15, 2016 from http://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09652549500000003#abstract
Cakravastia, A., & Takahashi, K. (2004). Integrated model for supplier selection and
negotiation in a make-to-order environment. International Journal of Production
Research, 42(21), 4457–4474.
Cambra-Fierro, J., Florin, J., Perez, L., Whitelock, J. (2011). Inter-firm market orienta-
tion as antecedent of knowledge transfer, innovation and value creation in networks.
www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/00251741111120798
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete
guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. London: Kogan
Page.
Campbell, D., & Craig, T. (2011). Organizations and the business environment.
New York: Routledge.
Cantara, M. (2015). Five ways cloud can transform your business. Gartner, Webinar.
Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/webinar/3068419/
player?commId=160073&channelId=5502&srcId=1-2973089105
Capgemini. (2011). Channel strategy: Framework for success: How to maximize internal
and customer benefits through effective channel management. Capgemini consulting.
Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://www.capgemini-consulting.com/
resource-file-access/resource/pdf/Channel_Strategy__Framework_for_Success.pdf
References 509
Cardozo, R. N., & Cagley, J. W. (1971). Experimental study of industrial buyer behav-
ior. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 329–934.
Cardy, R. L., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2006). Competencies: Alternative frameworks for
competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 49, 235–245. Retrieved at January 20,
5001333
Carlile, R. P. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative frame-
work for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5),
555–568.
Carlopio, J. (2011). Development strategy by design: The future of strategy. World
Future Society, World Future Review, 3(2), 11–16. Retrieved at March 20, 2016,
from https://www.wfs.org/Upload/PDFWFR/WFR_Summer2011_Carlopio.pdf
Carroll, G. R. (1993). A sociological view on why firms differ. Strategic Management
Journal, 14(4), 237–249. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.4250140402/abstract
Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, E. J. (2007, November). Competing through business
models (Working paper WP No. 713. IESE business school, University of Navarra).
Retrieved at February 5, 2016, from http://www.bmcommunity.sitew.com/fs/
Root/8u9mi-casadesus_et_ricart.pdf
Casonato, R., Lapkin, A., Beyer, M. A., Genovese, Y., & Friedman, T. (2011). Information
management in the 21st century. Gartner. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from https://
www.gartner.com/doc/1781917/information-management-st-century
Casson, M., & Lee, J. S. (2011). The origin and development of markets: A business
history perspective. Business History Review, 85, 9–37. doi:10.1017/
S0007680511000018. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://www.hbs.edu/
businesshistory/Documents/origin-and-development-of-markets.pdf
Castro, C. B., Armario, E. M., & Sańchez del Rıó, M. E. (2005). Consequences of
market orientation for customers and employees. European Journal of Marketing,
39(5/6), 646–675. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.emeraldin-
sight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560510590755
Catalin, M. C., Andreea, P., & Adina, C. (2014, November). A holistic approach on
internal marketing implementation. Business Management Dynamics, 3(11), 09–17.
Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://bmdynamics.com/issue_pdf/
bmd110473-%2009-17.pdf
Cates, J. E., Gill, S. S., & Zeituny, N. (2005). The ladder of business intelligence (LOBI): A frame-
work for enterprise IT planning and architecture. International Journal of Business Information
Systems, 1(1–2), 220–238. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.researchgate.net/
publication/220412855_The_Ladder_of_Business_Intelligence_(LOBI)_a_framework_for_
enterprise_IT_planning_and_architecture
CBP. (2014). Enterprise cloud maturity model: Planning framework for enterprise-wide
cloud adoption and digital transformation. CloudBestPractices.net. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://cloudbestpractices.net/wp-content/
uploads/2014/10/EnterpriseCloudMaturityModel-2.pdf
Cearley, D. (2014). Gartner’s top 10 strategic technology trends for 2015. IBM. Retrieved
at March 10, 2016, from https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/
files/basic/anonymous/api/library/20eaa907-3440-482c-a234-65c3584bdd7c/
document/076e2d05-4e54-45b8-a319-31c87ac6d672/media
Cearley, D. W., Walker, M. J., & Burke, B. (2015). Top 10 strategic technology trends for
2016: At a glance. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.t-systems.com/
510 References
news-media/gar tner-top-10-strategic-technology-trends-for-2016-at-a-
glance/1406184_1/blobBinary/gartner_top10.pdf
Celina, M. (2014). Dynamic business intelligence and analytical capabilities in organiza-
tions. In Proceedings of the e-Skills for knowledge production and innovation conference
2014 (pp. 289–303). Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://proceedings.e-skillsconference.org/2014/e-skills289-303Olszak718.pdf
Cerovsek, T., Zupancic, T., & Kilar, V. (2010). Framework for model-based compe-
tency management for design in physical and virtual worlds. Journal of Information
Technology in Construction, 15, 1–22. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://
www.itcon.org/data/works/att/2010_1.content.06545.pdf
Cervera, A., Mollá, A., & Sánchez, M. (2001) Antecedents and consequences of market
orientation in public organizations. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12),
1259–1288. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/
doi/abs/10.1108/EUM0000000006476
Cespedes, F. V., & Piercy, N. F. (1996). Implementing marketing and strategy. Journal
of Marketing Management, 19(12), 135–160. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from
http://www.gmpua.com/Marketing/worldmarket/cim/5479950.pdf
Chaffey, D. (2011). E-Business and e-commerce management: Strategy, implementation
and practice. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Chaffey, D. (2014). Digital business & e-commerce management, Strategy implementa-
tion & practice. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Chandler, Tarma, M., & Ulrich, D. (2016). How performance management is killing
performance-and what to do about it. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Chandler, N., Hostmann, B., Rayner, N., & Hersche, G. (2011). Gartner’s business
analytics framework. Gartner, Inc. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.
gartner.com/imagesrv/summits/docs/na/business-intelligence/gartners_busi-
ness_analytics__219420.pdf
Chang, T.-Z., Mehta, R., Chen, S.-J., Polsa, P., & Mazur, J. (1999). The effects of
market orientation on effectiveness and efficiency: The case of automotive distribu-
tion channels in Finland and Poland. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(4/5),
407–418.
Chapman, S. N. (1989). Just-in-time supplier inventory: An empirical implementation
model. International Journal of Production Research, 7(12), 1993–2007.
Chatterjee, K., & Lilien, G. L. (1986). Game theory in marketing science uses and limi-
tations. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3(2), 79–93. Retrieved at
April 10, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/0167811686900121
Chaudhuri, S., & Dayal, U. (1997). An overview of data warehousing and OLAP tech-
nology. SIGMOD Record, 26(1), 65–74.
Chaudhuri, S., Dayal, U., & Narasayya, V. (2011) An overview of business intelligence
technology. Communications of the ACM, 54(8), 88–98. Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/8/114953-an-overview-of-
business-intelligence-technology/fulltext
Chen, J., Zhu, Z., & Xie, H. Y. (2004). Measuring intellectual capital: A new model
and empirical study. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 195–212.
Chernev, A. (2014). Strategic marketing management. Chicago: Cerebellum Press.
Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in cap-
turing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-
off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.
References 511
Chien, S-Y., & Tsai, C-H. (2012). Dynamic capability, knowledge, learning, and firm
performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(3), 434–444.
Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://www.researchgate.net/publica-
tion/242091707_Dynamic_capability_knowledge_learning_and_firm_perfor-
mance, available on line in http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534811211228148
Chintagunta, P., Anderson, D. H., Hauser, J. R., Raju, J. S., Srinivasan, K., & Staelin,
R. (2013, January–February). Marketing science: A strategic review. Marketing
org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mksc.1120.0763
Choo, C. W. (1998). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to
construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Choo, C. W. (2001). Information management for the intelligent organization: The art
of scanning the environment. Medford: Information Today, Inc.
Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2015). Supply chain management, strategy, planning and
operations. Boston: Pearson.
Chou, P. A. (2013). Advances in immersive communication: Telephone, television, and
teleportation, Microsoft research. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing,
Communications and Applications, 9(1), Article 41. Retrieved at March 10, 2016,
from http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/245006/a41-chou.pdf
Chuah, M. H. (2010). An enterprise business intelligence maturity model (EBIMM):
Conceptual framework. Knowledge Creation Diffusion Utilization Journal. In
Proceeding of Fifth International Conference on Digital Information Management
(ICDIM)-2010 (pp. 303–308). Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://ieeex-
plore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5664244&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeex
plore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5664244
Chui, M., Löffler, M., & Roberts, R. (2010) The internet of things. The McKinsey
Quarterly. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.mckinsey.com/indus-
tries/high-tech/our-insights/the-internet-of-things
CIMA. (2008). Improving decision making in organizations: Unlocking business intelli-
gence. The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from http://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/Thought_leadership_docs/
cid_execrep_unlocking_business_intelligence_Oct09.pdf
Clair, C. L. (2015) Achieve business agility by adopting these 10 attributes. Forrester
Research, Inc. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://searchcio.techtarget.
com/tip/Forrester-Achieve-business-agility-by-adopting-these-10-attributes
Clair, C. L., Bernoff, J., Cullen, A., Mines, C., & Keenan, J. (2013). The 10 dimensions
of business agility: Enabling bottom-up decisions in a world of rapid change. For CIO
Professionals, Forrester Research, Inc. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from
https://www.forrester.com/The+10+Dimensions+Of+Business+Agility/
fulltext/-/E-RES98503
Clark, F. E. (1922). Principles of marketing. New York: Macmillan.
Clark, D. N. (1997). Strategic management tool usage: A comparative study. Strategic
Change, 6, 417–427.
Clark, D. (2013). So what is the future of business? Leadership section. Forbes. Retrieved
at March 10, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2013/05/03/
so-what-is-the-future-of-business/#5a5dc3163fe9
512 References
Clark, H. B., & Montgomery, B. D. (1999). Managerial identification of competitors.

Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 67–83. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/1251776?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
CloudTech. (2015). Why hybrid cloud is so important—and why the market prediction is
so large. cloudbestpractices.net published in businessintelligence.com. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://www.cloudcomputing-news.net/news/2015/
sep/03/why-hybrid-cloud-so-important-market-prediction-large/
Coff, R. W. (1999). When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The
resource based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science, 10,
119–131.
Cognos-IBM. (2009a). Building a business intelligence competency center. White Paper,
Cognos Software, IBM Software Group, IBM Corporation. Retrieved at February
20, 2016, from ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/data/sw-library/cognos/
pdfs/whitepapers/wp_building_a_business_intelligence_competency_center.pdf
Cognos-IBM. (2009b). Choosing a standard for business intelligence: Simplify the IT
environment, reduce your TCO, and increase your ROI. White Paper, Cognos,
IBM. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.fast.com.tw/bi/newpages/
Pdf/White%20Papers/wp_choosing_standard_for_bi_and_reporting.pdf
Cognos-IBM. (2010). How to reduce TCO and increase ROI of business intelligence: IT
can bring strategic value to the business. White paper, Cognos Software, IBM Software
Group, IBM Corporation. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from ftp://service.
boulder.ibm.com/software/data/sw-library/cognos/pdfs/whitepapers/wp_how_
to_reduce_tco_and_increase_roi_of_business_intelligence.pdf
Collins, C. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary compa-
nies. New York: Harper Business.
Collins, L., French, T., & Magill, P. (2011). How we see it: Three senior executives on the
future of marketing, marketing and sales practice. McKinsey Quarterly, McKinsey
and Company. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.mckinsey.com/
business-functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/how-we-see-it-three-senior-
executives-on-the-future-of-marketing
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on resources: Strategy in the
1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73(4), 118–128.
Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change. New York: Villard Books.
Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://www.akwl.org/presentation/manage-
ment/managing_the_speed_of_change.pdf
Converse, P. D. (1945). The development of the science of marketing: An exploratory
survey. Journal of Marketing, 10, 14–32.
Corpgov. (2015). What is corporate governance? Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from
http://www.corpgov.net/library/corporate-governance-defined/
Cosic, R., Shanks, G., & Maynard, S. (2012, December 3–5). Towards a business analyt-
ics capability maturity model. 23rd Australasian conference on information systems,
Geelong. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/
DU:30049067/cosic-towardsabusiness-2012.pdf
Coughlan, A. T., Anderson, E., Stern, L. W., & El-Ansary, A. I. (2006). Marketing
channels. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Courtney, J. F. (2001). Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring
organizations: Toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support
Systems, 31, 17–38. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.sciencedi-
rect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923600001172
References 513
Cox, A. (1999). Power, value and supply chain management. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 4(4), 167–175.
Cox, R., & Alderson, W. (1950). Theory in marketing. Homewood: Irwin.
Coyne, K. P., & Horn, J. (2009, April). Predicting your competitor’s reaction. Harvard
Business Review, 90–97. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://cb.hbsp.
harvard.edu/cbmp/product/R0904H-PDF-ENG
Cravens, D. W., & Piercy, N. F. (2013). Strategic marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill/
Irwin
Crowley, E. (2004). Market intelligence versus marketing research. Article ID: 20041209,
Quirk’s (marketing research media). Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://
www.quirks.com/articles/a2004/20041209.aspx?searchID=40935096
Cukier, K. (2015). Big data and the future of business. Open Mind, BBVA Group.
Published in businessintelligence.com and MIT Technology Review. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/538916/
big-data-and-the-future-of-business/
Culkin, N., Smith, D., & Fletcher, J. (1999). Meeting the information needs of market-
ing in the twenty-first century. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 17(1), 6–12.
Cummings, S., & Daellenbach, U. (2009). A guide to the future of strategy? The his-
tory of long range planning. Long Range Planning, 42, 234–263. Retrieved at
March 20, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256807030_
A_Guide_to_the_Future_of_Strategy_The_History_of_Long_Range_Planning
Curino, C., Jones, E. P. C., Popa, R. A., Malviya, N., Wu, E., Madden, S., Balakrishnan,
H., & Zeldovich, N. (2011). Relational cloud: A database-as-a-service for the cloud.
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), Berkeley University of
California. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.eecs.berkeley.
edu/~raluca/cidr11.pdf
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Czepiel, J., & Kerin, R. A. (2011). Competitor analysis (Working Paper Leonard
N. Stern School of Business, New York University). Retrieved at February 25, 2016,
from http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~jczepiel/Publications/CompetitorAnalysis.pdf
Czepiel, J. A., & Kerin, R. A. (2012). Competitor analysis. In V. Shankar & G. S.
Carpenter (Eds.), Handbook of marketing strategy (pp. 41–57). London: Edward
Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Daft, R. L. (2012). Organization theory and design. Canada: South-Western College
Publication, Cengage Learning.
Daft, R. L. (2016). Organization theory and design. Canada: South-Western College
Publication, Cengage Learning.
Daft, R. L., Juhani, S., & Don, P. (1988). Chief executive scanning, environmental
characteristics, and company performance: An empirical study. Strategic Management
Journal, 9(2), 123–139.
Dagnino, G. B., & Elena, R. (2009). Coopetition strategy: Theory experiments and cases.
Dagnino, G. B., & Padula, G. (2002, May 9–11). Coopetition strategy a new kind of
interfirm dynamics for value creation. EURAM—The European Academy of
Management Second Annual Conference, Innovative Research in Management,
Stockholm. Track “Coopetition strategy, towards a new kind of interfirm dynam-
ics?” Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.194.5380&rep=rep1&type=pdf
514 References
Dainty, A. R., Cheng, M.-I., & Moore, D. R. (2003). Redefining performance mea-
sures for construction project managers: An empirical examination. Construction
Management and Economics, 21(2), 209–218.
Dalgic, T. (1998). Dissemination of market orientation in Europe- A conceptual and
historical evaluation. International Marketing Review, 15(1), 45–60. Retrieved at
March 15, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/
pdfplus/10.1108/02651339810205230
Danciu, V. (2013). The future of marketing: An appropriate response to the environ-
ment changes. Theoretical and Applied Economics, XX(5(582)), 33–52. Retrieved at
March 01, 2016, from http://store.ectap.ro/articole/859.pdf
Das, T. K., & Teng, B-S. (1998). Resource and risk management in the strategic alli-
ance making process. Journal of Management, 24(I), 21–42. Retrieved at February
10, 2016, from http://aux.zicklin.baruch.cuny.edu/tkdas/publications/das-teng_
jom98_resourceriskmgmt_21-42.pdf
Dauber, D., Fink, G., & Yolles, M. (2010, October). A generic theory of organizational
culture (pp. 28–33). Southern Management Association, SMA meeting (27–30,
TradeWinds Island Grand Resort, St. Pete Beach, Florida) SMA_2010_Proceedings.
Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://www.researchgate.net/
publication/228215572_A_Generic_Theory_of_Organizational_Culture. Available
online in https://southernmanagement.org/meetings/
Dauber, D., Fink, G., & Yolles, M. (2012). A configuration model of organizational
culture. Sage Open, 1–16. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://sgo.sagepub.
com/content/spsgo/2/1/2158244012441482.full.pdf
Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information ecology: Mastering the information and knowl-
edge environment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davenport, T. H. (2006). Competing on analytics. Harvard Business Review, 84(1),
99–107. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2006/01/
competing-on-analytics
Davenport, T. H., & Harris, J. G. (2007). Competing on analytics: The new science of
winning. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, Boston Massachusetts. A short
description is retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://hbr.org/product/
competing-on-analytics-the-new-science-of-winning-/an/3323-HBK-ENG
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge—how organizations man-
age what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage
what they know. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Davenport, T. H., Leibold, M., & Voelpel, S. C. (2006). Strategic management in the
innovation economy: Strategic approaches and tools for dynamic innovation capabili-
ties. Germany: John Wiley & Sons and Publicis.
Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., & Morison, R. (2010a). Analytics at work: Smarter
decisions, better results. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Davenport, T. H., Harris, J., & Shapiro, J. (2010b, October). Competing on talent
analytics. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 52–58.
David, C. R., Joel, R., & Joshua, W. (2014). Culture, conduct and innovation: A
deconstruction of market orientation. Journal of Research in Marketing and
Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 128–145.
Davidrajuh, R. (2003). Modeling and implementation of supplier selection procedures
for e-commerce initiatives. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 103(1),
28–38.
References 515
Davila, T., Epstein, M., & Shelton, R. (2012). Making innovation work: How to manage
it, measure it, and profit from it. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Davis, S. (2016). Hung up on hybrid: The rise of cloud 2.0 and what it means for the data
center. NGD (Next Generation Data), published in CoulsTech and businessintelligence.
com. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.cloudcomputing-news.net/
news/2016/mar/02/hung-hybrid-rise-cloud-20-and-what-it-means-data-centre/
Dawson, L. (1971). Marketing science in the age of aquarius. Journal of Marketing, 35,
66–72.
Day, G. S. (1986). Analysis for strategic market decisions. St. Paul: West publishing
company.
Day, G. S. (1990). Market driven strategy: Processes for creating value. New York: The
Free Press.
Day, G. S. (1992). Marketing’s contribution to the strategy dialogue. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 20(Fall), 323–330.
Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing,
58(4), 37–52. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/
pdf/1251915.pdf
Day, G. S. (1999). Creating a market-driven organization. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 41(1), 11–22. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://sloanreview.mit.
edu/article/creating-a-marketdriven-organization/
Day, G. S. (2003). Creating a superior customer-relating capability. Sloan Management
Review, (Spring), 44(3), 82–83.
Day, J. (2013). Horizon scanning program: A new approach for policy making. Cabinet
Office and Government Office for Science, United Kingdom (UK) Government.
Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/
horizon-scanning-programme-a-new-approach-for-policy-making
Day, G. S., & Nedungadi, P. (1994). Managerial representations of competitive advan-
tage. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 31–44. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1252267?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1983). Marketing theory with a strategic orientation. Journal
of Marketing, 47(Fall), 79–89.
Day, G. S., Weitz, B., & Wensley, R. (1990). The interface of marketing and strategy.
Greenwich: JAI Press.
De Bruin Tonia (2009). Business process management: Theory on progression and matu-
rity. Ph.D. dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46726/1/Tonia_
de_Bruin_Thesis.pdf
De Carolis, D. M. (2003). Competencies and imitability in the pharmaceutical indus-
try: An analysis of their relationship with firm performance. Journal of Management,
29(1), 27–50.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The new corporate cultures: Revitalizing the workplace
after downsizing, mergers, and reengineering. New York: Basic Book/Perseus
Publishing Group.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (2000). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate
life. Basic Book/Perseus Publishing Group: New York.
Dean, T. J., Brown, R. L., & Bamford, C. E. (1998). Differences in large and small firm
responses to environmental context: Strategic implications from a comparative anal-
ysis of business formations. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 57–68.
516 References
Deloitte. (2016). Interview with Paul Sallomi: 2016 technology industry outlook, perspec-
tives. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
h t t p : / / w w w 2 . d e l o i t t e . c o m / u s / e n / p a g e s / t e c h n o l o g y - m e d i a - a n d -
telecommunications/articles/technology-industry- outlook.html
Demirdjian, Z. S. (1976). Marketing as a pluralistic discipline: The forestalling of an
identity crisis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4(4), 672–681. Retrieved
at March 30, 2016, from http://web.csulb.edu/~zdemirdj/Earlyp/Marketing%20
as%20a%20Pluralistic%20Discipline.pdf
Deng, R. (2007). Business intelligence maturity hierarchy: A new perspective from knowl-
edge management, information management. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://www.information-management.com/infodirect/20070323/1079089-1.
html
Deng, S., & Dart, J. (1994). Measuring market orientation: A multi-factor, multi-item
approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 10(8), 725–742. Retrieved at March
15, 2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02672
57X.1994.9964318
Denisa, L., & Jaroslav, D. (2013, December). Marketing audit and factors influencing
its use in practice of companies (from an expert point of view). Journal of
Competitiveness, 5(4), 26–42.
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995, March–April). Toward a theory of organiza-
tional culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223. Retrieved at
January 20, 2016, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1
.1.104.66&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Desai, P. S. (2011). Marketing science: Marketing and science. Marketing Science,
30(1), 1–3. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/227442572_Marketing_Science_Marketing_and_Science
Desai, P. S. (2013). Marketing science replication and disclosure policy. Marketing
org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mksc.1120.0761
Desai, P. S., Bell, D., Lilien, G., & Soberman, D. (2012). The science-to-practice initia-
tive: Getting new marketing science thinking into the real world. Marketing Science,
31(1), 1–3. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://pubsonline.informs.org/
doi/abs/10.1287/mksc.1110.0697?journalCode=mksc
Deshpande, R. (1983). Paradigms lost: On theory and method in research in market-
ing. Journal of Marketing, 47(Fall), 101–110.
Deshpande, R., & Farley, J. U. (1998). Measuring market orientation: Generalization
and synthesis. Journal of Market Focused Management, 2, 213–232. Retrieved at
March 15, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA
%3A1009719615327
Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E., Jr. (1993, January). Corporate culture,
customer orientation and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis.
Journal of Marketing, 57, 23–27. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/1252055
Desiraju, R., & Moorthy, S. (1997, December). Managing a distribution channel under
asymmetric information with performance requirements. Management Science,
43(12), 1628–1644.
Dess, G., & Lumpkin, G. T. T. (2003). Strategic management: Text and cases. Boston:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
References 517
Dess, G., Eisner, A., Lumpkin, G. T. T., & McNamara, G. (2013). Strategic manage-
ment: Creating competitive advantages. USA: McGraw-Hill Education.
Dess, G., McNamara, G., & Eisner, A. (2015). Strategic management: Text and cases.
New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Dessler, G. (2014). Human resource management. Boston: Pearson.
Desson, K., & Clouthier, J. (2010, November 3). Organizational culture—why does it
matter? The Symposium on International Safeguards, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from https://
www.iaea.org/safeguards/symposium/2010/Documents/PapersRepository/315.
pdf
Deusen, C. V., Williamson, S. A., & Perryman, A. A. (2007). Limited outlet distribu-
tion: Selective and exclusive channel distribution of the United States based national
paper trade alliance firms. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, 17(4), 341–352.
Dholakia, N., Firat, F., & Bagozzi, R. (1987). In F. Firat, N. Dholakia, & R. Bagozzi
(Ed.), Philosophical and radical thought in marketing (pp. 375–384). Lexington:
D.C. Heath.
Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M. A., & Verona, G. (2009). Dynamic capabilities decon-
structed. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1187–1204. Retrieved at January
20, 2016, from http://icc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/1187.full.pdf+html
Dickson. (1966). An analysis of vendor selection: Systems and decisions. Journal of
Purchasing, 1(2), 5–17.
Dickson, P. R. (1992). Toward a theory of competitive rationality. Journal of Marketing,
56, 69–83.
Dickson, P. R. (1996). The static and dynamic mechanics of competition: A comment
on Hunt and Morgan’s comparative advantage theory. Journal of Marketing, 60,
102–106.
Didonet, S., Simmons, G., Díaz-Villavicencio, G., Palmer, M. (2012). The relationship
between small business market orientation and environmental uncertainty. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 30(7), 757–779. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/02634501211273841
Dixon, D. F. (2011). Wroe Alderson’s marketing behaviour and executive action
inserted into Reavis Cox’s marketing theory course at Wharton 50 years ago. Journal
of Historical Research in Marketing, 3(1), 10–28. Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17557501111102382
Dixon, L. M., & Diehn, D. (1992). The challenged marketing concept: A repositioning
strategy for a concept in the decline stage. In C. T. Allen, T. J. Madden, & American
Marketing Association Staff (Eds.), Marketing theory and applications (pp. 432–440).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Dobbin, F., & Baum, J. A. C. (2000). Introduction: Economics meets sociology in strate-
gic management, Book series: Advances in strategic management, volume 17—econom-
ics meets sociology in strategic management (pp. 1–26). Retrieved at March 30, 2016,
from http://scholar.harvard.edu/dobbin/files/economics_meets_sociology_in_
strategic_management.pdf
Dobney. (2015). Market intelligence, Dobney insight and intelligence. Retrieved at
February 25, 2016, from http://www.dobney.com/market_intelligence.htm
Dobni, C. B., & Luffman, G. (2003). Determining the scope and impact of market
orientation profiles on strategy implementation and performance. Strategic
518 References
Management Journal, 24(6), 577–585. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/20060556
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Phillips, N. (2015). The Oxford handbook of innovation
management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.
Dong, X. D., Zhang, Z., Hinsch, C. A., & Zou, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the ele-
ments of market orientation: A process-based view. Industrial Marketing
Management, Article in press. Available online 6 January, 2016. Retrieved at March
15, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0019850115003259
Downey, J. (2007). Strategic analysis tools (Topic gateway series No. 34). Technical
Information Service, The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA).
Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/
ImportedDocuments/cid_tg_strategic_analysis_tools_nov07.pdf.pdf
Doyle, P. (2009). Value-based marketing: Marketing strategies for corporate growth and
shareholder value. Chichester: John Wiley.
Doyle, P., & Stern, P. (2006). Marketing management and strategy. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Dranove, D., Peteraf, M. A., & Shanley, M. (1998). Do strategic groups exist? An eco-
nomic framework for analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1029–1044.
Drejer, A., & Sorensen, S. (2002). Succeeding with sourcing of competencies in
technology-intensive industries. Benchmarking, 9(4), 388–408.
Dresner, H. (2008). Business intelligence competency centers (BICC): The catalyst for
business information excellence. White paper, Velaris. Retrieved at February 20, 2016,
from http://www.velarisconsulting.com/insights/velaris_whitepaper_bicc.pdf
Dresner, H. J., Buytendijk, F., Linden, A., Friedman, T., Strange, K. H., Knox, M., &
Camm, M. (2002). The business intelligence competency center: An essential business
strategy. Gartner Inc. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from https://www.gartner.
com/doc/358967/business-intelligence-competency-center-essential
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1988). The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review,
66(1), 45–53.
Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 95–102.
Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2002/08/the-discipline-
of-innovation
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory development. New York: The Free Press.
Dumas, M., Rosa, M. L., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. (2013). Fundamentals of business
process management. New York: Springer.
Duncan, W. J., Ginter, M. P., & Swayne, E. L. (1998). Competitive advantage and
organizational assessment. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 6–16.
Dunmore, M. (2002). Inside-out marketing how to create an internal marketing strat-
egy. London: Kogan Page Limited. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://
elibrary.kiu.ac.ug:8080/jspui/bitstream/1/550/1/Inside-Out%20Marketing%20
-%20How%20to%20Create%20an%20Internal%20Marketing%20Strategy.pdf
Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
Dutta, S., Geiger, T., & Lanvin, B. (2015). Insight report: The global information tech-
nology report 2015 ICTs for inclusive growth. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
References 519
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_

Global_IT_Report_2015.pdf
Duysters, G., & Hagedoorn, J. (2000). Core competencies and company performance
in the world-wide computer industry. Journal of High Technology Management
Research, 11(1), 75–91.
Dyson, R. G. (1990). Strategic planning: Models and analytical techniques. Chichester:
Wiley.
Dyson, R. G., & O’Brien, F. A. (1998). Strategic development: Methods and models.
Chichester/New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Easley, R. W., Madden, C. S., & Dunn, M. G. (2000). Conducting marketing science:
The role of replication in the research process. Journal of Business Research, 48(1),
article/pii/S0148296398000794
Eckerson, W. W. (2007). Beyond the basics: Accelerating BI maturity. TDWI Monograph
Series, Sponsored by SAP. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://
download.101com.com/pub/tdwi/Files/SAP_monograph_0407.pdf
Eckerson, W. (2011a). In-memory analysis: Delivering insights at the speed of thought.
BeyeNETWORK, Tech Target. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://www.
tableau.com/sites/default/files/whitepapers/in-memory-wayne-eckerson.pdf
Eckerson, W. (2011b). Analytic architectures: Approaches to supporting analytics users
and workloads. BeyeNETWORK, Tech Target. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from
http://www.beyeresearch.com/study/15068
Eckerson, W. (2013). Enterprise versus departmental BI: Pulling together instead of
apart. Tech Target Custom Media. Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://
www.sap.com/bin/sapcom/en_in/downloadasset.2013-10-oct-07-19.enterprise-
versus-departmental-bi-pulling-together-instead-of-apart-pdf.html
Economist. (1998). Business strategy: Past, present and future. The Economist
Newspaper Limited. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.economist.
com/node/168710
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (1998). Making strategy: The journey of strategic manage-
ment. London: Sage.
Edgar, W. B., & Lockwood, C. A. (2007). Organizational competencies: A content anal-
ysis (College of Business Administration Northern Arizona University, Working
Paper Series No. 01–07). Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://franke.nau.
edu/images/uploads/fcb/07-01(1).pdf
Edgar, W. B., & Lockwood, C. A. (2008). Organizational competencies: Clarifying the
construct. Journal of Business Inquiry, 7, 21–32. Retrieved at February 20, 2016,
from http://www.uvu.edu/woodbury/docs/jbi_v7_organizational_competencies.
pdf
Edgar, W. B., & Lockwood, C. A. (2010). Methodological tradeoffs in developing core
competence related theory: The value provision situation. Academy of Strategic
Management Journal, 9(1), 41–61. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://
www.alliedacademies.org/articles/asmjvol9no12010.pdf
Edgar, W. B., & Lockwood, C. A. (2012, April). Understanding, finding, and concep-
tualizing core competence depth: A framework, guide, and generalization for corpo-
rate managers and research professionals. Academy of Strategic Management Journal,
11(2), 72–85.
520 References
Edison Research. (2014). The social habit 2014. Edison Research in association with
Triton Digital. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.edisonresearch.
com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/the-social-habit-2014.pdf
EFQM. (2016). EFQM Model- Model Criteria. European Foundation for Quality
Management. Retrieved at January 30, 2016, from http://www.efqm.org/efqm-
model/model-criteria
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989, January). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. Retrieved at February 20, 2016,
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/258191.pdf?acceptTC=true
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they?
Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
EIU. (2006). The future of marketing: From monologue to dialogue. White paper,
Economist Intelligence Unit. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://graphics.
eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/Google_Future_of_Marketing_060907.pdf
EIU. (2007). Collaboration transforming the way business works: A report from the
Economist Intelligence Unit sponsored by Cisco systems. White paper. Retrieved at
February 10, 2016, from http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/CiscoCollab_1a.pdf
EIU. (2008). The role of trust in business collaboration: An Economist Intelligence Unit
briefing paper sponsored by Cisco systems. Economist Intelligence Unit, White paper.
Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/cisco_trust.
pdf
EIU. (2015). The rise of the marketer: Driving engagement, experience and revenue.
Marketo, The Economist Intelligence Unit. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://futureofmarketing.eiu.com/briefing/EIU_MARKETO_Marketer_WEB.
pdf
EIU. (2016). The future of marketing: Six visionaries speak, Marketo, A conversation
with the economist intelligence unit. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://cmo.
marketo.com/assets/Uploads/Marketo-The-Economist-Intelligence-Unit-the-
future-of-marketing.pdf
Ekerson, W. W. (2007). Best practices in operational BI—converging analytical and
operational processes. Third Quarter, TDWI Best Practices Report. Retrieved at
January 10, 2016, from http://tdwi.org/research/2007/07/bpr-3q-best-
practices-in-operational-bi.aspx?tc=page0
El-Ansary, A. I. (1979). The general theory of marketing revisited. In O. C. Ferrell,
S. W. Brown, & C. W. Lamb (Eds.), Conceptual and theoretical developments in mar-
keting (pp. 399–407). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Elg, U. (2003). Retail market orientation: A preliminary framework. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(2), 107–117. Retrieved at March
15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550310462001
Elliott, T. (2010). SAP business objects: The business intelligence future: Simple, seamless,
social, and strategic. SAP. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://assets.timoel-
liott.com/docs/uk_world_tour_bi_keynote.pdf
Elliott, T. (2014). Five top tips for agile analytics organizations. Weblog: Business
Analytics. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://timoelliott.com/
blog/2014/09/5-top-tips-for-agile-analytics-organizations.html#content
Elmuti, D., & Kathawala, Y. A. (2001). An overview of strategic alliances. Management
Decision, 39(3), 205–217. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/241223230_An_overview_of_strategic_alliances
References 521
Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial
returns. California Management Review, 45(4, Summer), 35–51. Retrieved at
January 10, 2016, from http://apsocialfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/
02/2003-emerson-blended-return1.pdf
Enis, B. M. (1973, October). Deepening the concept of marketing. Journal of
Ensign, P. C. (2006). International channels of distribution: A classification system
for analyzing research studies. Multinational Business Review, 14(3, Winter),
95–120.
Ericsson. (2015). Ten hot consumer trends 2016. ConsumerLab, Ericsson Consumer
Insight Summary Report. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.ericsson.
com/res/docs/2015/consumerlab/ericsson-consumerlab-10-hot-consumer-
trends-2016-report.pdf
ESOMAR. (2011). Global market research 2011, An ESOMAR industry report in coop-
eration with KPMG advisory. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from https://www.
esomar.org/uploads/industry/reports/global-market-research-2011/ESOMAR-
GMR-2011_Preview.pdf
eration with KPMG advisory. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from https://www.
esomar.org/uploads/industry/reports/global-market-research-2012/ESOMAR-
GMR-2012_Preview.pdf
eration with BDO accountants and advisors. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from
http://www.mrsnz.org.nz/webfiles/MarketResearchSocietyNZ/files/ESOMAR_
GMR2014_FullReport.pdf
Esteban, A., Millan, A., Molina, A., & Martin-Consuegra, D. (2002), Market orienta-
tion in service- a review and analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 36(9/10),
doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560210437307
Eunson, B. (2013). Communicating in the 21st century (Open University: modern art—
practices & debates). Milton: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Evans, H. M. (2015). Competitive intelligence. Financial Management Training Center.
Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://www.exinfm.com/training/pdfiles/
course12-1.pdf
Evelson, B. (2014). The Forrester Wave™: Agile business intelligence platforms, Q3 2014.
Forrester Research, Inc. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from https://www.sas.
com/content/dam/SAS/bp_de/doc/analystreport/ba-an-the-forrester-wave-
agile-business-intelligence-platforms-q3-2014-2314668.pdf
Evelson, B. (2015). The Forrester Wave™: Agile business intelligence platforms, Q3 2015.
Forrester. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://go.sap.com/docs/
download/2015/09/541ccd61-437c-0010-82c7-eda71af511fa.pdf
EY. (2013a). Five insights for executives; predictive analytics: The C-suite’s shortcut
to the business of tomorrow. Ernst & Young Global Limited. Retrieved at March 20,
2016, from http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Services/Advisory/Predictive-analytics-
shortcut-to-tomorrows-business---5-insights-for-executives-series
EY. (2013b). Five insights for executives; The future of decision-making: Using driver
analytics to improve insights and decisions. Ernst & Young Global Limited. Retrieved
522 References
at March 20, 2016, from http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/The_

future_of_decision_making/$FILE/The_future_of_decision_making.pdf
EY. (2014). Big risks require big data thinking. Global Forensic Data Analytics Survey,
Ernst & Young Global Limited (EYGM). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-Global-Forensic-Data-
Analytics-Survey-2014/$FILE/EY-Global-Forensic-Data-Analytics-Survey-2014.
pdf
EY. (2015). Megatrends 2015: Making sense of a world in motion. Ernst & Young Global
Limited. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.ey.com/Publication/
vwLUAssets/ey-megatrends-report-2015/$FILE/ey-megatrends-report-2015.pdf
EY. (2016a). Becoming an analytics-driven organization. Ernst & Young Global
Limited. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/
Business-environment/ey-analytics?utm_source=ey-insights&utm_medium=
web&utm_campaign=eycom
EY. (2016b). Making sense of a world in motion. Megatrend: Digital future, Ernst &
Young Global Limited. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.ey.com/
GL/en/Issues/Business-environment/ey-megatrends-that-will-shape-our-future-2-
digital-future?utm_source=ey-insights&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=eycom
Fabel, M. (2015). The future of strategy: A transformative approach to strategy for a
world that won’t stand still, future proof strategy. Presentation, Singapore. Retrieved
at March 20, 2016, from http://www.cariasean.org/downloads/MartinFabel-
Presentation.pdf
Fahey, L. (1999). Competitors: Outwitting, out maneuvering, and out performing.
New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc..
Fahy, J., & Smith, A. (1999). Strategic marketing and the resource based view of the
firm. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10, 18–27.
Fang, S.-R., Chang, E., Ou, C.-C., & Chou, C.-H. (2014). Internal market orienta-
tion, market capabilities and learning orientation. European Journal of Marketing,
48(1/2), 170–192.
FAO. (2014). Horizon scanning and foresight: An overview of approaches and possible
applications in Food Safety. Background paper 2, FAO Early Warning/Rapid Alert
and Horizon Scanning Food Safety Technical Workshop, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4061e.pdf
Farrell, M. (2002). A critique of the development of alternative measures of market
orientation. Marketing Bulletin,13, Article 3. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from
http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/V13/MB_V13_A3_Farrell.pdf
Farrell, M. A., & Oczkowski, E. (2002). Are market orientation and learning orienta-
tion necessary for superior organizational performance? Journal of Market-Focused
Management, 5, 197–217.
Felton, P. A. (1959, July–August). Making the marketing concept work. Harvard
Fernando, A. C. (2011). Business environment. New York: Pearson.
Ferrell, O. C., & Lucas, G. H. (1987). An evaluation of progress in the development of
a definition of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(3), 12–23.
Ferrell, O. C., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, G. T. M., & Maignan, I. (2010). From
market orientation to stakeholder orientation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
29(1, Spring), 93–96. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from https://global.broad.
msu.edu/hult/publications/jppm10.pdf
References 523
Feurer, R., & Chaharbaghi, K. (1994). Defining competitiveness: A holistic approach.

Management Decision, 32(2), 49–58.
Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S., & Schendel, D. (1991). Strategic reference point theory
(Working Paper No. 676, School of Business Administration, University of
Michigan). Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/
bitstream/handle/2027.42/35604/b1579381.0001.001.pdf?sequence=2
Fiegenbaum, A., Hart, S., & Schendel, D. (1996). Strategic reference point theory.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 219–235. Retrieved at February 20,
2016, from doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199603)17:3<219::AID-SMJ806>
3.0.CO;2-N
Fields, E. (2015). Top 10 business intelligence trends for 2016. ITProPortal. Retrieved at
March 20, 2016, from http://www.itproportal.com/2015/11/19/
top-10-business-intelligence-trends-for-2016/#ixzz42ZCtdeof
Fill, C., & Jamieson, B. (2006). Marketing communications. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
Business School Heriot-Watt University. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from
h t t p s : / / w w w. e b s g l o b a l . n e t / E B S / m e d i a / E B S / P D F s / M a r k e t i n g -
Communications-Course-Taster.pdf
Fisher, T. (2005). How mature is your data management environment? Business
Intelligence Journal, 10(3), 20–26. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.
tdan.com/view-articles/5831
Fisk, G. (1967). Marketing systems: An introductory analysis. New York: Harper and
Row.
Fisk, G., & Donald, F. D. (1967). Theories for marketing systems analysis. New York:
Harper and Row.
FitzRoy, P. T. (1998). The future of marketing—some personal observations. Australian
Marketing Journal, 6(1), 13–18. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www-
docs.fce.unsw.edu.au/marketing/amj_6_01_fitzroy.pdf
F-Jardon, C. M., & Gonzalez-Loureiro, M. (2013). Human capital as source for sus-
tained competitive advantages in SMEs: A core competencies approach. Economia-
Seria Management, 16(2), 255–276. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://
www.management.ase.ro/reveconomia/2013-2/5.pdf
Fleisher, C. S., & Bensoussan, B. E. (2003). Strategic and competitive analysis:
Methods and techniques for analyzing business competition. Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall.
Fleisher, C. S., & Bensoussan, B. E. (2007). Business and competitive analysis: Effective
application of new and classic methods. Upper Saddle River: FT press.
Fleisher, C. S., & Bensoussan, B. E. (2015). Business and competitive analysis: Effective
application of new and classic methods. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Forrester. (2014). Business-driven agile enterprise business intelligence (BI): Transforming
BI to get the best of both worlds. A Forrester consulting thought leadership paper com-
missioned by SAP, Forrester Research, Inc. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from
http://www.sap.com/bin/sapcom/en_us/downloadasset.2014-05-may-07-17.
business-driven-agile-enterprise-business-intelligence-pdf.bypassReg.html
Foxall, G. (1989). Marketing’s domain. European Journal of Marketing, 23(8), 7–22.
Franklin, D., & Andrews, J. (Eds.). (2012). Megachange: The world in 2050.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), The Economist. Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/store/
megachange.pdf
524 References
Frans. A. J., Van Den Bosch., & Wijk, Raymond Van. (2003). Creation of managerial
capabilities through managerial knowledge integration: A competence-based per-
spective, pp. 159–176, in Sanchez Ron (2003) Knowledge management and organi-
zational competence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Franz, P., & Kirchmer, M. (2013). Value-driven business process management: The value-
switch for lasting competitive advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Friedman, D. (2007). Discussion: Market theories evolve, and so do markets. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(2), 247–255. Retrieved at April 10, 2016,
Friedman, L. G., & Furey, T. R. (1999). The channel advantage. New York: Butterworth-
Heinemann/Routledge.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review,
24(193), 191–205.
Fuld, L. M. (1995). The new competitor intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Fullerton, R. (1988). How modern is modern marketing? Marketing’s evolution and
the myth of the “production era” Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 108–125. Retrieved
at March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251689
Galbraith, J. R. (1995). Designing organizations: An executive briefing based on strategy,
structure and process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Galbraith, J. R. (2008). Organization design. In T. G. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of
organization development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Galbraith, J. R. (2014). Organizational design challenges resulting from big data. Journal
of Organization Design, 3(1, Special issue: Big data and organization design), 2–13.
Gallagher, S., Brown, C., & Brown, L. (2008). A strong market culture drives organiza-
tional performance and success. Wiley Periodicals Inc. Published online in Wiley
InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from
http://www.marketculture.com/instant/documents/whitepapers/wp006%20
-%20Market%20Culture%20Drives%20Organizational%20Performance%20And%20
Success.pdf
Gantz, J., & Reinsel, D. (2012). The digital universe in 2020: Big data, bigger digital
shadows, and biggest growth in the Far East. International Data Corporation (IDC).
Retrieved at March 10, 2016 from https://www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-
reports/idc-the-digital-universe-in-2020.pdf
Garifova, L. F. (2015). Infonomics and the value of information in the digital economy.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 738–743. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S2212567115004232/1-s2.0-S2212567115004232-
main.pdf?_tid=2c3c0908-eacd-11e5-92a1-00000aacb361&acdnat=1458060443_0
c0c0922d2377deefadaf58f21b7ca35
Garimella, K., Lees, M., & Bruce, W. (2008). Business process management (BPM) basics
for dummies. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Retrieved at January 10, 2016,
from http://www.conganat.org/eurotelepath/wg1/bpm_for_dummies_sag_
tcm16-38185.pdf
Gartner. (2009). Finding your level of BI and performance management maturity: BI
and planning for midsize companies- introducing IBM Cognos Express. Indianapolis:
IBM publication.
Gartner. (2011). CEO advisory: ‘Big data’ equals big opportunity. Gartner, Inc. Retrieved
at March 10, 2016, from https://www.gartner.com/doc/1614215/ceo-advisory-
big-data-equals
Gartner. (2013). Gartner executive program survey of more than 2,000 CIOs shows digi-
tal technologies are top priorities in 2013. Gartner Executive Program, Gartner, Inc.
References 525
Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/

id/2304615
Gartner. (2015a). Flipping to digital leadership: Insights from the 2015 Gartner CIO
agenda report. Gartner Executive Programs. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
http://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/cio/pdf/cio_agenda_insights2015.pdf
Gartner. (2015b). IT glossary: Big data. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://
www.gartner.com/it-glossary/big-data
Gartner. (2016a). Gartner executive programs building the digital platform: Insights
from the 2016 Gartner CIO agenda report. Gartner. Retrieved at March 10, 2016,
from http://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/cio/pdf/cio_agenda_insights_2016.pdf
Gartner. (2016b). Infonomics. Gartner IT glossary. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/infonomics
Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J. (1997, February). Strategic orientation of the firm and new
product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 77–90.
Gatignon, H., Anderson, E., & Helsen, K. (1989). Competitive reactions to market
entry: Explaining interfirm differences. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 44–55.
Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.bm.ust.hk/mark/staff/Kris/
Kris-JMR-1989-Feb.pdf
GE Capital. (2012). Organizational culture: The effect of behavior on performance.
General Electric Capital Corporation. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://
www.gecapital.eu/en/docs/GE_Capital_Overview_Organizational_Culture.pdf
Georghiou, L., Cassingena, H. J., Keenan, M., Miles, I., & Popper, R. (2009). The
handbook of technology foresight: Concepts and practice (pime series on research and
innovation policy). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (1998). Decision support for supplier selection
using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. International
Journal of Production Economics, 56–57, 199–212.
Ghodyspour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (2001). The total cost of logistics in supplier selec-
tion, under conditions of multiple sourcing, multiple criteria and capacity constraint.
International Journal of Production Economics, 73(1), 15–27.
GIA. (2007). Market intelligence for the strategy and planning process. Global Intelligence
Alliance, White Paper No. 1.
GIA. (2010a). How to develop a world class market intelligence function. Global
Intelligence Alliance, White Paper No. 1. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
https://eprocure.kangean-energy.com/RFMS_File/118_MI.pdf
GIA. (2010b). MI trends 2015—the future of market intelligence. Global Intelligence
Alliance, White Paper No. 3. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.
rodans.com.br/mbactrl/UpLoad/52_36__mitrends2015_the_future_of_market_
intelligence.pdf
GIA. (2010c, June). Generating useful market intelligence for marketing and sales.
Global Intelligence Alliance. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.
globalintelligence.com/insights/all/generating-useful-market-intelligence-
for-marketing-and-sales#ixzz3Tft6OtYB
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., Jr., & Konopaske, R. (2012).
Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes. New York: McGraw-Hill/IRWIN.
Gibson, J., Ivancevich, J., & Konopaske, R. (2011). Organizations: Behavior, structure,
processes. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Gilad, T., & Gilad, B. (1986). Business intelligence: The quiet revolution. Sloan
Management Review, 27, 53–61.
526 References
Gilboa, I. (2010). Making better decisions: Decision theory in practice. West Sussex,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Gilligan, C., & Wilson, M. S. R. (2009). Strategic marketing planning. New York:
Routledge.
Gilmore, A., & Carson, D. (1996). Management competences for services marketing.
The Journal of Services Marketing, 10(3), 39–57.
Giordano, A. D. (2015). Performing information governance: A step-by-step guide to
making information governance work. International Business Machines Corporation,
Pearson PLC, IBM Press, US. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://ptgmedia.
pearsoncmg.com/images/9780133385656/samplepages/9780133385656.pdf
Gitman, L. J., & McDaniel, C. (2008). The future of business: The essentials. Mason:
Cengage Learning.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1996). What holds the modern company together? Harvard
Business Review, 9(3), 275–285.
Goggin, P. A. (1980). Technology and man: The nature and organization of technology in
modern society. Exeter: Wheaton.
Goldstucker, J. L., Barnett, A. G., & Danny, N. B. (1974). How scientific is marketing?
MSU Business Topics, 22, 35–43.
Gonzalez, M. (2001, September–October). Strategic alliance: The right way to compete
in the 21st century (Ivey Business School, Working Paper). Retrieved at February 25,
2016, from http://www.argonautaconsulting.com/strategic.pdf
Gonzalez-Benito, Ó., González-Benito, J., & Muñoz-Gallego, P. A. (2009). Role of
entrepreneurship and market orientation in firms’ success. European Journal of
org/10.1108/03090560910935550
Gordon, T. J., & Jerome, C. G. (2009). Chapter 2: Environmental scanning, in Glenn
Jerome C. and Gordon Theodore J., The millennium project: Futures research methodol-
ogy, Version 3.0. Available online at February 20, 2016, in http://www.millennium-
project.org/millennium/FRM-V3.html#toc
Gorelik, E. (2013). Cloud computing models (MIT, Sloan School of Management,
Working Paper CISL# 2013-01). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://web.
mit.edu/smadnick/www/wp/2013-01.pdf
Gounaris, S., Vassilikopoulou, A., & Chatzipanagiotou, K. C. (2010). Internal-market
orientation: A misconceived aspect of marketing theory. European Journal of
Marketing, 44(11/12), 1667–1699. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://
www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090561011079837
GPS. (2007). Building trust in strategic alliances: Enabling greater value. White Paper,
Gerlach, Porst & Steiner GmbH. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://
www.spibr.org/Building_trust_and_value_in_alliances.pdf
Grabo, C. M. (2004). Anticipating surprise: Analysis for strategic warning. Joint
Publication: Center for Strategic Intelligence Research and Defense Intelligence
Agency, USA. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.ni-u.edu/ni_
press/pdf/Anticipating_Surprise_Analysis.pdf
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications
for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135. Retrieved
at January 20, 2016, from https://cmr.berkeley.edu/search/articleDetail.
aspx?article=5074
Grant, R. M. (2013). Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and cases. New York: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References 527
Grant, R. M., & Jordan, J. (2012). The foundation of strategy. New York: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Gratton, S. (2016). BI 3.0: The journey to business intelligence, What does it mean?
Capgemini Consulting. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from https://www.capgem-
ini.com/blog/capping-it-of f/2012/07/bi-30-the-journey-to-business-
intelligence-what-does-it-mean
Gray, C. S. (2015). The future of strategy. Polity Press. Retrieved at March 20, 2016,
from http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0745687938.
html
Gray, B., & Stites, J. P. (2013). Sustainability through partnerships: Capitalizing on col-
laboration. Network for Business Sustainability (NBS), Ivey Business School,
Western University. Retrieved at February 25, 2016 from http://nbs.net/wp-
content/uploads/NBS-Systematic-Review-Partnerships.pdf. Available online from
http://nbs.net/knowledge
Gray, B., Matear, S., Boshoff, C., & Matheson, P. (1998). Developing a better measure
of market orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10), 884–903.
Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/
pdfplus/10.1108/03090569810232327
Greene, H. F. (1988). Competitive intelligence and the information center. Special
Libraries, 79(4), 285–295.
Greene, W. E., Walls, G. D., & Schrest, L. J. (1994). Internal marketing: The key to
external marketing success. Journal of Services marketing, 8(4), 5–13.
Greenley, G., & Foxall, G. (1998). External moderation of association among stake-
holder orientation and company performance. International Journal of Research in
Grefen, P., Mehandjiev, N., Kouvas, G., Weichhart, G., & Eshuis, R. (2007). Dynamic
business network process management in instant virtual enterprises. Retrieved at
February 25, 2016, from http://www.exus.co.uk/Documents2/BETA%20WP198.
pdf
Griffin, R. W. (2013). Management. Boston: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
Griffin, R. W. (2014). Organizational behavior : Managing people and organizations.
Boston: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2013). Organizational behavior: Managing people and
organizations. South-Western: Cengage Learning.
Griffith, T. L. (2011). The plugged-in manager: Get in tune with your people, technology,
and organization to thrive. Francisco: Jossey-Bass San.
Griffith, E. (2015). What is cloud computing? PCMag Digital Group. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372163,00.asp
Grigsby, M. (2015). Marketing analytics: A practical guide to real marketing science.
London: Kogan Page.
Grönroos, C. (1990). Marketing redefined. Management Decision, 28(8), 5–9.
Grossman, R. L. (2009). What is analytic infrastructure and why should you care?
SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 11(1), 5–9.
GSA. (2012, November). Major project ready: A guide to business collaborative contract-
ing for services industries and small business. Government of South Australian,
Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy, Report.
Retrieved at February 10, 2016, from http://www.statedevelopment.sa.gov.au/
upload/small-business/guide-to-business-collaborative-contracting.pdf
528 References
Guan, W. (2010). Developments in distribution channels—a case study of a timber prod-

uct distribution channel. Thesis, No. 1458, Department of Management and
Engineering, Linköping University. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://
liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:389738/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources
and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5),
397–420.
Güler, M. E. (2008). Incorporating multi-criteria considerations into supplier selection
problem using analytical hierarchy process: A case study. Journal of Yasar University,
3(12), 775–798.
Gummesson, E. (1998). Implementation requires a relationship marketing paradigm.
01, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1177%2F0092070398263006
Gunasekaran, A., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2005). Build-to-order supply chain management:
A literature review and framework for development. Journal of Operations
Management, 23, 423–451.
Guo, C. (2002). Market orientation and business performance: A framework for service
organization. European Journal of Marketing, 36(9/10), 1154–1163.
Gupta, N. J., & Benson, C. C. (2011). Sustainability and competitive advantage: An empir-
ical study of value creation. Competition Forum, 9(1), 121–136. Retrieved at March 20,
2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2037493
Gupta, S., & Polonsky, M. (2014). Inter-firm learning and knowledge-sharing in mul-
tinational networks: An outsourced organization’s perspective. Journal of Business
Research, 67, 615–622.
Guthrie, J. (2001). The management, measurement and the reporting of intellectual
capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(1), 27–41.
Habbegger, B. (2009). Horizon scanning in government: Concept, country experiences,
and models for Switzerland. Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich.
Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.bevoelkerungsschutz.admin.ch/
internet/bs/en/home/dokumente/Unterlagen_Risiken.parsys.0001150.down-
loadList.69578.DownloadFile.tmp/horizonscanningingovernment.pdf
Habermas, J. (1984). The philosophical discourse of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
Hagen, A. F., & Amin, S. G. (1995). Corporate executives and environmental scanning
activities: An empirical investigation. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 60(2),
241–248.
Hagerty, J. (2006). AMR research’s business intelligence/performance management
maturity model, Version 2. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.eurim.
org.uk/activities/ig/voi/AMR_Researchs_Business_Intelligence.pdf
Hahn, C. K., Kim, K. H., & Kim, J. S. (1986). Costs of competition: Implications for
purchasing strategy. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 22(3), 2–7.
Hajkowicz, S., Cook, H., & Littleboy, A. (2012). Our future world: Global megatrends
that will change the way we live. CSIRO Australia, Report No. EP126135. Retrieved
at March 10, 2016, from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:E
P126135&dsid=DS2
Hakansson, H., & Ford, D. (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal
of Business Research, 55, 133–139. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://www.research-
gate.net/publication/222395559_How_Should_Companies_Interact_in_Business_Networks
References 529
Hakansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in business networks.

Great Britain. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.344&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Halbert, M. H. (1964). The requirements for theory in marketing. In R. Cox,
W. Alderson, & S. J. Shapiro (Eds.), Theory in marketing (pp. 17–36). Homewood,
Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Halbert, M. (1965). The meaning and sources of marketing theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management
Journal, 13, 135–144.
Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustain-
able competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 607–618.
Hall, H. (2000). Online information sources: Tools of business intelligence? Journal of
Information Science, 26(3), 137–141. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://
www.iidi.napier.ac.uk/c/publications/publicationid/286704
Hambrick, D. C. (1982). Environmental scanning and organizational strategy. Strategic
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1989, May–June). Strategic intent (pp. 63–76). Boston:
Harvard Business Review.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (2013). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organizational
performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 30–45.
Hannabarger, C., Buchman, R., & Economy, P. (2007). Balanced scorecard strategy for
dummies. Indiana: Wiley Publishing. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://
stikessu.ac.id/file_ebook/ebooksclub.org__Balanced_Scorecard_Strategy_For_
Dummies__For_Dummies__Business__amp__Personal_Finance__.pdf
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1),
82–111.
Harmon, P., & Wolf, C. (2014). The state of business process management. A BPTrends
Report (www.bptrends.com). Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://www.
bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/uploads/BPTrends-State-of-BPM-Survey-Report.
pdf
Harris, L. C. (1996a). Benchmarking against the theory of market orientation.
Harris, L. C. (1996b). Cultural obstacles to market orientation. Journal of
Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 2(4), 36–52. Retrieved at March 15,
2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/EUM00
00000004135
Harris, L. C. (1998). Cultural domination: The key to market-oriented
culture? European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4), 354–373. Retrieved at
March 15, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/
03090569810204643
530 References
Harris, L. C. (2000). The organizational barriers to developing market orientation.

European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 598–624. Retrieved at March 15, 2016,
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2001). Leadership style and market orientation: An
empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 35(5/6), 744–764. Retrieved at
March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560110388196
Harris, L., & Piercy, N. (1997). Market orientation is free: The real costs of
becoming market-led. Management Decision, 35(1), 33–38. Retrieved at
March 15, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/
00251749710160160
Harris, L. C., & Piercy, N. F. (1999). A contingency approach to market
orientation: Distinguishing behaviors, systems, structures, strategies and perfor-
mance characteristics. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 617–646.
Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
abs/10.1362/026725799785037012
Harris, L. C., & Watkins, P. (1998). The impediments to developing a market orienta-
tion: An exploratory study of small UK hotels. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 10(6), 221–226. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09596119810232248
Hart, S., Tzokas, N., & Saren, M. (1999). The effectiveness of market information in
enhancing new product success rates. European Journal of Innovation Management,
2(1), 20–35.
Hassan, F. Q. (2011, January/February). Demystifying cloud computing. The
Journal of Defense Software Engineering, CrossTalk, Data Mining, 16–21. Retrieved
at March 10, 2016, from http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/702523/
10181434/1294788395300/201101-Hassan.pdf?token=pqwY4Dk1Jv%
2FSRQR3%2FlnTkizAF6Q%3D
Hatch, M. J. (1993, October). The dynamics of organizational culture. The Academy of
Management Review, 18(4), 657–693. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://
faculty.mu.edu.sa/public/uploads/1360756556.8339organizational%20cult90.pdf
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and
postmodern perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and
postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hatcher, D., & Prentice, B. (2004). The evolution of information management.
Business Intelligence Journal, 9(2), 49–56. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://www.mahmoudyoussef.com/BI/3.doc
HBR. (2006). Harvard business essentials, decision making: 5 steps to better results.
Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
HBR. (2011a). HBR’s 10 must reads on change management. Boston: Harvard Business
Review.
HBR. (2011b). HBR’s 10 must reads on leadership. Boston: Harvard Business Review
(HBR).
HBR. (2013a). HBR’s 10 must reads on making smart decisions. Boston: Harvard
Business Review/Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
HBR. (2013b). HBR’s 10 must reads on innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Review
Press.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard.
New York: Crown Publishing Group/Random House Business Book.
References 531
Hedin, H., Hirvensalo, I., & Vaarnas, M. (2014). The handbook of market intelligence
second edition understand, compete and grow in global markets. Hoboken: John Wiley
& Sons. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1002/9781119208082.fmatter/pdf
Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability
accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 339–360.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability
lifecycles dynamic capabilities deconstructed dynamic capabilities deconstructed
dynamic capabilities deconstructed. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10),
997–1010.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2009). Understanding dynamic capabilities:
Progress along a developmental path. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 91–102.
Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/
247733227_Understanding_Dynamic_Capabilities_Progress_Along_a_
Developmental_Path
Helfat, C., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D., & Winter, S.
(2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations.
Malden: Blackwell.
Henderson, B. D. (1983). The anatomy of competition. Journal of Marketing,
47(Spring), 8–11.
Herring, J. (1999). Key intelligence topics: A process to identify and define intelligence
needs. Competitive Intelligence Review, 10(2), 4–14.
Herring, J. (2002). KITs revisited- their use and problems. SCIP Online, 1(8). Retrieved
at March 20, 2016, from https://legacy.wlu.ca/documents/22432/04_Herring__
KITs_revisited.pdf
Herschel, R. T., & Jones, N. E. (2005). Knowledge management and business intelli-
gence: The importance of integration. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4),
45–55, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hertz, H. S. (1999). Criteria for performance excellence: Malcolm Baldrige national
quality award. Collingdale: Diane Pub Co.
Heuer, J. R., Jr. (1999). The psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington: Center for
the Study of Intelligence.
Hiatt, J., & Creasey, T. (2012). Change management: The people side of change. Loveland:
Prosci Learning Center Publications.
Hicyilmaz, T. (2011). What makes a world-class sales organization tick? Corporate
Executive Board (CEB). Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from https://www.ceb-
global.com/blogs/what-makes-a-world-class-sales-organization-tick/
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management,
and social issues: What’s the bottom line. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
125–139.
Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hitt, M. A. & Ireland, R. D. (1985, July–September). Corporate distinctive compe-
tence, strategy, industry and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3),
273–293. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.wiggo.com/mgmt8510/
readings/readings9/hitt1995smj.pdf
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2015). Strategic management: Concepts:
Competitiveness and globalization, 11th edition, chapter 3- The internal organization:
532 References
Resources, capabilities, core competencies and competitive advantages. South

Melbourne: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 286–316.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations:
Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Hohhof, B. (1994). Developing information systems for competitive intelligence sup-
port. Library Trends, 43(2, Fall), 226–238. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/7954/librarytrends-
v43i2f_opt.pdf?sequence=1
Holmberg, S. R., & Cummings, J. L. (2009). Building successful strategic alliances:
Strategic process and analytical tool for selecting partner industries and firms. Long
Range Planning, 42, 164–193. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://
www1.ethz.ch/entrepreneurship/education/lectures/Alliance_Advantage/
Processes_Holmberg_2009.pdf
Holmqvist, M., & Linde, T. (2011). The management of a distributor in a B2B perspec-
tive—a case study of Getinge AB. Thesis, Department of Business Administration
School of Economics and Management, Lund University. Retrieved at February 25,
2016, from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=
1981300&fileOId=2436044
Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000, November). A multiple-layer model of market-
oriented organizational culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes.
Journal of Marketing Research, XXXVII, 449–462. Retrieved at January 20, 2016,
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.456.9138&rep=
rep1&type=pdf
Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., Jr., & Jansen, O. (2000). Fundamental changes in mar-
keting organization: The movement toward a customer-focused organizational
structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 459–478. Available
online at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1177/0092070300284001.
Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from https://people.creighton.edu/~jpw60034/
Research/JAMS%202000%20Changes%20in%20Mktg%20Organization.pdf
Homburg, C., Krohmer, H., Workman, J. P., Jr. (2004). A strategy implementation
perspective of market orientation. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1331–1340.
Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti-
cle/pii/S0148296303000699
Homburg, C., Jozic, D., & Kuehnl, C. (2015, August 19). Customer experience man-
agement: Toward implementing an evolving marketing concept. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, published online, 1–25. Retrieved at March 15,
2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11747-015-0460-7
Hopkins, B., & Gillett, F. E. (2013). The top emerging technologies to watch: Now through
2018. Forrester. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://www.forrester.com/report/
The+Top+Emerging+Technologies+To+Watch+Now+Through+2018/-/E-
RES82721
Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2012). Competing for advantage.
Mason: Thomson/South-Western College Publication.
Hostmann, B. (2007, November). BI competency centers: Bringing intelligence to the
business (pp. 4–10). Business Performance Management. Retrieved at March 20,
2016, from http://www.wlu.ca/documents/31112/HSE_2008_Topic_5_
References 533
Dissemination_-_ Communicating_CI_Results_%26_Findings__Hostmann_
Competency_Centres___Bringing_Intelligence_to_the_Business.pdf
Hostmann, B., Nigel, R., & Friedman, T. (2006, October). Gartner’s business intelli-
gence and performance management framework. Gartner, Inc. Retrieved at March
20, 2016, from http://umsl.edu/~sauterv/DSS4BI/links/pdf/BI/gartners_busi-
ness_intelligen_142827.pdf
Hotchkiss, G. B. (1938). Milestones in marketing. New York: Macmillan.
Houston, F. S. (1986, April). The marketing concept: What it is and what it is not.
Howard, J. A. (1983). Marketing theory of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 47(Fall),
90–100.
Howard, J., & Jagdish, N. S. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John
Wiley.
Howson, C. (2008). Successful business intelligence: Secrets to making BI a killer applica-
tion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
HP. (2009). The HP business intelligence maturity model: Describing the BI journey.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://www.computerwoche.de/fileserver/idgwpcw/files/1935.pdf
HP. (2011). Five myths of cloud computing. Hewlett-Packard development company,
Business White Paper. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.hp.com/
hpinfo/newsroom/press_kits/2011/HPDiscover2011/DISCOVER_5_Myths_
of_Cloud_Computing.pdf
HP. (2012). Deliver the information business users need: Building the business intelligence
competency center. White paper, Hewlett-Packard Development Company,
L.P. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/get-
pdf.aspx/4AA3-3088ENW.pdf?ver=1.0
HP. (2014, February). Shift from data to insight: A new approach to business analytics.
Viewpoint paper, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, No. 4AA2-8647ENW,
Rev. 8. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www8.hp.com/h20195/V2/
getpdf.aspx/4AA2-8647ENW.pdf?ver=1.0
Hsieh, C.-T., Lai, F., & Shi, W. (2006). Information orientation and its impacts on
information asymmetry and e-business adoption- evidence from China’s interna-
tional trading industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(6), 825–840.
Huber, G. P. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on
organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management
Review, 15(1), 47–71.
Hughes, R. (2005, December 5–7). Broadening the boundaries: The development of mar-
keting thought over the past sixty years. ANZMAC (Australia and New Zealand
Marketing Academy) 2005 conference: Strategic Marketing and Market Orientation,
School of Business, University of Western Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia.
Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.anzmac.org/conference_
archive/2005/cd-site/pdfs/17-Strategic/17-Hughes.pdf
Hult, G., & Tomas, M. (2011). Toward a theory of the boundary-spanning marketing
organization and insights from 31 organization theories. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39, 509–536. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://link.
Hult, T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Slater, S. F. (2004). Information processing, knowledge
development, and strategic supply chain performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 47(2), 241–254.
534 References
Hult, T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Arrfelt, M. (2007). Strategic supply chain management:
improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge devel-
opment. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 1035–1052.
Hult, G., Tomas, M., Mena, J. A., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2011). Stakeholder
marketing: A definition and conceptual framework. Academy of Marketing Science
Review, 1, 44–65. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/art
icle/10.1007%2Fs13162-011-0002-5
Hunt, S. (1971). The morphology of theory and the general theory of marketing.
Hunt, S. D. (1976a). The nature and scope of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40,
17–28. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://sdh.ba.ttu.edu/JM76%20-%20
Nature%20and%20Scope.pdf
Hunt, S. D. (1976b). Marketing theory: Conceptualizations of research in marketing.
Ohio: Grid Publishing.
Hunt, S. D. (1983). Marketing theory: The philosophy of marketing science. Homewood:
Irwin.
Hunt, S. D. (1990). Truth in marketing theory and research. Journal of Marketing, 54,
1–15. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251812
Hunt, S. D. (1991a). Modern marketing theory: Critical issues in the philosophy of mar-
keting science. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co.
Hunt, S. D. (1991b, June). Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research:
Toward critical pluralism and rapprochement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18,
32–44.
Hunt, S. D. (1992, April). For reason and realism in marketing. Journal of Marketing,
56, 89–102.
Hunt, S. D. (1993, April). Objectivity in marketing theory and research. Journal of
Hunt, S. D. (1994). On rethinking marketing: Our discipline, our practice, our meth-
ods. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 13–25. Retrieved at March 30, 2016,
Hunt, S. D. (1997). Competing through relationships: Grounding relationship market-
ing in resource-advantage theory. Journal Marketing Management, 13, 1–15.
advantage theory. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Hunt, S. D. (2013). A general theory of business marketing: R-A theory, Alderson, the
ISBM framework, and the IMP theoretical structure. Industrial Marketing
Management, 42, 283–293. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.scien-
cedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019850113000217
advantage theory. New York: Routledge.
Hunt, B., & Ivergard, T. (2007). Organizational climate and workplace efficiency.
Public Management Review, 9(1), 27–47. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14719030600853501?journalC
ode=rpxm20
Hunt, S. D., & Lambe, J. C. (2000). Marketing’s contribution to business strategy:
Market orientation, relationship marketing and resource-advantage theory.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(1), 17–43. Retrieved at February
25, 2016, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2370.00029/
abstract.
References 535
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1997, October). Resource-advantage theory: A snake
swallowing its tail or a general theory of competition? Journal of Marketing, 60,
107–114.
Hunt, S. D., Muncy, J. A., & Ray, N. M. (1981). Alderson’s general theory of market-
ing: A formalization. In B. M. Enis & K. R. Roering (Ed.), Review of marketing
(pp. 267–272). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Hutchinson, K. D. (1952). Marketing as a science: An appraisal. Journal of Marketing,
16, 286–293.
Hwang, H.-S., Moon, C., Chuang, C., & Goan, M. (2005). Supplier selection and
planning model using AHP. International Journal of the Information Systems for
Logistics and Management, 1(1), 47–53.
IBM. (2005). Business performance management meets business intelligence. IBM
Redbooks. Available online at http://www.ibm.com/redbooks. Retrieved at
January 10, 2016, from http://thongtinkhcn.vinhlong.gov.vn/junkbox/Kinh+te/
Sach+kinh+doanh/Tieng+Anh/Business+Peformance+Management+....
Meet+Business+Intelligent.pdf
IBM. (2010b). A practical framework for business intelligence and planning in midsize
companies. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://www.ibm.com/midmarket/
uk/en/att/pdf/practicalframework.pdf
IBM. (2011). A step-by-step approach to successful business intelligence: featuring research
from Gartner. IBM Analytics. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://resources.
idgenterprise.com/original/AST-0066459_YTW03194CAEN.pdf
IBM. (2016). What is cloud computing? IBM Cloud, IBM Corporation. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://www.ibm.com/cloud-computing/what-is-cloud-
computing.html
IFC-WB. (2005). Stakeholder engagement: Part one- stakeholder identification and anal-
ysis. International Finance Corporation (IFC), World Bank (WB) Group. Retrieved
at February 25, 2016, from http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/
b720b30048855a0584e4d66a6515bb18/PartOne_StakeholderIdentification.
pdf?MOD=AJPERES
IMA. (1996a). Developing comprehensive competitive intelligence. Institute of
Management Accountants. Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://www.ima-
net.org/docs/default-source/thought_leadership/internal_measurement_sys-
tems/developing-comprehensive-competitive-intelligence.pdf?sfvrsn=2
IMA. (1996b). Statements on management accounting (business performance manage-
ment), developing comprehensive competitive intelligence. Institute of Management
Accountants.
IMA. (1996c). Value chain analysis for assessing competitive advantage (pp. 1–31).
Institute of Management Accountants (IMA). Retrieved at March 20, 2016 from
http://www.imanet.org/docs/default-source/thought_leadership/management_
control_systems/value_chain_analysis_for_assessing_competitive_advantage.
pdf?sfvrsn=2
IMA. (1996d). Tools and techniques for developing competitive intelligence, developing
comprehensive competitive intelligence (pp. 9–25). IMA (Institute of Management
Accountants). Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://www.imanet.org/PDFs/
Public/Research/SMA/Developing%20Comprehensive%20Competitive%20
Intelligence.pdf
IMD. (2015). Competitiveness and the global trends roadmap: 2015–2050. IMD World
Competitiveness Yearbook. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.imd.
org/uupload/imd.website/wcc/Road%20Map_2015.pdf
536 References
Informatica. (2011). Big data unleashed: Turning big data into big opportunities with
the informatica 9.1 platform. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.
informatica.com/downloads/1601_big_data_wp.pdf
Intel. (2013, March). Big data visualization: Turning big data into big insights the rise
of visualization-based data discovery tools. White paper, Intel IT center, No. 328729-
001EN. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.intel.com/content/dam/
www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/big-data-visualization-turning-big-
data-into-big-insights.pdf
Iriana, R. M. M., & Buttle, F. (2007). Strategic, operational, and analytical customer
relationship management: Attributes and measures. Journal of Relationship
Marketing, 5(4), 23–42. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from http://www.tandfon-
line.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J366v05n04_03
Isoraite, M. (2009a). Importance of strategic alliances in company’s activity. Intellectual
Economics, 5(1), 39–46. Retrieved at February 10, 2016, from https://www.mruni.
eu/upload/iblock/bca/Isoraite.pdf
Isoraite, M. (2009b). Theoretical aspects of marketing strategy. Ekonomika ir vadyba:
aktualijos ir perspektyvos, 1(14), 114–125. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from
http://www.su.lt/bylos/mokslo_leidiniai/ekonomika/09_01_14/isoraite.pdf
Ittner D. C., & Larcker, F. D. (2003, November). Coming up short on nonfinancial
performance measurement. Harvard Business Review, 81, 88–95.
Jackson, T. (2011). From cultural values to cross-cultural interfaces: Hofstede goes to
Africa. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(4), 532–558. Retrieved
at January 10, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534811111144656
Jackson, M. (2013a). Practical foresight guide, shaping tomorrow. Retrieved at March
20, 2016, from https://www.shapingtomorrow.com/media-centre/pf-complete.
pdf
Jackson, M. (2013b). Shaping tomorrow: Practical foresight guide, Chapter 4-scanning,
shaping tomorrow. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.shapingto-
morrow.com/media-centre/pf-ch04.pdf
Jacoby, J. M. (2006). Relationship between principals’ decision making styles and technol-
ogy acceptance & use. Doctoral thesis, University of Pitsburgh, Administration and
Policy Studies, The School of Education. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from
http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/6247/1/jacobyjm2_etdPitt2006.pdf
James, G., Ivancevich, J., & Konopaske, R. (2011). Organizations: Behavior, structure,
processes. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
James, L. (2013). Top 2013 business intelligence technology priorities. Online Published,
Yellowfin International Pty Ltd. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.
yellowfinbi.com/YFCommunityNews-Top-2013-Business-Intelligence-
technology-priorities-144393
Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S., & Finkelstein, A. (2009). Business network management as
a survival strategy: A tale of two software ecosystems. In Proceedings of the first inter-
national workshop on software ecosystems, CEUR-WS (pp. 34–48). Retrieved at
February 25, 2016, from http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/A.Finkelstein/papers/
twotale.pdf
Javalgi, G. R., Whipple, W. T., Ghosh, K. A., & Young, B. R. (2005). Market orienta-
tion, strategic flexibility, and performance: Implications for services providers.
Journal of Services Marketing, 19(4), 212–221.
Javidan, M. (1998). Core competence: What does it mean in practice? Long Range
Planning, 31(1), 60–71.
References 537
Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory:
An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26, 397–414.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993, July). Market orientation: Antecedents and con-
sequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.
Jaworski, B., Kohli, A. K., & Sahay, A. (2000). Market-driven versus driving markets.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 45–54. Retrieved at March 15,
2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1177%2F0092070300281005
Jaworski, B. J., Macinnis, D. J., & Kohli, A. J. (2002). Generating competitive intelli-
gence in organizations. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5, 279–307.
Available online at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3AJ
MFM.0000008071.19917.36. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from https://msb-
file03.usc.edu/digitalmeasures/macinnis/intellcont/competitive_intelligence02-1.
pdf
Jayachandran, S., Hewett, K., & Kaufman, P. (2004). Customer response capability in
a sense-and-respond era: The role of customer knowledge process. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 219–233. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1177%2F0092070304263334
Jebarajakirthy, C., Thaichon, P., & Yoganathan, D. (2015, July 31). Enhancing corpo-
rate social responsibility through market orientation practices in bottom of pyramid
markets: With special reference to microcredit institutions. Journal of Strategic
Marketing (published online), 1–20. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1063680
Jeston, J., & Nelis, J. (2008). Business process management. Hungary: Butterworth-
Heinemann (BH), Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://eli-
brary.com.ng/UploadFiles/file0_1659.pdf
Jeston, J., & Nelis, J. (2013). Business process management. New York: Routledge.
Jiang, X. (2009). Strategic management for main functional areas in an organization.
International Journal of Business and Management, 4(2), 153–157. Retrieved at
February 20, 2016, from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/arti-
cle/view/532/513
Jogaratnam, G., & Tse Ching-Yick, E. (2006). Entrepreneurial orientation and the
structuring of organizations: Performance evidence from the Asian hotel industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 454–468.
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (2011). Markets as networks: Implications for strategy
making. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 484–491. Retrieved at
February 20, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s11747-010-0235-0
Johnson, J. L., Sohi, R., & Grewal, R. (2004). The role of relational knowledge stores
in interfirm partnering. Journal of Marketing, 68, 21–36.
Jones, B., & Monieson, D. D. (1990). Early development of the philosophy of market-
ing thought. Journal of Marketing, 54, 102–113. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from
Jones Brian, D. G. (2013). Pauline Arnold (1894–1974): Pioneer in market research.
Jonker, R., Kooistra, F., Cepariu, D., van Etten, J., & Swartjes, S. (2011). Effective
master data management. Compact, KPMG. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from
https://www.kpmg.com/NL/nl/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/
Documents/PDF/IT-Risk-Consulting/Effective-master-data-management.pdf
538 References
Jurevicius, O. (2013). VRIO framework, strategic management insight. Retrieved at

March 20, 2016, from http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/vrio.
html
Kaden, R. J., Linda, G. L., & Prince, M. (Eds.). (2012). Leading edge marketing
research: 21st-century tools and practices. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kahn, B. E. (1998). Dynamic relationships with customers: High-variety strategies,
marketing in 21st century. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(1),
45–53. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.11
77%2F0092070398261005
Kale, P., & Singh, H. (2009, August). Managing strategic alliances: What do we know
now, and where do we go from here? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23,
45–62. Retrieved at February 10, 2016, from https://aom.org/uploadedFiles/
Publications/AMP/Aug09ManagingStrategicAlliancesbyKale.pdf
Kamel, A., Lakhder, D., & Ammar, Z. (2012). The organizational impacts of informa-
tion systems: Analysis and proposal of a methodological framework. British Journal
of Arts and Social Sciences, British Journal Publishing, Inc., 9(II), 229–239.
Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Alliance orientation:
Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(Summer), 324–340.
Kaplan, S. R. (2005). How the balanced scorecard complements the McKinsey 7S
model. Strategy & Leadership, 33(3), 41–46.
Kaplan, R. S. (2010). Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard (Harvard
Business School, Working Paper 10-074). Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-074.pdf
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992, January–February). The balanced scorecard:
Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 71–79.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1993). Putting the balanced scorecard to work.
Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 134–142.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced
scorecard companies thrive in the new competitive environment. Boston: HBS Press.
Kappos, A., & Rivard, S. (2008). A three-perspective model of culture, information
systems and their development and use. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 601–634.
Karpak, B., Kasuganti, R. R., & Kumcu, E. (1999). Multi-objective decision-making
in supplier selection: An application of visual interactive goal programming. The
Journal of Applied Business Research, 15(2), 57–71. Retrieved at February 25, 2016,
from http://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/JABR/article/view/5679/
5756
Katherine, M. (2015). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes.
Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Katz, R. L. (2009). Skills of an effective administrator (Harvard Business Review
Classics). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kaur, J. (2015). Internal marketing: Scale development and validation. The Journal of
Business Perspective, 19(3), 236–247.
Keen, M., Ackerman, G., Azaz, I., Haas, M., Johnson, R., Kim, J., & Robertson, P.
(2006). Patterns: SOA foundation—Business process management scenario. IBM-
International Technical Support Organization, Redbooks, International Business
Machines (IBM) Corporation. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://www.
redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg247234.pdf
Keith, R. (1994). The marketing revolution. Journal of Marketing, 24, 35–38.
References 539
Keller, J., & von der Gracht Heiko, A. (2014). ICT and the foresight infrastructure of
the future: Effects on the foresight discipline. World Future Review (WFR), 6(1),
40–47. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://wfr.sagepub.com/con-
tent/6/1/40.full.pdf+html
Kendall, N., & Kendall, A. (1998). Real world corporate governance—a programme for
profit enhancing stewardship. London: Financial Times, FT Pitman.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Marketing and organization theory:
Opportunities for synergy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 481–483.
Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s11747-011-0259-0
Ketchen, Jr., Hult, G. T. M., & Stanley, F. S. (2007). Toward greater understanding of
market orientation and the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal,
stable/20141960?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
KFKB-Kaplan Financial Knowledge Bank. (2014). Performance management. Retrieved
at January 30, 2016, from http://kfknowledgebank.kaplan.co.uk/KFKB/Wiki%20
Pages/Performance%20Management.aspx?mode=none
Khan, R. A., & Quadri, S. M. K. (2012). Business intelligence: An integrated approach.
Business Intelligence Journal, 5(1), 63–70. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from,
http://www.saycocorporativo.com/saycouk/bij/journal/vol5no1/article_7.pdf
Kilmann, J., Michael, S., Toma, A., & Zielinski, K. (2010). Demystifying organization
design: Understanding the three critical elements. Boston Consulting Group (BCG).
Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from https://www.bcg.com/documents/file50044.
pdf
Kim, Y. (2003). How will market orientation and environment and firm’s character
influence performance? Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,
10(4), 71–88. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/13527600310797702
Kim, K., & Frazier, G. L. (1996). A typology of distribution channel systems: A contex-
tual approach. International Marketing Review, 13(1), 19–32. Retrieved at February
King, A. W., & Zeithaml, C. P. (2001). Competencies and firm performance: Examining
the causal ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 75–99.
Kinicki, A., & Fugate, M. (2012). Chapter 2: Organizational culture, socialization, and
mentoring. In Organizational behavior: key concepts, skills & best practices (5th ed.,
pp. 30–55). McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://high-
ered.mheducation.com/sites/dl/free/0078137209/929877/Sample_Chapter.pdf
Kirca, A. H., & Hult, G. T. M. (2009). Intra-organizational factors and market orienta-
tion: Effects of national culture. International Marketing Review, 26(6), 633–650.
Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330911001323
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-
analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal
of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/30162043
Knecht, M. (2014). Diversification, industry dynamism, and economic performance: The
impact of dynamic-related diversification on the multi-business firm. Germany:
540 References
Springer Gabler Verlag. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.springer.

com/us/book/9783658026769
Ko, R. K. L., Lee, S. S. G., & Eng Wah, L. (2009). Business process management
(BPM) standards: A survey. Business Process Management Journal, 15(5),
744–791. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
14637150910987937
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research
propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.
Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market
orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(4), 467–477. Retrieved at March 15,
2016, from http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/x/jxb14/JMR/JMR1993-
4-467.pdf
Komatsu, H. (2006). An introduction to the theory of hyperfunctions. In Conference at
Katata (1971): Hyperfunctions and pseudo-differential equations (Lecture Notes in
Mathematics series, Vol. 287, pp. 3–40). Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0068144
Korhonen, S., & Niemeia, J. (2005). A conceptual analysis of capabilities: Identifying
and classifying sources of competitive advantage in the wood industry. Finish Journal
of Business Economics, 54(1), 11–47. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://lta.
hse.fi/2005/1/lta_2005_01_s1.pdf
Kossyva, D., Sarri, K., & Georgopoulos, N. (2014). Co-opetition: A business strategy
for SMEs in times of economic crisis. South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 1,
89–106. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/
issue22/issue22-kossyva.pdf
Koster, S. R. (2009). An evaluation method for business process management products.
Thesis Business Information Technology University of Twente, On behalf of:
Capgemini Nederland B.V. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://essay.
utwente.nl/59816/1/MA_thesis_S_Koster.pdf
Kothari, A., & Lackner, J. (2006). A value based approach to management. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(4), 243–249. Available online at January 20,
2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/088586
20610672614
Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36, 46–54.
Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing insights from A to Z: 80 concepts every manager needs to
know. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kotler, P. (2011). Philip Kotler’s contributions to marketing theory and practice. In
N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research: Special issue—marketing legends
(Review of Marketing Research, Vol. 8, pp. 87–120). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/
doi/abs/10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008007
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2013). Principles of marketing. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall.
Kotler, P. T., & Armstrong, G. (2015a). Principles of marketing. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. T., & Armstrong, G. (2015b). Principles of marketing. New York: Pearson.
Kotler, P. T., & Keller, K. L. (2015). Marketing management. New York: Pearson.
References 541
Kotler, P., & Sidney, J. L. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 33, 10–15. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/1248740
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2010). Marketing 3.0: From products to custom-
ers to the human spirit. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved at March 20,
2016, from http://manajemen-pemasaran.com/katalogmanajemen/2010%20-%20
(EBOOK)%20Marketing%2030-Hermawan%20KertajayaPhilip%20Kotler%20
Hermawan%20Kartajaya%20Iwan%20Setiawan.pdf
Kotter, J. P. (1995). The new rules how to succeed in today’s post-corporate world.
New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2007, January). Leading change why transformation efforts fail. Harvard
Business Review, 85, 96–103. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from https://hbr.
org/2007/01/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, USA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2015). The new rules: Eight business breakthroughs to career success in the
21st century. New York: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York:
Free Press.
Kovac, M., Chong, M., Umbeck, T., & Ledingham, D. (2015). Bought not sold:
Marketing and selling to digitally empowered business customers. Bain & Company,
Inc. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_
BRIEF_Bought_not_sold.pdf
KPMG. (2013). Future state 2030: The global megatrends shaping governments. KPMG
international. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.kpmg.com/GI/
en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Publicationseries/Documents/future-
state-2030.pdf
KPMG. (2014a). Going beyond the data: Achieving actionable insights with data and
analytics (D & A). KPMG Capital. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from https://
www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/Ar ticlesPublications/
Documents/going-beyond-data-and-analytics-v4.pdf
KPMG. (2014b). Technology industry outlook: The next data-driven future.
KPMG. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.kpmginfo.com/industry-
outlooksurveys/2014/pdfs/2014TechnologyIndustryOutlook1.pdf
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2012). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. (2012). Customer relationship management: Concept, strat-
egy, and tools. Berlin: Springer.
Kumar, R. K., Thomas, H., & Fiegenbaum, A. (1990). Strategic groupings as competi-
tive benchmarks for formulating future competitive strategy: A modeling approach.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 11, 99–109.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L., & Kotler, P. (2000). From market driven to market driving.
European Management Journal, 18(2), 129–142. Retrieved at March 15, 2016,
Kumar, K., Subramanian, R., & Strandholm, K. (2001). Competitive strategy, environ-
mental scanning and performance: A context specific analysis of their relationship.
International Journal of Commerce and Management, 11(1), 1–33. Retrieved at
March 20, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb047413
542 References
Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and

exploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 219–240.
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competi-
tive advantage: A competency-based perspective. Academy of Management Review,
19(4), 699–727. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://ejournal.narotama.
ac.id/files/Human%20resource%20systems%20and%20sustained%20competi-
tive%20advantage.pdf
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Wright, P. (1992). A competency-based model of sustain-
able competitive advantage: Toward a conceptual integration. Journal of Management,
18(1), 77–91. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://jom.sagepub.com/con-
tent/18/1/77.full.pdf+html
Lafferty, A. B., & Hult, G. T. M. (2001). A synthesis of contemporary market orienta-
tion perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 92–109. Retrieved at
pdfplus/10.1108/03090560110363364
Lake, P., & Drake, R. (2015). Information systems management in the big data era
(advanced information and knowledge processing). Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing.
Lam, S. K., Kraus, F., & Ahearne, M. (2010). The diffusion of market orientation
throughout the organization: A social learning theory perspective. Journal of
Marketing, 74(5), 61–79. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.61
Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance competence, resources,
and alliance success: Conceptualization, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141–158.
Lamberson, L. R., Diederich, D., & Wuori, J. (1976). Quantitative vendor evaluation.
Lambert, D. M. (2014). Supply chain management: Processes, partnerships, performance.
Sarasota: Supply Chain Management Institute.
Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply chain management
implementation issues and research opportunities. International Journal of Logistics
Management, 9(2), 1–18.
Lambert, D. M., Garcia-Dastugue, S. J., & Croxton, K. L. (2005). An evolution of
process-orientated supply chain management frameworks. Journal of Business
Logistics, 26(1), 25–51.
Lambin, J.-J. (2007). Market-driven management: Strategic and operational marketing.
China: Palgrave McMillan.
Lambin, J.-J., & Schuiling, I. (2012). Market-driven management: Strategic and opera-
tional marketing. China: Palgrave McMillan.
Lancaster, G., & van der Velden, H. (2004). The influence of employee characteristics
on market orientation. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 22(5),
doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02652320410549656
Laney, D. (2001). 3D data management: Controlling data volume, velocity, and variety.
META Group. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://blogs.gartner.com/
doug-laney/files/2012/01/ad949-3D-Data-Management-Controlling-Data-
Volume-Velocity-and-Variety.pdf
References 543
Laney, D. (2011, July 13–15). Infonomics: The economics of information and principles
of information asset management (pp. 590–603). The Fifth MIT Information
Quality Industry Symposium, Deloitte Development LLC. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://mitiq.mit.edu/IQIS/Documents/CDOIQS_
201177/Papers/05_01_7A-1_Laney.pdf
Laney, D. (2012a). Infonomics: The practice of information economics. Forbes. Retrieved
at March 10, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/gartner-
group/2012/05/22/infonomics-the-practice-of-information-economics/
Laney, D. (2012b). Information economics, big data and the art of the possible with ana-
lytics (Presentation). Gartner, Inc. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://
www-950.ibm.com/events/wwe/grp/grp037.nsf/vLookupPDFs/Gartner_
Doug-%20Analytics/$file/Gartner_Doug-%20Analytics.pdf
Laney, D. (2013). Infonomics: The new economics of information. Financial Times
(FT). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.ft.com/intl/
cms/s/0/205ddf5c-1bf0-11e3-b678-00144feab7de.html#axzz42hkIryie
Laney, D. (2015). Infonomics: The new economics of information (Chapter Five). In
D. Laney (Ed.), Big data: Big data means big business. Gartner Inc., Financial Times
(FT). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/
e91a32d0-2bac-11e3-bfe2-00144feab7de.pdf
Laney, D., & Beyer, M. (2015). Big data strategy essentials for business and IT (Chapter
Four). In D. Laney (Ed.), Big data: Big data means big business. Gartner Inc.,
Financial Times (FT). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://im.ft-static.com/
content/images/e91a32d0-2bac-11e3-bfe2-00144feab7de.pdf
Laney, D., Linden, A., Buytendijk, F., White, A., Beyer, M. A., Chandler, N., Sussin, J.,
Heudecker, N., & Adrian, M. (2014). Answering big data’s 10 biggest vision and
strategy questions. Gartner. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.gart-
ner.com/doc/2822220?srcId=1-3132930041
Laney, D., LeHong, H., & Lapkin, A. (2015). What big data means for business
(Chapter 1). In D. Laney (Ed.), Big data: Big data means big business. Gartner Inc.,
Financial Times (FT). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://im.ft-static.com/
content/images/e91a32d0-2bac-11e3-bfe2-00144feab7de.pdf
Langley, A. (1991). Formal analysis and strategic decision making. OMEGA (The
International Journal of Management Science), 19, 79–99.
Larcker, D., & Tayan, B. (2013). A real look at real world corporate governance. Stanford,
USA: Larcker-Tayan.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
LaValle, S. (2009a, November). Breaking away with business analytics and optimization:
New intelligence meets enterprise operations. IBM, Institute for Business Value.
Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/fcgi-
bin/ssialias?infotype=PM&subtype=XB&appname=GBSE_GB_TI_USEN&htmlfid
=GBE03263USEN&attachment=GBE03263USEN.PDF
LaValle, S. (2009b). Business analytics and optimization for the intelligent enterprise,
Executive Report. IBM Institute for Business Value, IBM Global Business Services,
IBM Corporation. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www-05.ibm.com/
de/services/bao/pdf/gbe03211-usen-00.pdf
LaValle, S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., Hopkins, M., & Kruschwitz, N. (2011). Big data,
analytics and the path from insights to value. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(2),
544 References
21–31. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/

big-data-analytics-and-the-path-from-insights-to-value/
Lavidge, R. J., & Gary, A. S. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertis-
ing effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25, 59–62. Retrieved at February 25, 2016,
from https://archive.ama.org/archive/ResourceLibrary/JournalofMarketing/
documents/6738830.pdf
Lavoix, H. (2010). What makes foresight actionable: The cases of Singapore and Finland.
U.S. Department of State Commissioned Report. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from
h t t p : / / w w w. a c a d e m i a . e d u / 6 4 4 7 6 4 / W h a t _ m a k e s _ f o r e s i g h t _
actionable_the_cases_of_Singapore_and_Finland._Government_commissioned_
report_2010_
Lavoix, H. (2012). Horizon scanning and monitoring: Definition and practice. The Red
(Team) Analysis Society. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from https://www.redan-
alysis.org/2012/06/22/horizon-scanning-and-monitoring-for-
anticipation-definition-and-practice/
Law, P. J. S. (1984). The literature of marketing. In K. D. C. Vernon (Ed.), Information
sources in management and business (pp. 269–282). London: Butterworth.
Layton, R. A. (2011). Towards a theory of marketing systems. European Journal of
org/10.1108/03090561111095694
Lazer, W. (1967). Philosophic aspects of the marketing discipline. In E. J. Kelly &
W. Lazer (Eds.), Managerial marketing: Perspectives and viewpoints (pp. 718–724).
Homewood: Irwin.
Learned, E. P., Christensen, C. R., Andrews, K. R., & Guth, W. (1969). Business policy.
Homewood: Irwin.
Lee, E. (1996). The handbook of channel marketing—innovators and early-adopters edi-
tion. Edwin Lee. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.elew.com/
Handbook%20of%20Channel%20Marketing.pdf
Lee, J.-Y., Kozlenkova, I. V., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Structural marketing: Using
organizational structure to achieve marketing objectives. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43, 73–99.
Lehman, D. J., & Winer, R. S. (2007). Analysis for marketing planning. New York:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Lehmann, D., McAlister, L., &Staelin, R. (2010). Sophistication in research in market-
ing (Working paper). New York: Columbia University.
Leidner, D. E., & Elam J. J. (1995). The impact of executive information systems on
organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Organization Science, 6(6),
645–664. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/2635027
Leisen, B., Lilly, B., & Winson, R. D. (2002). The effects of organizational culture and
market orientation on the effectiveness of strategic marketing alliances. Journal of
Services Marketing, 16(3), 201–222.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in manag-
ing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.
Leszinski, R., & Marn, M. V. (1997). Setting value, not price. McKinsey Quarterly,
McKinsey & Company Insights & Publications. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/marketing_sales/setting_value_not_price
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). Learning myopia. Strategic Management
Journal, 14, 95–112.
References 545
Levitt, T. (1960, July/August). Marketing myopia. Harvard Business Review, 45–56.

Levitt, T. (1984, February). Marketing and its discontents. Across the Board, 42–48.
Levy, H. (2015). Top 10 technology trends signal the digital Mesh. Gartner. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/
top-ten-technology-trends-signal-the-digital-mesh/
Lidija, B., & Hisrich, R. D. (2014). Dynamic capabilities vs. innovation capability: Are
they related? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(3), 368–384.
Available online in http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-02-2014-0018
Lilien, G., & Rangaswamy, A. (2006). Marketing decision support models; The market-
ing engineering approach (chapter 12). In R. Grover & M. Vriens (Eds.), The hand-
book of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.garylilien.info/
publications/Handbook%20of%20Mktg%20Research-Chpt%2012.pdf
Lilien, G., Rangaswamy, A., van Bruggen, G. H., & Wierenga, B. (1999). Bridging the
marketing theory-practice gap with marketing Engineering. Institute for the Study of
Business Markets (ISBM) Report 19, The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved
at February 20, 2016, from http://isbm.smeal.psu.edu/isbm_smeal_psu_edu/
library/working-paper-articles/1999-working-papers/19-1999-bridging-t he-
marketing-theory-practice.pdf
Lilien, G. L., Rangaswamy, A., & Arnaud, D. B. (2012). Principles of marketing
Engineering. State College, USA: DecisionPro.
Lin, H. (2012). An integrated model for supplier selection under a fuzzy situation.
International Journal of Production Economics, 138, 55–61.
Linden, A. (2014). Key trends and emerging technologies in advanced analytics. Gartner,
Webinar. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/webi-
nar/2845518/player?commId=126769&channelId=5500&srcId=1-2973089105
Lindgren, M., & Bandhold, H. (2003). Scenario planning: The link between future and
strategy. Great Britain (UK): Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved at March 20, 2016,
from www.foresightfordevelopment.org/sobipro/download-file/46-525/54
Lindgren, R., Stenmark, D., & Ljungberg, J. (2003). Rethinking competence systems for
knowledge-based organizations. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 18–29.
Lings, I. N. (1999). Balancing internal and external market orientations. Journal of
Lings, N. I. (2004). Internal market orientation-construct and consequences. Journal
of Business Research, 57, 405–413.
Lings, I. N., & Greenley, G. E. (2005). Measuring internal market orientation. Journal
of Service Research, 7(3), 290–305.
Lings, I. N., & Greenley, G. E. (2009). The impact of internal and external market
orientations on firm performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17(1), 41–53.
Lings I. N., & Greenley, G. E. (2010). Internal market orientation and market-oriented
behaviors. Journal of Service Management, 21(3), 321–343. Retrieved at March 15,
2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564231011050788
Litan, D., Mocanu, A.-M., Olaru, S., & Apostu, A. (2010). Modern information tech-
nologies used in market research. In F. Rivas-Echeverria & G. Mousalli-Kayat (Eds.),
Advances in computational intelligence, man-machine systems and cybernetics
(pp. 245–250).WSEAS (World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society)
Press. ISBN: 978-960-474-257-8. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.
wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2010/Merida/CIMMACS/CIMMACS-37.pdf
546 References
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Liu, H. (1996). Patterns of market orientation in UK manufacturing companies.
Journal of Euro-Marketing, 5(2), 77–91. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J037v05n02_05?journalCode=wjem20
Liu, H.-K. (2014). Experimental and theoretical aspects of quantum teleportation.
Center for Engineering Science Advanced Research. Retrieved at March 10, 2016,
from http://web.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/pres/107480_.pdf
Livari, J. (1992). The organizational fit of information systems. Information Systems
Journal, 2(1), 3–29. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2575.1992.tb00064.x/abstract
Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., & Li, Q. P. (2009). Knowledge communication and
translation—a knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3),
118–131.
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage:
HR’s strategic role. SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management), Research
Quarterly. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.shrm.org/Research/
Articles/Articles/Documents/07MarResearchQuarterly.pdf
Lopez, S. (2014). Value-based Marketing Strategy. Delaware, USA: Vernon Press.
Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). A seamless supply chain manage-
ment model for construction. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
9(1), 43–56.
Lowe, S., Carr, A. N., & Thomas, M. (2004). Paradigmapping marketing theory.
European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 1057–1064. Retrieved at April 10, 2016,
Lucas, M. (2000). Understanding business: Environments. London: Routledge.
Ludicke, M. (2006). A theory of marketing: Outline of a social systems perspective. Doctor
of Business Administration Dissertation, University of St. Gallen, Graduate School
of Business Administration, Economics, Law and Social Sciences (HSG), No. 3169,
Publisher: DUV, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from
http://www1.unisg.ch/www/edis.nsf/SysLkpByIdentifier/3169/$FILE/
dis3169.pdf
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lum Richard, A. K. (2016). 4 Steps to the future: A quick and clean guide to creating
foresight. Honolulu: Vision Foresight Strategy LLC.
Luo, Y. (1999). Dimensions of knowledge: Comparing Western and Asian MNEs in
China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 16(1), 75–93.
Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006, April). Cross-functional “Coopetition”:
The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of
Marketing, 70, 67–80. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://kelley.iu.edu/
Faculty/Marketing/rslotegr/publications/Luo_Slotegraaf_Pan2006.pdf
Luo, X., Rindfleisch, A., & Tse, D. K. (2007, February). Working with rivals: The
impact of competitor alliances on financial performance. Journal of Marketing
Research, 44, 73–83.
Luthans, F., Luthans, B. C., & Luthans, K. W. (2015). Organizational behavior: An
evidence-based approach. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing (IAP).
Lynn, L. M., Lytle, S. R., & Bobek, S. (2000). Service orientation in transitional mar-
kets: Does it matter? European Journal of Marketing, 34(3/4), 279–298.
Lytle, S. R., & Timmerman, E. J. (2006). Service orientation and performance: An
organizational perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(2), 136–147.
References 547
MacInnis, D. J. (2011, July). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing.

Journal of Marketing, 75, 136–154. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://
msbfile03.usc.edu/digitalmeasures/macinnis/intellcont/61237675-1.pdf
MacLachlan, A. (1995). Trusting outsiders to do your research: How does industry
learn to do it? Research Technology Management, 38(6), 48–53.
Madu, B. C. (2012, March). Organization culture as driver of competitive advantage.
Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 5. Academic and Business Research Institute
(ABRI). Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://www.aabri.com/manu-
scripts/11791.pdf
Mahmoud, M. A., & Yusif, B. (2012). Market orientation, learning orientation, and the
performance of nonprofit organizations (NPOs). International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 61(6), 624–652. Retrieved at March
Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability
views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387–401.
Makhija, M. (2003). Comparing the resource-based and market-based views of the
firm: Empirical evidence from Czech privatization. Strategic Management Journal,
24(5), 433–451. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/10.1002/smj.304/abstract
Maklan, S., Knox, S., & Ryals, L. (2015). Extending the marketing concept. (Cranfield
School of Management Working Paper, SWP 1/02). Retrieved at March 10, 2016,
from http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/research/docu-
ments/swp102stanmaklanetal.pdf
Malgorzata, P. (2010). Infonomics for distributed business and decision-making environ-
ments: Creating information system ecology. Hershey: IGI Global.
Malone, M. (2016, February 22). The big-data future has arrived. The Wall
Street Journal (WSJ). Republished in businessintelligence.com. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-big-data-future-has
-arrived-1456184869
Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (2000). Reducing marketing’s conflict with other functions:
The differential effects of integrating mechanisms. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28(4), 479–492.
Manicas, P. T. (1987). A history of philosophy of the social sciences. New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Mankins, M. C., & Sherer, L. (2014). Using predictive analytics to clone your best deci-
sion makers. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.bain.com/Images/
Decision_Insights_16_Using_prescriptive_analytics.pdf
Mansfield, R. S. (1996). Building competency models: Approaches for HR profession-
als. Human Resource Management, 35(1), 7–18.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., & Byers, A. H.
(2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity.
McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.mckin-
sey.com/insights/business_technology/big_data_the_next_frontier_for_innovation
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 1(2), 71–86.
Marland, J., Spasser, R., Khan, I., & Overby, S. (2014). Business networks: The platforms
for future innovation. Inquiry, No. 52, SAP Future of Business. Retrieved at February
25, 2016, from http://www.sap.com/bin/sapcom/en_us/downloadasset.2014-
548 References
08-aug-08-20.business-networks-the-platforms-for-future-innovation-pdf.bypass-
Reg.html
Marquit, E. (1995). Philosophy of technology, encyclopedia of applied physics (Vol. 13,
pp. 417–29). Weinheim: VCH Publishers. Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from http://
www.tc.umn.edu/~marqu002/techphil.html
Marr, B. (2015a). Big data: Using smart big data, analytics and metrics to make better
decisions and improve performance. Chichester: Wiley.
Marr, B. (2015b). Key performance indicators for dummies for dummies a Wiley brand.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Marr, B. (2015c). Why only one of the 5 Vs of big data really matters. IBM Big Data &
Analytics Hub, IBM Corporation. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.
ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/why-only-one-5-vs-big-data-really-matters
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Martina, K., Hana, U., & Jiri, F. (2012). Identification of managerial competencies in
knowledge-based organizations. Journal of Competitiveness, 4(1), 129–142.
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.cjournal.cz/files/90.pdf
Marx, K. (1946). Capital. New York: Everyman’s Library.
Mason, E. S. (1939). Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. American
Economic Review, 29(1, Suppl), 61–74.
Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2010). Human resource management. Mason: South-
Western Cengage Learning.
Mathis, R. L., Jackson, J. H., & Valentine, S. R. (2014). Human Resource Management.
Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. T. (2000). The effects of strategy type on the market
orientation-performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 1–16. Retrieved
at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.1.18078
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Özsomer, A. (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial
proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing,
stable/3203452
Mavondo, T. F., Chimhanzi, J., & Stewart, J. (2005). Learning orientation and market
orientation relationship with innovation, human resource practices and performance.
European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1235–1263.
Maximini, D. (2015). Chapter 2: Organizational culture models, in the scrum culture:
Introducing Agile methods in organizations (Management for Professionals Series,
pp. 9–25). Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Retrieved at January 20,
2016, from http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_download
document/9783319118260-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1488863-p177004790
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Lado, N. (2003). Market orientation and business economic
performance: A mediated model. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 14(3), 284–309. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/09564230310478837
Maynard, H. H., & Theodore, N. B. (1939). Principles of marketing. New York:
Ronald.
MBI. (2016a). Cloud mobile BI: The power of BI, where it’s needed. Matillion business
intelligence, Matillion Ltd. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.matil-
lion.com/insight/cloud-mobile-bi-the-power-of-bi-where-its-needed/
References 549
MBI. (2016b). Data visualization crucial to your BI success. Matillion business intelli-
gence, Matillion Ltd. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.matillion.
com/insight/data-visualization-crucial-to-your-bi-success/
MBI. (2016c). Gartner predicts widespread access to self-service business intelligence by
2017. Matillion business intelligence, Matillion Ltd. Retrieved at March 20, 2016,
from http://www.matillion.com/insight/gartner-predicts-widespread-access-to-
self-service-business-intelligence-by-2017/
MBI. (2016d). Power to the people: Self-service BI and the democratization of analytics.
Matillion business intelligence, Matillion Ltd. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://www.matillion.com/insight/power-to-the-people-self-ser vice-
bi-and-the-democratisation-of-analytics/
McAfee, A. (2009). Enterprise 2.0: New collaborative tools for your organization’s tough-
est challenges (1st ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
McAfee, A. (2010). The future of decision making: Less intuition, more evidence.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://hbr.
org/2010/01/the-future-of-decision-making/
McCarthy, E. J. (1960). Basic marketing: A managerial approach. Homewood: Irwin.
McClinton, P. (2015). Strategic management analysis tools: A review of the Literature.
Liberty University, academia.edu. Retrieved at January 30, 2016, from http://www.
academia.edu/7055342/Strategic_Management_Analysis_Tools
McClure, R. E. (2010). The influence of organizational culture and conflict on market
orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(7), 514–524. Retrieved
at March 15, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/
abs/10.1108/08858621011077745
McCourtie, S. D. (2013). Micro, small, and medium enterprise (MSME) finance. World
Bank. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/
results/2013/04/05/msme-finance-expanding-opportunities-and-creating-jobs
McDonald, M., & Christopher, M. (2003). Marketing a complete guide. New York:
Palgrave MacMillan. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from https://he.palgrave.com/
page/detail/?sf1=barcode&st1=9781403937414
McDonald, M., Mouncey, P., & Maklan, S. (2014). Marketing value metrics: A new
metrics model to measure marketing effectiveness. London: Kogan Page, CPI Group.
McGahan, A. M., & Porter, M. (1997). How much does industry matter, really?
Strategic Management Journal, 18(Summer special issue), 15–30.
McGonagle, J. J., & Vella, C. M. (1999). The internet age of competitive intelligence.
New York: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc..
McKinnon, C. (2015). ECM in 2020: The extended enterprise means a new vision for
enterprise content management. Forrester. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
https://www.forrester.com/report/ECM+In+2020+The+Extended+Enterprise+
Means+A+New+Vision+For+Enterprise+Content+Management/-/E-RES78001
McKinsey. (2008). Enduring ideas: Classic McKinsey frameworks that continue to inform
management thinking. McKinsey Quarterly, McKinsey and Company. Retrieved at
February 25, 2016, from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/
enduring_ideas_classic_mckinsey_frameworks_that_continue_to_inform_manage-
ment_thinking
McLeod, R., Jr., & Rogers, J. 2001. Marketing information system: Uses in the fortune
500. California Management Review, 25(1), 206–118.
McMaster, M. D. (1996). The intelligence advantage: Organizing for complexity.
Newton: Butterworth-Heinemann.
550 References
McMillan, E. (2002). Considering organization structure and design from a complexity

paradigm perspective. In G. Frizzelle & H. Richards (Eds.), Tackling industrial com-
plexity: The ideas that make a difference. Cambridge: Institute of Manufacturing,
University of Cambridge.
McMillan, E. (2006). Complexity, organizations and change: An essential introduction.
McNamee, P., Greenan, K., & McFerran, B. (1999). The competitive analysis model: A
new approach to strategic development for small businesses. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 6(2), 125–148.
McNaughton, R. B., Osborne, P., Morgan, R. E., & Kutwaroo, G. (2001). Market
orientation and firm value. Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 521–542.
Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
abs/10.1362/026725701323366917
McWilliams, A., & Smart, L. D. (1993). Efficiency v. structure-conduct-performance:
Implications for strategy research and practice. Journal of Management, 19(1),
63–78.
Meer, D. (2012). A new way to gain customer insights. Strategy + Business, (Spring, 66).
Retrieved at January 30, 2016, from http://www.strategy-business.com/media/
file/00092-New-Way-to-Gain-Customer-Insights.pdf
Meer, D., & Dasgupta, A. (2013). Driving analytics into action: How to enable business
decisions with “big data” and analytics. Strategy and, Booz and Company,
PwC. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.strategyand.PwC.com/
media/file/Strategyand_Driving-analytics-into-action.pdf
Mela, C. F., Roos, J., & Deng, Y. (2013). Invited paper—a keyword history of market-
ing science. Marketing Science, 32(1), 8–18. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from
http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mksc.1120.0764
Mell, P., & Timothy, G. (2011) The NIST definition of cloud computing: Recommendations
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. National Institute of Standards
and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Special Publication No. 800-145.
Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/
nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf
Metayer, E. (2013). The 46 competitive intelligence analysis techniques, top analysis tech-
niques your competitive intelligence or strategic planning team should master.
Competia. Retrieved at 30 January 2016, from http://competia.
com/50-competitive-intelligence-analysis-techniques
Meyer, A. D. (1991). What is strategy’s distinctive competence? Journal of Management,
17(4), 821–833. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from https://business.uoregon.
edu/sites/business2.uoregon.edu/files/media/Strat_Dist_Comp_Meyer.pdf
Meyer, M. H., & Utterback, J. M. (1992). Core competencies, product families and sus-
tained business success (International Center for Research on the Management of
Technology, MIT Sloan School of Management, Sloan Working Paper, No. 3410-
92). Cambridge, MA: Sloan School of Management, MIT.
MGI. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition and productivity.
New York: McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://
bigdatawg.nist.gov/MGI_big_data_full_report.pdf
Michel, L. (2015). Management design: Managing people and organizations in turbu-
lent times: A visual-thinking aid. London: Lid Publishing Inc.
References 551
Microsoft. (2007). Business portal for microsoft dynamics, GP key performance indicators.
Microsoft Corporation. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from https://mbs.micro-
soft.com/downloads/public/BP10Docs/KeyPerformanceIndicators.pdf
Microsoft. (2016). Holoportation project. Microsoft Corporation. Retrieved at March
10, 2016, from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/holoportation/, a
video is link available online from http://youtu.be/7d59O6cfaM0
Micu, A. C., Dedeker, K., Lewis, I., Moran, R., Netzer, O., Plummer, J., & Rubinson,
J. (2011). Guest editorial: The shape of marketing research in 2021. Journal of
Advertising Research, 51(1), 213–221. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from https://
www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/5944/Guest-
Editorial-JAR511-reprint.pdf
Miguel, M. (2011). Business intelligence at Penn State: Gaining insight into the Penn
State Institution. A report presentation file is available online at February 20, 2016,
from in http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/m/a/mam58/Al%20and%20
Rod’s%20Presentation/Rod%20and%20Al%20-%20June%202011%20BI%20
Update.pdf. A final and published (2007) report of Business Intelligence Strategy
for Penn State is available online at February 20, 2016, from in http://ais.its.psu.
edu/media/bi_final_strategy.pdf
Miller, J. P. (1999). Millennium intelligence: Understanding and conducting competitive
intelligence in the digital age. Medford: Information Today Inc.
Miller, K. (2009). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes. Belmont:
Cengage/Wadsworth.
Miller, K. (2015). Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes. Stamford:
Cengage Learning.
Miller, R., & Lewis, W. (1991). A stakeholder approach to marketing management
using the value exchange model. European Journal of Marketing, 25(8), 55–58.
Miller, P., & Smith, T. (2011). Insight: Delivering value to stakeholders. The Institute of
Internal Auditors Research Foundation (IIARF). Retrieved at February 25, 2016,
from http://www.theiia.org/bookstore/downloads/freetoall/IIA%20INSIGHT%
20REPORT%20Final%20for%20Web.pdf
Millican, R. D. (1964). Is a marketing man just a marketing man? Journal of Marketing,
28, 8–9.
Mintzberg, H. (1971). Managerial work: Analysis from observation. Management
Science, 18(2), Application Series, B97–B110. Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-1909%28197110%2918%3A2%3CB97%3AM
WAFO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. New York: Pearson.
Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization
design. Management Science, 26(3), 322–341. Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from
Mintzberg, H. (1992). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. New York:
Pearson.
Mintzberg, H. (2013). Simply managing: What managers do and can do. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Mitchell, R. W., Wooliscroft, B., & Higham, J. (2010). Sustainable market orientation:
A new approach to managing marketing strategy. Journal of Macromarketing, 30(2),
552 References
160–170. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://jmk.sagepub.com/con-

tent/30/2/160.full.pdf
Modinger, W. (Ed.). (2011). Marketing 3.0—New issues in marketing: From integrated
marketing communication to the marketing of sustainable leaders. Germany: Stuttgart
Media University. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.360m.de/wp-
content/uploads/2011/08/e-book_marketing_30.pdf
Mohr-Jackson, I. (1998). Conceptualizing total quality orientation. European Journal
of Marketing, 32(1/2), 13–22.
Monczka, R. M., Giunipero, L. C., & Reck, R. F. (1981). Perceived importance of sup-
plier information. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 17, 21–29.
Mongay, J. (2006). Strategic marketing: A literature review on definitions, concepts and
boundaries (Autonomous University of Barcelona, SBS Swiss Business School,
Working Paper, No. JM-A1-2006). Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA).
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41840/1/
MPRA_paper_41840.pdf
Montgomery, D. B., & Weinberg, C. B. (1998). Toward strategic intelligence systems.
Marketing Management, 6(Winter), 44–52.
Montgomery, D. B., Moore, M. C., & Urbany, J. E. (2005). Reasoning about competi-
tive reactions: Evidence from executives. Marketing Science, (Winter), 138–149.
Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/
pdf/10.1287/mksc.1040.0076
Mooney, A. (2007). Core competence, distinctive competence, and competitive advan-
tage: What is the difference? Journal of Education for Business, 83(2), 110–115.
Available online in http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/
joeb.83.2.110-115
Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational market information processes: Cultural anteced-
ents and new product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 318–335.
Moorman, C., & Rust, R. T. (1999). The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing,
63(Special issue), 180–197. Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/1252111
Moran, R. (2010). Insight’s future: From market research to strategic insight. StrategyOne.
Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://www.strategyone.com/documents/
InsightsFutureBrochure.pdf
Morgan, R. E. (1996). Conceptual foundations of marketing and marketing theory.
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749610150658
Morgan, N. A. (2012). Marketing and business performance. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 40, 102–119. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-011-0279-9
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994, July). The commitment-trust theory of relation-
ship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38. Retrieved at March 30, 2016,
from http://sdh.ba.ttu.edu/commitment-trust-jm94.pdf
Morgan, R. E., & Strong, C. A. (1998). Market orientation and dimensions of strategic
orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 32(11/12), 1051–1073. Retrieved at
pdfplus/10.1108/03090569810243712
Morgan, R. E., & Turnell, C. R. (2003, September). Market-based organizational
learning and market performance gains. British Journal of Management, 14,
References 553
255–274. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/

papers.cfm?abstract_id=447304
Morgan R. E., Thorpe E. R., & McGuinness, T. (2000). The contribution of marketing
to business strategy formation: A perspective on business performance gains. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 8(4), 341–362. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09652540010003672
Morgan, N., Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2005). Understanding firms’ customer
satisfaction information usage. Journal of Marketing, 69, 131–151.
Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. (2009). Market orientation, marketing
capabilities and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 909–920.
Morphy. (2016). Stakeholder analysis, project management, templates and advice. stake-
holder map. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://stakeholdermap.com/
stakeholder-analysis.html
Mosco, V. (2016). To the cloud: Big data in a turbulent world. New York: Routledge.
Mosimann, R., Mosimann, P., Dussault, M., & Waldron, P. (2009). The performance
manager. IBM, Cognos, Inc., Ottawa, Canada.
Mothersbaugh, D., & Hawkins, D. (2015). Consumer behavior: Building marketing
strategy. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Education.
Moyer, M. S. (1967). Changing marketing systems. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1976). An assessment of the Litwin and stringer organization climate
questionnaire: An empirical and theoretical extension of the Sims and Lafollete
study. Personnel Psychology, 29(3), 371–392.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). Organizational communication: Relationships to organiza-
tional climate and job satisfaction. The Academy of Management Journal, 20(4),
592–607. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/255359
Mueller-Heumann, G. (1986). Toward a professional concept for marketing. Journal of
Muhammad, G., Ibrahim, J., Bhatti, Z., & Waqas, A. (2014). Business intelligence as a
knowledge management tool in providing financial consultancy services. American
Journal of Information Systems, 2(2), 26–32. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajis/2/2/1
Murphy, L. (2015). The top 10 challenges in the market research industry. GreenBook—
Charting the Future of Market Research. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://
w w w. g r e e n b o o k b l o g . o r g / 2 0 1 5 / 0 6 / 2 6 / t h e - t o p - 1 0 - c h a l l e n g e s - i n -
the-market-research-industry/
Murphy, P. E., & Enis, B. M. (1986). Classifying products strategically. Journal of
Marketing, 50(8), 24–42. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from https://hec.unil.ch/
docs/files/123/997/murphy-enis86-1.pdf
Murray, P. (2003). Organizational learning, competencies, and firm performance:
Empirical observations. The Learning Organization, 10(5), 305–316.
Murray, F. E. (2010). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a
source of productive tension at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American
Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 341–388. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://
fmurray.scripts.mit.edu/docs/Murray_AJS_2010_653599.pdf
Murray, P., & Donegan, K. (2003). Empirical linkages between firm competencies and
organizational learning. Learning organization, 10(1), 51–62. Retrieved at March
554 References
Myers, P. S. (1996). Knowledge management and organizational design (Resources for
the knowledge-based economy). Boston/New York: Routledge.
Nahavandi, A., Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Aristigueta, M. P. (2014).
Organizational behavior. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Nanduri, P. (2014). Six business intelligence predictions for 2015. Forbes, Entrepreneurs.
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/group-
think/2014/12/19/six-business-intelligence-pr edictions-for-
2015/#325c21a98d33
Nanduri, P. (2015). Six business intelligence predictions for 2016. Forbes, Entrepreneurs.
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/group-
think/2015/12/17/six-business-intelligence-pr edictions-for-
2016/#5e9447f94f83
Narasimhan, R. (1983). An analytical approach to supplier selection. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 19(Winter), 27–32
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from
NASA. (2016). Earth’s upper atmosphere. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/
sunearth/science/mos-upper-atmosphere.html#.VRVupPmUf4Z
Nasri, W. (2012). Conceptual model of strategic benefits of competitive intelligence
process. International Journal of Business and Commerce, 1(6), 25–35. Retrieved at
February 20, 2016, from http://www.ijbcnet.com/1-6/IJBC-12-1602.pdf
Natis, Y. V., Pezzini, M., Iijima, K., Thomas, A., & Dunie, R. (2015). Magic quadrant
for enterprise application platform as a service. Worldwide. Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from http://www.ibm.com/cloud-computing/files/GARTNER_COMP_
magic_quadrant_for_enterpris_271188_Bluemix.pdf
Nayar, V. (2013, August). Three differences between managers and leaders, leadership
transitions. Harvard Business Review (HBR). Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from
https://hbr.org/2013/08/tests-of-a-leadership-transiti
Needle, D. (2004). Business in context: An introduction to business and its environment.
London: Thomson Learning.
Neely, A. (Ed.). (2009). Business performance measurement: Unifying theory and inte-
grating practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Online available at
January 10, 2016, from, http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.
jsf?bid=CBO9780511488481
Neighbor, H., & Kienzle, L. (2012). Customer insights toolkit: Enhancing value chain
development through customer research. United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), micro Report, No. 182. Retrieved at February 25, 2016,
from https://www.microlinks.org/sites/microlinks/files/resource/files/Customer_
Insight_Toolkit_0.pdf
Nellis, J. (2011). Global megatrends: What next for business? School of Management,
Cranfield University. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from, http://www.som.cran-
f i e l d . a c . u k / s o m / p 1 6 7 9 0 / T h i n k - C r a n f i e l d / 2 0 1 1 / O c t o b e r- 2 0 1 1 /
Global-Megatrends-What-next-for-business
Nguyen, B. (2011). The future of marketing: Towards a theory of everything in mar-
keting. Innovative Marketing, 7(4), 38–48. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://businessperspectives.org/journals_free/im/2011/im_en_2011_04_
Bang%20Nguyen.pdf
References 555
Nijssen, J. E., & Frambach, T. R. (2001). Creating customer value through strategic
marketing planning: A management approach. Boston: Springer.
NISO. (2004). Understanding metadata. National Information Standards Organization
(NISO) Press. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.niso.org/publica-
tions/press/UnderstandingMetadata.pdf
NIST. (2015). Big data questions from a customer perspective for the National Institute of
Standard and Technology Big Data Working Group (NBD-WG) and draft answers.
Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://bigdatawg.nist.gov/_uploadfiles/
M0079_v1_7313892246.doc
Nixon, K. (2015). Sustainable competitive advantage: Creating business value through
data relationships. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://info.neo4j.com/rs/
neotechnology/images/wp_sca_neo4j.pdf
Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. (2014). Human resource manage-
ment. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Organization Science, 5, 14–37.
Nordmeyer, B. (2015). What is an environmental analysis for a business? Retrieved at
January 30, 2016, from http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/environmental-
analysis-business-1017.html
Normann, R., & Ramırez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing
interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 65–77.
Nunes, P. F., Yardley, S., & Spelman, M. (2013). A new path to growth: How to stay a
step ahead of changing consumer behavior. Outlook. The Journal of High-
Performance Business, 2(issue of Marketing). Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
https://www.accenture.com/t20150522T061608__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/
Accenture/Conversion-Assets/Outlook/Documents/1/Accenture-Outlook-New-
Path-To-Growth-Stay-Ahead-Of-Changing-Consumer-Behavior-Marketing.
pdf#zoom=50
Nurmi, N. (2014). Predicting the future of market intelligence: A survey for global intel-
ligence alliance, Degree program in business management. Leppävaara: Laurea
University of Applied Sciences. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.
theseus.fi/bitstr eam/handle/10024/86196/Thesis_Niko%20Nur mi.
pdf?sequence=1
O’Brien, J. A. (1998). Management information system: A managerial end user perspec-
tive. New Delhi: Galgatia Publications Private Ltd.
O’Brien, T. V., Schoenbachler, D. D., & Gordon, G. L. (1995). Marketing information
systems for consumer products companies: A management overview. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 12(5), 16–36.
O’Dell, C., & Hubert, C. (2011). The new edge in knowledge: How knowledge manage-
ment is changing the way we do business. Hoboken: American Productivity and
Quality Center (APQC).
O’Donnell, O., & Boyle, R. (2008). Understanding and managing organizational cul-
ture. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://www.cpmr.gov.ie/Documents/
Understanding%20and%20Managing%20Organisational%20Culture.pdf
O’Driscoll, A., Carson, D., & Gilmore, A. (2000). Developing marketing competence
and managing in networks: A strategic perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8,
183–196.
556 References
O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Tushman, M. L. (2004, April). The ambidextrous organization.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from https://hbr.
org/2004/04/the-ambidextrous-organization
O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Tushman, M. L.(2007). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability:
Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. In B. Staw & A. Brief (Eds.), Research in orga-
nizational behavior (Vol. 29). Greenwich: JAI Press.
O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past,
present and future (Harvard Business School (HBS) Working Paper). Retrieved
at January 10, 2016, from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/
O’Reilly%20and%20Tushman%20AMP%20Ms%20051413_c66b0c53-5fcd-46d5-
aa16-943eab6aa4a1.pdf
OECD. (2015a, September). G20/OECD principles of corporate governance. OECD
Report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. Retrieved at February
20, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/Corporate-Governance-Principles-
ENG.pdf
OECD. (2015b). Principles of corporate governance. Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD). Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from
https://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/Corporate-Governance-Principles-ENG.pdf
OECD. (2016). Overview of methodologies, futures thinking, schooling for tomorrow
knowledge base. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/site/
schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/futuresthinking/overviewofmethodologies.
htm
Ogden, S., & Watson, R. (1999). Corporate performance and stakeholder manage-
ment: Balancing shareholder and customer’s interests in the UK privatized water
industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 526–536.
Olavarrieta, S., & Friedmann, R. (1999). Market-oriented culture, knowledge related
resources, reputational assets and superior performance: A conceptual framework.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7, 215–228.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and
resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713. Retrieved at
February 20, 2016, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.
1.1.320.9347&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005). The performance implications of
fit among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behav-
ior. Journal of Marketing, 69, 49–65.
Olszak, C. M. (2013). Assessment of business intelligence maturity in the selected orga-
nizations. In Proceedings of the 2013 federated conference on computer science and
information systems (pp. 951–958). Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://
fedcsis.org/proceedings/2013/pliks/139.pdf
Olszak, C. M. (2014). Towards an understanding business intelligence: A dynamic
capability-based framework for business intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2014 feder-
ated conference on computer science and information systems: 1103–1110. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from https://fedcsis.org/proceedings/2014/pliks/68.pdf
Olszak, C. M., & Ziemba, E. (2003). Business intelligence as a key to management of
an enterprise. In Proceedings of informing science and IT education conference.
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://proceedings.informingscience.org/
IS2003Proceedings/docs/109Olsza.pdf
References 557
Olszak, C. M., & Ziemba, E. (2004). Business intelligence systems as a new generation
of decision support systems. In Proceedings PISTA 2004, international conference on
politics and information systems: Technologies and applications. Orlando: The
International Institute of Informatics and Systemic.
Olszak, C. M., & Ziemba, E. (2006). Business intelligence systems in the holistic infra-
structure development supporting decision-making in organizations. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, 1, 47–58. Retrieved at March
20, 2016, from http://ijikm.org/Volume1/IJIKMv1p047-058Olszak19.pdf
Olszak, C. M., & Ziemba, E. (2007). Approach to building and implementing business
intelligence systems, Edited by Lynch Kathy. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information,
Knowledge, and Management, 2 135–148.
OnStrategy. (2014). Incorporating the essential elements of strategy within your organiza-
tion. OnStrategy. Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://onstrategyhq.com/
wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SMART-Goals-OnStrategy.pdf
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2013). Business model generation: A handbook for vision-
aries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Tucci, C. L. (2005). Clarifying business models:
Origins, present, and future of the concept. Communications of the association for
Information Systems, 16(1), 1–25.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2015). Value proposition
design: How to create products and services customers want. Hoboken: John Wiley &
Sons.
Otola, I., Ostraszewska, Z., & Tylec, A. (2013). New directions of development of
resource-based view in creating a competitive advantage. Business Management
Dynamics, 3(2), 26–33, Society for Business and Management Dynamics. Retrieved
at February 25, 2016, from http://bmdynamics.com/issue_pdf/bmd110381-%20
26-33.pdf
Owano, N. (2016). Microsoft spreads word on holoportation: Look who’s by your side.
Techxplore. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://techxplore.com/
pdf378357047.pdf
Pace, W. R., & Faules, D. F. (1994). Organizational communication. Boston: Pearson,
Allyn & Bacon.
Paessler, D. (2015). Cloud computing and the future of networks. ITPtoPortal, pub-
lished in businessintelligence.com. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://busi-
nessintelligence.com/bi-insights/cloud-computing-and-the-future-of-networks/
Pant, P. (2009). Business intelligence (BI): How to build successful BI strategy. Deloitte
Development LLC.: 11–16. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.
loria.fr/~ssidhom/UE909R/1_BI_strategy.pdf
Parenteau, J., Sallam, R. L., Howson, C., Tapadinhas, J., Schlegel, K., & Oestreich,
T. W. (2016). Magic quadrant for business intelligence and analytics platforms.
Gartner Inc. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.gartner.com/doc/
reprints?id=1-2XXET8P&ct=160204
Parise, S. (2012, July/August). Four strategies to capture and create value from big
data. Growth, Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://
iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/four-strategies-to-capture-and-create-
value-from-big-data/
Park, C. W., & Zaltman, G. (1987). Marketing management. Orlando: Dryden Press.
558 References
Parmar, R, Cohn, D. L., & Marshall, A. (2014). Driving innovation through data. IBM
Institute for Business Value. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www-935.
ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/innovation-through-data/
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: The Free Press.
Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Parsons, T., & Toby, J. (1977). The evolution of societies. Englewood Cliff:
Prentice-Hall.
Pelton L. E., Strutton, D., & Lumpkin, J. R. (2014). Marketing channels a relationship
management approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Business School, Heriot-Watt
University. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://www.ebsglobal.net/
EBS/media/EBS/PDFs/Marketing-Channels-Course-Taster.pdf
Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009, August). The institution-
based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod (Academy of management perspectives,
pp. 63–81). Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.utd.edu/~mikepeng/
documents/PengIBV0903AMPR2final.pdf
Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (2011). Managing customer relationships: A strategic frame-
work. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Peter, J. P. (1992). Realism or relativism for marketing theory and research: A comment
of Hunt’s scientific realism. Journal of Marketing, 56(April), 72–79.
Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (1983). Is science marketing? The Journal of Marketing,
47(4), 111–125. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www2.psych.ubc.
ca/~schaller/528Readings/PeterOlson1983.pdf
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based
view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179–191.
Peteraf, M. A., & Bergen, M. E. (2003). Scanning dynamic competitive landscapes: A
market-based and resource-based framework. Strategic Management Journal, 24,
1027–1041. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from https://www.academia.
e d u / 1 4 3 4 2 1 8 8 / A _ M A R K E T- B A S E D _ A N D _ R E S O U R C E -B A S E D _
FRAMEWORK
Petroni, A. (1998). The analysis of dynamic capabilities in a competence-oriented orga-
nization. Technovation, 18(3), 179–189.
Pettey, C. (2011). Gartner identifies the top 10 strategic technologies for 2012. Gartner,
Inc. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/
id/1826214
Pettey, C. (2012). Gartner identifies the top 10 strategic technology trends for 2013.
Gartner Inc. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/news-
room/id/2209615
Pettey, C., & Goasduff, L. (2012). Gartner executive programs’ worldwide survey of
more than 2,300 CIOs shows flat IT budgets in 2012. Gartner, Inc. Retrieved at March
10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1897514
Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: Measurement,
reporting and management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 155–176.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing–doing gap: How smart companies turn
knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Phelps, R., Adams, R., & Bessant, J. (2007). Life cycles of growing organizations: A
review with implications for knowledge and learning. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 9(1), 1–30.
Phillips, D. C. (1987). Philosophy, science, and social inquiry. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
References 559
Piercy, N. F. (1990). Marketing concepts and actions: Implementing marketing-led

strategic change. European Journal of Marketing, 24(2), 24–42. Retrieved at January
Piercy, N. F. (1995). Customer satisfaction and the internal market. Journal of Marketing
Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 1(1), 22–44.
Piercy, N. F. (1997). Market-led strategic change: Transforming the process of going to
marketing. Oxford: Buttetworth-Heinernann.
Piercy, N. F. (1998). Marketing implementation: The implications of marketing para-
digm weakness for the strategy execution process, marketing in the 21st century.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(3), 222–236.
Piercy, N. F., & Cravens, D. W. (1995). The network paradigm and the marketing
organization: Developing a new management agenda. European Journal of
Pike, S., Roos, G., & Marr, B. (2005). Strategic management of intangible assets and
value drivers in R&D organizations. R&D Management, 35, 111–124.
Pitelis C. N. (2008). Value capture from organizational advantages and sustainable
value creation (Working Paper Series 06/2008, pp. 1–54). Judge Business School
University of Cambridge. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from https://www.jbs.
cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp0806.pdf
Plinke, W. (2015). The core concept of marketing management, chapter 2. In
M. Kleinaltenkamp, W. Plinke, I. Wilkinson, & I. Geiger (Eds.), Fundamentals of
business-to-business marketing: Mastering business markets. Switzerland: Springer.
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.springer.
com/978-3-319-12462-9
Plummer, D. C. (2012). The business landscape of cloud computing. Gartner, introduc-
tion by Paul Taylor, Editor of the Financial Times. Retrieved at March 10, 2016,
from https://www.cloudeassurance.com/white-papers/Gartner_Daryl_Plummer_
and_Financial_Times_e-Book_The_Business_Landscape_of_Cloud_Computing.pdf
Plummer, D. C. (2014). Gartner predicts big change for digital business: Will you be
ready? Gartner, Webinar. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.
com/webinar/2961620/player?commId=140955&channelId=5500&sr
cId=1-2973089105
Plummer, D. C. et al. (2015). Top strategic predictions for 2016 and beyond: The future
is a digital thing. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.gartner.com/
doc/3142020?srcId=1-3132930041
Podeswa, H. (2009). The business analyst’s handbook. Canada: Course Technology:
Cengage Learning. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://files.to-become-a-
professional-in-it.webnode.ru/200000001-6f92c708bb/businessanalysthandbook.
pdf
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior perfor-
mance. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management
Journal Strategic Management Journal, 1(Special Winter Issue), 95–117.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.
Porter, M. E. (1998a). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior perfor-
mance. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1998b). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and
competitors. New York: Free Press.
560 References
Porter M. E. (2007, August). Understanding industry structure. Harvard Business

School Publishing-HBSP, Product No. 707493-PDF-ENG.
Porter, M. E. (2008). On competition, updated and expanded edition. Boston: Harvard
Business Review Press.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011, January–February). Creating shared value: How
to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth (pp. 2–17).
Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Power, D. J. (2002). Decision support system: Concepts and resources for managers.
Westport: Quorum Books.
Power, D. J. (2009). Decision support basics. New York: Business Expert Press.
Prahalad, C. K. (1993). The role of core competencies in the corporation. Research
Technology Management, 36(6), 40–47.
Prahald, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard
Press, G. (2013). A very short history of data science. Forbes. Retrieved at March 20,
2016, from www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2013/05/28/a-very-short-history-
of-data-science/
Preston, L. E., & Sapienza, H. J. (1990). Stakeholder management and corporate per-
formance. The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 361–375.
Price, C. (2014). The future of the internet: Decision-making devices. Telegraph Media
Group. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pre-
dictions/technology/11306680/internet-technology-trend.html
Priem, R. L. (1992). Industrial organization economics and Alderson’s general theory
of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(Spring), 135–142.
Pulendran, S., Speed, R., & Widing, R. E., II. (2003). Marketing planning, market
orientation and business performance. European Journal of Marketing, 37(3/4),
476–497. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/03090560310459050
PwC. (2007). Guide to key performance indicators: Communicating the measures that
matter, corporate reporting publications. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (PWC).
Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/audit-services/
corporate-reporting/assets/pdfs/uk_kpi_guide.pdf
PwC. (2013). Five megatrends and possible implications. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
(PWC). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.PwC.com/us/en/faculty-
resource/assets/symposium/2014-megatrends-overview.pdf
PwC. (2014). What’s driving the future? PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC).
Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_SP_
MegaTrends_PwC_2014.pdf
PwC. (2015). The world in 2050 will the shift in global economic power continue?
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://
w w w. P w C . c o m / g x / e n / i s s u e s / t h e - e c o n o m y / a s s e t s / w o r l d - i n - 2 0 5 0 -
february-2015.pdf
PwC. (2016a). Megatrends. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC). Retrieved at March
10, 2016, from http://www.PwC.co.uk/issues/megatrends.html
PwC. (2016b). Data and analytics. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC). Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://www.PwC.com/gx/en/issues/data-and-analytics.
html
Qiu, T. (2008). Scanning for competitive intelligence: A managerial perspective.
European Journal of Marketing, 42(7/8), 814–835.
References 561
Quinn, R. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and compet-
ing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R., & McGrath, M. (1985). The transformation of organizational cultures: A
competing values perspective. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C.
Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational Culture (pp. 315–334). Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Quinn, R., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational
effectiveness. Public Productivity Review, 5, 122–144.
Quinn, R., & Spreitzer, G. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture
instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life.
Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 115–142.
Raconteur. (2015). Future of marketing research. Independent publication by racon-
teur, No. 0328. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://raconteur.net/
future-of-market-research#
Radcliffe, J. (2007) The seven building blocks of MDM: A framework for success. Gartner,
Inc. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://gartnerinfo.com/mdm2/
TheSevenBuildingBlocksofMDMAFrameworkforSuccess.pdf
Radcliffe, J. (2012). The seven building blocks of MDM: A framework for success. Gartner,
Inc. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.gartner.com/doc/1947316/
seven-building-blocks-mdm-framework
Raffaldi, S., Iannello, P., Vittani, L., & Antonietti, A. (2012). Decision-making styles in
the workplace: Relationships between self-report questionnaires and a contextual-
ized measure of the analytical-systematic versus global-intuitive approach. Sage
Open, 2, 1–11. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://sgo.sagepub.com/
content/2/2/2158244012448082
Rajteric, I. H. (2010). Overview of business intelligence maturity models. Management,
15(1), 47–67. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from https://www.efst.hr/manage-
ment/Vol15No1-2010/3-Hribar_Rajteric-final.pdf
Rangan, V. K., & Jaikumar, R. (1991). Integrating distribution strategy and tactics: A
model and application. Management Science, 37(11), 1377–1389.
Ranjan, J. (2009) Business intelligence: Concepts, components, techniques and bene-
fits. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 9(1), 060–070.
Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.jatit.org/volumes/research-
papers/Vol9No1/9Vol9No1.pdf
Raphael, J., & Parket, I. R. (1991). Commentary: The need for market research in
executive decision making. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 6(1/2),
15–21.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats:
Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
433–458.
Raymond, M. A., & Barksdale, H. C. (1989). Corporate strategic planning and corpo-
rate marketing: Towards an interface. Business Horizons, 32(5), 41–48.
RBT. (2013). Descriptive diagnostic predictive prescriptive analytics. Rose Business
Technologies, LLC. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.rosebt.com/
blog/category/data%20volume%20variety%20velocity/3
Redmond, W. (2012). The big bang: How big data explosion is changing the world.
Microsoft News Center, Microsoft Corp. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://
www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/2013/feb13/02-11bigdata.aspx
562 References
Reeves, M., Moose, S., & Venema, T. (2014). BCG classics revisited: The growth share
matrix. BCG perspectives, the Boston consulting group. Retrieved at February 25,
2016, from https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/corporate_strat-
egy_portfolio_management_strategic_planning_growth_share_matrix_bcg_classics_
revisited/
Regalado, A. (2011). Who coined ‘cloud computing’? Business report: Business in the
cloud. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.
technologyreview.com.br/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=38987
Reggie, D. (2003). Modeling and implementation of supplier selection procedures for
e-commerce initiatives. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 103(1), 28–38.
Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/
pdfplus/10.1108/02635570310456878
Reginald, B. M. (2000). Competing effectively: Environmental scanning, competitive
strategy, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of
Small Business Management, 38(1), 27–47.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of con-
structs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reuvid, J. (2006). The sustainable enterprise: Profiting from best practice. London:
Kogan Page.
Rewoldt, S. (1954). Frontiers in marketing thought. Bloomington: Bureau of Business
Research, Indiana University.
Ricciardi F. (2014). Innovation processes in business networks, advances in information systems
and business engineering. Chapter2: Business networking: Possible positive and negative
impacts on innovation and excellence. Springer. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from
http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/
9783658034382-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1411605-p175426938
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2009). Organizational communication for sur-
vival: Making work, work. Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Rietberg, J. (2015). The future of market research: Reporting your way into relevance.
MRA’S Alert! Magazine, Fist Quarter, Marketing Research Association (MRA).
Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from http://www.marketingresearch.org/sites/
default/files/misc_files/qtr1_thefutureofmarketresearch.pdf
Ritter, T. (2006a). Communicating firm competencies: Marketing as different levels of
translation. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(8), 1032–1036.
Ritter, T. (2006b). A framework for analyzing market management. In D. Grewal, M.
Levy, & R. Krishnan (Eds.), AMA Educators’ proceedings: Enhancing knowledge
development in marketing. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Ritter, T., & Andersen, H. (2010). Building the foundation of a firm’s market compe-
tence. Unternehmen, Marketing Review St. Gallen, 27(1), 54–58. Retrieved at March
01, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11621-010-0010-0
Rivera, J. (2013). Gartner identifies the top 10 strategic technology trends for 2014.
Gartner, Inc. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/news-
room/id/2603623
Robbins, C. (2011). Mobilizing market research. Green Book. Retrieved at March 01,
2016, from http://www.greenbook.org/pdfs/mobilizing-market-research.pdf
Robbins, S. P., & Barnwell, N. (2007). Organization theory: Concepts and cases. Frenchs
Forest: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S., & Judge, T. A. (2012). Organizational behavior. New York: Pearson
Education.
References 563
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Organizational behavior. New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Rodenberg, J. H. A. M. (2007). Competitive intelligence and senior management.
Netherland: Eburon Delft Academic Publication.
Rodrigues, A. P., & Pinho, J. C. (2012). The impact of internal and external market
orientation on performance in local public organizations. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 30(3), 284–306. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/02634501211226276
Roghe, F., Toma, A., Kilmann, L. D. R. & Strack, R. (2012, January). Organization of
the future- designed to win: Organizational capabilities matter. The Boston
Consulting Group (BCG). Available online in https://www.bcgperspectives.com/
content/articles/leadership_engagement_culture_organizational_capabilities_mat-
ter/. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from www.jma.or.jp/keikakusin/pdf/english_
report.pdf
Roos, G. (2005). Intellectual capital and strategy: A primer for today’s manager. In
Handbook of business strategy (pp. 123–312). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Roos, G., & Roos, J. (1997). Measuring your company’s intellectual performance.
Long Range Planning, 30(3), 413–426.
Rosenbloom, B. (2013). Marketing channels: A management view. Mason: South-
Western, Cengage Learning.
Rothaermel, F. (2014). Strategic management: Concepts and cases. Boston: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.
Rowe, A. J., & Boulgarides, J. D. (1983). Decision styles- a perspective. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 12(4), 3–9.
Rowe, A. J., Boulgarides, J. D., & McGrath, M. R. (1984). Managerial decision
making. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Rowe, A. J., & Boulgarides, J. D. (1992). Managerial decision making: A guide to suc-
cessful business decisions. New York: Macmillan.
Rowe, A. J., & Davis, S. A. (1996). Intelligent information systems: Meeting the challenge
of the knowledge era. Westport: Quorum Books.
Rowe, A. J., & Mason, R. O. (1987). Managing with style: A guide to understanding,
assessing and improving decision making. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Rowe, A. J., Boulgarides, J. D., & McGrath, M. R. (1984). Managerial decision mak-
ing. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder
influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.
Rudd, J. M., & Morgan, R. (2003). Editorial: Marketing strategy: A history of the next
decade. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(3 (Special issue: Marketing strategy: A
history of the next decade)), 161–164. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0965254032000133430
Ruekert, R. W. (1992). Developing a market orientation: An organizational strategy
perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9, 225–245.
Rumelt, R. P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. B. Lamb (Ed.),
Competitive strategic management (pp. 556–570). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Rusko, R. (2012). Perspectives on value creation and coopetition. Problems and
Perspectives in Management, 10(2), 60–72. Retrieved at February 10, 2016, from
http://businessperspectives.org/journals_free/ppm/2012/PPM_2012_02_
Rusko.pdf
564 References
Rust, R. T., Moorman, C., & Bhalla, G. (2010, January–February). Rethinking market-
ing, spotlight on reinvention. Harvard Business Review, 1–9. Retrieved at March 30,
2016, from https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~moorman/Publications/
Rethinking%20Marketing.pdf
Sahi, G. K., Lonial, S., Gupta, M., & Seli, N. (2013). Revisiting internal market orienta-
tion: A note. Journal of Services Marketing, 27(5), 385–403. Retrieved at March 15,
2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2011-0131
Sallam, R., Beyer, M., & Heudecker, N. (2015). Key trends in big data technologies
(Chapter Seven). In D. Laney (Ed.), Big data: Big data means big business. Gartner
Inc., Financial Times (FT). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://im.ft-static.
com/content/images/e91a32d0-2bac-11e3-bfe2-00144feab7de.pdf
Sanchez, R., Heene, A., & Thomas, H. (1996). Introduction: Towards the theory and
practice of competence-based competition. In R. Sanchez, A. Heene, & H. Thomas
(Eds.), Dynamics of competence-based competition: Theory and practice in the new stra-
tegic management (pp. 1–35). Oxford: Elsevier Pergamon.
Sangle, S., & Babu, P. R. (2007). Evaluating sustainability practices in terms of stake-
holder satisfaction. International Business Governance and Ethics, 3, 56–76.
SAP. (2014). Business intelligence solutions from SAP: Statement of direction. SAP SE/
SAP Affiliate Company. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.sap.com/
bin/sapcom/en_us/downloadasset.2014-09-sep-19-21.business-intelligence-
solutions-from-sap-statement-of-direction-pdf.html
SAP. (2015). Business intelligence (BI) strategy, SAP SE (Systems, Applications &
Products in Data Processing). Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.
sapbusinessobjectsbi.com/wp-content/themes/sapbi/library/images/bistrategy/
BI%20Strategy.pdf
Sarma, S. (2016). Internet of things: Roadmap to a connected world, view from the mar-
ketplace. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://
www.technologyreview.com/s/601013/the-internet-of-things-roadmap-to-
a-connected-world/
SAS. (2005). Business Intelligence Competency Center: Creating a successful business
intelligence strategy with SAS. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.
iim.org.au/minigen/resources/business_intelligence_competency_center.pdf
SAS. (2008) How to compete on analytics: The analytical center of excellence, White Paper,
SAS Institute Inc. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.sas.com/en_us/
w h i t e p a p e r s / h o w - t o - c o m p e t e - o n - a n a l y t i c s - t h e - a n a l y t i c a l - c e n t e r- o f -
excellence-103660.html
SAS. (2009). Information evolution model. SAS Institute Inc. Retrieved at March 20,
2016, from http://www.sas.com/software/iem/
Savitt, R. (1980). Historical research in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 44, 52–58.
Schank, R., Lyras, D., & Soloway, E. (2010). The future of decision making: How revo-
lutionary software can improve the ability to decide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
References 565
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://eu.wiley.
com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047064057X.html
Schienstock, G. (2009). Organizational capabilities: Some reflections on the concept
(Intangible Assets and Regional Economic Growth (IAREG), Research Unit for
Technology, Science and Innovation Studies (TaSTI), University of Tampere,
IAREG Working Paper, No. 1.2.C). Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://
www.iareg.org/fileadmin/iareg/media/papers/WP_IAREG_1.2c.pdf
Schiffman, L. G., & Wisenblit, J. (2014). Consumer behavior. New York: Pearson.
Schilling, M. (2016). Strategic management of technological innovation. Boston:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Schlegel, K. (2013). Hype cycle for business intelligence and analytics. Gartner. Retrieved
at March 01, 2016, from https://www.gartner.com/doc/3106118/
hype-cycle-business-intelligence-analytics
Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Chini, T. C. (2003). Knowledge transfer between marketing
functions in multinational companies: A conceptual model. International Business
Review, 12(2), 215–232.
Schmalensee, R. (1988). Industrial economics: An overview. Economic Journal Royal
Economic Society, 98(392), 643–681.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28(4),
447–479. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.
tb01386.x
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel
Psychology, 36, 19–39.
Schreogg, G., & Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabili-
ties be? Toward a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic
Schrodt, P. (2002). The relationship between organizational identification and organi-
zational culture: Employee perceptions of culture and identification in a retail sales
organization. Communication Studies, 53(2), 189–202.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Schumpeter, J. A. (2008). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York: Harper
Perennial Modern Thought.
Scott S. G., & Bruce R. A. (1995b). Decision-making style: The development and
assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5),
818–831. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from doi:10.1177/0013164495055005017
Seetharaman, A., Lock Teng Low, K., & Saravanan, A. S. (2004). Comparative justifica-
tion on intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(4), 522–539.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation.
New York: Harper & Row.
Sen, A., Sinha, A. P., & Ramamurthy, K. (2006). Data warehousing process maturity:
An exploratory study of factors influencing user perceptions. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 53(3), 440–455. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1661915&url=http%3A
%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1661915
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organiza-
tion. New York: Currency Publishing.
566 References
Senge, P. M. (2010). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organiza-
tion, Cornerstone Digital. New York: Random House Business Books.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., & Ross, R. (2011). The dance of change: The chal-
lenges of sustaining momentum in a learning organization. London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing.
Serpa, L. F. (2000). Epistemological assessment of current business intelligence arche-
types. Competitive Intelligence Review, 11(4), 88–101.
Shaaban, E., Helmy, Y., Khedr, A., & Nasr, M. (2011). Business intelligence maturity
models: Toward new integrated model. ACIT 2011 proceedings. Retrieved at March
20, 2016, from http://www.academia.edu/7383739/BI_Maturity_models
Shaker, T. I. (2011, January). The role of marketing information system on decision
making: An applied study on Royal Jordanian Air Lines (RJA). International Journal
of Business and Social Science, 2(3), Special issue.
Shankar, V., & Carpenter, G. S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of marketing strategy.
Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Shapiro, P. B. (1988, November–December). What the hell is market oriented
(pp. 119–125). Harvard Business Review. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from
https://hbr.org/1988/11/what-the-hell-is-market-oriented
Shapiro, C. (1989). The theory of business strategy. RAND Journal of Economics, 20,
125–137.
Shaw, E. H. (1995). The first dialogue on macromarketing. Journal of Macromarketing,
15(1), 7–20.
Shaw, E. H., & Jones, D. G. B. (2005). A history of schools of marketing thought.
Marketing theory, 5(3), 239–281.
Shaw, E. H., & Tamilia, R. D. (2001). Robert Bartels and the history of marketing
thought. Journal of Macromarketing, 21(2), 156–163. Retrieved at March 30, 2016,
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235362901_Robert_Bartels_
and_the_History_of_Marketing_Thought
Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1992). Towards a theory of business alliance formation.
Scandinavian International Business Review, 1(3). Retrieved at February 25, 2016,
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237065580_Towards_a_Theory_
of_Business_Alliance_Formation
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (1999). Revisiting marketing’s lawlike generalizations.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 71–87 Retrieved at March 30,
2016, from http://rajsisodia.com/raj/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Revisiting-
Marketing_s-Lawlike-Generalizations.pdf.
Sheth, J. G., Gardner, D. M., & Garrett, D. E. (1988). Marketing theory: Evolution and
evaluation. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sharma, A. (2000). The antecedents and consequences
of customer-centric marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1),
55–66. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, http://rajsisodia.com/raj/wp-content/
uploads/2012/07/The-Antecedents-and-Consequences-of-Customer-Centric-
Marketing.pdf
Shibulal, S. D. (2013). The challenges facing business leaders at Davos. World Economic
Forum (WEF). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2013/01/the-challenges-facing-business-leaders-at-davos/
Shil, N. C. (2010). Customized supplier selection methodology: An application of mul-
tiple regression analysis, supply chain forum. An International Journal, 11(2),
References 567
58–70. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://www.supplychain-forum.

com/documents/articles/SCFvol11-2-2010-Shil.pdf
Shoham, A., Rose, G. M., & Kropp, F. (2005). Market orientation and performance: A
meta-analysis. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(5), 435–454. Retrieved at
Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability.
The Academy of Management Review, 20, 936–960. Retrieved at March 15, 2016,
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258961
Shugan, S. M. (2002). The mission of marketing science. Marketing Science, 21(1),
1–13. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/
pdf/10.1287/mksc.21.1.1.162
Shugan, S. M. (2006). Editorial: Fifty years of marketing science. Marketing Science,
25(6), 551–555. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://pubsonline.informs.
org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mksc.1060.0251
Sicular, S., & Collins, M. (2015). Build a big data strategy based on new digital connec-
tions (chapter two). In D. Laney (Ed.), Big data: Big data means big business. Gartner
Inc., Financial Times (FT). Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://im.ft-static.
com/content/images/e91a32d0-2bac-11e3-bfe2-00144feab7de.pdf
Sidorchuk, R. (2015). The concept of “value” in the theory of marketing. Asian Social
Science, 11(9), 320–325. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.ccsenet.
org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/47176/25513
Silva, M., Moutinho, L., Coelho, A., & Marques, A. (2009). Market orientation and
performance: Modelling a neural network. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4),
421–437. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/03090560910935505
Simmons, R. (2013). Performance measurement and control systems for implementing
strategy. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Simon, H. A. (1954). Theories of decision making in economics. American Economic
Review, 49, 223–283.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 69, 99–118.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological
Review, 63, 129–138.
Simon, H. (1984). Challenges and new research avenues in marketing
science. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1(4), 249–261.
Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/0167811684900156
Singh, S. (2014). Top 20 global mega trends and their impact on business, cultures and
society. Frost & Sullivan. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.frost.
com/prod/servlet/cpo/213016007
Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based
organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305–318. Retrieved at February 25, 2016,
from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1177/0092070397254003
Skyrius, R., Kazakevičienė, G., & Bujauskas, V. (2013). From management information
systems to business intelligence: The development of management information
needs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Multimedia,
2(3), 31–37. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://www.ijimai.org/journal/
sites/default/files/files/2013/06/ijimai20132_3_4_pdf_28905.pdf
568 References
Skyrme, D. (1989). The planning and marketing of the market intelligence function.
Market Intelligence and Planning, 7(1/2), 5–10.
Skyrme, D. (1990). Developing successful marketing intelligence: A case study.
Skyrme, D. (1995, November). Global intelligence networking: Technological oppor-
tunities and human challenges. AGSI Journal, 106–115.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994a). Market orientation, customer value, and superior
performance. Business Horizons, 37, 22–28. Retrieved at March 25, 2016, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0007681394900299
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994b). Does competitive environment moderate the
market orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46–55.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization.
Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2001). Marketing’s contribution to the implementation
of business strategy: An empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
1055–1067.
Slater, S. F., Olson, E. M., & Carol, F. (2011). Business strategy, marketing organiza-
tion culture, and performance. Marketing Letter, 22, 227–242.
Smart, W. (1931). An introduction to the theory of value. London, Great Britain:
Macmillan and Co. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from https://mises.org/sys-
tem/tdf/An%20Introduction%20to%20the%20Theor y%20of%20Value_2.
pdf?file=1&type=document
Smart, T. D., & Conant, S. J. (1994). Entrepreneurial orientation, distinctive market-
ing. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(3), 11p.
Smart P. A., Maddern H., & Maull R. S. (2009). Understanding business process
management: Implications for theory and practice. British Journal of Management,
20(4), 491–507. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2008.00594.x
Smith, D. M. (2014). The top 10 cloud myths. Gartner. Retrieved at March 10, 2016,
from https://www.gartner.com/doc/2860422?aeId
Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1987). Environmental variation, strategic change and
firm performance: A study of railroad deregulation. Strategic Management Journal,
8, 363–376.
Smith, B., & Raspin, P. (2008). Creating market insight: How firms create value from
market understanding. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, B. D., Wilson, H. N., & Clark, M. (2006). Creating and using customer insight:
12 rules of best practice. Journal of Medical Marketing, 6(2), 135–139.
Smith, D. M., Plummer, D. C., Cearley, D. W. (2009). The what, why and when of cloud
computing. Gartner, Research ID No. G00168582. Retrieved at March 10, 2016,
from http://www.rosebudtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/WhatWhy
When_CloudComputing.pdf
Snow, C. C., & Hrebiniak, L. G. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence, and organi-
zational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 317–336.
Solis, B. (2013). What’s the future of business: Changing the way businesses create experi-
ences. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Solis, B. (2014). Ten quotes by brian solis on the future of business. Slide Share. Retrieved
at March 20, 2016, from http://www.slideshare.net/prezly/10-quotes-
References 569
by-brian-solis-quotes/23-Thebottom_lineisthatpeopleareseekinganswersanddirec-
tionnotmessagesorsalespitchesbriansolistweet
Solomon, M. R. (2015). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being. Boston:
Prentice Hall of India
Song, M., & Parry, M. E. (2009). The desired level of market orientation and business
unit performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 144–160.
Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s11747-008-0114-0
Sopow, E. (2007). The impact of culture and climate on change: Distinguishing
between culture and climate to change the organization. Strategic HR Review, 6(2),
20–23. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/14754390780000952
Sorensen, H. E. (2009). Why competitors matter for market orientation. European
Journal of Marketing, 43(5/6), 735–761. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03090560910947025
Soukup, W. R. (1987). Supplier selection strategies. Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Spurgin, E. W. (2004). The goals and merits of a business ethics competency exam.
Journal of Business Ethics, 50(3), 279–288.
Srivastava, S. C. (2005). Managing core competence of the organization. VIKALPA,
30(4), 49–63. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.vikalpa.com/
pdf/articles/2005/2005_oct_dec_49_63.pdf
Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and share-
holder value: A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2–18. Retrieved
at January 25, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251799
Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1999). Marketing, business processes,
and shareholder value: An organizationally embedded view of marketing activities
and the discipline of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63(Special issue), 168–179.
Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, K. H. (2001). The resource-based view and
marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal
of Management, 27(6), 777–802. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://jom.
sagepub.com/content/27/6/777.full.pdf+html
Srivastava, M., Franklin, A., & Martinette, L. (2013). Building a sustainable competi-
tive advantage. Journal of Technology and Innovation, 8(2), 47–60. Retrieved at
February 20, 2016, from http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jotmi/v8n2/art04.pdf
Stank, T. P., Keller, S. S., & Daugherty, P. J. (2001). Supply chain collaboration and
logistical service performance (Working Paper). North Business Complex, Michigan
State University. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.
net/profile/Theodore_Stank/publication/229711780_SUPPLY_CHAIN_
COLLABORATION_AND_LOGISTICAL_SERVICE_PERFORMANCE/
links/00b49532c4fee93abf000000.pdf
Stauffer, D. (2003). The power of competitive intelligence. Cambridge: Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Steurer, R., Langer, M. E., Konrad, A., & Martinuzzi, M. (2005). Corporations, stake-
holders and sustainable development: A theoretical exploration of business–society
relations. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 263–281.
Stewart, J., & Rogers, P. (2012). Developing people and organisations. Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), chapter 1: Organizational design
Gary Connor, Michael McFadden and Ian McLean, pp. 2–35, Retrieved at January
570 References
10,2016,fromhttp://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8C5DA6D7-99B5-41F2-859A-
2DF80539C5C/0/978184398132_sc.pdf
Stigler, G. J. (1986). The organization of industry. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Stoyko, P. (2009). Organizational culture and the management of organizational mem-
ory. In J. P. Girard (Ed.), Building organizational memories: Will you know what you
knew? (Chapter 1, pp. 1–17). IGI Global Publication. Retrieved at January 25,
2016, from http://biblio.uabcs.mx/html/libros/pdf/1/c1.pdf, the complete
book available online in http://www.igi-global.com/book/building-organizational-
memories/112
Strategyzer, A. G. (2015a). The Business Model Canvas. Retrieved at January 10, 2016,
from http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/downloads/business_model_
canvas_poster.pdf
Strategyzer, A. G. (2015b). The value proposition canvas. Retrieved at January 10, 2016,
from http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/downloads/value_proposition_
canvas.pdf
Stringer, R. (2001). Leadership and organizational climate. New York: Prentice Hall.
Stross, R. E. (1996). Microsoft’s big advantage—hiring only the supersmart. Fortune,
134(10), 159–162.
Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualising a ‘sustainability business model.
Organization and Environment, 21, 103–127.
Subramanian, G. (2015a, March). Corporate governance 2.0. Harvard Buisness Review.
Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2015/03/
corporate-governance-2-0
Subramanian, S. P. (2015b). Transforming business with program management:
Integrating strategy, people, process, technology, structure, and measurement (best prac-
tices and advances in program management). New York: Auerbach Publications,
CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
Subramanian, R., Fernandes, N., & Harper, E. (1993). Environmental scanning in US
companies: Their nature and their relationship to performance. Management
International Review, 33(3), 271–286.
Subramanian, R., Kumar, K., & Yauger, C. (1994). The scanning of task environments
in hospitals: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(4), 104–115.
Subramanian, R., Kumar, K., & Strandholm, K. (2009). The role of organizational
competencies in the market-orientation-performance relationship: An empirical
analysis. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 19(1), 7–26.
Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/
abs/10.1108/10569210910939645
Sulkowski, L. (2012). Elements of organizational culture—theoretical and method-
ological problems. Management, 16(2), 63–71. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from
h ttp://www.degruyter.com/view/j/manment.2012.16.issue-2/v10286-012-
0056-y/v10286-012-0056-y.xml
SUN. (2009). Introduction to cloud computing architecture. Sun Microsystems, White
Paper. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://java.net/jira/secure/attach-
ment/29265/CloudComputing.pdf
Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Sutherland, W. J., & Woodroof, H. J. (2009). The need for environmental horizon
scanning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(10), 523–527. Available online at
References 571
February 20, 2016 in http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/pdf/

S0169-5347(09)00188-8.pdf
Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing and measuring
knowledge-based assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Svendsen, A. (2010). The stakeholder strategy: Profiting from collaborative business rela-
tionships. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://
www.bkconnection.com/static/The_Stakeholder_Strategy_EXCERPT.pdf
Sweeney, D. J. (1972). Marketing: Management technology or social process? Journal
of Marketing, 36, 3–10.
Synder, A. V., & Ebeling, H. W. (1992). Targeting a company’s real core competencies.
Journal of Business Strategy, 13(6), 26–32.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
Tadajewski, M. (2014). Paradigm debates and marketing theory, thought and practice.
Talvinen, J. M. (1995). Information systems in marketing: Identifying opportunities for
new applications. European Journal of Marketing, 29(1), 8–26.
Talwar, R. (2015a). The future of business: Critical insights into a rapidly changing world.
Book Launch event, Slide Share. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.
slideshar e.net/omnlondon/r ohit-talwar-the-futur e-of-business-omn-
launch-event-june-11th-2015-master-vc10
Talwar, R. (2015b). The future of business: Critical insights into a rapidly changing world
(Vol. 1). USA/UK: FutureScapes, Fast Future Publishing Ltd. Retrieved at March
20, 2016, from http://fob.fastfuturepublishing.com/index.html
Tan, C.-S., Sim, Y.-W., & Yeoh, W. (2011). A maturity model of enterprise business
intelligence. IBIMA Publishing, Communications of the IBIMA, 2011(2011), Article
ID 417812, 11 pages. doi:10.5171/2011.417812. Retrieved at March 20, 2016,
from http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/CIBIMA/cibima.html
Tang, M. J., & Thomas, H. (1992). The concept of strategic groups: Theoretical con-
struct or analytical convenience. Managerial and Decision Economics, 13(4),
323–329.
Taylor, W. J. (1965). Is marketing a science? Revisited. Journal of Marketing, 29, 49–53.
TCS. (2015). Engage and empower -winning over the modern digital customer. White
paper, Tata Consultancy Services. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.
tcs.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/White-Papers/Winning-over-Modern-Digital-
Customer-1015-1.pdf
TechTarget. (2016a). Business intelligence technology and platforms report. TechTarget,
Online Published. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://searchbusinessana-
lytics.techtarget.com/resources/Business-intelligence-technology-and-platforms
TechTarget. (2016b). Definition of driver-based planning, business intelligence - business
analytics glossary. Tech Target. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://whatis.
techtarget.com/definition/driver-based-planning
TechTarget. (2016c). Definition of infographics. TechTarget. Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/infographics
Teece, D. J. (1984). Economic analysis and strategic management. California
Management Review, 26(3), 87–110.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integra-
tion, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Journal of Research Policy, 15(6),
572 References
285–305. Retrieved at February 10, 2016, from http://www.loc.gov/crb/pro-

ceedings/2006-3/riaa-ex-o-101-dp.pdf
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13),
1319–1350.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range
Planning, 43, 172–194.
Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556. Retrieved at January 20, 2016,
from http://secure.com.sg/courses/ICI/Grab/Reading_Articles/L03_A02_
Teece.pdf
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic man-
agement. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Retrieved at March 01,
2016, from http://www.business.illinois.edu/josephm/BA545_Fall%202015/
Teece,%20Pisano%20and%20Shuen%20(1997).pdf
Teich, A. H. (Ed.). (1972). Technology and man’s future. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
TerndWatching. (2016). Five consumer trends for 2016. Trend Watching. Retrieved at
March 20, 2016, from http://trendwatching.com/trends/5-trends-for-2016/
Terrence, H. (1999). The meanings of competency. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 23(6), 275–286. Available online at January 20, 2016 in http://www.
emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03090599910284650
Tharp, B. M. (2009a). Defining “culture” and “organizational culture”: From anthro-
pology to the office. Haworth. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://eu.
hawor th.com/docs/default-source/white-papers/defining-culture-and-
organizationa-culture_51-pdf-28527.pdf?sfvrsn=6
Tharp, B. M. (2009b). Defining “culture” and “organizational culture”: From anthro-
pology to the office. Haworth. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://eu.
hawor th.com/docs/default-source/white-papers/defining-culture-and-
organizationa-culture_51-pdf-28527.pdf?sfvrsn=6
Tharp, B. M. (2009c). Four organizational culture types. Organizational Culture White
Paper, Haworth. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://www.canfieldco.com/
uploads/Four_Organizational_Culture_Types.pdf
Tharp, B. M.. (2009d). Four organizational culture types. Organizational Culture White
Paper, Haworth. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://www.canfieldco.com/
uploads/Four_Organizational_Culture_Types.pdf
Thompson, K. N. (1990). Vendor profile analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Thompson, A. A., Jr. (2001). Strategic management. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Thompson, A. A, Peteraf, M., Gamble, J. E. Strickland, A. J., III. (2013). Crafting &
executing strategy: The quest for competitive advantage: Concepts and cases. New York:
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2013). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market
and organizational change. Chichester: Wiley.
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2014). Strategic innovation management. Chichester: Wiley.
Timmerman, E. (1986). An approach to vendor performance evaluation. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 22(Winter), 2–8.
Toit Adeline du & Muller Marié-Luce (2004, September). Organizational structure of
competitive intelligence activities: A South African case study. South African Journal
of Information Management, 6(3). Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://
www.sajim.co.za/index.php/SAJIM/article/viewFile/308/298
References 573
Toner, M., Ojha, N., de Paepe, P., & de Melo, M. S. (2015). A strategy for thriving in
uncertainty. Bain Brief, Bain and Company. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_BRIEF_A_strategy_for_thriving_in_uncer-
tainty.pdf
Tonsetic, M. (2012). Drivers of business analyst effectiveness. IIBA—Building Business
Capabilities, Corporate Executive Board Company (CEB). Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from http://www.buildingbusinesscapability.com/presentations/2012/986.
pdf
Topfer, J. (2008). Active enterprise intelligence, active enterprise intelligence™ (pp. 1–28).
Springer. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10
.1007%2F978-3-540-78498-2_1
Torkkeli, M., & Tuominen, M. (2002). The contribution of technology selection to
core competencies. International Journal of Production Economics, 77, 271–184.
Tortosa, V., Moliner, M. A., & Sánchez, J. (2009). Internal market orientation and its
influence on organizational performance. European Journal of Marketing, 43(11/12),
1435–1456. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/03090560910989975
Tosheva, E. (2013). Achieving sustained competitive advantage by enhancing organiza-
tional distinctive competencies. Journal of The Institute of Economics’- Skopje,
Economic Development, 15(1–2), 187–200. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
h t t p : / / w w w. r e s e a r c h g a t e . n e t / p u b l i c a t i o n / 2 5 8 7 2 5 1 5 6 _
A C H I E V I N G _ S U S TA I N E D _ C O M P E T I T I V E _ A D VA N TA G E _ B Y _
ENHANCING_ORGANIZATIONAL_DISTINCTIVE_COMPETENCIES
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://psycnet.apa.org/
psycinfo/1992-98310-000#toc
Trim, R. J. P. (2006). The role of marketing intelligence officers in strategy formulation
and implementation. Handbook of Business Strategy, 7(1), 125–130.
Trout, J. (2006). Peter Drucker on marketing. Forbes. Retrieved at March 25, 2016,
from http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/30/jack-trout-on-marketing-cx_
jt_0703drucker.html
Tsai, Y. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job
satisfaction. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/
content/pdf/1472-6963-11-98.pdf
T-Systems. (2010). Cloud computing: Alternative sourcing strategy for business ICT.
T-Systems Enterprise Services GmbH, White Paper. Retrieved at March 10, 2016,
from http://www.t-systemsus.com/umn/uti/508260_1/blobBinary/White+Pap
er+Cloud+Computing+%257B%257BPDF%252C+351+KB%257D%257D.pdf
Tucker, W. T. (1974). Future directions in marketing theory. Journal of Marketing, 38,
30–35.
Tuominen, M., Rajala, A., & Moller, K. (2004). Market-driving versus market-driven:
Divergent roles of market orientation in business relationships. Industrial Marketing
Management, 33(3), 207–217. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://www.
Turban, E., Aronson, J. E., Liang, T. P., & Sharda, R. (2007). Decision support and
business intelligence systems. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Turner, S., & DeVaughn, S. (2008). Net value: How to develop a winning value proposi-
tion for marketing in the digital culture. San Francisco: Turner DeVaughn Network.
Tzokas, N., & Saren, M. (1997). Building relationship platforms in consumer markets:
A value chain approach. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 5(2), 105–120.
574 References
Ubius, U., & Alas, R. (2009). Organizational culture types as predictors of corporate
social responsibility. Engineering Economics (Commerce of Engineering Decisions),
61(1), 90–99. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://www.inzeko.ktu.lt/
index.php/EE/article/download/11597/6281
Ulieru, M., & Este, R. A. (2004). The holonic enterprise and theory emergence: On
emergent features of self-organization in distributed virtual agents. Cybernetics &
Human Knowing, 11(1), 79–98. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://www.
ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/chk/2004/00000011/00000001/
art00006?crawler=true
Ullah, R. T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension
in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.
Retrieved at February 10, 2016, from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/
diva2:706199/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. (1991). Organizational capability: Creating competitive advan-
tage. Academy of Management Executive, 5(1), 77–92. Retrieved at January 20,
2016, from https://www2.bc.edu/~jonescq/articles/ulrich_AME_1991.pdf
Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Wayne, B., & Ulrich, M. (2012). HR from the outside in: Six
competencies for the future of human resources. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Ulwick, A. W. (2012). Turn customer input into innovation. Harvard Business Review,
80(1), 91–97.
UNCTAD. (2006). Guidance on good practices in corporate governance disclosure.
New York/Geneva :United Nations. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://
unctad.org/en/docs/iteteb20063_en.pdf
Underdahl, B. (2011). Business process management for dummies. IBM Limited Edition.
Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://
soapower.com/IBMBPM/Whitepapers/BPMforDummies-IBMedition.pdf
UNIDO. (2002). UNIDO Business partnerships for industrial development. Vienna:
United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Retrieved at February 25,
2016, from https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_
free/Partnership_guide.pdf
Uslay, C., Morgan, R. E., & Sheth, J. N. (2009). Peter Drucker on marketing: An
exploration of five tenets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 47–60.
Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%
2Fs11747-008-0099-8
UTA (University of Texas at Arlington). (2004). Chapter 4: The internal organization:
Resources, capabilities and core competencies. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from
h ttps://elearn.uta.edu/bbcswebdav/users/jmcgee/Syllabus/Content/
Syllabus%20and%20Course%20Content/pdf/Chapter%2004.pdf
Vaaler, B. R. (2005). Codifying competencies: Law firm partnership and benefits report.
Law Journal Newsletters. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://www.lawjour-
nalnewsletters.com/issues/ljn_partnership/10_12/news/143747-1.html
Vaitkevicius, S., Merkys, G., & Savanevicienė, A. (2006). Model of strategic analysis
tools typology. Journal of Engineering Economic- Economics of Engineering Decisions,
2(47), 99–109.
Van Dam, Y., & Apeldoorn, P. (1996). Sustainable marketing. Journal of Macromarketing,
16, 45–56.
Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Van Wijk, R. (2003). Creation of managerial capabilities
through managerial knowledge integration: A competence-based perspective. In
References 575
R. Sanchez (Ed.), Knowledge management and organizational competence

(pp. 159–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2012). Business process management: A comprehensive survey
(Working Paper). The Netherlands: Department of Mathematics and Computer
Science, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from
http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~wvdaalst/publications/p712.pdf
Van Raaij, E. M., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2008). The implementation of a market orienta-
tion: A review and integration of the contributions to date. European Journal of
Marketing, 42(11/12), 1265–1293. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://
www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03090560810903673
Van Tiem, D., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance
improvement: Optimizing results through people, process, and organizations. San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons/Pfiffer.
Van Roekel, L. H., Raja J., Reboullet K., & Ommerborn T. G. (2009). The BI frame-
work: How to turn information into a competitive asset. Logica Publication. Retrieved
at March 20, 2016, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/127089257/
eBook-Part-3-the-BI-Framework-How-to-Turn-Information-Into-a-Competitive-
Asset#scribd
Van Unen, K., de Goeij, A., Swartjes, S., & van der Staaij, A. (2012). Master data man-
agement: Dos & don’ts. Compact, KPMG. Retrieved at March 01, 2016, from
http://www.compact.nl/en/pdf/C-2012-2-Unenvertaald.pdf
Varadarajan, R. (2010). Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: Domain, defini-
tion, fundamental issues and foundational premises. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 38, 119–140. Retrieved at February 20, 2016 from http://link.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in
strategy research: A comparison of approaches. The Academy of Management Review,
11(4), 801–814.
Ventana. (2010). Using business insights to optimize customer relationships: Analytics and
location intelligence technologies can help generate competitive value. White Paper,
Ventana Research. Retrieved at January 30, 2016, from http://www.pbinsight.
com/files/resource-librar y/resource-files/ventana-optimize-customer-
relationships.pdf
Vermesan, O., & Friess, P. (Eds.). (2014). Internet of things—From research and inno-
vation to market deployment. River Publishers Series in Communication. Retrieved at
March 10, 2016, from http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/pdf/IERC_
Cluster_Book_2014_Ch.3_SRIA_WEB.pdf
Verna, A. (2008). Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangi-
ble assets. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(1), 5–24.
Vervest, P. H. M., van Liere, D. W., & Zheng, L. (2009). The network experience new
value from smart business networks. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Vom, B. J., & Rosemann, M. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook on business process management
1: Introduction, methods, and information systems. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/book/10.10
07%2F978-3-642-00416-2
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to
unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
576 References
Voon, B. H. (2006). Linking a service-driven market orientation to service quality.

Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 16(6), 595–619. Retrieved at
Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan N. A. (2005, January). Benchmarking marketing capabilities
for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69, 80–94. Retrieved at
March 20, 2016, from http://abufara.com/abufara.net/images/abook_file/
Benchmarking%20Marketing%20Capabilities%20for%20Sustainable%20
Competitive%20Advantage.pdf
Vorhies, D. W., Orr, L. M., & Bush, V. D. (2011). Improving customer-focused
marketing capabilities and firm financial performance via marketing exploration
and exploitation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 736–756.
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/
10.1007%2Fs11747-010-0228-z
Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2006). Situation analysis and strategic planning: An
empirical case study in the UK beverage industry. Innovative Marketing, 2(2),
134–151. Retrieved at January 25, 2016, from http://businessperspectives.org/
journals_free/im/2006/im_en_2006_02_Vrontis.pdf
Walker, G., & Madsen, T. (2015). Modern competitive strategy. New York, NY, USA:
Walker Group. (1997). Competency-based systems: A comprehensive review of the litera-
ture and current practices. Tempe, AZ7 The Walker Group.
Wallace, P. (2012). Information systems in organizations: People, technology, and processes.
New Jersey, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Wallach, E. (1983). Individuals and organizational: The cultural match. Training and
Development Journal, 37(2), 28–35.
Walle, A. H. (2001). Immanuel Kant, marketing theory and the modern temper.
Management Decision, 39(6), 426–430. Retrieved at April 10, 2016, from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005562
Walsh, S. T., & Linton, J. D. (2001). The competence pyramid: A framework for iden-
tifying and analyzing firm and industry competence. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 13(2), 165–177.
Wang, Y., Lo, H.-P., & Yang, Y. (2004). The constituents of core competencies
and firm performance: Evidence from high-technology firms in China. Journal
of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(4), 249–280. Retrieved at
January 20, 2016, from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yonggui_
Wang/publication/229360528_The_constituents_of_core_competencies_and_
firm_performance_evidence_from_high-t echnology_firms_in_china/links/
53d863c00cf2a19eee834ac5.pdf?inViewer=true, available online in http://www.
Wansink, B. (2000). New techniques to generate key marketing insights. Marketing
Research, (Summer), 28–36.
Ward, K. (2012). The world in 2050: From the top 30 to the top 100. Global Economics,
HSBC Global Research. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.hsbc.
com/~/media/HSBC-com/about-hsbc/advertising/pdfs/the-world-in-2050
Ward, J. S., & Barker, A. (2013). Undefined by data: A survey of big data definitions.
Cornel University Library, Computer Science, Databases. Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5821v1.pdf
Warren, K. (2008). Strategic Management Dynamics. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
References 577
Waterman, R., Peters, T., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business
Horizons, 23(3), 14–26. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://tompeters.
com/docs/Structure_Is_Not_Organization.pdf
Watson, H., Ariyachandra, T., & Matyska, R. J., Jr. (2001). Data warehousing stages of
growth. Information Systems Management, 18(3), 42–50. Retrieved at March 20,
2016, from http://www.ism-journal.com/ITToday/datawarehouse.pdf
Watts, D. J. (2004). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: W.W. Norton
and Company.
WBCSD. (2010). Vision 2050: The new agenda for business. World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.wbcsd.
org/WEB/PROJECTS/BZROLE/VISION2050-FULLREPORT_FINAL.PDF
Weber, C. A., & Current, J. R. (1993). A multi-objective approach to vendor selection.
European Journal of Operational Research, 68, 173–184.
Webster, F. E., Jr. (1988, May/June). The rediscovery of the marketing concept.
Business Horizons, 31(3), 29–39.
Webster, C. (1992a). What kind of marketing culture exists in your service firm? Journal
of Services Marketing, 6(2), 54–67. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876049210035863
Webster, F. E., Jr. (1992b). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal
of Marketing, 56, 1–17. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/1251983?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Webster, C. (1993). The effect of the marketing culture on the marketing effectiveness
of a service firm. Journal of Business Research, 26(2), 111–131.
Webster, F. E., Jr. (1994). Market-driven management: How to define, develop, and
deliver customer value. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Webster, F. E., Jr. (1997). The future role of marketing in the organization. In
D. Lehmann, & K. E. Jocz (Eds.), Reflections on the futures of marketing. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Webster, F. E., Jr. (2008). Market-driven management: How to define, develop, and
deliver customer value. Wiley series on marketing management. New Jersey, USA:
John Wiley & Sons.
Weerawardena, J., & O’Cass, A. (2004). Exploring the characteristics of the market-
driven firms and antecedents to sustained competitive advantage. Industrial
Marketing Management, 33, 419–428.
Weick, K. E. (2000). Making sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Weick, K. E. (2009). Making sense of the organization, Volume 2: The impermanent orga-
nization. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Weinhardt, C., & Gimpel, H. (2007). Market Engineering: An interdisciplinary research
challenge. In Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings: 06461- Negotiation and Market
Engineering. Available online in http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/voll-
texte/2007/988. Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://www.im.uni-
karlsruhe.de/Upload/Publications/03942476-4c90-4d44-895e-811be8a47c9b.
pdf
Weinhardt, C., Schnizler, B., & Luckner, S. (2007). Market Engineering (pp.1–6).
Extended abstract, Institute of Information Systems and Management (IISM),
Universität Karlsruhe (TH). Retrieved at February 20, 2016, from http://schnizler.
com/publications/2007/WeinhardtSchnizlerLuckner2007MarketEngineering.pdf
578 References
Weisbord, M. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or
without a theory. Group and Organizational Studies, 1(4) 430–447. Available online
at http://gom.sagepub.com/content/1/4/430.short
Weldon, L. (2016). Building the digital platform: Gartner’s 2016 CIO Agenda. Webinar.
Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.gartner.com/webinar/3139617/
player?commId=175277&channelId=5500&srcId=1-2973089105
Wernefelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
5, 171–180. Retrieved at February 25, 2016, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1002/smj.4250050207/abstract
Weske, M. (2007). Business process management: Concepts, languages, architectures.
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://
link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-28616-2
White, T. (2009). Hadoop: The definitive guide: Storage and analysis at internet scale.
Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media/ Yahoo Press. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://ce.sysu.edu.cn/hope/UploadFiles/Education/
2011/10/201110221516245419.pdf or http://www.oreilly.com/pub/pr/3052
White, M. A., & Bruton, G. D. (2011). The management of technology and innovation:
A strategic approach. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.
White, A., Newman, D., Logan, D., & Radcliffe, J. (2006). Mastering master data
management. Gartner. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://images.kontera.
com/IMAGE_DIR/pdf/MDM_gar_060125_MasteringMDMB.pdf
Wierenga, B. (Ed.). (2008a). Handbook of marketing decision models. New York:
Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from
http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-0-387-78213-3
Wierenga, B. (2008b). The past, the present and the future of marketing decision
models: Introduction to the handbook. In B. Wierenga (Ed.), Handbook of mar-
keting decision models (pp. 3–22). New York: Springer Science and Business
Media, LLC.
Wierenga, B., van Bruggen, G. H., & Althuizen, N. A. P. (2008). Advances in market-
ing management support systems, Chapter 17. In W. Berend (Ed.), Handbook of
marketing decision models (pp. 561–592). New York: Springer Science + Business
Media, LLC, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science
(Book 121).
Wikipedia. (2016a). Ambidextrous organization. Wikipedia. Retrieved at March 10,
2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambidextrous_organization
Wikipedia. (2016b). Business intelligence competency center. Wikipedia. Retrieved at
January 10, 2016, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Intelligence_
Competency_Center
Wikipedia. (2016c). Cloud computing. Wikipedia. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing
Wikipedia. (2016d). Extract, transform, load (ETL). Wikipedia. Retrieved at March 15,
2016, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extract,_transform,_load
Wikipedia. (2016e). Internet of things. Wikipedia. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things#Early_history
Wikipedia. (2016f). Kardashev scale. Wikipedia. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Wikipedia. (2016g). NoSQL. Wikipedia. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL
References 579
Wikipedia. (2016h). Online analytical processing (OLAP). Wikipedia Retrieved at

March 10, 2016, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_analytical_
processing
Wikipedia. (2016i). SQL. Wikipedia. Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL
Wikipedia. (2016j). Boiling frog. Wikipedia. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
Wile, R. (2012). MEGATRENDS: The 6 ‘Gamechangers’ that will impact the planet for
decades. Business Insider. Retrieved at March 10, 2016, from http://www.busines-
s i n s i d e r. c o m / m e g a t r e n d s - t h e - 6 - g a m e c h a n g e r s - t h a t - w i l l - c h a n g e -
the-world-in-the-next-decades-2012-12?op=1
Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2003). Scholarly research in marketing: Exploring the
“4 Eras” of thought development. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(2, Fall),
116–146. Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/
jppm.22.2.116.17639
Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2007). What does the definition of marketing tell us
about ourselves? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 269–276. Retrieved at
March 30, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000802
Wilkinson, I. F., & Gray, D. M. (2007). The production and consumption of marketing
theory. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 15(1), 39–52. Retrieved at April 10,
Wilkinson, I. F., & Young L. C. (2013). The past and the future of business
marketing theory. Industrial Marketing Management, 42, 394–404. Retrieved at
March 30, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0019850113000266
William, H., Prasanta, K. D., & Martin, L. (2011). Strategic sourcing: A combined
QFD and AHP approach in manufacturing. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 16(6), 446–461.
Williams, M. C. (1991). The future of strategy (York University, Department of Political
Science, Centre for International and Strategic Studies CISS Working Paper, No. 3).
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://yciss.info.yorku.ca/files/2012/06/
WP03-Williams.pdf
Williams, M. C. (1993). Neo-realism and the future of strategy. Review of International
Studies, 19(2), 103–121. Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/20097326
Williams, N., & Thomann, J. (2003, November). BI maturity and ROI: How does your
organization measure up? TDWI FLASHPOINT, Decision Path Consulting.
Retrieved at March 20, 2016, from http://www.decisionpath.com/docs_down-
loads/TDWI%20Flash%20-%20BI%20Maturity%20and%20ROI%20110703.pdf
Williams, S., & Williams, N. (2003). The business value of business intelligence. Business
Intelligence Journal, (Fall), 1–11. Retrieved at January 20, 2016, from http://deci-
sionpath.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/The-Business-Value-of-BI.pdf
Williams, S., & Williams, N. (2007). the profit impact of business intelligence. San
Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. A short description is available online at
March 20, 2016, in https://www.elsevier.com/books/the-profit-impact-of-
business-intelligence/williams/978-0-12-372499-1
Wilson, R. (1994). Competitor analysis. Management Accounting, 72(4), 24–26.
Wilson, R. M. S., & Gilligan C. (2005). Strategic marketing management. New York:
Routledge.
580 References
Winer, R. S. (2014). The impact of marketing science research on practice: Comment.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(2), 142–143. Retrieved at
April 10, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0167811614000330
Winston, W. L. (2014). Marketing analytics: Data-driven techniques with Microsoft
Excel. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management
Journal, 24(10), 991–995.
Wise, G. (1985). Science and technology. OSIRIS, 1, 229–246. Retrieved at April 10,
2016, from http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/368647
Wolfe, R., & Putler, D. (2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups?
Organizational Science, 13, 64–80.
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage.
30, 2016, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02894350
Workman, J. P., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing organization: An inte-
grative framework of dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62(3),
21–41. Retrieved at January 15, 2016, from http://jpworkman.com/wiki/
images/2/23/JM_1998_Marketing_Organization.pdf
Wrenn, B. (1997). The market orientation construct: Measurement and scaling issues.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5(3), 31–54. Retrieved at March 25,
2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10696679.1997.11
501770?journalCode=mmtp20
Wright, T. R. (1996). Technology systems. South Holland: Goodheart-Willcox Company.
Wright, S. (2013). Competitive intelligence, analysis and strategy. Routledge/Taylor &
Francis/New York: Creating Organizational Agility.
Wysocki, A. F., Wirth, F. F., Farnsworth, D., & Clark, J. L. (2015). Strategic marketing
management: Building a foundation for your future. Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), University of Florida. Retrieved at February 25, 2016,
from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FE/FE29900.pdf
Xin, J. (2009, February). Strategic management for main functional areas in an organi-
zation. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(2), 153–157. Retrieved
at February 25, 2016, from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/
article/download/532/513
Yami, S., Castaldo, S., Battista, D. G., & Roy, F. L. (Eds.). (2010). Coopetition: Winning
strategies for the 21st century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub.
Yankelovich, D., & Meer, D. (2006). Rediscovering market segmentation. Harvard
Business Review, 84(2), 122–131.
Yoon, S.-J., & Lee, S.-H. (2006). Market-oriented culture and strategy: Are they syn-
ergistic? Marketing Bulletin, 16, Article 4, 1–20. Retrieved at February 20, 2016,
from http://marketing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz/v16/mb_v16_a4_yoon.pdf
Zaltman, G. (2006). How customers think: Essential insights into the mind of the market.
Boston: Harvard Business Press Books.
Zaltman, G. M., LeMaster, K., & Heffring, M. (1982). Theory construction in market-
ing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Zamir, Z., Sahar, A., & Zafar, F. (2014, February). Strategic alliances; A comparative
analysis of successful alliances in large and medium scale enterprises around the
world. Educational Research International, 3(1), 25–39. Retrieved at February 25,
References 581
2016, from http://www.erint.savap.org.pk/PDF/Vol.3(1)/ERInt.2014(3.1-03).

pdf
Zebal, M. A. (2003). A Synthesis model of market orientation for a developing country-
the case of Bangladesh. PhD thesis, Department of Hospitality, Tourism and
Marketing, Faculty of Business and Law, Victoria University of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved at March 15, 2016, from http://vuir.vu.edu.
au/276/1/02whole.pdf
Zebal, M. A., & Saber, H. M. (2014). Market orientation in Islamic banks—A qualita-
tive approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(4), 495–527. Retrieved at
March 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2013-0138
Zeid, A. (2006). Your BI competency center: A blueprint for successful deployment.
Business Intelligence Journal, 11(3), 3rd Quarter, 14–20. Retrieved at February 20,
2016, from https://www.sas.com/events/cm/174390/assets/102807_0906.pdf
Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., Yang, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Developing strategic orienta-
tion in China: Antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations.
Journal of Business Research, 58(8), 1049–1058. Retrieved at January 20, 2016,
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic
capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.
Zur, M. M., & Ting-Yi, H. D. (2006). Risk management in the BPM lifecycle. In
C. Bussler et al. (Eds.) BPM 2005 Workshops, LNCS 3812 (pp. 454–466). Berlin/
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved at January 10, 2016, from http://www.
cebpi.org/downloads/papers/MIZU.DAHO-RISK(2006).pdf
Index
NUMBERS & SYMBOLS Academy of Competitive Intelligence

3D advertising, 419 (ACI), 41, 42, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52,
3D food printing, 427 54, 55, 58, 59, 61
3D printing, 394, 397 Academy of Management Executive,
3M’s Leadership Competency Model, 502, 518, 574
499 Academy of Management Journal, 533,
4D printing, 411 553, 556, 561
“4 Eras” of marketing thought, xxviii, Academy of Management Perspectives,
579 538, 558
7S, 129, 168n12, 178, 324 The Academy of Management Review,
360-degree collaboration, 365 502, 505, 518, 520, 524, 530, 533,
537, 542, 551, 563, 567, 575
Academy of Marketing Science Review,
A 522, 534
Aaker, David, 419 Academy of Strategic Management
Abdel-Hamid Ahmed, 502 Journal, 519
ability, xliiin4, 75, 77, 84, 91–3, 97, 133, accelerate, xlii, 28, 30, 386, 406, 407
182, 183, 196, 235, 341–3, 345, accelerated time to market, 418
356, 394, 401, 402, 404, 410, 455 accenture, 189, 406, 408, 449, 450
ability to use debt, 345 acceptance, xviii, 8, 24, 60, 67, 99, 138,
above normal (upper), 253 159, 217, 271, 280n13, 356, 429
absolute functions, 10, 34n5, 482 acceptance (need), 24
abstract, 199, 281n28, 478–88 access, 32, 78, 163, 205, 275, 289, 301,
academia.edu, 549, 558, 566 309, 315, 328, 345, 368, 386, 394,
academic, viii, x, xiii, 176, 196, 348 400, 403, 407, 412, 415, 453, 456,
Academic and Business Research Institute 471
(ABRI), 547 accessibility, 60, 405, 413, 453–7
academicians, xii, xiii accessing data, 403
academic references, 348 access to raw materials, 345
Note: Page number followed by ‘n’ refers to notes.

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-54833-7
584 INDEX
accountability, 198, 233, 369, 370 257, 258, 281n29, 297, 316, 320,
accountable, 138 322, 324, 332, 337, 344, 347, 357,
accounting, 85, 122, 178, 182, 404, 405 415, 427, 429
accumulation, 531 actual achievement, 253
accuracy, 95, 125, 228, 378, 405 actual competitors, 333, 335
accurate, 123, 312 actual customers, 333
ACG, 301, 304, 363, 367, 370 actual performance, 125
achieve, xxxix, xli, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 32, 33, actual product, 296
38, 43, 50, 51, 96, 97, 99, 102, actual space, 349
113, 114, 123, 125, 138, 173, actual value, 252, 253
183, 184, 196, 198, 199, 210, actuators, 398, 400
214, 222, 223, 228, 239, 251, Adams, R., 558
252, 254, 257, 259, 261, 306, adaptability, 66, 215, 351, 352
311, 313, 343, 365, 368, 401, adapting, 97, 183, 338, 343, 406, 470
417, 431, 432, 449, 480 adaption, 67, 138, 470
Achieving Business Success through adaptive, 69, 93, 430
Marketology, xlivn7, 479 adaptive mindset, 427
Achrol, R. S., 14 adaptive security architecture, 397
ACIT, 566 added value, 295, 453, 456, 457
Ackerman, Greg, 538 Adebisi, A. O., 151, 154, 182, 189, 223,
Ackermann, Fran, 174, 176, 185, 186, 225, 254, 258, 302, 303, 305–7,
189, 223, 225, 226, 306, 308, 311–13
312–15, 318, 320, 326, 350, 357, ad hoc, 417
418, 426 ad hoc manner, 80
ACM, x ad hoc queries, 130
acronyms, 68, 180 ad hoc query capabilities, 80
Across the Board, 545 adhocracy cultures, 66
actionable, 406 ad hoc reporting, 130, 415
actionable analytics, 397 Adina, Cristea, 509
action plans, 229, 231, 237 adjourning, 76
action sets, 366 adjusting, 252
actions of nations, x Adler, Lee, ix
action-taker, xl, xlii, 9, 19, 55, 118, 130, administer, 196, 405
175, 176, 188, 189, 211, 216, 218, administered VMS, 349
226, 228, 232, 236, 249–51, 256, administering corporation, 197
258, 261, 265, 295, 310, 314, 374, administrating, 198, 257, 301, 304, 305
386, 407, 417, 435, 468 administration, x, 40, 49, 84, 85, 226
action-taking, 6, 30, 53, 61, 106, 117, Administration and Policy Studies, 536
126, 129, 194, 204, 206, 211–13, administrative, 48, 212
216, 220, 221, 223, 225–8, 231, administrative challenges, 413
255, 257, 258, 301, 306, 310, 311, administrative core, 138
313, 315, 399, 406, 437, 449, 468 Administrative Science Quarterly, 503,
active, 150, 181, 182, 441 529, 532, 568
active business analytics community, 204 administrator, 538
active market analytics, 204 Adner, R., 97
active marketology body, 250 adopting, 27, 424
activities, xi, 3, 14, 26, 43, 61, 68, 76, adoption, xlii, 60, 206, 331, 395, 431
77, 92, 93, 99, 110–15, 133, 141, adoption of users, 59, 60
181, 199, 204, 207, 209, 228, 254, Adrian, Merv, 402
INDEX 585
advance, xvi, 124, 141, 277, 410–12, 253, 254, 256–9, 261, 265, 279n1,
449 279n2, 280n5, 280n9, 280n11,
advanced analytics, 54, 400, 415, 427 280n16, 281n24, 281n27,
advanced devices, 447 295–300, 302–4, 306–16, 318–20,
advanced marketology governance 322–4, 326, 329, 332, 336, 339,
(AMG), 193, 203–5, 209 345, 349, 353, 357, 361, 363, 367,
advantage, 185, 206, 207, 212, 320, 370, 389n7, 389n11, 389n14,
343, 412, 427 389n17, 408, 418, 422, 424, 426,
advantage of learning, 61 428–31, 435–41, 443, 445, 448–50,
adventure, 504 475n1
advertising, xvi, 70, 419, 426 agile, xxxix, 3, 61, 69, 202–4, 228, 252,
advertising skills, 345 407, 416, 418, 420, 427, 447
advice, xvi agile analytics organizations, 520
adviser, 76 agile BI, 204, 416
affection, 332 agile business, 202
affiliate, 11, 482 agile business intelligence, 407
affiliated analysts, 78 agile business performance management
affiliate functions, 10, 34n5 (BPM), 3, 252
affiliation, 37, 100 agile iterations, 420
affordability, 412, 419 agile management, 418
Africa, 536 agile marketology governance, 203
after-market support, 356 agile MI, 204
after sale services, 111 agile organization, 427
age, 128, 153, 180, 329, 331, 395, 427 agility, 3, 202–5, 222, 223, 415, 440,
agencies (in-house marketing), 420 441
agency, 180, 183, 424 agility of work styles, 395
agency theory, 196 Agle, B. R., 551
Agenda, 500, 525, 559, 577, 578 agreeing on norms, 369
agent, 48, 56, 78, 133, 136–7, 143, 144, agreement, 139, 214, 366, 368
196, 349, 397, 398 agriculture, 479n13
agent relationship, 57 agriculture organization, 522
age of Aquarius, 515 AGSI Journal, 568
agglomeration, 503 Aguilar, F. J., 189
aggressive, 343, 344, 410 Aguinis, Herman, 3, 5, 253, 257, 259,
Agha, Sabah, 105, 106, 112, 117, 254, 261, 265
258 ahead, 141
Aghazadeh, Hashem, xvi, xliiin2, xlivn7, Ahearne, Michael, 542
3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 34n3, 34n5, Ahituv, Niv, 189
41–3, 46, 48–50, 52–5, 57, 59, 61, AHP, 535, 579
65, 69–71, 75–9, 83, 85, 91–3, 97, AIDAS: attention, interest, desire, action,
99–102, 105, 106, 110–12, 116–18, and satisfaction, 331
123, 125–7, 129, 130, 134–40, AIDAS model, 331
142, 145, 146, 148, 149, 151, 154, AI ends the screen age, 427
168n8, 168n14, 169n19, 173–6, airline, 122
179, 182, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, air traffic controller, 204
195, 196, 198–203, 205, 206, AI systems, 126
209–12, 214, 218, 223, 225–7, Akgün, A. E., xii
229, 232, 239, 245, 247, 249, 251, Aktualijos Ir Perspektyvos, 536
586 INDEX
Alas, Ruth, 70, 71 American Productivity and Quality

Alderson’s general theory, 535, 560 Center (APQC), 253, 254, 257,
Alderson, W., ix, xiii 265, 281n26
alerts, 252 American Psychological Association
Alexandra, G., 118, 210–12, 214 (APA), x
Alfieri, Paul, 418, 441 American Sociological Association
algorithms of processing, 438 (ASA), ix
alignment, 1, 2, 13–17, 33, 53, 57, American tragedy, 504
139, 200, 202, 205, 206, 225, Amin, S. G., 179, 183
229–33, 237, 241, 242, 249, 257, Amit, R., 106, 179, 185, 186, 188, 223,
416, 440 225, 245, 249, 313, 316, 317, 319,
alignment (hierarchical), 222 336, 339, 345
Allaire, Yvan, 71 Ammar, Zitouni, 538
Allard, Kenneth, 322, 363 AMR research business intelligence
Alldredge, M., 105, 106, 195, 199, 201 maturity model, 414
Allen, C. T., 517 AMR research business performance
alliance competence, 542 management maturity model, 414
alliance formation, 528, 566 Anaeto, George Solomon, 70, 71,
alliance market orientation (AMO), 431, 145–9, 151, 154
433 analysis needs, 485, 486
alliance orientation, 538 analysis techniques, 84, 129, 485, 486
Allyn and Bacon, 557, 562 analyst background, 320, 321
Almquist, Eric, 189 analyst interaction, 57
along, 26, 37, 38, 41, 103, 117, 139, analytical aspirations, 408
149, 207, 353, 366, 394 analytical capabilities, 59, 106, 414
Alrubaiee, Laith, 498 analytical company, 408
alternative, xi, xii, 177, 210, 212, 351, analytical competitor, 408
407 analytical CRM, xxiv
alternative measure, 522 analytical databases, 413
alternatives analysis, 332 analytically impaired, 408
Althuizen, Niek A. P., 578 analytical mindset, 440
Altman, Tracy Allison, 417, 440, 441 analytical process, 3, 10
Amato, H., 300, 349, 353 analytical skills, 95, 320, 321
Amazon, 403 analytical-systematic, 212
Amazon Web Services (AWS), 501 analytical toolkit, 427
ambidexterity, xliiin4 analytic architectures, 519
ambidextrous approach, 138 analytic capabilities, 61
ambidextrous organization, xlivn4, analytic framework, 497
281n26 analytic process, 3
ambient user experience, 397 analytics application, 4, 412
ambiguity, 248 analytics based, xxxix, 406, 418
American, 281n26 analytics-based management, 406
American Economic Association analytics capability, 399, 408, 450
(AEA), x analytics Centre of Excellence (ACE),
American Economic Review, 548, 567 408, 415
American Journal of Information analytics consequence, 408
Systems, 553 analytics-driven, 447
American Journal of Sociology, 553 analytics-driven enterprise, 406
American Marketing Association (AMA), x analytics intelligence, 416
INDEX 587
analytics knowledge, 53, 61 ANZMAC (Australia and New Zealand

analytics models, 407 Marketing Academy), 533
analytics reveals the diamonds, 406 apart of, 45, 99
analytics skill, 84, 402 à part of’ perspective, 16
analytics style (content), 408 Apeldoorn, P., 574
analytics types, 407, 408 Apostu, Anca, 545
analytics visualization, 407, 409 apparent, 153, 306, 313, 328, 482
analyzability, 122, 453–5 application, viii, x, xi, 4, 41, 51, 54, 56,
analyze, x, 64, 74, 78, 89, 109, 121, 77, 122–5, 130, 132, 139, 205,
132, 144, 157, 159–62, 168n12, 314, 318, 331, 378, 396–8, 400,
192, 221, 242, 248, 259, 260, 401, 403, 404, 407, 412, 432, 441,
269, 271–4, 283–8, 320, 329, 447, 456, 475–6n13, 480
355, 363, 370, 373, 377, 379, application data mart, 4
382, 385, 394, 401, 402, 406, applied materials, xlii
410, 452, 455, 457, 459, 460, applied semantics, 417
462, 464, 467–70, 480, 481, applied systems, 124, 125
483, 484, 487, 488 applied technology, xi, 401
anatomy, 531 applying, 53, 59, 84, 129, 139, 204,
Andersen, Henrik, 422 222, 320, 344, 359, 401, 415
Anderson, D. H., 511 app marketplaces, 397
Anderson, Elana W., 553 appraisal, 502, 535
Anderson, Erin, 300, 302, 304, 418, apprising performance, 484
419, 422, 445, 448 approach, 3, 56, 59, 95, 123, 127, 138,
Anderson, J. C., xv, 14 150, 160, 175, 181, 199, 202–5,
Anderson, M. L., xv, xviii, 14 207, 208, 210, 211, 214, 217, 218,
Anderson, P. F., ix 222, 224, 225, 254, 258, 272, 285,
Anderson, Ronald, 195, 196, 198–200, 334, 336, 359, 392, 396, 401,
202, 203, 205, 211, 219, 422, 443, 417–19, 440–2, 475n4, 476n14,
446, 448, 450 479, 480, 482, 488
Andreea, Pagalea, 509 approaches of marketology and decision-
Andre, Rae, 499 making interaction, 441
Andreu, Luisa, 505 appropriate, viii, xviii, 13, 41, 46, 51, 70,
Andrew, Parker M, 9 79, 83, 125, 141, 184, 199, 203,
Andrews, John, 394 206, 223, 232, 249, 258, 260,
Andrews, K. R., 544 306–8, 323, 336, 479
animal, 362 App stores, 397
Annabelle, Gawer, 398, 411, 436, 441, aquarius, xx, 515
443, 445, 448 Araujo, L., xiv, xviii
Annals, 505 archetypes, 566
Ansari, A., 357 architects, 146, 402
Ansoff, Igor, 439 architectural overlap, 233
answer, xiii, 167, 197, 212, 277, architectural perspective, 233, 336
339, 344, 360, 387, 401, 410, architectural scope, 233
435, 474 architecture, 10, 22, 48, 50, 51, 57, 83,
antecedent, 194, 211, 216, 429, 433 84, 111, 202, 224, 229, 231, 233,
anthropology, 572 397, 402–4, 411, 450
anticipating, 526 Ardi, Dana, 410, 411, 435, 436, 442,
anticipatory opportunism, 441 443, 445, 448, 450
Antonietti, Alessandro, 561 Ardley, B., xvi
588 INDEX
areas, 53, 61, 82, 83, 112, 123, 129, assessing, 68, 151, 235, 332, 458, 483, 487
139, 164, 180, 182, 184, 218, 235, assessing and monitoring value, 113
320, 329, 337, 343, 362, 368, 373, assessment, 24, 58, 96, 139, 321, 356,
374, 380, 381, 400, 412, 435, 436, 360, 440, 479, 481, 488
439, 476n13, 482 assessor, 76
Argandona, Antonio, 245, 251, 265, asset, 5, 11, 15, 17, 23, 24, 35, 43, 44,
295, 296, 298, 299, 309, 317, 319, 47, 90–3, 98–101, 104, 106–9, 156,
353, 357 158–62, 164, 166, 178, 188, 216,
Aristigueta, Maria P., 554 218, 229, 238, 239, 244, 245, 252,
Ariyachandra, Thilini, 577 253, 257, 263, 264, 281n19,
Armstrong, Gary, 8, 14, 112, 113, 116, 281n22, 301, 302, 310–12, 331,
127, 149, 151, 154, 173, 175, 335, 336, 338, 339, 344, 345, 347,
182, 185, 189, 196, 198, 205, 348, 355, 359, 365, 366, 368, 380,
227, 247, 309, 311, 315, 317, 383, 399–401, 404–6, 434, 445–7,
318, 322, 323, 329, 332, 345, 463, 471, 475n3, 490
349, 353, 357, 422, 424, 426, asset-light business models, 400
436, 438–40, 443, 445, 448 asset management, 253, 404
Armstrong, Michael, 75, 76, 78, 83, 85 asset utilization, 366
Aron, Dave, 395, 412 assist, vii, xi, 6, 38, 49–51, 56, 78, 111,
Aronson, J. E., 573 117, 129, 164, 232, 235, 251, 257,
Arrfelt, M., 534 258, 260, 261, 311, 318, 322, 356,
arrived, 547 472, 478
Arrow, K. J., 8, 247, 248, 254, 265 assisting target audience, 484
art, xv, xi, viii associated risks, 184
art and copy, 420 Association for Computing Machinery
Arthur, W. Brian, x (ACM), 10
article, 428 associations, 178, 185, 281n20, 335,
artifacts, 65, 66, 68, 430 362, 363, 394
artifacts for market orientation, 70 assumptions, xvi, 65, 66, 68, 71, 214,
artificial intelligence (AI), xii, 394, 395, 341, 430, 479
400, 401, 411, 427, 435 assurance, 49, 356
art of leadership, 176 astronomy, 34n1
art or science, xi, viii asymmetric information, 516
art: technical, professional and applicative at department/unit, 408
aspects, viii Atkinson, Tom, 69
Artun, Omer, 408 atmosphere, 232
Asghar, Rob, 504 atomically precise manufacturing, 411
Asian, 537, 546 attention, 68, 75, 180, 200, 331, 338,
Asian century, 395 370, 402
Asian Social Science, 567 attitude, 71, 75, 89, 327, 329, 331, 345,
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 355, 362, 369
546 attracting customers, 328, 398
a space in which buyers and sellers come attracting workforce, 398
in, 487 attractive, 184, 327
aspect, viii, ix, x, xi, 23, 25, 26, 79, 97, attribute-behavior dimensions, 325
123, 233, 243, 253, 320, 321, 323, attributes, xii, 7, 26, 28, 49, 56, 84, 105,
331, 363, 394, 395 154, 186, 199, 200, 235, 245, 253,
assembled cloud, 403 292, 293, 303, 304, 308, 315, 325,
assembling, 81 326, 330, 333, 334, 336–40,
INDEX 589
345–50, 353, 355, 358–67, 370, B

388, 390n21, 399, 421, 426, 493 Babatunde, Bayode O., 151, 154, 182,
Atuahene-Gima, K., 420 189, 223, 225, 254, 258, 302, 303,
Atwong, C. T., 313, 316, 349, 353 305–7, 311–13
audience, 9, 28, 30, 32, 42, 46, 48, 51, Babu, P. R., 432
55, 61, 75, 78, 79, 83, 87, 117, backbone, 403
118, 127, 139, 140, 189, 207, 218, back-end technologies, 413
228, 239, 249, 251, 258, 291, 292, background, xv, xvii, xviii, xli, 16, 258,
295–7, 299, 304, 310, 314–18, 309, 320, 337, 338
320, 322, 323, 373, 374, 383, 417, backward, 6, 347
423, 437, 439, 472, 482, 484, 485 backward integration, 7
audit, 356, 488 bad competitors, 339
auditing market, 487 Bagozzi, R. P., ix
Auerbach Publications, 570 Bai, Chunguang, 357
augmented product, 296 Bain and Company, 541, 573
augmented reality, 419 Bain Brief, 573
Auh, Seigyoung, xiii, 297, 298, 302, Bain, J. S., 300, 302, 336, 339, 345,
309, 314, 318, 321, 322, 357, 363, 389n18
367, 370 Baker, E. W., 69, 92, 106, 112, 117,
Aurik, Johan, 418 135, 138, 140, 142, 146, 149, 151,
Australasian Conference on Information 154, 185, 188, 254, 258, 314, 316,
Systems, 512 319, 321, 322, 429
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Baker, H. Kent, 195, 196, 198–200,
579 202, 203, 205, 211, 219, 443, 446,
Australia, 515, 528, 533, 581 448, 450
Austria, 517 Bakken, Henry, xv, xvi
authentic brand, 422 Balachandran, V., 195, 196, 198–200,
authentic culture, 422 203, 218
authoritative people, 419 Balagopal, Balu, 504
authority, 38, 50, 77, 196, 325 Balakrishnan, Hari, 513
Auto-ID centers, 400 balanced, 246, 248, 329, 357, 359, 414,
Auto-ID labs, 400 431, 432
automated process, 447 balanced marketology governance
automating, 140 (BMG), 193, 205–6
automating business processes, 440 balanced market orientation (BMO),
automating knowledge work, 400 431–2
automation, 378, 400, 415, 419, 435 balanced mix of technical and business
automotive, 510 skills, 84
autonomous, 27, 36, 45–6, 52, 100, 349 balanced portfolio of standards, 414
autonomous agent, 397 balanced scorecard (BSC), 111, 125,
autonomous design, 27 169n17, 248, 253, 281n26, 324
autonomous producers, 349 Balanced Scorecard Institute (BSI), 8,
Autonomous University of Barcelona, 552 13, 247, 248, 251, 254, 259, 261,
avenues, 567 265
Avlonitis, J. George, 8, 432 balanced sheets, 357
avoid decisions, 212 balanced value, 329, 359
awakening, 362 balanced value oriented perspective, 439
awareness, 95, 105, 138, 281n20, 331, balancing, 424
334, 413 Balboni, Fred, 186, 189, 245, 249, 311,
Azaz, Islam, 538 408
590 INDEX
Baldrige, 253 basic marketing, 549

Baldrige Performance Excellence basic values, 69, 180
Program (BPEP), 253–5, 258, 265 Basil Blackwell, 547
Baligh, H. H., ix, xiii Basu, A., 196, 200, 202, 203, 205
Ballal, T., 546 batch, 416
Ballard, Chuck, 3, 5, 6, 11, 41, 42, 46, Battista, D. G., 580
48–50, 52–5, 57, 59, 110, 117, battlefield, 320
125, 126, 130, 142, 148, 149, 185, battling, 449
188, 198, 245, 251, 253, 254, Baum, J. A. C., xiv, xviii, 439
257–9, 261, 265, 302–4, 307, 309, B2B (business to business), 153, 327,
311–13, 315, 316, 345 332, 355, 431
Bamford, C. E., 515 B2B commercial relationship, 347
Banahene, Stephen, 324, 336, 339, 345 BBVA Group, 513
Bandhold, Hans, 418 B2C (business to customer), 153, 327
Banerjee, P., 97, 125, 126, 130 B2C commercial relationship, 347
Bangladesh, 581 BCG, 129
Bank, 253–5, 265 BCG Perspectives, 562
Bansal, H. S., 8 BDO, 521
Bao, Yongchuan, 422 Beal, R. M., 177, 183, 189, 223, 225,
Barbu, Alina, 320, 323, 424 254, 258
bargaining power, 182, 332, 352, 354 Bearden, William O., 539
Barker, Adam, 401, 402 Bechtel, C., 350, 353
Barksdale, H. C., ix Becker, Jan, 430, 439
Barnes, Stephanie, 127, 223, 225, Beck, P. W., 177, 183
295–7, 299, 312, 314, 315 Bednall, David H. B., 177, 183, 189,
Barnett, A. Greenberg, 526 225, 258
Barney, Jay B., 91–3, 100–2, 105, 106, beef, 499
113, 116, 117, 126, 127, 151, 154, behavior, ix, 16, 38, 180, 360–3, 365,
168n12, 173, 174, 179, 182, 185, 368–71, 388, 390n21, 402, 406,
189, 198, 202, 211, 223, 225, 245, 408, 411, 426–8, 430, 431, 435,
251, 253, 254, 259, 265, 300, 449, 485, 487, 493
302–5, 307, 311–13, 315, 330, behavioral components, 428
332, 336, 339, 340, 345, 361, 367, behavioral conceptualization, 428
418 behavioral control, 200
Barnwell, Neil, 65, 146 behavioral data, 417
barrier(s), 30, 42, 79, 145, 148, 154, behavioral economics, 212
155, 261, 334, 337, 339, 344, 369, behavioral obstacles, 430
413, 430, 479, 485 behavioral process, xii
barriers to development of market behavioral research, 539
orientation, 430 behavioral science, 321
Bartels, Robert, xi, ix, xii, viii, viii, ix, xi, behavioral strategy, 430
xii behavioral theory, 513
bartering, 405 behaviors of a society, 180
Barton, Dominic, 97, 229, 232, 410, Beil, Damian, 357
411, 435, 436, 443, 445, 448 beliefs, 65, 66, 181, 402, 430
basic, viii, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, 16, 39, 51, believability, 405
65, 68, 85, 113, 126, 200, 341, believes, viii, 71, 322, 329, 331
389n15, 429, 440 Bell, David, 516
Basic Book, 504, 515 Belmont, 551
INDEX 591
below normal (lower), 253, 335, 343 304, 306, 308, 311–13, 315, 326,
benchmarking, 30, 125, 356 426
Benchmarking: An International Journal, best practice companies (BPC), 30, 31,
550 162, 274, 287, 288, 455, 458, 466
benchmarks, 30, 31, 345 best quality, 368
Bender, Nathalie, 406 Best, Rick, 8, 248
Bender, P. S., 357 Best, Roger, 8, 112, 116, 127, 173, 175,
beneficial, 128, 142, 246, 327, 355, 359, 182, 185, 186, 188, 189, 196, 198,
363, 365 209, 218, 223, 239, 245, 251, 265,
beneficial intelligence, 427 309, 312, 317, 319, 321, 322, 329,
beneficial manner, 93 332, 336, 353, 357, 361, 363, 422,
benefits, xvi, 37, 40, 51, 54, 75, 113, 426, 436–8, 440, 442, 443, 445,
139, 181, 186, 196, 203, 206, 207, 448, 450
226, 243, 248, 262, 264, 296, 325, better-informed decision-makings, 404,
402–3, 405, 412–14, 422, 432, 405, 440
440, 449 better-performed, 93
Bengston, David N., 175, 311 Bettis, R. A., 313, 336, 339, 345
Bengtsson, M., 367, 370 beverage, 576
Bennett, R. C., ix Beverland, M., 301–4, 312, 322
Bennis, Warren, 195, 198, 199, 206, Beverly Hills, 561
209, 212, 215, 219 Beyenetwork, 519
Benson, Christina C., 93, 99, 102, Beyer, Janice M., 71, 149, 174, 189
124–7, 137, 139, 140, 142, 247, Beyer, Mark A., 402, 403
251, 311, 315 beyond, viii, xvii, xxxix, 54, 70, 83, 178,
Bensoussan, Babette E., 118, 125, 130, 180, 181, 200, 226–8, 320, 329,
135, 140, 142, 151, 154, 173, 175, 363, 365, 390n22, 400, 401
179, 182, 185, 189, 195, 196, 205, beyond boundaries of a single firm, 432
225, 226, 229, 247, 251, 265, 300, beyond business, viii, xvi–xviii
304–7, 311, 314–16, 318, 321, beyond business contexts, vii, xv, xvii,
323, 324, 329, 332, 336, 350, 357, xviii, 482
361, 367, 418, 422, 426 beyond hierarchical boundaries, 296
Berend, Wierenga, 578 beyond IT silos, 221, 225–6, 230, 413
Bergen, Mark E., 97, 173, 174, 177, beyond marketing, viii, xvi–xviii, 320
183, 195, 202, 203, 214, 223, 324, beyond market orientation, 431
336, 339, 345 beyond practice, viii, xv, xvi–xviii
Berkeley University of California, 513, beyond traditional boundaries, 400
543 beyond-unit, 83
Berkowitz, Eric N., 71, 146, 147, 151 B2G (business to government), 153, 327
Berlin, 541 Bhalla, Gaurav, 564
Berlin Heidelberg, 575, 578, 581 Bhalla, Vikram, 253, 256–8, 261, 265
Bernarda, Gregory, 557 Bhatti, Z.,
Bernard, P., 357 Bhatti, Zeeshan, 553
Berner, Martin, 403, 408 BI. See Business intelligence (BI)
Bernoff, Josh, 511 BI 1.0 (Tool-centricity), 415, 416
Berns, Maurice, 93, 102, 127 BI 2.0 (Web-centricity), 415, 416
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 510, 551, BI 3.0 (App-centricity), 415, 416
571 BI capabilities, 4
Bessant, John, 135, 137–40, 142, 229, Bicen, Pelin, 431
232, 239, 245, 249, 265, 300, 302, BI competency centers, 581
592 INDEX
Biesdorf, Stefan, 398, 411, 436, 443, blended value proposition, 521
445, 448 block chain technology, 411
BI Excellence Advisory Board, 168n6 blogs, 147
big bang, 415 Bloomington, 562
big business, 399 Bloomington: Bureau of Business
big change, 391–3, 399–409, 423, 426, Research, 562
443, 447, 472, 473 blue ocean, 328
big data, xii, 391, 394, 398–404, 406, blueprint, 507, 581
410, 412, 415, 416, 423, 424, 440, board, 49, 83, 168n6
442, 443, 449, 450, 453–5 board of directors (BOD), xxxix, xli, 1–5,
big data analytics, 404, 406 14, 15, 22–7, 30–4, 49, 64, 194,
big data analytics framework (BDAF), 450 200, 216, 218, 223, 226, 227, 231,
big data driven, 447 238, 239, 243, 244, 251–3, 257,
big data exploitation assessment (BDEA) 263, 264, 275, 276, 281, 283,
Matrix, 392, 451, 453, 454, 471, 287–9, 295, 301, 302, 307, 336,
474, 494 338, 359, 360, 368, 389n3, 392,
big data foundations, 415 408, 434, 436, 437, 443, 471, 472,
big data initiatives, 402 491
big data processing (BDP), 130, 401, Bobek, Samo, 546
453, 454 bodies, viii, 13, 26, 48, 153, 154, 243,
big data 5V Assessment (BD5VA) 250, 304, 305, 308, 313, 365, 424,
Matrix, 392, 455, 471, 474, 494 427, 449
big data warehouse, 415 Bogdana, Pugna Irina, 3, 253, 256, 257,
Biggadike, E. R., viii 259, 261, 265
big ideas for big data, 402 Bogner, William C., 105
big insights, 399 boiling frog, 175, 279–80n4
big interaction data (BID), 401, 453, book series, 517
454 Booz And Company, 550
big master data, 415 Boshoff, Christo, 527
Bigne, J. Enrique, 429 Boston, 498, 502, 511, 514, 516, 517,
the big picture, 424 527, 529, 530, 538, 539, 541, 554,
big potential value, 404 555, 557, 558, 560, 562, 563, 565,
big realized value, 404 569, 580
big returns, 399 Boston Consulting Group (BCG), 129
big transaction data, 401, 453, 454 bottom line, 198
BI Journey, 533 bottom-up, 48, 151, 206, 218, 255
BI modules, 125 bottom-up BI, 416
biotechnology, 419 bottom-up decision-making, 206, 225
BI semantic layers, 49 bottom-up information flow, 255
BI server, 49 bottom-up marketology, 48, 206, 218
Bishop, Peter, 175 bottom-up pressure, 151
Bisp, Soren, 428, 430 bought, 326
BI system, 49, 207 Boulgarides, J. D., 3, 9, 198, 199, 206,
BI tool functionality, 80 219, 253, 254, 257, 259, 261
Bitsani, Eugenia, 69 boundary(ies), 70, 173, 296, 425, 426,
BI value, 51 432
Blackwell, 531, 547 boundary-less organizational structures,
Blackwell Publishers, 577 39
INDEX 593
boundary-spanning, 13 breakthrough innovations, 433

boundary-spanning activities, 14 breakthroughs, 137, 433
boundary-spanning marketing breakthrough technology, 137
organization, 13 Brechbuhl, Hans, 394, 412
bounded, xv, 194, 210, 214, 236, 328 Brennan, Niamh, 106
bounded perspective, 196, 197 Bressler, S. Martin, 179, 185, 186, 188
bounded rationality perspective, 211 brian solis, 568, 569
Bousso, Raphael, 14 bridge performance gaps, 366
Bowman, Ruth A., 57 bridging, 232
Boyd, K. Brian, 177, 183, 189 bridging the gap, 221, 232–6, 240
Boyd, Nancy G., 542 Brief, A., 556
Boyer, John, 61, 111, 123, 125, 127, briefing, 520, 524
168n9, 223, 225–7, 229, 239, 307, Brinker, Scott, 418, 419
308, 312, 314, 316, 323, 326, 345, Brinkkemper, Sjaak, 536
361, 370, 426 Brisbane, 515
Boyle, Richard, 65, 71, 148, 151, 154 British Colombia Public Service Agency
B2P (business to people), 153 (BCPSA), 105, 106, 195, 198, 199,
BPM. See Business performance 201, 223
management (BPM) British Computer Society (BCS), 508
BPMSG, 3, 5, 253, 257, 259, 261, 265 British Informatics Society Limited
BPR. See Business process re-engineering (BISL), 508
(BPR) British Journal of Arts and Social
Bptrends Report, 529 Sciences, 538
Bragg, D. J., 357 British Journal of Management, 505,
brainstorming, 212 552, 568
brain uploading, 411 British Journal Publishing, 538
branches, x, 102, 349 broad-based managerial approach, 504
brand associations, 178, 281n20 broadening, 533, 541
brand-building programs, 419 broadening boundaries, 533
brand choice, 332 broadening the concept of marketing,
brand co-creation, 329 541
Brandenburger, A., 182, 313, 363, 366, broad perspective, 196, 197
370 broad view, 51, 197
brand equity, 211, 253, 281n20 broken products, 348
brand image destruction, 211 bronze customers, 32
branding, 421 Brooks, I., 65
brand level, viii, 264 Brophy, Monica, 93, 126
brand loyalty, 178, 281n20, 418 Brousseau, Kenneth R., 5, 198, 199,
brand management, 57 205, 206, 209, 215, 219
brand name, 185, 345 Brown, Brad, 547
brand name recognition, 345 Brown, Christopher, 524
brand outstanding, 411 Brown, D., 175
brand performance, 344 Browning, J. M., 357
brand promise, 422 Brownlie, D., ix
brand recognition, 328, 345, 368 Brown, Linden, 524
brands portfolios, 178, 344, 368 Brown, R. B., 65
brand surveys, 417 Brown, R. L., 515
break-even point, 253 Brown R. W., 504
breaking, 137 Brown, S. A., 304, 329, 332, 353, 363
594 INDEX
Brown, Stephen, viii Bush, Tony, 65, 69, 71, 147

Brown, S. W., 520 Bush, Victoria D., 576
browsers, 126 business, vii, xxxix, 1, 35, 171, 291, 391,
Bruce, R. A., 4, 6, 198–202, 211, 212, 478
219, 253, 255, 261 business action-takers, 8, 255, 257
Bruce, Williams, 524 business action-taking, 255, 257
Bruin, De Tonia, 413 business activity, xi, 3
Bruin Wändi Bruine De, 500 business administration, 49, 226
Bruton, Garry D., 134–7, 140, 142, 229, business agility, 202–4
239, 245, 249, 300, 306, 313 business alignment, 229, 257
Bruyn, Arnaud De, 545 business analysis, 11, 168n14, 171–93,
Brynjolfsson, Erik, 398, 411, 436 267, 270–6, 279, 280n5, 280n7,
Bryson, John M., 186, 226, 307, 309, 280n8, 291, 324, 390n21
326, 339, 357, 360, 363, 370, 426 business analysts, 42, 54, 78, 84, 129,
BSC. See balanced scorecard (BSC) 176, 245, 249–51, 306–8, 314,
BT Technology Journal, 506 318, 402, 404, 407, 409, 410, 413,
Buchman, Rick, 529 435, 436, 449, 473
budget(s), 99–101, 125, 200, 229, 231, business analytical matters, 204, 205,
237, 252, 341, 404, 406 225, 408
Buffa, F. P., 357 business analytics (BA), 51, 83, 85, 204,
Bughin, Jacques, 398, 411, 436, 443, 205, 225, 228, 401, 407, 408, 449,
446, 448, 450 450, 459, 461
building balance, 206 Business analytics capability matrix
building blocks, 123, 318 (BACM), 393, 414, 451, 459, 460,
building databases, 50, 407 472, 474, 494
building flexibility, 48, 417 business analytics maturity, 408
buildings, viii, ix, xviii, 40, 43, 48, 50, business and market development, 423
68, 84, 118, 123, 139, 154, 182, business based, xxxix, 11, 16, 19, 227,
198, 281n29, 295, 303, 313, 318, 277, 291, 293, 294, 297–302, 305,
369, 400, 407, 410, 417, 421 309, 443
building trust, 369 business-based contributions, 277, 291,
build power bases, 77 293, 294, 297–309, 372, 386–8,
build strong customer relationships, 113 447, 492
Build-To-Order Supply Chain business-based outcomes, 16, 70, 111,
Management, 528 229, 230, 259, 297
Bujauskas, Vytautas, 567 business-based solutions, 204, 227, 410,
bundles of skills, 76 441
bureaucracy, 38, 410 business behavior, 181, 291, 300, 302–3,
bureaucratic, 38, 66 305
bureaucratic culture, 38, 66 business brand, 91, 362
Bureau of Business Research, 562 business building blocks (BBB), xxxix,
Burke, Brian, 509 xli, xlivn6, 1–6, 8–11, 14, 16, 33,
Burke, W., 13, 258 34n4, 218, 223, 229, 231, 239,
Burton, Betsy, 3, 13, 38, 39, 49, 51–5, 252, 264, 302, 303, 306, 336, 386,
57, 59, 61, 123, 254, 257, 259, 471
265, 281n29 business-centric, 437
Burton, Dawn, xvi, xviii, 507 business channel, 347, 350, 352
Burton, R. M., ix, xiii business clients, 42, 43, 60, 196, 251, 295,
Burton, T. T., 357 304, 314, 318, 407, 413, 423, 431
INDEX 595
business cloud computing, xii, 403, 409, 389n14, 391, 392, 396, 399–410,
443, 444, 447, 449 420, 423, 429, 432, 443–5, 447,
business cluster, 366 449, 451, 472–4, 494
business collaborations, 365, 366, 368, business environment analysis, 18, 23,
369, 410 165, 307, 324
business collaborators, 292, 365, 366, Business, Environment and Market
370 Analysis (BEMA), 169n19, 177,
business competitive performance, 91, 279n1, 280n5, 280n9, 281n19,
355 389n7, 389n17, 477, 478, 487–9,
business competitive success, vii, xli, 495, 496
xlivn6, 1, 2, 5–6, 10, 11, 33, 91, 94, business excellence, 440, 441
102, 105, 106, 111, 173, 184, 218, business executional matters, xlii, 153,
222, 223, 225–8, 231, 239, 251, 413, 414, 432, 434, 468
255, 258, 259, 264, 275, 276, 294, business executives, xlii, 78, 83, 84, 153,
301, 336, 341, 354, 365, 386, 406, 226, 252, 308, 313, 379, 382, 399,
434, 447, 449, 472 402, 404, 413, 414, 432, 434, 468
business concerns, 396 business external, 178, 184, 191, 301,
business context, vii, xii, xv–xviii, xli, 307, 380, 488
224, 410, 482 business governance, 291, 300, 301,
business corporation, 56, 61, 78, 79, 304–5, 307, 380
105, 197, 225, 226, 251, 253, 259, business graphs, 407
399, 440 Business History Review, 509
business culture, 73, 345 Business Horizons, 499, 504, 509, 561,
business customer, 349, 355 568, 577
business data, 407 business image, 331
business decision intensity, 441 business infographics, 407, 436, 475n5
business decision-makers, xii, xlii, 9, 118, business information, 61, 78, 79, 84, 204
175, 176, 188, 189, 218, 226, 232, Business Information Maturity Model,
236, 245, 248–51, 256, 258, 261, 414
313, 314, 386, 407, 417, 435, 437, business infrastructure, 3, 4
468, 482 business inside, 149, 172, 177–9, 191,
business decision-making, 212, 213, 255, 192, 302, 303, 307, 308, 312, 410,
257 416
business design, 291, 300, 302, 305 business inside analysis, 302, 303, 307,
business development, 402 312
business development drivers, 419 Business Insider, 579
business dictionary, 94 business intelligence (BI), 3–4, 14, 23,
business distributor, 349 39, 46, 49–51, 53–4, 56, 58–61,
business driven, 84, 203 78–80, 82–4, 83, 84, 95, 124, 125,
business ecology, 194, 195 129–30, 145, 149–50, 155, 157,
business ecosystem, 172, 173, 179, 192, 168n4, 168n6, 202, 204–7, 205,
202, 366 207, 223–8, 224–7, 236, 281, 328,
business effectiveness, 227, 230 329, 333, 346, 353, 358, 361–3,
business efficiency, 227, 230 362, 363, 370, 391, 396, 407, 409,
business environment, xii, 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 412–16, 413–16, 425, 437–8, 443,
18, 23, 43, 69, 92, 97, 165, 173, 461, 462, 465, 475n13, 476n14,
174, 176, 177, 180, 181, 188, 203, 481
225, 227, 252, 259, 267, 302, 303, Business Intelligence and Information
307, 312, 320, 324, 359, 361, Management, 56
596 INDEX
Business intelligence archetypes, 566 Business Model Canvas, 114, 129

business intelligence competency center business model transformation, 441
(BICC), 36, 51, 52, 61, 78–9, 193, business network, 281n26, 366
203–9, 204–9, 225, 280n14, 414 business objects, 80
Business Intelligence Journal, 523, 529, business operational managers, 42, 257
530, 539, 579, 581 business operations, 110, 119, 121
business intelligence maturity hierarchy, business opportunism, 441
414 business opportunities, 440
business intelligence maturity models, business organizational behavior (BOB),
414 xl, xli, xxxix, 1–5, 9, 14, 15, 22–7,
Business Intelligence Strategy, 505, 551, 30–3, 34n10, 164, 173, 174, 188,
564 192, 216, 218, 220, 221, 223, 224,
Business Intelligence Technology 226, 231, 238, 239, 241, 242, 244,
Priorities, 536 251–3, 257, 263, 264, 269–76,
Business interaction, 145, 149–50, 155, 279, 281n19, 283, 287–9, 295,
157 301–3, 307, 336, 343, 359, 360,
business internal, 178, 191, 192, 301, 368, 386, 389n4, 392, 408, 434,
307, 324, 381, 487, 488 436, 437, 443, 463, 471, 472,
business knowledge, 80, 81, 407 475n8, 492
business leaders, 69, 146, 149, 405, 410, business organizational design (BOD),
411 xl, xli, xxxix, 1–5, 9, 14, 22–7, 30–3,
business leadership, 402 34n10, 64, 74, 89, 109, 121, 132,
business legislation, 181 144, 158, 159, 161–4, 167, 173,
Business life cycle (BLC), 291, 300, 301, 188, 216, 218, 223, 226, 227, 231,
303–5, 323, 338, 340, 341, 355, 238, 239, 244, 251, 252, 257, 263,
356, 380 264, 275, 283, 287, 289, 295, 301,
business literature, xliii, 248, 280n6 302, 307, 336, 338, 359, 368, 386,
business macro environment, 180, 188, 434, 436, 443, 463, 471, 472, 491
192, 324 business organization context, 35, 164,
business management, viii, 321 294, 387, 393, 473
Business Management Dynamics, 509, business organizations, xli, 3, 31, 32, 35,
557 39, 164, 172, 177, 187–9, 204,
business market, 183, 191, 246, 281n21, 252, 276, 279, 280n6, 282–9, 293,
323, 324, 391, 409, 425–6, 428, 294, 297, 306, 373, 386–8, 393,
431, 433, 443 410, 471, 473, 492, 493
Business, Market and Competitive business orientation, 65, 69, 429
Analysis (BMCA), xlivn7, 169n19, business oriented, 257, 447
279n2, 389n17, 477, 478, 485–8, business outcomes, 70, 111, 229, 230,
495, 496 297, 307
business marketing, 24, 50, 56, 320, business outside, 53, 307, 417
327, 331 business partner, 232, 414, 432
business marketing theory, 579 business performance, xl, xli, xliii, xxxix,
business market orientation, 428 1–4, 9, 10, 13, 33, 34, 42, 43, 53,
business media, 363, 365 69, 70, 79, 90, 116, 149, 202–4,
business micro environment, 180, 182, 212, 227, 229, 230, 235, 242, 248,
183, 307, 324 251–3, 266, 269, 297, 302, 324,
Business Model, 5, 110, 113–16, 119, 355, 381, 406, 407, 429, 440
121, 281n26, 339, 349, 400, 412, business performance evaluation, 242,
441, 480 253–4, 266, 269
INDEX 597
business performance management business response, 145, 150–1, 155, 157

(BPM), xl, xli, xliii, xxxix, xlivn6, business risks, 402
1–5, 10, 11, 33, 41, 53, 56, 110, business senior executives, 31, 176, 227,
116–17, 119, 121, 164, 204, 242, 244, 258
248, 252, 253, 255, 256, 258–60, business simulation, xlii
262, 264, 266, 269, 275, 276, 336, business solutions partnering, 441
386, 392, 434–6, 443, 447, 463, business stakeholder analysis
472, 475n8, 475n13 (engineering), 292, 308, 324–6,
business performance measurement, 554 330
business performance optimization business stakeholder analysis
(BPO), 242, 255–8, 266, 269 (engineering) matrix, 326
business philosophy, xiv, xiii business stakeholder perspective, 365
business planning, 129 business stakeholders, 59, 172, 185–6,
business platform, 396, 407, 415 190–2, 291, 300, 301, 308, 309,
business policy, 544 324, 325, 362, 381, 387, 433
business power, 70 business strategic issues, 291, 301,
business practice, xv, 112, 181 306–7, 309, 380
business priority, 233, 398, 399, 443 business strategic management (BSM),
business problem, 204, 259, 406 xliii, 3, 291, 300, 301, 306, 307,
business process, 3, 4, 6, 8, 40, 58, 78, 309, 336, 380, 386, 418, 471
83, 91, 94, 97, 110–13, 115, 119, business strategic values (BSV), 301, 308
126, 137, 138, 169, 202, 204, 205, business strategy, 32, 57, 58, 83, 178,
225, 226, 228, 233, 235, 248, 223, 224, 231, 249, 257, 322, 406,
251–3, 255, 256, 258, 259, 261, 411, 485
264, 380, 399, 402, 406, 414, 440 business strategy formation, 553
business process application, 4 business success, xl, xli, xlivn7, 2, 3, 5,
business process architectures, 111 11, 16, 19, 33, 39, 43, 56, 174,
business process center of excellence, 441 202, 258–60, 262, 291, 295, 296,
business processes, 3, 8, 91, 97, 110–1, 300–5, 307, 354, 355, 380, 386,
126, 137, 138, 169n17, 204, 233, 402, 413, 435, 437, 450, 463, 469,
252, 256, 259, 398, 402, 406, 440 477–80, 495, 496
business process innovation (BPI), 242, business supply chain, 354
253, 255–7, 368 business sustainable success, 1, 2, 4, 10,
Business Process Management (BPM), 223, 225, 256, 259, 260, 275, 294,
110, 111, 116–17, 119, 121, 235, 386, 392
475n13 business systems, 41, 321
Business Process Management Journal, business tactical values (BTV), 301, 309
540 business technology, 132, 277, 380, 387,
business process maturity model, 111 409, 418, 443
business process modelling, 111 business thought foundation, xv
business process optimization (BPrO), business to business (B2B), 153, 327,
242, 255–7 332, 347, 355, 415
business process-oriented, 117 business-to-business markets, 431
business process re-engineering (BPR), business to customer (B2C), 153, 327,
56, 111, 140 347
business process types, 110–12, 119 business to government (B2G), 153, 327
business professionals, 78 business transformation office, 441
business profitability, 554 business trends, 400, 401, 443, 452
business regulator, 411 business units, 49, 226, 344, 414
598 INDEX
business usage, 413 call center, 426

business users, 60, 84, 248, 352 call center recordings, 440
business value, 53, 113, 175, 221, Cambra-Fierro, Jesús, 433
229–30, 242–5, 252, 258, 259, Cambridge, 501, 514, 528, 546, 549,
261–4, 269, 390n20, 396, 399, 550, 554, 559, 569, 577
404–8, 411, 440 Cambridge University Press, 500, 554,
business value chain, 113, 258, 321, 347, 577
354 Cameron, Esther, 134, 135, 137–9, 142,
business value network, 354 229, 232, 239, 247, 251, 300,
business Value of Information (BVI), 304–6, 311, 313, 315
405, 458, 459 Camm, Mark, 518
business value proposition (BVP), 244 campaign metrics, 417
business value system (BVS), 359 campaign planning, 423
business world, xiii, xxxix, 5, 91, 129, Campbell, David, 173, 175, 182, 185,
444 189, 198, 202, 211, 214, 218, 226,
businosphere, 39, 40, 44 227, 229, 247, 307, 308, 310, 319,
Busitech: business and technology, 106 326, 339, 361, 370, 418, 426
Busitech-driven, 202 Canada, 513, 553, 559
BusiTech-Driven Marketology can marketing be a science, 503
Governance (BTMG), 193, 202, Cantara, Michele, 404, 443, 445, 448
203, 209 capability, xvi, 4, 10, 11, 49, 59, 61, 67,
Bussler, C, 581 79, 84, 90–5, 97–8, 101, 102, 105,
Butterworth, 544 106, 110, 115, 116, 128, 151, 174,
Butterworth-Heinemann (BH), 524, 178, 181, 202, 222–4, 227, 228,
537, 549 231, 235, 245, 248, 255, 257, 259,
Buttle, Francis, xii 260, 313, 332, 335–8, 342–5, 352,
buy channel, 347 353, 356, 357, 359, 368, 370, 399,
buyer, 180, 183, 332, 348, 428, 431, 487 401, 407, 408, 411, 413, 414, 416,
Buy-in, 233 431, 432, 444, 449, 450, 480
buying, 180, 332, 351, 417 capability maturity model, 111
buying volume of customers, 332 capability-Rigidity Paradox, 500
Buytendijk Frank, 402 capability role, 49, 67, 93, 101, 106,
Buzzell, Robert D, xii, 310, 349, 353 248, 431
Byers, Angela Hung, 547 capacity, 70, 169n17, 250, 319, 345,
Byrne, J., 498 355–7, 401, 433
Cape Town, 510
Capgemini Nederland B.V., 350, 353
C capital, 43, 53, 90, 92, 93, 99, 104, 127,
Cabinet Office, 515 211, 345, 395, 404, 424, 482
Cadle, James, 178, 183, 186, 189 capital based competencies, 104
Cadogan, J. W., 92, 106, 428, 439 capitalism, 560, 565
Cagley, J. W., 357 capitalizing, 527
Ca: Jossey-Bass, 524, 527, 561, 562, 565 capture, 3, 8, 32, 168n12, 245, 248, 259,
Cakravastia, A, 357 261, 303, 329, 344, 359, 365, 401
California (Calif), 513 capture value from consumers, 113
California Management Review, 497, capturing satisfactory returns, xvi
521, 526, 549, 571 capturing value, 96, 105, 113, 129, 243,
call canter notes, 426 316, 359, 361
INDEX 599
Cardozo, R. N., 357 cellphones, 362

Cardy, Robert L., 105 Cengage Learning, 513, 526, 527, 532,
career, 75 538, 548, 551, 559, 563, 578
care for the aged, x Center for Engineering Science Advanced
Carlile, R. P., 295 Research, 546
Carlopio, James, 418 Center for Security Studies (CSS), 528
Carnegie model, 214 Center for Strategic Intelligence Research
Carol, F., 568 and Defense Intelligence Agency, 526
Carpenter, Gregory S, 336, 339, 345, Center for the Study of Intelligence, 531
418 Central Bank Governors, 556
Carr, Adrian N, 546 central function of marketology, 6, 7
Carroll, Glenn R, xiv, xviii, 509 centralized, 36, 46–9, 51, 59, 204, 206,
Carson, David, 105 238, 408
cartels, 366 centralized in-house, 408
Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon, 179, 185, centralized marketology staff, 49
186, 188 centrally funded central service, 60
case study, xlii, 2, 21, 32, 158, 167, 270, central processing unit (CPU), 413
279, 282, 289, 293, 373, 386, 388, Centre for International and Strategic
393, 451, 472, 474, 491–4 Studies (CISS), 579
Casonato, Regina, 416 CEO advisory, 524
Cassingena, Harper Jennifer, 525 Cepariu, Dana, 537
Casson, Mark, 422 Cerebellum Press, 510
Castaldo, Sandro, 580 Cerovsek, Tomo, 105, 123, 130
Castro, Carmen Barroso, 429 certain indicators, 357
casual, 80, 343 certificates, 356
casual users, 413 certification, 357
Catalin, Munteanu, 149, 151, 177, 189 Cervera, Amparo, 429
catalog, 349 Cespedes, Frank V., 14, 198–202, 212,
catalyst, 518 214, 219, 225
categorist, 483 Ceur-Ws, 536
Cates, J. E., 413, 440 Chaffey, Dave, 127, 225, 245, 300, 309,
causal, 13 357
causal model, 13 Chaharbaghi, Kazem, 91, 101, 102, 105,
cause-related marketing, 181 113, 116, 117, 226, 251, 310
causes, xi, vii, 174, 184, 227 chain of activities, 112
causes of dissatisfaction, 174 chain stores, 349
causes of satisfaction, 174 challenge(s), ix, xi, xiii, xv, xvi, xviii, 48,
Cavusgil, S. T., 538 53, 59, 68, 79, 136, 174, 176, 199,
Caye, Jean-Michel, 504 200, 205, 206, 227, 260, 335, 343,
CBA. See comprehensive business analysis 394, 404, 412, 413, 418, 419, 424
(CBA) challenging current strategy, 262
CBP, 404 championing, 76
CCG. See Competitor capability grid chancellor, 83
(CCG) Chandler, M. Tamra, 3, 5, 11, 253,
CCRA. See Cloud Computing Readiness 255–8, 265, 300, 302, 305, 307,
Assessment (CCRA) Matrix 329, 332, 336, 361, 408
Cearley, David W., 395, 412 Chandler, Neil, 3, 14, 123, 125, 126,
Celina, M., 413 129, 256, 408
600 INDEX
Chandrasekaran, V., 195, 196, 198, 199, channel management, 111, 347, 351,
201, 203, 218 352
change, x, xi, xii, xiii, 13, 38, 59, 61, 65, channel marketing, 352
67–8, 70–2, 78, 83, 93, 97, 103, channel members, 348, 349, 351, 353
110, 116, 126, 133, 135–43, 148, channel objectives, 351
151, 176, 180, 181, 184, 188, 200, channel relationships, 351, 432
202, 205, 213, 215, 222, 223, 225, channel strategy, 352, 354
260, 277, 327, 338, 343, 357, 391, channel value added (CVA), 351, 354
392, 398–410, 414, 417–21, 423, chaotic environment, 225
424, 426, 427, 434, 435, 437, 440, Chapman, S. N., 357
442–4, 447, 449–51, 470, 472–4, character building (branding), 421
476n15, 485, 486, 494 characteristics, viii, 48, 49, 56, 75, 178,
change agents, 136, 398 183, 184, 186, 204, 304, 314, 325,
change commitment process, 138 329–31, 336, 337, 340, 345, 347,
change implementation, 133, 138–9, 350, 355, 358, 361, 365, 367, 369,
143 379, 382, 421, 426, 430, 440, 447,
change management, 59, 116, 202 468, 487, 488
Chang, Enchi, 522 charismatic, 199
change teams, 136, 139 charitable, 362
changing, ix, xii, xlivn4, 49, 93, 97, 106, Charles Coolidge Parlin, 498
128, 133, 136, 137, 141, 143, 164, Chartered Institute of Management
173, 181, 184, 203, 213, 214, 227, Accountants (CIMA), 399, 402
231, 246, 256, 294, 352, 354, 357, Chartered Institute Of Personnel and
359, 394–6, 412, 420, 423, 424, Development (CIPD), 569
426, 427, 429, 435, 442, 449, 472 charts, 38, 415
changing conditions, xii, 256, 424 chat, 426, 427
changing consumer trends, 427 Chatterjee, Kalyan, xviii
changing marketing channels, 352, 354 Chatzipanagiotou, Kalliopi C., 526
changing rules of the market, 423 Chaudhuri, Surajit, 123, 125, 127, 130,
Chang, Tung-Zong, 439 148, 413, 416, 441
channel(s), 37, 43, 95, 111, 113, 115, cheapest cost, 368
129, 145, 146, 153–5, 176, 182, checks and balances, 196
184, 188, 195, 196, 202, 211, 244, cheltenham, 500, 525, 580
301, 308, 316, 324, 325, 347–55, chemistry, 34
360–2, 365, 366, 381, 387, Cheng, Mei-I, 514
390n20, 418, 431, 432, 442, 487, Chen Hao, 558
488 Chen, Jin, 92, 106
channel alternatives, 351 Chen Su-Jane, 510
channel analysis (engineering), 292, Chernev, Alexander, 8, 113, 116, 225,
347–54, 381 307–9, 317, 319, 321, 326, 330,
channel attributes, 293, 347, 350, 353, 332, 339, 353, 357, 361, 370, 422,
355, 388 423, 426, 436–9, 442, 445, 448,
channel behavior, 293, 351–4, 388, 493 450
channel characteristics, 347, 350 Chesbrough, H., 125, 127, 129, 138,
channel competition, 352 139, 142, 245, 311
channel distribution, 349 Chicago, 510, 517, 520, 535, 553, 563,
channel integration, 202 570
channel length, 348 Chichester, 518, 519, 548, 568, 572
channel level, 348, 350 chief, 56, 83, 194, 225, 394, 415
INDEX 601
Chief Digital Officer (CDO), 415 clarity, 68, 405

chief executive officer (CEO), 83, 194, Clark, D. N., 173, 178, 183, 189, 196,
225, 395, 402 202, 211, 212, 214, 225, 300,
Chief finance officer (CFO), 56, 57, 83, 302–4, 312, 336, 339, 345
405 Clark, Dorie, 411, 436, 438
chief information officer (CIO), 56, 83, Clark, Fred E., xii
225, 394, 396, 398, 441 Clark, H. Bruce, 336, 339, 345
chief marketing officer (CMO), 56, 57, Clark, Jennifer L., 580
83 Clark, M., 568
Chief Marketing Technologist Blog, 506 Clark University, 501
chief operating officer (COO), 56, 57, classic communication, 145
83 classic methods, 423
chief strategy officer (CSO), 83 classic models of strategic management,
Chien, Shih-Yi, 97, 112, 117, 136, 139, 222
140, 142, 258 classic research process, 320
child development, x classification, 3, 65, 69, 79, 80, 95, 111,
Chimhanzi, Jacqueline, 548 212, 482, 485
China, 533, 542, 546, 576, 581 client, x, 42, 43, 47, 48, 60, 195, 196,
Chini, T. C., 316 231, 235, 238, 251, 260, 293, 295,
Chintagunta, P., xvi, xviii 304, 314, 315, 318, 321, 373–5,
Chong, Mark, 541 378, 380, 381, 386, 388, 397, 407,
Choo, Chun Wei, 92, 106, 210, 212, 413, 416, 423, 424, 426, 431, 439,
295, 297 441, 493
choosing, 183, 212, 441 client architecture, 397
Chopra, Sunil, 349, 353 client center, 426
Chou, Chia-Hui, 522 client lock-in, 441
Chou, Philip A., 395 climate, 59, 65, 68–74, 104, 105, 165,
Christensen, C. R., 544 205, 395, 419, 430, 447, 484, 490
Christensen, Kurt H., 569 climate change, 395, 419
Christopher, Martin, 3, 8, 113, 116, Clone, 419
256, 416, 422, 424 closed linkage, 100
Chuah, Min Hooi, 413, 440 closed-loop process, 321
Chuang, C., 535 close to practice, 447
Chui, Michael, 398, 411, 436 closing, 31, 363, 478
CI. See competitive intelligence (CI) cloud analytics, 205, 415
Cincinnati, 534 cloud architecture, 404
CIO role, 441 cloud-based business intelligence, 415
Cisco, 520 Cloudbestpractices.Net, 509, 512
citizen-action publics, 183 cloud business-based contributions, 447,
city-wide, 362 448, 471
civilization, 419 cloud computing, xii, 130, 391, 393,
civilization level of technological 396–8, 403–4, 406, 407, 409, 412,
advancement, 419 443, 444, 447, 449, 451, 456, 457,
claim(s), viii, 356 468, 469, 472, 474, 494
Clair, Craig Le, 198, 199, 203, 205, cloud computing based, 447
207, 209, 215, 218 Cloud Computing Readiness Assessment
clan cultures, 66 (CCRA) Matrix, 393, 451, 456,
clarifying, 222, 344, 373 457, 472, 474, 494
602 INDEX
cloud data, 130, 415 cloud marketology people, 446, 447,

cloud data services, 130, 415 471
cloud dissemination, 447, 450 cloud marketology performance, 447,
cloud engineering, 404 448, 471
cloud evaluation, 447, 450 cloud marketology process, 446, 447,
cloud exploitation, 447, 450 471
cloud generation, 447, 450 cloud marketology stakeholder analysis,
cloud generation one (cloud 1.0), 403 447, 448, 471
cloud generation two (cloud 2.0), 403 cloud marketology strategic management
cloud identification, 447, 450 (CMSM), 393, 446, 447, 470–3
cloud IGDEE services, 392, 447, 450, cloud marketology strategy, 447, 448,
471, 474, 494 471
cloud infrastructure, 403 cloud marketology structure, 446, 447,
cloud market data, 447, 451 471
cloud market DIKII, 392, 447, 451, cloud marketology technology, 446, 447,
471, 474, 494 471
cloud market information, 447, 451 cloud marketology value, 447, 448, 471
cloud market insight, 447, 451 Clouds, 392, 401, 403, 443, 444, 447,
cloud market intelligence, 447, 451 470, 472, 474, 494
cloud market knowledge, 447, 451 cloud services, 403
cloud marketology asset, 446, 447, 471 Clouds of future marketology, 392, 444,
cloud marketology-based contributions, 474, 494
447, 448, 471 Cloudtech, 404, 443, 446, 448, 450
cloud marketology business analysis, 447, Clouthier, J., 67, 146, 147
448 cluster, 103–5, 366
cloud marketology canvas (CMC), 288, clusters of marketology competencies,
392, 393, 437–51, 470–4, 494 103, 104
cloud marketology canvas assessment CMC. See cloud marketology canvas
(CMCA) matrix, 393, 451, 470–2, (CMC)
474, 494 CMCA. See cloud marketology canvas
cloud marketology communication, 446, assessment (CMCA) matrix
447, 471 CMO, 56, 57, 83, 225, 395
cloud marketology culture, 446, 447, 471 CMOA. See cloud marketology
cloud marketology governance, 447, organizational architecture (CMOA)
448, 471 CMOB. See cloud marketology
cloud marketology innovation, 446, 447, organizational behavior (CMOB)
471 CMOC. See cloud marketology
cloud marketology organizational organizational contribution
architecture (CMOA), 393, 446, (CMOC)
447, 470–3 CMOD. See cloud marketology
cloud marketology organizational organizational design (CMOD)
behavior (CMOB), 393, 447, 448, CMSM. See cloud marketology strategic
450, 470, 471, 473 management (CMSM)
cloud marketology organizational coach, 10, 20, 44, 52, 62, 63, 72, 73,
contribution (CMOC), 393, 447, 87, 88, 98, 108, 119, 120, 131,
448, 450, 470, 471, 473 132, 143, 144, 155, 157, 179, 190,
cloud marketology organizational design 191, 201, 209, 216, 219, 220, 230,
(CMOD), 393, 446, 447, 450, 240, 241, 252, 266, 268, 299, 305,
470–3 309, 317, 322, 330, 333, 340, 346,
INDEX 603
350, 354, 358, 364, 367, 371, 399, collaborative, 40, 224, 225, 232, 235,
409, 425, 433, 436, 442, 444, 446, 236, 281n26, 365, 413, 415, 421,
448, 452, 480, 481, 483, 484, 487, 431, 484
488 collaborative approach, 224
coaching, 68 collaborative efforts, 431
coalition, 77, 139, 214, 365 collaborative environment, 235
coalition-building game, 77 collaborative marketing, 421
COB. See competitor organizational collaborative marketology environment,
behavior (COB) 232
cobranding, 369 collaborative networking, 173
Cocklin, C., 432 collaborative opportunities, 40
co-creation, xiii, 328, 329, 339, 366, collaborative orientations, 225
369, 443 collaborative relationships, 365
COD. See competitor organizational collaborator analysis, 292, 293, 365–71,
design (COD) 381, 388, 493
code and data, 420 collaborator attributes, 292, 365
codifying, 574 collaborator behavior, 368, 371
Coelho, Arnaldo, 567 collaborator characteristics, 365, 367, 369
coercion, 139 collaborator engineering, 365
coercive investing, 440 collaborator focus, 416
coexistence, 339 collaborator management, 370, 371
Coff, R. W., 186, 258 collaborator reputation, 369
cognition, 223, 332 collaborators, 182, 186, 188, 292, 301,
cognitive, 222, 313, 331, 443 308, 324, 325, 347, 354, 365–8,
cognitive capability, 313 370, 431, 442
cognitive computing, 443 collaborator value, 113
cognitive response, 331 collecting, x, 228, 236, 257, 406, 450
Cognos-IBM, 53–5, 58, 59, 61, 223, collective commitment, 67
225–7, 229, 232, 239, 245, 251, College of Business Administration
311, 314, 316, 318, 323 Northern Arizona University, 519
cohesive reporting, 424 colleges, 185
Cohn, D. L., 558 Collins, C. C., 105, 106
coined, 400, 479 Collins, L., 419
collaborate, 14, 260, 400 Collins, M., 402, 403
collaboration 1.0, 365, 367 Collis, D. J., 97, 225
collaboration 2.0, 365, 367 collusion, 339
collaboration experience, 369 Columbia University, 544
collaboration governance, 370 Columbus, 502, 503
collaboration model, 370 Combination of Carnegie and
collaboration opportunities, 370 incremental, 214
collaboration performance, 370 combination perspectives, 430
collaboration risks, 369, 371 combined (MKTOR+MRKOR), 430
collaborations, 39, 40, 78, 83, 93, combined analysis, 176
104, 126, 130, 147, 173, 204, combined governance of MMC, 53
227, 236, 249, 262, 329, combined models of interaction, 149
365–71, 390n23, 396, 410, combined perspective, 28, 254
412, 421, 433 combining, 254, 428, 488
collaboration technologies, 130, 396 commandments, 83
604 INDEX
comment, 112, 141, 375 communication overload, 148

commentary, 561 communication professionals, 82
commercial, 153, 327, 347 communication skills, 95
commercial analytics, 497 communication studies, 565
commercial banks, 498 communication system, 356
commercial relationship, 327, 347 communication technologies, 145,
commission, 37, 186, 211 147–8, 155, 157
commissioned, 523, 544 communication ways, 65
commission of channels, 211 communicator, 145
commitment, 38, 67, 69, 185, 196, 211, community, 37, 53, 186, 188, 194, 195,
222, 253, 254, 337, 343, 355, 356, 204, 292, 360, 362–5, 381, 387,
366, 369, 449 390n22, 403, 431
commitment to change, 138 community affairs, 37, 186
commitment-Trust Theory, 552 community analysis, 293, 364, 388, 493
committees, 6, 26, 46, 49–50, 189, 233, community-based, 362
295, 301, 308, 314, 374, 378 community engineering, 362–4
commonality, xviii community focus, 416
common attitudes, 362 community oriented, 447
common governance of MMC, 207–8 community-shaping, 205
common interests, 362 compact, 537, 575
common language to communicate, 405 companies as communities, 410
common values, 362 companion, 30
common with, 99 company, 32, 46, 47, 49, 50, 56, 69, 79,
communal, 66 83, 93, 105, 114, 122, 148, 162,
communicate, x, 114, 117, 145, 148, 163, 178, 182–4, 196, 244–50,
149, 153, 154, 199, 355, 405, 407, 253, 260, 274, 275, 289, 293, 304,
421 306, 320, 321, 325–7, 329, 332,
communicate findings, x 333, 335, 338, 347–9, 351–3, 357,
communicating, x, 57, 60, 69, 70, 113, 359–61, 365, 379, 382, 386–8,
115, 204, 355, 357, 484 403, 406, 408, 414, 440, 449, 455,
communicating MMC, 59 458, 466, 467, 471, 472, 493
communicating value proposition, 113, company ability, 182, 183
184 company analysis, 292, 359–62, 364,
communication, 4, 5, 11, 15, 17, 23–5, 381, 390n21
31, 35, 39, 48, 65, 69, 70, 72, 95, company analysis perspectives, 292, 359,
104, 114, 139, 145–62, 164, 167, 364
169n21, 188, 196, 199, 205, 212, company benefits, xvi
216, 218, 229, 238, 239, 244, 245, company/business (B2B), 355
252, 257, 263, 264, 281n19, 301, company-dominated dealerships, 349
302, 309–12, 328, 334, 338, 347, company engineering, 292, 359–62, 364,
348, 350, 351, 355, 357, 365, 369, 381
394, 396, 400, 407, 411, 418–21, company exinternal analysis, 359, 364
424, 434, 463, 490 company external analysis, 359, 364
communication-based competencies, 104 company hierarchy, 46
communication channels, 348 company internal analysis, 359, 364
communication method, 320, 321 company-oriented, 328
communication model, 145, 153, 331 company oriented perspective, 439
communication network, 145–7, 155, company-owned offices, 349
157 company performance, 513, 519, 527
INDEX 605
company position, 202 competitive environment, 182, 244

company profits, xvi competitive intelligence (CI), 227, 228,
company size, 46 480, 481, 485, 486
company value, 113, 246 competitive intelligence, analysis and
comparative, 81, 159–61, 193, 207, 209, strategy (CIAS), 228
271–3, 375, 377, 452 Competitive Intelligence Review, 531,
comparative analysis, 515, 580 566
comparing, 30, 31, 94, 95, 125, 162, competitive intelligence support, 532
187, 274, 287, 433, 435, 457, 459, competitive landscape, 395
460, 462 competitive manner, 344
compatibility, 48, 231, 379 competitive market, xxxix, 8, 13, 102,
compatible, xii, 13, 28, 54, 55, 68, 92, 149, 205, 228, 245
93, 97, 164, 231, 238, 245, 263, competitive marketplaces, 123, 204, 246,
276, 314, 317, 379, 408, 431, 441, 339, 344
444, 447, 449 competitiveness, 43, 94, 196, 211, 254,
compensation, 75 357, 485, 486
compete, 205, 239, 328, 334–6, 338, competitive parity, 343
339, 343, 344, 346, 455 competitive performance, 91
competence, 69, 75, 93, 94, 97, 200, competitive position, xxxix, 343, 368
205, 357, 422, 425 competitive reactions, 525
competence-based, 524, 574 competitive relationship, 173
competence development, 357 competitive risks, 184
competence-oriented, 368, 369 competitive strategy, 228, 336, 343
competency, 3, 70, 102, 103, 105, 129, competitive strategy exploration, 485,
141, 153, 199, 245, 441 486
competency-oriented, 368, 369 competitive success, 90, 93, 94, 102,
competent, 51, 78, 79, 211, 328, 447, 111, 184, 222, 223, 226, 341, 449
449 competitive threat, 368
competing, 337, 338, 342, 343 competitive value, 339, 344, 406
competing values model (CVM), 66 competitive world of market, 205
competition, 207, 211, 222, 247, 250, competitor(s), xiv, 31, 43, 69, 70, 90,
303, 320, 332, 334, 338, 339, 344, 102, 105, 129, 135, 162, 178,
365–7, 412, 417, 429 182–4, 202, 245–7, 250, 301, 308,
competition (win-lose), 366 321, 324, 325, 329, 333–9, 341–5,
competition engineering, 333–46 347, 353, 355, 360–2, 365, 366,
competition forum, 528 387, 406, 429–31, 442, 482, 487
competitive, xxxix, xl, 69, 172, 176, competitor alliances, 365, 431
182–3, 190, 192, 225, 228, 294, competitor analysis, 184, 292, 293,
341, 343, 344, 368, 430, 485 333–46, 381, 388, 488, 493
competitive advantage, 91, 93, 97, 138, competitor analysis perspectives, 292,
168n12, 228, 239, 332, 343, 344, 334, 340, 346
368, 406, 411, 431, 447 competitor analysis process, 292, 334,
competitive analysis, 334, 338, 343 340, 346
competitive business environment, 3, competitor attributes, 292, 336, 340,
252, 259 345, 346, 390n21
competitive business market, 246 competitor awareness, 334
competitive business organization, 3 competitor based competencies, 105
competitive business value (CBV), 244 competitor behavior, 336, 341, 344,
competitive disadvantage, 343, 344 346, 354, 402
606 INDEX
competitor behavior process, 341, 346 complex, 3, 69, 81, 102, 151, 176, 197,
competitor BLC, 338, 340 210, 213, 215, 252, 327, 400, 401,
competitor capability grid (CCG), 345, 406, 437, 450, 479
346 complex circumstances, 3
competitor characteristics, 336–7, 340 complexity, 124, 125, 181, 401, 413, 430
competitor collaborators, 182, 301, 308, complexity of IT systems (low to high),
324, 365, 387 124
competitor engineering, 292, 381 complex sets of information, 401
competitor identification, 184 complicated data-exchanging routes, 47
competitor intelligence (CI), 129, 334, composition of market players, 429
428 compound reporting connections, 48
competitor intelligence system (CIS), 346 comprehensive, xl, 2–4, 22, 34n4, 78,
competitor management team profiling, 113, 175, 184, 200, 228, 232, 236,
485 252, 253, 258, 259, 303, 307, 323,
Competitor Monitoring System, 228 345, 387, 417, 473, 478, 495
competitor organizational behavior comprehensive business analysis (CBA),
(COB), 336, 343, 346 292, 323–4, 330, 487, 488
competitor organizational design (COD), comprehensive business performance
336, 338, 340, 346 management (BPM), 3, 352
competitor orientation, 428 comprehensive control, 200
competitor overcrowding, 184 comprehensive framework, 37, 38
competitor PLC, 338, 340, 341 comprehensive market analysis, 184
competitor reaction, 253, 343, 346 comprehensiveness, 3, 222, 228, 252
competitor response, 343, 346 comprehensive perspective, 253, 336,
competitor response profile, 341, 342, 346 432
competitor’s brand power, 342 comprehensive systems, 437
competitor sensitivity, 334 computation, 398
competitor sets, 335 computational, 545
competitor strategic management computer experts, 82, 83
(CSM), 341 computer hard drive, 403
competitor typology, 337, 340 computer science, 243
competitor understanding, 487, 488 computing, 394, 403
Competitor Value (CptV), 246 computing architectures, 411
competitor value proposition (CVP), computing power, 401
339, 340 computing technology, x
complementary, vii, 5, 66, 71, 129, 130, ComV (Company Value), 246
141, 142, 154, 295, 297, 318, 319, Conant S. Jeffrey, 106
323 conceive, 331
complementary contributions, 296 concentration, xlivn6, xiii, xiv, 281n21,
complementary producer, 366 334, 335, 337, 421, 441
complementary products, 140 concept, xii, xiii, xiv, 7, 102, 198, 306,
complementary skills, 76 424, 429, 431, 485
complements, 182 concept of marketing, vii, xi, xii, xiv, xv,
complete, xiii, 28, 42, 49, 51, 165, 190, xvi, xvii, xviii, 431
219, 230, 240, 266, 267, 306, 319, conceptual, xi, 199, 212, 428, 478
320, 324, 335, 338, 372, 387 conceptual framework, 511, 534, 556
completing goods/services to markets, conceptualization, 224, 387, 428, 430,
369 473, 479
INDEX 607
conceptualizations of research in conservative, 344

marketing, 534 considerations, 43, 196, 231, 308, 325,
conceptual skills, 199 375, 417, 447, 483
concrete contributions, 296 consider perspectives, 485, 486
condition of market analysis, 292, 361–2, consistency, 66, 225, 231, 405, 440
364 consistency of decisions and actions, 51
condition of market engineering, 361–2 consistent, xii, 22, 28, 53, 59, 205, 223,
conditions, 56, 102, 154, 175, 211, 248, 224, 226, 229, 231, 258, 304, 399,
292, 293, 314, 357, 361, 362, 364, 408, 449
379, 387, 388, 493 consistent delivery, 356
conditions of market, 352 consolidating, 218, 238, 264
conduct, xlii, 26, 32, 51, 81, 99, 153, consortia, 366
163, 196, 198, 289, 386, 449, 471, constant manner, 176
487 constellation, 555
conducting plan, 484 constraint, 178, 231
conference, 60 construct(s), xiii, 57
confidential, 250 construction, 501, 510, 514, 546, 580
configuration, 514 constructionism, xiii
confirmation, 30 constructionist paradigm, xii
conflict, 38, 43, 76, 78, 320, 339, 352, Construction Management and
356 Economics, 514
conflictive, 379 constructive, 48, 70, 71, 432
conflict resolution, 356 constructive cooperation, 56
conflicts between managers and workers, constructive interaction, 117
51 consultant, 84, 349
conflicts of interests, 196, 246 consultative, 424
confluence, 113 consulting, 57, 59, 61, 84, 449
conformance quality, 356 consumer, x, xiv, 3, 113, 181, 183,
conglomerate organizational structure 326–7, 330–2, 347–52, 400,
(H-form), 38 409–11, 420, 421, 424, 426, 427
congruency, 440 consumer behavior, xii, 331, 332, 427
connected, 11, 43, 168n13, 362, 400, 403 consumer behavior influencing factors,
connected devices, 407, 412 331, 333
connecting all things, 400 consumer behavior model, 331, 333
connections, 48, 56, 196, 277, 410, 442 consumer behavior process, 331, 333
connectivity, 400, 410 consumer behavior roles, 332, 333
Connell, Brenda, 106 consumer behavior stimulus, 331, 333
Conner, Daryl R, 136–9, 142 consumer buying behavior, 332
conscious, ix consumer-centric marketing, 420
conscious technology, 411 consumer changes, 410, 427
consensus, 30, 404 consumer channel, 349
consequences, xviii, 48, 84, 186, 194, consumer decision-making process, 332,
211, 216, 228, 246, 247, 256, 295, 333
297, 325, 338, 343, 366, 407, 429, consumer demands, 181
433 consumerism, 411
consequential actions, 30 consumerization, 443
consequential piece, 11, 19, 33, 35, 171, consumer landscape, 395
294, 393 consumer-led, 427
608 INDEX
consumer marketing, 327 contextual user experience, 397

consumer orientation, 409 contingency, 38, 280n15, 304
consumer packaged goods (CPG), 497 contingency organizational structure, 38
consumer purchasing power, 180 contingently, 150, 188
consumer research, x contingent model, 214
consumers as whole humans with a mind, continual innovation, 410
heart and spirit, xvi continued competitive power, 138
consumer society, 410 continued tie, 37, 186
consumer spending behavior, 180 continuity, 222, 326
consumer spending patterns, 180 continuous intelligence, 416
consumer technology, 331 continuous manner, 116
consumer users, 348, 352 continuous progression, 137
consuming, 235, 331, 332 continuous superior performance, 428
consumption, 348, 411 continuum, 25, 26, 31, 38, 46, 64, 74,
consumption services, 224 89, 109, 121, 132, 139, 143, 144,
contact, 328, 351, 421 157, 192, 220, 241, 269, 283, 287,
container, 310, 316 288, 366, 375, 377, 452, 453, 455,
contemporary, xiii, 227, 406, 418, 488 456, 458, 459, 461, 462, 464, 466,
contemporary functions, 23 468, 470
contemporary organizational structure, 39 contract compliance, 356
content, viii, xvi, xvii, xviii, 10, 20, 44, contracting, 352, 355, 357
52, 62, 63, 72, 73, 87, 88, 98, 108, contractual marketing channel, 353
119, 120, 131, 132, 143, 144, 155, contractual VMS, 349
157, 168n14, 179, 190, 191, 201, contradictive manner, 148
209, 215, 219, 220, 230, 235, 239, contradictory, 343
240, 251, 265, 268, 279n1, 280n5, contribution, xviii, xli, xlii, 11, 16, 17,
292, 293, 299, 305, 309, 317, 23, 37, 75, 93, 129, 186, 218, 295,
322–72, 387, 388, 399, 408–10, 297, 304, 311, 316, 317, 347, 382,
416, 417, 421, 425, 427, 433, 436, 385
442, 444, 446, 448, 450, 476n15, contributions of marketing, xiii
478, 479, 481–3, 485, 488, 493 contributions of marketology, xli, 165,
content analysis, 292, 294, 323–72, 387 295–7, 299–301, 322, 379, 385
content intelligence, 416 contributors, 194
contentment with status quo, 430 control, 38, 66, 68, 123–5, 129, 180,
context, vii, ix, x, xvi, xviii, 5, 141, 145, 184, 186, 193, 196, 198, 200–1,
164, 172, 175, 258, 301, 328, 335, 220, 221, 248, 257, 351, 356, 369,
365, 387, 399, 407, 432, 485 370, 419
context data, 399 control cultures, 66
context-driven discipline, ix controllable, 232
context of market analysis, 292, 361–2, controller, 76, 204
364, 381 controlling, 199, 212, 254, 301, 304–6,
context of market engineering, 361–2 310, 313, 348, 363
context-rich systems, 397 controlling corporation, 197
context setters, 185 control of life, 370
contextual approach, 539 control system, 122, 123, 125, 131, 132
contextualized, 561 controversy, 534
contextual omnipresence, 427 convenience, xlii, 301, 309, 328
contextual piece, 11, 17, 33, 35, 171, convenience stores, 349
294, 386, 393 conventional assets, 404
INDEX 609
conventional marketing channel, 349–50 core function, 6, 14, 48, 437

conventional marketing principles, xii core function of marketology, 437
conventional market orientation, 432 core organization manufacturing
conventional methods, 401 technology, 122
conventional systems, 401 core organization service technology, 122
conventional techniques, 402 core product, 296
converged media, 420 core rigidities, 544
convergence, 412 core technology, 122
converging analytical, 520 core values, 67, 200, 220–2, 301, 306,
converging forces, 397 307
converging IT, 60 Cornel University Library, 576
conversation, 410 cornerstone, 205, 216, 353
Converse, P. D., xiv, viii, xviii cornerstone digital, 566
conversion, 575 Corpgov, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 203,
convert inputs into outputs, 122 205, 207, 209, 215, 218
Cook, H., 528 corporate change, 510, 517, 572
cooperate, 358, 439, 449, 473 corporate culture, 515, 516, 541
cooperating, 347, 357 Corporate Executive Board (CEB), 531,
cooperation, xiii, 39, 40, 56, 70, 139, 573
322, 329, 339, 356, 357, 365, 366, corporate executives, 528
369, 379, 431, 464 corporate governance, 111, 193–8, 200,
cooperation with potential rivals, 369 201, 220, 221, 304, 305
cooperative(s), 37, 366, 410, 431 Corporate IT alignment, 233
cooperative contributions of marketology, corporate marketing, 432
322 corporate marketing management, 432
cooperative MOC, 292, 321–3 corporate marketing performance, 432
cooperative relationship, 173 corporate market valuations, 405
Cooper, M. C., 542 corporate performance, xliii, 432
Cooper, R. G., ix corporate planning, 503
coopetition, 173, 339, 365, 366 corporate social responsibility (CSR),
coopetition paradox, 574 181, 196, 301, 309
coopetition strategy, 366 corporate strategic management, 197
cooptation, 139 corporate strategic planning, 561
coordinated behavior, 428 corporate strategies, 233, 432
coordinated business, 205 corporate VMS, 349
coordinated manner, 37, 46 corporation, 56, 61, 78, 79, 105, 194,
coordinated systems, 428 196–8, 225, 226, 251, 253, 259,
coordination, 11, 38, 70, 104, 365, 366 399, 440
coordination based competencies, 104 correctable, 232
cope behaviorally, 212 corrective, 417
core beliefs, 181 corrective actions, 125, 252
core benefits, 296 Cosic, R., 406–8
core business, 111 co-specialization, 369
core capability, 544 cost, 53, 90, 114, 115, 139, 203, 211,
core competency, xxxix, xl, xlivn4, 10, 243, 251, 253, 263, 264, 301, 309,
94, 116, 149, 153, 176, 224, 248, 324, 327, 328, 357, 368, 369, 378,
259, 366, 482 401, 405, 410, 413, 449, 453, 456,
core contribution, 296, 297, 299 459
core entity, 399 cost advantage, 185
610 INDEX
cost analysis system, 357 300, 303, 304, 307, 312, 319, 330,
cost-based strategies, 335 332, 336, 353, 357, 361, 367, 422,
cost-benefit analysis, 500 426, 436, 438, 443, 445, 448, 450
cost effective, 401 CRC Press, 570
cost-effective information processing, Creasey, T., 76, 77, 83, 85, 139, 142
401 create competitive advantage, 93, 401
cost position, 368 create customer value, 113
cost reduction activities, 357 create new markets, 137
cost sharing, 369 creating, vii, x, xvi, 6, 32, 43, 69, 93,
costs of R&D, 368 115, 127, 129, 136–8, 183, 184,
costs of staff and software, 51, 54 200, 212, 222, 244, 248, 264, 347,
cost structure, 113, 114, 184, 185, 334, 353, 359, 369, 394, 402, 403, 405,
337, 344, 345, 487 406, 411, 418, 419
cost targets, 357 creating future, 411
Coughlan, A. T., 349, 353 creating information systems, 126
Coulstech, 515 creating new structure, 137
council(s), 46, 50, 314 creating shared value (CSV), 181, 196,
counterculture, 68 211, 253, 301, 308, 337
counterinsurgency game, 77 creating superior value, 202, 485
counterpart, 328 creating value, xvi, 111, 347
counter the resistance to authority, 77 creating value proposition, 113
country, 194, 355 creation, x, 106, 178, 428
counts, 551 creation, delivery and management, 416
course, 8, 204, 215, 216, 496 creative, 212
Court, D., 505 creative behavior, 133, 134
Courtney, J. F., 4, 198–202, 212, 214, creative destruction, xvi, 133
219, 253, 254, 256, 261 creative ideas, 76, 139
courts, 185 creative society, 421
coverage, 22, 23, 25, 26, 34n9, 102, creative thinking, 419
217, 222, 238, 263, 276, 385, 464 creativity, 13, 75, 89, 95, 133–5, 140–3,
Cox, A., 349, 353 212, 253, 419
Cox, R., ix creator, 76, 113, 114
Coyne, K. P., 183, 198, 308, 309, 312, credit, 331, 332, 353
323, 324, 326, 336, 339, 345, 353, creditors, 37, 185, 186, 188, 194–6
357, 426 creditworthiness, 37, 186
CPI Group, 549 crisis, xi, xvi, xvii, viii, xiv, xv
craft, x, 122, 306 criteria, 37, 68, 93, 248, 351, 369, 404,
crafting, 197, 223, 313 428, 468
crafting strategy, 222, 241, 242, 301, critical, 36, 50, 58–62, 68, 70, 84, 95,
306, 310, 341, 343 174, 203, 231, 243, 259, 261, 262,
Craig, T., 173, 175, 182, 185, 189, 198, 266, 269, 303, 333, 341, 344, 346,
202, 211, 214, 218, 226, 227, 229, 355, 358, 369, 398, 429, 479, 480
247, 307, 308, 310, 319, 326, 339, critical importance, 94
361, 370, 418, 426 critical incidents, 68
Cranfield School of Management, 547 critical issues, 174
Cranfield University, 554 critical moderators, 429
Cravens, D. W., 14, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, critical perspectives, 506
48–50, 52, 53, 173–5, 177, 182, critical phenomenology, 500
185, 188, 189, 196, 198, 225, 245, critical pluralism, 534
INDEX 611
critical success factors (CSFs), xxxvi, 36, cultural conceptualization, 428

59–62, 243, 259–62, 266, 269, 341, cultural domination, 529
344, 346, 355, 358, 369, 479, 480 cultural environment, 180, 181
critique, 522 cultural fit, 369
CRM, 14, 39, 41, 52, 56, 95, 125, 130, cultural incompatibility, 369
303, 327, 396, 417, 423, 465 culturally based behavioral, 430
CRM data, 417 cultural marketing, 421
Croisier, S., 406 cultural obstacles, 529
Cross-Competitor Analysis, 497 cultural orientation, xii
cross-cultural, 70 cultural revolutions, 395
cross-cultural leadership, 199 cultural values, 181
Cross Cultural Management: an culture, 4, 35, 184, 301, 410, 483
International Journal, 539 culture-based capability, 102
cross-functional, xxxix, 38, 51, 61, 76, culture orientation based competencies, xii
93, 204, 232, 235, 260, 262, 418 Cummings, J. L., 367, 370, 418
cross-functional dissemination, 262 Cummings, S., 367, 370, 418
cross-functional information exchange, 235 Cummings, T. G., 524
cross-functional knowledge, 204 cumulative, 36, 158, 171, 172, 276, 277,
cross-functional organizational team, 51 279, 282–9, 290n30, 491, 492
cross-functional organizational unit, 61 cumulative manner, 158
cross-functional structure, 232 Cunliffe, A. L., 13, 38, 39, 71
cross-functional subsystem, 418 Cunningham, G., 507
cross-functional teams, 38 Curino, C., 404
cross industry, 500 currency, 410
cross-licensing, 366 Currency Publishing, 565
crowd, 111, 185, 427 current competitor, 338
crowd intelligence, 427 current customer needs, 303
Crowley, E., 322, 363 current customers, 303
Croxton, K. L., 542 Current, J. R., 357
CSFs, xxxiv, xxxvi, 36, 59, 60, 62, 141, Current (met) needs of customers, 328,
154, 243, 259–62, 266, 269, 330
368–71, 479, 480 current rivals, 334, 335, 337
Csiro Australia, 528 currentspective, 482
CSR. See corporate social responsibility current status (AS IS), 232, 234
(CSR) current strategy, 262, 342
CstV (Customer Value), 246 curricula, 498
C-Suite, 394, 396, 402, 406 curriculum, 498
C-suites of enterprise, 394, 396 customer, 14, 37, 178, 292, 396, 485
CT: Jai Press, 515, 556 customer access, 301, 309
CT: Quorum Books, 560, 563 customer acquisition, 320
Cukier, K., 404 customer analysis, 184, 292, 293, 326,
Culkin, N., 295, 297 330, 333, 381, 388, 431, 488, 493
Cullen, A., 511 customer analytics, 500
cultivating, 61, 140 customer as an individual, 422
cultivating a current product line, 140 customer attributes, 326, 330, 333, 340
cultural, xii, xxxiv, 66, 68–70, 146, 180, customer bargaining power, 332
181, 199, 324, 331, 352, 369, 370, customer based competencies, 90–2, 95,
395, 421, 422, 428, 430, 440, 487 97, 102, 104, 111, 328, 335, 339,
cultural change, 440 344, 368, 422, 423
612 INDEX
customer-based perspective, 335 customer orientation, 345, 428, 430

customer behavior, 331, 333 customer-oriented, 328, 485, 486
customer benefits, 508 customer oriented perspective, 439
customer capital, 43, 90, 92, 104, 211, customer pains, 114
253, 345 customer perceived quality, 301, 309
customer care, 345 customer problems, 114, 344
customer-centric, 566 customer profile, 113, 114
customer-centric marketing, 566 customer profitability, 84
customer change, 327, 330 customer 3R: reach, retain and return,
customer characteristics, 329, 330 301, 309
customer choice, 335 customer-relating, 515
customer club solutions, 327 customer relationship, 14, 113, 114,
customer credit, 37, 185, 186, 188, 303, 327, 396, 415, 423
194–6, 331, 332, 353 customer relationship management
customer data, 417 (CRM), 14, 303, 327, 415, 423
customer demographics, 329 customer reliability checks, 250
customer desires, 432 customer response, 429
customer dissatisfaction, 211 customer response capability, 537
customer engineering, 326 customer retention, 253, 417
customer experience, 532 customers, x, xii, xvi, 37, 43, 94, 95,
Customer Experience Management, 97, 102, 105, 111, 113–15, 129,
532 135, 153, 182, 183, 185, 186,
customer feedback, 356 188, 194–6, 200, 245–8, 250,
customer-focused, 532, 576 301, 308, 321, 324–30, 332, 333,
customer-focused marketing capabilities, 335, 337–9, 347, 348, 351–3,
576 355, 356, 359, 360, 365, 366,
customer gains, 114 398, 399, 402, 410, 411, 414,
customer groups, 335 417, 419, 420, 422, 423, 426,
customer heart, xvi, 105, 246, 428 431, 432, 435, 442, 487
customer insight, 402 customers are more expected and less
customer intelligence (CI), 328, 329, patient, 419
333, 465, 485, 486 customers as human beings, 410
customer intimacy, 402 customer satisfaction, 178, 211, 253,
customer jobs, 114 327, 356, 368, 441
customer knowledge, 329, 330, 423 customer segmentation, 488
customer knowledge management customer segments, 113, 114, 184, 349,
(CKM), 329, 330 418
customer knowledge process, 537 customer service, 95, 169n17, 426
customer lifetime value (CLV), 327 customer side, 114, 328
customer lock-in policies, 327 customers know more and demand more,
customer loyalty, 417, 419, 435 419
customer markets, 183 customer solution, 301, 309
customer mind, 246 customer support, 357
customer motivation, 184, 247, 329, customer surveys, 423
331, 345, 368, 487, 488 customer understanding, 113, 422
customer need, xvi, 114, 335, 351, 428 customer unmet needs, 184, 328, 330,
customer need analysis, 351 483, 487, 488
customer nomination, 423 customer value, 14, 113, 244, 246, 264,
customer orders, 95, 356, 426, 435 328, 330, 368, 418
INDEX 613
customer value-creating process, 14 Dasgupta, A., 403, 406, 408

customer value proposition, 368 dashboard, 80, 81, 125, 130, 224, 415,
custom groups, 80 436
customization, 400 Das, T. K., 303, 367, 370
customized, 48, 118, 310, 315, 316, data, 2, 36, 175, 295, 391, 482
323, 327, 345, 484, 486 data about data, 399
customized (container) contribution, data acquisition, 53
218, 239, 265, 280n16 data analysts, 415
customized-Distant (CD-MI), 484 data analyzing, 53
customized form of market DIKII, 118 Data and Analytics (D & A), 407, 418
customized-Immediate (CI-MI), 484 data and systems administration, 49
customizing MMC, 59 data architecture, 224
customs, 65 database, 49, 50, 81, 84, 401, 407, 412,
cut-off, 328 413, 415, 438, 475–6n13, 475n6,
CVP. See competitor value proposition 475n12
(CVP) data based competencies, 104, 106, 225,
cyber marketspace, 338 328, 423, 447
cybernetics, 545, 574 database management systems (DBMS),
cybersecurity threats, 412 84, 407, 412
cyber space, 329, 338, 362 data center, 396
cyclical process, 117 data circulation, 50
Cyert, R. M., 100, 102 data collection process, x, 424
Czech Privatization, 547 data culture, 417
Czepiel, J. A., 173, 174, 177, 183, 225, data discovery, 130, 205
317–19, 323, 336, 339, 345 data driven, xxxix, 402, 406–9, 416–18,
424–6, 447, 449, 468
data-driven actions, 402, 408, 447,
D 449
Daellenbach, U., 418 data-driven action-taking, 402, 406–8,
Daft, R. L., 37–41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 417, 447, 449, 468
51–4, 67, 75, 76, 78, 79, 83, 85, data-driven analytics, 418
92, 99, 113, 116, 123, 126, 129, data-driven consulting, 424
134, 136, 138–40, 142, 145, 146, data-driven decision-making, 402
148, 151, 154, 169n16, 173, 174, data-driven management, 407, 409,
176, 179, 183, 185, 186, 189, 416–18, 426, 449
198–200, 202, 203, 205, 207, data-driven manner, 417
209–12, 214, 215, 219, 225, 226, data-driven marketing, 417
245, 251, 256, 258, 265, 280n15, data exchange instruments, 426
300, 302–4, 307, 311–13, 315, data exploration, 204
316, 330, 332, 339, 361, 363, 367, data Explorer, 416
370, 418 data federation, 4
Dagnino, G. B., 300, 363, 367, 370 data gathering, 16, 49, 208
Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, 577 data-gathering tools, 16
Dainty, A. R., 105, 106, 258 data generation, 402, 457
Dalgic, T., 430 data gets bigger, 407
dance, 574 data gets uglier, 407
Danciu, V., 422 data governance, 84, 224, 236, 412
Danny, N. B., 526 data graphs, 407
Dart, J., ix, 430 data inconsistency, 413
614 INDEX
data, information, knowledge, data store, 84, 475n12

intelligence and insight (DIKII), vii, data storing, 403
xl, xliiin1, xlivn5, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 16, data that describes other data, 399
19, 28, 30, 33, 41, 43, 51, 53, 54, data-to-decision process, 417
71, 79, 117, 118, 127, 129, 130, data usage pattern, 50
141, 142, 153, 154, 164, 168n15, data visualization, 413, 438
189, 202, 206, 216, 218, 223, data warehouse (DW/DWH), 415
225–8, 232–6, 239, 245, 248–52, data warehouse (DW) application, 401
256–61, 264, 276, 277, 280n16, The data warehouse institute (TDWI)
281n25, 292–30, 304, 306–8, 310, business intelligence maturity model,
311, 313–23, 333, 346, 353, 358, 414
361–3, 370, 372–8, 386–8, 392, data warehousing (DW), 49, 80, 81, 84,
434, 437, 438, 447, 449–51, 472, 124, 130, 224, 236, 401, 412, 414,
474, 478, 482, 483, 493, 494 415, 438, 475n12
data in silos, 50, 225, 236 data warehousing maturity model, 414
data integration, 81, 224, 321, 412, 415 data workers, 126
data integration services, 224 Dauber, D., 13, 69, 71, 76, 77, 85, 146,
data integration skills, 81 154, 196, 202, 211, 212, 214, 223
data interface, 394, 397, 398, 400, 415, Daugherty, P. J., 569
438 Davenport’s maturity of analytical
data is the coal, 406 capability, 414
data/knowledge discovery, 415 Davenport, T. H., 3, 55, 57, 59, 61, 92,
data management, 36, 49–52, 81, 84, 224, 106, 111, 117, 118, 123, 127, 151,
407, 412, 414, 424, 449, 475n6 154, 179, 185, 186, 188, 189, 197,
data management architecture, 50 198, 200, 201, 209, 223, 225, 227,
data management services, 224 229, 247, 253, 254, 256–8, 261, 265,
data mart, 4, 49, 80, 224, 475n12 281n26, 295, 297, 299, 302, 305,
data mining, 53, 124, 130, 328, 407, 307–10, 312, 314–16, 326, 329, 332,
438, 475n13 336, 345, 353, 361, 367, 398, 406,
data model, 49, 412, 438 408, 411, 413, 416, 418, 426, 436,
data modeling, 49, 412 438, 440, 441, 443, 445, 448, 450
data overlap, 50, 233, 320 David, C. R., 433
data overloading, 43 Davidrajuh, R., 357
data privacy issues, 424 Davila, T., 135–7, 139, 142
data product chain, 415 Davis, S., 404
data profiling, 224 Davis, S. A., 563
data protection, 395 Davos, 566
data quality, 4, 50, 224, 412 Dawson, L., xv, xviii
data relationships, 407, 447 Dayal, U., 123, 127, 130, 416, 441
data scientist, 415, 416 Day, G. S., ix, xiii, 8, 14, 38, 39, 46,
data scope, 233 48, 49, 51–5, 57, 59, 61, 70, 71,
data sets, 81, 400, 401 75, 76, 79, 85, 92, 99, 100, 102,
data, social and technology oriented 105, 106, 118, 123, 149, 151,
perspective, 439 154, 177, 179, 182, 183, 185,
data sources, 84, 205, 224, 233, 399, 188, 189, 198, 211, 223, 225,
402, 424, 440, 475n12 245, 249, 295, 297, 307, 309,
data-spread business environment, 406 314, 315, 317, 319, 321–4, 329,
data stewardship, 53–4 332, 336, 340, 345, 350, 353,
data storage, 204, 415 361, 363, 420, 422, 429, 432
INDEX 615
Day, J., 175, 186, 195, 196, 201–3, 205, decision-making, viii, x, xi, 6, 30, 38, 41,
226, 229, 307, 309, 321, 329, 332, 51, 53, 54, 58, 61, 69, 76, 95, 106,
357, 361, 422, 424, 426 117, 124, 126, 129, 140, 175, 193,
day-to-day business processes, 406 194, 199, 204, 206, 210–16, 219,
DBMR. See degree of being market 221, 223, 225–7, 231, 236, 250,
related (DBMR) 255, 257–9, 280n15, 306, 308, 311,
dealer, 332, 349 313, 315, 331–3, 345, 375, 391–3,
dealer choice, 332 395, 399, 401, 402, 406, 409, 413,
Deal, T., 65 418, 430, 437, 440–3, 449, 451,
deal with market, xiii, 112, 362 462, 468, 470, 472, 474, 475n4
Dean, T. J., 179, 183, 225, 226 decision-making impact, 440
death by desktop, 415 decision-making models, 214
debates, vii, viii, xviii, 10, 31, 32, 78, decision-making skills, 95
112, 189, 404 decision-making styles, 194, 212, 215,
De Carolis, D. M., 97, 112, 258 216
decelerate, 30 decision making unit (DMU), 332, 333
decentralized, 36, 46–8, 51, 52, 125, decision modeling, 441
408 Decisionpro, 545
decentralized organizational structures, decision process, 3, 214, 417
125 decision styles, 215
decide, 31, 41, 129, 212, 248, 251, 256, decision support, 124, 232, 417, 437,
305, 306, 309, 320, 326, 343, 352, 447
357, 427 decision-support atmosphere, 232
deciphering latent insights, 440 decision support system (DSS), 124,
decision, vii, viii, x, xi, xii, xxxix, xi, xli, 126, 417, 437, 438
xliii, 2, 3, 6, 8–11, 28, 30, 33, 38, decision to implement, 138
41–3, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56, 61, 68, decisive, 212, 215
77, 78, 103, 105, 112, 118, 124, decisive decision-making style, 215
129, 138, 164, 174–7, 180, 184–6, decline, 139, 149, 216–18, 238, 263,
193, 194, 202, 204, 210–19, 221, 301, 303, 323, 338, 343, 369
223, 226–8, 231, 232, 236, 248, decline stage, 303, 323, 338
254, 256–9, 276, 278, 280n15, decoding, 145
294–7, 301–4, 306–8, 310, 312–14, deconstruction, 514
322, 325, 334, 341, 352, 373, 377, decreasing boundaries, 173
378, 380, 386, 394, 402, 404–8, decreasing decisions, 211
411, 417, 428, 434, 437, 438, 441, Dedeker, K., 551
447, 449, 469, 472, 478, 480, 482, dedicated committee, 26, 48–50
483, 485, 491 dedicated marketology professionals, 49
decisional role, 199 dedicated officer, 26
decision criteria, 428 deep business knowledge, 81
decision culture, 417 deepening, viii
decision-driven, 441 defeat rivals, 77
decision form, 441 defensive competitive position, 368
decision-makers, xii, xl, xlii, 9, 16, 49, 55, defensive strategies, 338
117, 118, 130, 175, 176, 184, 188, define requirements, 485, 486
189, 211, 215, 216, 218, 226, 228, defining target market, 113, 327
232, 236, 245, 248–51, 256, 258, Definition and evolution of Marketology,
261, 265, 295, 310, 313, 314, 332, xlivn7, 389n11, 477, 479–81, 495,
374, 386, 407, 417, 435, 468, 482 496
616 INDEX
degree, xiii, xvii, xviii, 85, 122, 146, 159, demographic shifts, 395
160, 181, 271, 272, 284, 285, 365, demonstration, 116, 444
387, 440, 453 demystifying, 530, 539
degree of being market related (DBMR), Deng and Dart Scale, 430
85, 86 Deng, R., 413, 414, 440
degree of implementation of marketing Deng, S., ix, 430
concept, xiii Deng, Y., 550
degree of integration, 440 Denhardt, J. V., 554
degree of marketology within Denhardt, R. B., 554
organization, 439–40 Denisa, L., 304, 329, 332, 336, 350,
degree of persistence, 181 357
delays and deficits, 43 Denison, D. R., 66, 154
Delia, B., 505 density, 180
deliberate, 68 departmental, 36, 46, 52, 54, 226, 464
deliberate role modeling, 68 Department of Business Administration
deliver, 3, 8, 30, 105, 235, 243, 245, School Of Economics and
258, 309, 339, 344, 348, 355, 359, Management, 532
361, 365, 406, 436, 450 Department of Management and
deliverables, 482 Engineering, Linköping University,
delivering superior value, vii, 32, 94, 528
200, 222, 248 Department of Mathematics and
delivering value, 69, 96, 102, 103, 113, Computer Science, 575
183, 184, 347, 353, 356, 401, 418 departments, 6, 7, 14, 16, 36, 40, 43,
delivering value proposition, 113, 184 45–7, 52–4, 56, 68, 85, 93,
delivery, 53, 95, 182, 183, 224, 356, 99–102, 104, 122, 123, 141, 149,
357, 396, 400, 403, 416, 431, 480, 153, 154, 169n16, 178, 182, 186,
484 189, 194, 205, 232, 295, 308,
delivery only, 416 314, 325, 349, 408, 413, 428,
delivery platform, 396 429, 464
delivery speed, 356 department stores, 349
delivery timeliness, 228, 356 dependence, 173
Deloitte, 123, 125, 127, 130, 449, 450 dependency, 48, 355, 378
Deloitte Development LLC, 543, 557 dependent, 99, 100, 206, 302, 326
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited deploy, xli, 365, 404, 414, 429
(DTTL), 516 deployment capability, 233
Delphi process, 212 deployment of market-related
demand, xliv, 48, 181, 315, 332, 352, informational products, 53
395, 401, 403, 412, 419, 464 depth, xiv, 99, 390n22, 440
demand-side, 429 deregulation, 568
de Melo, Miguel Simoes, 573 derivative impact, 397
Demirdjian, Z. S., xi, viii deriving organizational culture, 148
democracy, 565 Desai, P. S., xv, xiii, xviii
democratization, 410 description, xiii, 50, 80, 81, 246, 434,
democratization of contents, 410 473
democratized analytics, 413 descriptive, 49, 62, 73, 86, 107, 120,
demographic, 180, 186, 325, 329, 395, 131, 143, 155, 156, 190, 214, 219,
417, 426, 487 240, 266, 267, 323, 372, 387, 389,
demographic environment, 180 408
INDEX 617
Deshpande, R., ix, xii, 106, 138, 142, develop, vii, viii, x–xiii, xiv, xv, xvii,
430, 440 xviii, 8, 13, 14, 22, 27, 28, 38, 49,
design, vii, x, xiii, xxxix, xl, xli, 1, 2, 4, 50, 52, 53, 60, 68, 69, 92, 95,
9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27, 33, 102, 105, 113, 123, 127–9,
35–169, 172–5, 178, 188, 189, 137–41, 146, 164, 169n17, 174,
210, 212, 216, 218, 223, 226, 177, 178, 180–2, 184, 185, 199,
227, 231, 233, 234, 238, 239, 210–12, 215–18, 223, 225, 226,
244, 245, 251, 252, 257, 260, 229, 232, 233, 235, 238, 239,
263, 264, 267, 275, 276, 283–7, 244, 253, 254, 258, 260–5, 276,
289, 290n30, 291, 292, 294, 295, 303, 313, 321, 325, 328, 342–4,
297, 300–2, 305, 307, 310–12, 356, 357, 362, 369, 383, 384,
319, 323, 334, 336, 338–40, 343, 387, 402, 410, 411, 413, 417,
346, 347, 351, 352, 354, 355, 419, 423, 430–3, 435, 437, 447,
357–9, 365, 366, 368, 370, 372, 449, 473, 476, 486, 487
386, 389n3, 389n4, 389n8, developed-market, viii, 411
389n9, 389n13, 393, 404, 406, developers, 49, 146
408, 413, 418, 419, 422, 428, developing economies, 180, 368
434–7, 443, 446, 447, 449, developing new products, 137
470–2, 475n6, 477, 478, 484, developing new strategy, 260, 262
486, 488, 489, 491, 495, 496 developing value, 113
design changes, 357 development, viii, x, xi, xv, 14, 27, 52,
Desiraju, R., 310, 349, 353 53, 68, 69, 95, 102, 106, 113, 129,
desired maximum return on value 138, 140, 144, 174, 178, 182, 184,
(DM-ROV), 248, 249 210, 217, 218, 223, 226, 229, 233,
desired maximum value (DMV), 245–7 238, 239, 244, 263–5, 303, 321,
desired status (TO BE), 59, 232–6 328, 356, 357, 362, 369, 402, 410,
desire for business, 356 419, 423, 430–3, 435, 437, 449,
desires, 55, 99, 222, 232–6, 245–9, 256, 476n15
331, 356, 426, 432 device, 123, 329, 394, 395, 400, 403,
Dess, G., 91, 101, 102, 105, 113, 116, 407, 410, 412, 418, 419, 436, 442,
117, 123, 126, 129–31, 136–8, 443, 447
140, 142, 151, 154, 173, 174, 176, device mesh, 397
182, 183, 186, 189, 195, 198–200, devices connectivity, 412
202, 203, 205, 206, 210–12, 214, devoted high-level department, 439
215, 218, 223, 225–7, 245, 251, Dholakia, N., ix
253, 265, 300, 302–4, 307, 309, diagnosis, 250
311–313, 315, 316, 323, 324, 330, diagnostic, 199, 408
332, 336, 357, 361, 363, 367, 418, diagonal direction, 27
426 dialogue, 321
Dessinger, J. C., 575 Diamatopoulos, A., 92, 106, 428, 439
Dessler, G., 75, 76, 78, 83, 85 Díaz-Villavicencio, G., 517
Desson, K., 67, 146, 147 Dickson, P. R., 118, 357
detached analytics (Random cases), 408 Didonet, S., 429
determinant, 431 Diederich, D., 542
deterrent, 79 Diehn, D., ix
Deusen, C. V., 349, 353 differ, 16, 56, 68
Devaughn Network, 573 difference, 58, 68, 75, 78, 91, 93, 148,
Devaughn, S., 8, 248, 265 197, 320, 321, 326, 332, 369
618 INDEX
different, xvi, xxxix, xli, xliii, 3, 5–7, 13, 178, 184, 202, 214, 215, 217, 218,
14, 16, 26–8, 34, 37–42, 45, 46, 233, 234, 236, 238, 239, 263–5,
48–51, 53, 56, 57, 65, 68, 69, 76, 281n26, 323, 325, 341, 394, 407,
78, 79, 82, 83, 85, 93, 99, 102, 431, 435, 440, 478, 479, 482
103, 112, 117, 118, 126, 129, 136, D2Inf (data to information), 449
137, 139, 141, 146, 148, 154, 164, direct, 71, 180, 196, 215, 238, 261,
168n13, 173, 178, 183, 196–9, 329, 337, 338, 340, 344, 348–50,
214, 225, 229, 243, 253, 254, 260, 370, 394, 419
276, 280n6, 296, 303, 307, 308, direct competitor, 337, 338
315, 316, 320, 321, 323, 326, 327, direct exchange of goods, 394
331–3, 335, 338, 341, 344, 345, directing, 50, 54, 197, 198, 301, 304,
348, 352, 359–62, 365, 366, 379, 305
387, 394, 396, 399, 402, 403, 407, directing corporation, 196
413, 424, 431, 433, 435, 439–41, direction, 2, 5, 18, 21, 27–32, 76, 77,
473, 475n4, 478 83, 146, 151, 161, 167, 194, 197,
differentiation, 65, 345, 424, 430 198, 235, 258, 270, 273, 275, 279,
differentiation-based strategies, 335 282, 288, 289, 301, 308, 329, 347,
difficulties, 210 365, 410, 427, 491, 492
diffusion, 50 direction modes (DM), 30, 161, 273,
diffusion of metadata, 50 286
digital, xvi, 202, 394–7, 400, 401, 410, directive, 212, 417, 441
412, 415, 421, 424, 449 direct mail stores, 349
digital business, 510, 559 direct marketing channel, 348
digital citizens, 400, 410 directories, 126
digital connections, 421, 449 director of marketology, 49, 50
digital economy, 400 direct sales, 349
digital era, 401 disagreement, 30, 77, 78, 352
digital experiences, 410 disappointing market growth, 184
digital future, 395 disasters, 403–4, 419
digital interactions, 400 discarding, 332
digitalization, 396 discipline: academic side of the subject, viii
digitally enabled transparency, 394 discipline of marketing, 569
digitally transmitted parameters, 394 disciplines, viii, ix, x, xiii, xv, 404
digital marketing, 396 disclosure, 196
digital medium, 424 discontents, xxv, 545
digital mesh, 397 discount stores, 349
digital platform, 525, 578 discouraging interaction, 30
digital progresses, 412 discourse, xxii, 528
digital psychology, 202 discovery, 130, 205, 214, 406, 415
digital technology, 394 discrete business, 349
digital thing, 559 discussion, xviii, 10, 20, 34, 44, 52, 62,
digital universe, 524 63, 72, 73, 87, 88, 98, 102, 107,
digital world, 410 108, 119, 120, 131, 132, 143, 144,
digitization, 394, 396 155, 157, 158, 175, 179, 189–91,
dilemma, 556 196, 201, 204, 209, 215, 216, 219,
diluted responsibility, 206 220, 230, 239–41, 251, 252, 265,
dimensions, 16, 22–6, 34, 38, 43, 266, 268, 270, 277, 299, 305, 309,
68–70, 74, 79, 81, 97, 113, 124, 317, 322, 330, 333, 340, 346, 350,
137, 150, 151, 168n11, 169n17, 354, 358, 360, 364, 367, 371, 373,
INDEX 619
387, 390n22, 399, 409, 425, 433, diversified role sets, 76

436, 442, 444, 446, 448, 450, 451, diversified units, 48
474, 487, 488, 490–85 diversifying businesses, 369, 416
disks, 413 diversifying risk, 369
dispersed services, 48 diversity, 424
disposing, 332 division(s), 46, 49, 56, 93, 127
disruptive developments, 435 divisional intelligence manager, 49, 50
disruptive force, 401 divisional intelligence projects, 49
dissemination, vii, xi, xliv, 2, 70, 117, divisional intelligence teams, 49
130, 189, 202, 262, 281n25, divisional marketology, 48, 49
295–7, 311, 318, 319, 374–6, 378, divisional marketology team (DMT), 36,
384, 428, 447, 450, 483, 484 48–9, 52
dissemination of market DIKII, 117, divisional organizational structure
483, 484 (M-form), 38–9
dissemination of market intelligence, division of labor in society, 518
483, 484 Dixon, Donald F., xvi, xviii
disseminator, 199 Dixon, L. M., ix
dissimilar organizations, 173 DLM Forum, 503
distance is dead, 395 DM. See direction modes (DM)
distant future (4–10 years), 411 DM-ROV. See desired maximum return
Di Stefano, G., 97, 136, 140, 142 on value (DM-ROV)
distinct entities, 403 DMU. See decision making unit (DMU)
distinctive, 91, 94–6, 98, 102, 103, 109, DMV. See desired maximum value
344 (DMV)
distinguishing, xli, 93, 198, 320 Dobbin, Frank, xiv, xviii
distorting interaction, 30 Dobbs, Richard, 547
distracting data points, 406 Dobney, 322, 363
distributed, 394, 403, 408 Dobni, C. Brooke, 429, 439
distributed MMC, 56, 57 document(s), 365, 401
distributed set of machines, 403 documented system/procedures, 357
distributed trust, 394 Dodgson, Mark, 135–7, 140, 142,
distributer, 43 229, 232, 239, 245, 249, 300,
distribution, viii, xi, xvi, 41, 42, 44, 93, 309, 357
141, 180, 183–5, 345, 348–51, doing right things, 119, 200, 254
357, 366, 368 doing things right, 198, 200, 254
distribution channel, 184, 348–50 domain, 28, 102, 140, 400
distribution channel constraints, 184 dominance, xiii, 410
distribution cost, 357 dominant culture, 68
distribution of marketology products Donald, F. Dixon, ix
across managerial levels, 41, 42, 44 Donaldson, T., 186
distribution systems, 184, 349 Donegan, Kevin, 92, 105, 106, 134,
distributive enterprise, xi 137, 138, 140, 142
distributive managerial decision-making, Dong, Xiaodan (Dani), 428, 430
xi Donnelly, Jr. James H., 525
distributive process, xi Don, Parks, 513
distributor, 348, 349, 351, 431 double-edged sword, 212
disturbance handler, 199 doubleplay, 506
divergent, 573 Downey, Jim, 179, 183, 225
diversification, 366, 368 downsizing, 515
diversified media support, 102 downstream, 347, 350, 366, 367
620 INDEX
downstream collaborators, 366, 367 Dunie, Rob, 554

downward, 6, 146 Dunmore, Michael, 149, 151, 177, 189,
Doyle, Peter, 8, 112, 116, 149, 151, 225
154, 173, 175, 177, 179, 182, 183, Dunn, Mark G., 519
185, 186, 188, 197, 198, 200, 209, duplication of activities, 43
225, 226, 245, 251, 265, 296, 298, durability, 217
299, 306, 309, 312, 314, 317–19, during-conducting, 484
323, 350, 357, 361, 418, 422 Durkheim, Emile, ix
Drake, Robert, 401, 402 Dussault, Meg, 553
dramatic changing, 222, 223 Dutta, Soumitra, 125, 130, 407, 408, 412
Dranove, D., 173, 183, 323, 324, 336, DUV, 546
339, 345 Duysters, G., 97, 112, 126, 127, 129,
Drejer, A., 97, 126, 127, 129 258
Dresner, Howard J., 61, 75–7, 79, 83, dyadic coopetition (win-win-lose), 366
85, 225, 226 Dyer, Andrew, 504
drill, 80 Dymond, Lisa, 504
drive, 178, 401, 403, 406–8, 411, 414, dynamic(s), 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 22, 33, 53,
431, 468, 469 66, 68, 69, 79, 83, 122, 126, 150,
drive for growth, 411 174, 176, 184, 197, 213, 252, 256,
driven strategy, 515 259, 291, 292, 299, 300, 318, 319,
driver analytics, 406 324, 327, 333, 335, 351, 361, 365,
driver-based decision-making, 475n4 366, 369, 394, 417, 418, 429, 432,
driver-based planning, 475n4 476n15, 487
Driver, Michael J., 506 dynamic buying experience, 417
drivers, 141, 253, 342, 369, 406, 412, dynamic capability, 11, 67, 90, 92, 93,
415, 419, 475n4, 479, 480 97, 106, 151, 228, 344, 432
drivers of collaboration formation, 369 dynamic capability view (DCV), 335,
drives, 341 336, 359
drive strategy choice, 178 dynamic circumstances, 3, 252, 418, 449
driving, 27, 30, 67, 69, 140, 246, 395, dynamic competitive markets, 419
405, 461, 462, 481 dynamic competitive success, 6
driving (accelerators), 261, 262 dynamic content, 476n15
driving and restraining forces, 262 dynamic innovation, 429
driving force, 262 dynamic managerial capabilities, 498
drones, 411 dynamic manner, 449
Drucker, Peter, viii, ix, xiii, 92, 106, 111, dynamic marketing behavior, 498
134, 135, 137, 140, 142, 281n18 dynamic model(s), 13
Drucker, Peter F., viii, ix, xiii, 92, 106, dynamic model of organization design,
111, 134, 135, 137, 140, 142, 13
281n18 dynamic organizational culture, 65, 66,
Dryden Press, 557 68, 72, 79, 148
DSS. See decision support system (DSS) dynamic organizations, xxxix, 91, 255
dual-core approach, 138 dynamic person, 95
Dubin, R., xiii dynamic-related, 176
Dumas, Marlon, 3, 5, 254, 259, 261, 265 dynamics of channel, 184, 324, 351,
dummies, 524, 529, 574 361, 487
dummies for dummies, 548 dynamics of corporates, 83
Duncan, W. Jack, 173, 183, 336, 339, dynamic system, vii, 11
345 dynamization, 565
INDEX 621
dysfunctional (negative or restraining) economic management, 432

effects, 67 economic power, 395
dysfunctional relationship, xiii economic power shifts, 395
Dyson, Robert G., 179, 183, 189, 195, economic progress, 196
196, 200–3, 207, 209–12, 214, 225 economic sector, 37
Dyson sphere, 419 Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic
Management, 517
Economics of Engineering Decisions,
E 574
early-adopters, 544 economic theory, viii, x, 404
early warning systems, 175 economic theory of information, 404
earth, 39, 167n2, 395 economic value, 366
ease of use, 400 Economic Value of Information (EVI),
Easley, Richard W., xvi, xviii 405, 458, 459
easy, 78, 205, 320, 405, 413, 415 Economic value to customer (EVC),
easy-access flow of market information, 344
320 economies of scale, 368
Ebeling, H. W., 106, 229 The Economist, 418
Eburon Delft Academic Publication, 563 Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 367,
e-business, 122, 125, 127, 131, 132, 370, 419, 421, 422
329, 338 The Economist Newspaper Limited,
e-businesses organizations, 127 519
Eckerson, Wayne W., 49, 50, 52–5, 57, economy, 207, 320, 394, 395, 400, 421,
59, 61, 168n7, 413–16 427, 431
ecological, 13, 180, 181, 324, 352, 432 Economy, Peter, 529
ecological environment, 180, 181, 324, ecosystems, 172, 173, 179, 192, 202,
352, 432 366, 410
ecological model of organization design, e-customer, 329, 338
13 Eden, Colin, 174, 176, 185, 186, 189,
ecological systems, 432 223, 225, 226, 306, 308, 312–15,
ecology, 129, 194, 195 318, 320, 326, 350, 357, 418, 426
e-commerce, 329, 338, 410 Edgar, William B., 65, 97, 101, 102,
e-competition, 329, 338 105, 106, 111, 124, 125, 129, 229,
Economia-Seria Management, 523 245, 251, 298, 311, 315
economic(s), viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiv, xv, Edinburgh, 523, 558
xviii, 37, 93, 129, 135, 180, 181, Edinburgh Business School Heriot-Watt
196, 212, 243, 324, 328, 329, 331, University, 523, 558
351, 352, 363, 366, 394, 395, 404, Edison Research, 421, 422
413, 424, 432, 442, 487 education, 13, 83, 329, 331, 400
economic behavior, xii Educational and Psychological
economic benefits, 181 Measurement, 565
economic circumstances, 329, 331 Educational Research International,
economic environment, 180 580
economic goods and services, xi educator(s), 84
economic impacts, 413 Edward Elgar Publishing, 500, 513, 525,
economic insights, 501 566
economic interactions, 432 Edwards, D. J., 546
economic interconnectedness, 395 Edwin Lee, 544
economic journal, 565 effect, x, 70, 180, 236, 419, 427, 431
622 INDEX
effective, xii, xli, 6, 8, 13, 42, 48, 51, 53, efficient performance, 3, 8, 78, 198, 226,
54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 70, 71, 76, 78, 227, 252, 255, 259, 264, 417, 428,
91, 95, 116, 125, 129, 130, 133, 472
138, 140–2, 146, 174–6, 178, 202, effort(s), xv, xvi, 48, 75, 141, 185,
204, 222, 226, 227, 232, 233, 236, 227–9, 248, 407, 431
250, 252, 255–9, 264, 295, 303, EFQM. See European Foundation for
304, 306–8, 311, 313, 314, 322, Quality Management (EFQM)
343, 347, 365, 368, 369, 402, 406, egalitarianism, 66
407, 420, 424, 472 EIS. See executive information systems
effective brand management, 419 (EIS)
effective communication, 95, 145, 148, Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., 97, 106, 196,
153–5 199, 200, 202, 203, 205
effective decision-making, 30, 117, 204, EIS evolution, 392, 437–8
223, 257, 311, 449 Eisner, Alan, 517
effective decisions, xl, 3, 8, 10, 28, 43, Ekerson, Wayne W., 3, 254, 257, 259,
51, 78, 105, 176, 184, 248, 259, 300, 307, 330, 332, 336, 361
296, 308, 313, 334, 400, 402, 406, Ekonomika Ir Vadyba, 536
434, 472 Elam, Joyce J., 53–5, 57, 59, 210, 212,
effective leadership, 369 215, 225–7, 229, 232, 239
effective manner, 23, 81, 147, 199, El-Ansary, A. I., ix
232 Electrical Engineering and Computer
effective market-related decision-making, Science (EECS), 513
53, 227, 306 electricity issues, 427
effectiveness, 10, 13, 33, 53, 56, 71, 83, electronic(s), xvi, 24, 127, 146, 147,
111, 116, 125, 149, 153, 154, 175, 211, 315, 329, 338, 349, 355,
169n20, 198, 200, 212, 223, 226, 357, 360, 400
227, 229, 232, 240, 242, 254–5, electronic appearance, 360
258, 259, 264, 311, 313, 323, 341, electronic business, 24, 127, 329
352, 357, 368, 373, 385, 386, 407, electronic capabilities, xvi, 357
424, 432 electronic commerce (e-commerce), 24,
effectiveness-based, 93, 313 329, 338, 410
effectiveness role, 226, 227, 311 electronic communication, 146, 147,
effective strategies, 178, 185, 222, 232, 357
447 electronic competitor, 338, 360
efficiency, 38, 53, 56, 111, 116, 149, electronic customer, xvi, 211, 329, 357,
198, 200, 212, 226–9, 254, 264, 360
341, 352, 357, 366, 368, 418, 432 electronic devices and solutions, xvi, 329,
efficiency-based, 93 400
efficiency role, 226, 227, 368 electronic infrastructures, xvi
efficient actions, xl, 3, 8, 10, 28, 51, 78, electronic market, xvi, 24, 175, 315,
105, 226, 227, 248, 252, 259, 296, 329, 338, 357
308, 313, 334, 406, 434, 472 electronic marketing orientation, xvi
efficient action-taking, 30, 117, 223, electronic marketspace, 338
227, 228, 311, 449 electronic space, 329, 338, 349
efficient manner, 51, 175, 199, 254, electronic stores, 349
256, 449 electronic word of mouth (e-WOM), 211
efficient market-related action-taking, elements, xiv, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 25, 26,
30, 256, 257, 295, 304, 306, 313, 37, 38, 66, 90, 99, 123, 136, 148,
322 168n15, 177, 178, 188, 214, 224,
INDEX 623
231, 254, 303, 316, 323, 324, 328, employee commitment, 185, 253, 308
329, 336, 341, 345, 351, 356, 368, employee efficiency, 418
375, 377, 390n21, 393, 410, 411, employee incuriosity, 430
426, 429, 472, 478 employee mindset, 432
Elena, Rocco, 300, 367, 370 employee pay, 37, 186
Elg, Ulf, 431 employee performance, 91, 178, 185,
Elhag, T, 546 186, 188, 196, 253, 429
e-life, 329, 338 employee response, 429
eliminating, 405 employees, 37, 68, 70, 83, 185, 186,
Elliott, Timo, 205, 206, 209, 215, 218, 188, 194–6, 308, 325, 360, 399,
415, 416 422, 425, 429, 431, 432
Elmuti, Dean, 302, 367, 370 employee satisfaction, 91
Elsevier Ltd, 537 employee viewpoint, 431, 432
email, 426, 440 employment, 13
e-market, 30, 71, 129, 130, 141, 142, empowered, 400, 412
154, 239, 250, 329, 338, 432 empowering, 164, 236, 276, 352, 362,
embedded, 4, 400 368, 413
embedded business process, 4 empower-winning, 571
embedded devices, 400 enablement, 78
embedded with electronics, 400 enablers/IT staff, 3, 133, 324, 398
embedding analytics, 502 enabling forces, 421
embracing the future, 435, 473 enabling technology, 84, 129, 257, 421
e-meetings, 147 encoding, 145
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, xxiv encouraging culture, 447
emergence, viii, 217, 402, 406, 420, 423 encyclopedia, xxv, 548
emergency chat, 427 encyclopedia of applied physics, xxv, 548
emergent, 574 ending, 38, 117
emerging, 174, 175, 180, 184, 199, 225, energy, 419
324, 329, 335, 353, 404, 412, 422 energy innovation, 411
emerging changes of consumers, 427 engage, xi, xii, 69, 185, 245, 326
emerging market entrepreneurs, 422 engagement, 93, 412, 418, 442
emerging markets, 184, 324, 422 engineering, ix, 122, 172, 174, 175,
emerging matters, 174, 353 279, 292, 323–72, 387, 393, 404,
emerging opportunities, 174, 180, 184, 472
329 engineering businesses, 329
emerging risks, 174, 175 engineering capabilities, 355
emerging rivals, 335 Englewood Cliffs, xxvi
emerging societal landscape, 435 Eng Wah, L., 540
emerging submarkets, 184 enhanced network structures (modular or
emerging technologies, 180, 331, 412 virtual organizations), 125
emerging threats, 174, 180, 184 enhancing, xvi, 50, 53, 59, 79, 111, 223,
emerging trends, 174, 184, 321 225, 352, 362, 405, 417
Emerson, Jed, 8, 247, 248, 251, 265 Enis, Ben M., ix, 439
emotion, 200 enough about data, where’s the
emotional, 211, 212, 328, 332, 421 information?, 415
empirical, viii Ensign, P. C., 349, 353
empirical investigation, viii ensuring success of, 53
employee behaviors, 126 ensuring voice, 369
employee characteristics, 186, 430 entering a new business, 140
624 INDEX
enterprise, vii, xxxix, 4, 41, 173, 294, enterprise survival, 123, 487
394, 478 enterprise system (ES), 437, 438
enterprise 2.0, 549 enterprise-wide, 36, 46, 52, 232, 236
enterprise alignment, 1, 13–17, 33 enterprise-wide coverage, 439
enterprise app stores, 397 enterprise-wide marketology strategy, 232
enterprise architecture, 57 entire business organization, 31, 32, 279,
enterprise asset, 404 282, 287–9, 293, 373, 386, 388,
enterprise budget plan, 99 471, 492, 493
enterprise business intelligence, 443 entire organization, 16, 137, 295, 315,
enterprise business intelligence maturity 320, 408, 440
model (EBIMM), 414 entity, 194
enterprise cloud, 457 entrance of competitors, 184
enterprise collaboration, 412 entrepreneur, 199, 400, 422
Enterprise content management (ECM), entrepreneurial, 345
412 entrepreneurial Orientation, 69, 90, 429
enterprise costs, 410 entrepreneurial thrust, 345
enterprise data management maturity entrepreneurship, 69, 90, 185, 429
model, 414 entrepreneurship orientation, 69, 90, 429
enterprise data warehouse (EDW), 4, entry barriers, 334
130, 224, 415 envinternal analysis, 172, 176–8
enterprise efficiency, 398 envinternal business analysis, 172, 176–9,
enterprise email archives, 440 192
enterprise focus, 416 environment, xiii, xxxix, 3, 38, 173, 302,
enterprise functional texture, 14 392, 482
enterprise growth, 398 environmental, 43, 53, 104, 136, 150,
enterprise informational architecture 151, 153, 154, 175, 176, 178, 181,
(EIA), 412 182, 200, 280n8, 307, 331, 335,
enterprise information management 341, 343, 351, 352, 355, 356, 368,
(EIM), 49, 407, 412 406, 422, 426, 429, 432, 485
enterprise information system (EIS), 124, environmental analysis, 175
392, 437–8, 442, 449 environmental change, 136, 176
enterprise internal dynamics, 432 environmental complexity(ies), 200
enterprise level, xxxix, 112 environmental considerations, 432
enterprise marketing management, 402, environmental dynamics, 97
432 environmental factors, 307, 343, 351,
enterprise marketology, 49, 203, 452 352, 356, 368
enterprise marketology maturity, 234, environmental forces, 181, 429
439–41, 466, 467 environmentally responsible products, 181
enterprise marketology team (EMT), 49 environmental requirements, 335
enterprise metrics framework, 414 environmental scanning, 175
enterprise mobile devices, 412, 443 environmental stakeholders, 178, 182
enterprise mobility, 412 environmental sustainability, 181, 422
enterprise performance, xliii environmental uncertainty, 151
enterprise portals, 412 environmental variation, 568
enterprise profitability, 94, 123, 417, environment based competencies, 85
432, 487 environment changes, xii, 67, 68, 176,
enterprise resource planning (ERP), 41, 180, 200, 213, 222, 223, 225, 391,
56, 125, 129, 130, 168n3, 415 399–409, 420, 440, 442, 447, 449,
enterprise risk management, 56 472–4, 494
INDEX 625
environment complexity, 148, 151, 181, ethical leadership, 337

222 ethical value, 196
environment condition, 3, 38, 46, 67, ethics, 181, 198, 211, 243
69, 70, 176, 196, 252, 341, 356 Eth Zurich, 528
environment protection, 403 etiology, 565
environment turbulence, 148, 181, 200, ETL. See extraction transformation load
222, 429, 487 (ETL); extract, transform, and load
epistemological, 566 (ETL)
epistemological assessment, 566 ETL developers, 49
EPS, 253 ETL server, 49
Epstein, Marc, 515 Eunson, Baden, 66, 146, 148, 149
equals, 39, 42, 93, 253, 327 EURAM–The European Academy of
equations, 480 Management Second Annual
equilibrium, 501 Conference, 513
equipment, 151, 345, 355 Europe, 514, 540
equitable treatment, 198 European Foundation for Quality
equities, 92, 99 Management (EFQM), 253–5, 258,
equity financing, 345 265, 281n26, 324
equity investment, 366 European Journal of Information
Ericsson, 426, 427 Systems, 545
Ericsson Consumer Insight Summary European Journal of Innovation
Report, 521 Management, 505, 530
Ernst and Young Global Limited European Journal of Marketing, xx, xxv,
(EYGM), 521, 522 xxii, xxiii, 501, 505–7, 509, 510,
ERP applications, 130 521–3, 526–30, 534, 542, 544,
escalation of commitment, 211 546, 548, 551, 552, 559, 560, 567,
Esfidani, Mohammad Rahim, 309, 311, 569, 571, 573, 575
314, 318, 336, 345, 361, 367, 418, European Journal of Operational
426, 443, 445, 448 Research, 577
Eshuis, Rik, 527 European Management Journal, 541
e-Skills, 510 evaluable, 232
Esomar, 320, 323, 424 evaluate, x, 31, 200, 253, 258, 306, 313,
Esomar industry report, 521 360, 370, 412, 459, 461, 470, 485
espoused beliefs and values, 66 evaluate options, 485
essential, xxxix, 3, 13, 41, 141, 148, 198, evaluating MMC, 59
205, 299 evaluating strategy, 197, 223, 306, 341,
essentials of health care marketing, 504 428
establish, 102, 206, 370, 414 evaluation of market DIKII, 117, 130
established function, 16, 23 Evans, H. Matt, 179, 183, 189, 195,
established marketology, 16, 23 202, 203, 205, 225, 226, 306, 313
established unit, 16 Evelson, Boris, 203, 205, 209, 215, 218,
establishment and replication, 430 415, 416, 441
Esteban, A, 430, 440 events, x, 68, 214, 426
Este, R. A., 13 ever-changing business environment, 432
estimation, 129 ever-changing environment, 85, 91, 164,
ethical, 194, 196, 199, 211, 337, 355 204, 320
ethical concerns, 337 ever-changing external conditions, 3,
ethical decision-making, 211 123, 252
ethical environment, 194 ever-changing internal situations, 3, 252
626 INDEX
ever-changing markets, xiii, 228 execute, 56, 81, 200, 228, 231, 306,
ever-expanding global networks, 411 449, 470
ever-fluctuating, 213 executing strategy, 306, 341
everybody and every business always look execution, 30, 38, 97, 116, 129, 221–3,
for success, 479 225, 227, 231–2, 240, 257, 343,
Everyman’s Library, 548 392, 449–51, 482
everything gets hacked, 427 executional, 307, 482
evidence, 510, 518, 533, 537, 547, 549, execution process, 559
552, 576 execution talent, 419
evidence-based, 546 executive action, xix, xxi, 498, 517
evolution(s), xlivn7, 124, 129, 217, 392, executive decision making, xxvi 561
393, 430, 437–9, 474, 476n15, executive information systems (EIS),
477, 479–81 124, 392, 437–8, 442, 449
evolutionary, 91, 124, 415, 437, 439, executive management, 441
485 executives, xiii, xl, xlii, 8, 10, 30, 31,
evolutionary algorithms, 498 40–2, 46, 49, 50, 55, 58, 59, 61, 69,
evolutionary generations of business 71, 75, 78, 82–4, 99, 105, 112, 128,
intelligence, 415 129, 141, 146, 149, 153, 154, 176,
evolutionary relationship, 91 188, 194, 202, 216, 225–7, 233,
evolutionary stages of IT application, 124 238, 244, 245, 248, 250, 252, 253,
evolution of enterprise information 258, 259, 261, 295, 297, 303–9,
systems: from MIS to marketology, 313, 318, 322, 323, 334, 355, 357,
392, 437–8 374, 378, 379, 382, 394, 399, 402,
evolution of marketology, xlivn7, 477, 404, 409, 413, 414, 417, 423, 432,
479–81 434–7, 441, 449, 468, 485
evolution of societies, 558 executive scanning, 505, 513
evolve, 76, 99, 154, 215, 410 executive steering committee, 233
evolving technologies, 412 executive summary-flipping, 500
e-work, 329, 338 executive support system, 126
exactitude, 404 Exeter, xxii, 526
exalted, 61 exigency, 485
exam, 569 EX-IN mode: from outside to inside, 149
examination, 22, 58, 178, 184, 196, exinternal (external-internal), 136, 307
307, 323 exinternal analysis, 301, 359, 364
excel, 81 exinternal business analysis, 280n7, 291,
excellence, 53, 168n6, 253–5, 258, 265, 300, 307–9
402, 408, 411, 440 existing competitors, 338, 340
excellent analytical, 81 exit barriers, 334, 337, 344
excessive focus on costs, 139 exit probability, 355
excess products, 348 exosphere, 167n2
exchange(s), xii, 32, 112, 175, 235, 243, exosphere: 700–10,000 km (440–6,200
245, 248, 316, 332, 348, 359, 394, miles), 167n2
426, 431 expand collaboration, 370
exchange-based thought, 431 expanded, vii, xiv, xvii, xviii39, 175, 217,
exchange transactions, 175 365, 432
exchanging value with market, 422 expanding channel engagement, 418
exclusive, xiii, 43, 351 expanding cooperation, 357
exclusive (limited) marketing channel, expansion, xv, 217, 311, 338, 351, 416,
351 420, 423, 440, 483, 484
INDEX 627
expansionist, 343 exploring: creating, 138

expansion of big data, 423, 440 explosion, 561
expectations, 37, 75, 76, 141, 174, 185, explosion of innovation, 415
196, 197, 205, 245, 324, 328, 329, exposure, 331
331, 342, 369, 400, 437 exposure within market, 325
expected value, 252–4, 328, 329, 359, extended, 414, 431
365 extending, 281n26, 393, 472
expense of organization, 77 extending the marketing concept, xxv,
experience, ix, 40, 43, 82, 95, 104, 105, 547
211, 353, 356, 357, 365, 369, 396, extension, 394, 403, 431, 476n15
397, 400, 410, 415, 417, 419, 420, extensive data usage, 407
430, 484 extent of marketology, 85
experience-based, 484 external, 1, 5, 8, 28, 46, 49, 56, 67, 70,
experience based competencies, 105 71, 76, 78, 83, 92, 95, 97, 102,
experience curve, 61 104, 106, 136, 137, 141, 142, 145,
experiential field, xii 146, 149–51, 153, 154, 164, 176,
experiment, 484 182, 200, 204, 229, 231, 243, 250,
experimental study, 509 276, 280n6, 303, 313, 324, 335,
experimentation-based, 484 342, 359, 360, 390n21, 418, 483
expert, 49, 54, 77, 79, 82, 83, 188, 212, external adaption, 67
374, 399, 435 external analysis, 24, 301, 307, 359, 364,
expert systems, 126 380, 383, 488
explaining, ix, 21, 105 external business analysis, 172, 176–8,
explanation, viii, xiii, 34n10, 62, 73, 86, 180–5, 190, 192
107, 120, 131, 143, 155, 156, 190, external communication, 153, 154
217, 219, 240, 266, 267, 372, 405, external condition, 3, 38, 69, 123, 141,
427 213, 214, 252, 396, 402, 486
explicating, 572 external data, 81, 407, 440
explicit, 127, 139, 250 external-direct, 484
explicit forcing, 139 external-effectiveness, 150
explicit knowledge: knowing about, 127 external factors, 18, 46, 70, 135, 172,
explicit market-related informational 177, 181, 187–9, 271–3, 308, 341,
needs, 250 359, 396, 418, 429, 479, 480
explicit reasoning, 211 external forces, 149, 151, 152, 336
explicit rewards, 68 external-indirect, 484
exploitation, vii, xlivn4, xlivn5, 2, 46, 51, external information and technology, 130
130, 189, 227, 258, 281n25, external interaction, 15, 18, 149, 165
295–7, 311, 318, 319, 374–6, 378, externalities of decisions, 211
384, 392, 402, 432, 447, 450, 451, external market, xxxix, 178, 426, 429,
453–5, 471, 474, 483, 484, 494 432
exploitation of market DIKII, 117, 223 external marketing, 429, 431, 432
exploiting, 31, 79, 85, 128, 228, 235, external marketing (focused on
251, 256, 258, 366, 412, 440 customers), 431
exploiting: implementing, 138 external marketology, 2, 8, 33, 189–90,
exploration, xliv, 204, 485, 486 217, 238, 264, 298, 310, 311,
exploratory, 505, 530, 565 375–7, 379, 384
exploratory survey, xx, 512 external market orientation, 429, 432
explore, 80, 225, 256, 303, 324 external/market oriented, 141
explorer, 80, 416 external moderation, 527
628 INDEX
external/outsource data sources, 399 361, 363, 368, 369, 393, 396, 410,
external relationships, 125, 432 411, 418, 429, 472, 479
external stakeholder analysis, 172, 302, Faculty of Business and Law, 581
303, 312 Faculty of Management, 498
external stakeholders, 4, 5, 11, 15, 18, Fahey, L., 323, 324, 336, 339
23, 37, 44, 148, 153, 172, 174, Fahy, J., 91, 101, 102, 105, 113, 116,
185, 186, 188, 192, 194–6, 243, 117, 226
267, 280n10, 301, 308, 312, 324, fail, xxxix
325, 359, 426, 445 failure, xv, xxxix, 5, 60, 110, 139, 213,
external/strategic, 152 344, 410, 479
extractable from social groups, 402 failure to perceive, 139
extracting business value, 399, 407 fair, 24, 27, 159, 271, 284, 288, 344
extraction transformation load (ETL), 4, fair competition, 37, 181, 186, 339
49, 51, 130, 168n5, 437, 475n12 fair price, 180
extract, transform, and load (ETL), 4, Fall, xxi, xxii, xxviii, 504, 515, 516, 532,
49, 51, 130, 437, 475n12 533, 579
extranets, 126, 147 false/distorting, 30
extraordinary speed, 402 family, xxxix, 329, 331
extreme low energy servers, 397 family-owned, 37
EY, 394, 398, 406, 408, 411, 417, 436, Fang, S.-R., 428
441 FAO, 175
eyes of stakeholders, 360, 364 Farley, J. U., 430
Farnsworth, D., 580
FAROUT-based techniques, 485
F Farrell, M., xiii, 429
Fabel, M., 418 Farrell, M. A., 69, 92, 106, 110, 117,
Facebook, 320, 435 135–7, 139, 140, 142, 149, 151,
face-to-face discussions, 204 188, 258, 261, 314, 316, 318, 319,
face-to-face visiting, 102 321, 429
facilitate, xlii, 22, 28, 30, 46, 51, 58, farthest to buy, 327
106, 164, 175, 223, 225, 226, 228, fast company, 500
232, 257, 258, 260, 294, 314, 347, faster decisions, 449
386, 406, 407 Fast Future Publishing Ltd., 571
facilitation and acceleration, 30 fatalism, 66
facility, xlii, 6, 13, 22, 28, 30, 46, 51, Faules, D. F., 69–71, 145–9, 151, 154
57, 58, 61, 67, 90, 106, 139–41, features, 43, 114, 116, 117, 186, 222,
164, 174, 175, 186, 223, 225, 226, 223, 236, 304, 323, 325, 335, 347,
228, 232, 235, 254, 257, 258, 260, 435, 441, 468, 478, 482–3
294, 314, 347, 348, 355, 386, 406, features of products, 332, 352
407 federal government, 185
fact-based consulting, 424 federated, 36, 46, 48–52, 204, 447
fact-based management, 407 federated BICC/MICC/MMC, 204
fact-driven, 417 federated conference on computer
factor, xiv, xxxix, 5, 13, 18, 43, 46, 56, science and information systems,
59–62, 70, 129, 135, 136, 172–4, 556
176–82, 184, 186–90, 192, 248, federated marketology organization, 49,
261, 270–4, 280n6, 301, 307, 308, 50
324, 329, 331, 333, 336, 341–3, federated marketology skeleton, 49
345, 351, 352, 354, 356, 358, 359, federated marketology teams, 49
INDEX 629
feedback, 59, 125, 141, 145, 223, 232, financial performance, 70, 90, 91, 105,
249, 295, 316, 356, 369, 432, 169n17, 178, 254
483–4 financial perspectives, 53, 253
feeling the heat, 395 financial position, 355
Felicia, A., 505 financial publics, 183
Felton, P. A., xiii, 429 financial reporting, 475–6n13
Fernandes, N., 570 financial reports, 125
Fernando, A. C., 173, 183 financial resources, 178
Ferrell, O. C., ix, xiii, 431 financial return, 37, 186
Feurer, R., 91, 101, 102, 105, 113, 116, financial risk, 368
117, 226, 251, 310 financial role, 93, 199, 226
Fiegenbaum, A., 223, 226–8, 232, 239, financial services, 407
311, 312, 316, 323 financial situation, 337
fields, xi, xv, xxxix, 81, 83, 163, 243, financial strength, 357, 360
275, 289, 320, 322, 368, 371, 386, Financial Times (FT), 508, 539, 543,
400, 421, 433, 435, 436, 472 559, 564, 567
Fields, E., 414, 415 financial weaknesses, 178, 357
field tests, 423 financing, 303, 345, 351
fight for territory, 320 Finch, J., xix, 500
figurehead, 199 finding, viii, x, 24, 139, 206, 328, 393,
Fill, C., 149, 176, 189 406, 415, 424
filter, 80 finding solutions, xvi, 424
final consumers, 347, 348 Finish Journal of Business Economics,
final goods, 347, 348 540
final target, 475n12 Finkelstein, A., 536
finance, ix, xxxix, xlivn6, 13, 14, 50, 56, Finkelstein, S., 531
57, 59, 83, 84, 115, 178, 182, 225, Fink, G., 514
226, 243, 244, 337, 345, 355 Finland, 510, 544
finance-access to capital, 345 Firat, F., 517
finance market, 316 firm, 30, 31, 54, 58, 102, 113, 162, 177,
financial, 48, 69, 90, 92, 93, 99, 101, 178, 182–4, 196, 215, 244, 253,
199, 200, 243, 248, 250, 251, 253, 261, 274, 281n21, 287, 288, 334,
321, 324, 352, 368, 404, 405, 413, 349, 365, 419, 426, 431–3
485, 486 firm associations, 178
financial assets, 90, 92, 93, 99, 404 firm financial performance, 576
financial awareness, 95 firm infrastructure, 113
financial based competencies, 104 firm limitation risks, 184
financial capability, 352, 353 firm performance, 506, 511, 515, 539,
financial capital, 43 545, 553, 568, 576
financial challenges, 68 firm personalities, 419
financial constraints, 178 firm-retailer relations, 433
financial consultancy services, 553 firm value, 550
financial credit, 353 Firsirotu, M. E., 71
financial evaluation, 357 first-line customers, 351
financial forces, 406 fiscal responsibility, 37, 186
financial intermediaries, 183 Fischhoff, B., 500
financially cautious buyers, 180 Fisher, T., 413, 414
Financial Management Training Center, Fisk, G., ix
521 fit, 38, 48, 113, 114, 123, 355, 369
630 INDEX
fitting approach, 441 Forbes, 499, 511, 543, 554, 560, 573
FitzRoy, P. T., 419 Forbes Insight, 499
five forces model, 182 force field, 129, 261
five vs. of big data, 402, 409, 455 Ford, D., 313, 363, 366, 370
fixed assets, 331 forecast, 104, 129, 176, 258, 338, 401
fixing data errors, 81 foreign government, 185
F-Jardon, C. M., 93, 101, 102, 124, foresight-based, 258
125, 127 foresights, 95, 104, 129, 175, 250, 258,
flat, 558 408, 424
Fleisher, C. S., 118, 125, 130, 135, 140, foresight strategy, 546
142, 151, 154, 173, 175, 179, 182, forestalling, 516
185, 189, 195, 196, 205, 225, 226, formal, 27, 38, 53, 68, 76, 84, 145, 146,
229, 247, 251, 265, 300, 304–7, 149, 153, 186, 194, 204, 225, 332,
311, 314–16, 318, 321, 323, 324, 404
329, 332, 336, 350, 357, 361, 367, formal governance of MMC, 53
418, 422, 426 formal groups, 76
Fletcher, J., 513 formalization, 535
flexibility, 38, 48, 69, 70, 95, 181, 203, formally, 30
206, 231, 254, 355, 356, 403, 417, formal organization, 145, 225
440 formal relationship managers, 84
flexible, xxxix, 61, 69, 83, 126, 202, formal requests, 204
204, 212, 215, 228, 345, 447 formal statements, 68
flexible decision-making style, 215 formal styles, 27
flexible decisions, 215 formal system of authority, 38
flexible operations, 126 formation, 89, 217, 356, 366, 368, 369,
flexible production operations, 345 421
flipping, 500, 525 formation and agreement, 214, 366, 368
Florida, 514, 580 forming, 24, 58, 76, 118, 164, 228, 233,
Florin, J., 508 246, 276, 312–14, 334
fluctuation, 181 Form, Organize, Consider, Understand,
flying cars, 419 and Set (FOCUS), xli, xlii, 1, 2, 10,
focal marketology, 48 20, 21, 34, 36, 44, 52, 62, 65, 72,
focus, 150, 301, 310, 318, 378, 416, 75, 87, 90, 98, 110, 119, 122, 131,
441 133, 143, 145, 155, 165–7, 173,
focused, 16, 53, 56, 59, 69, 105, 179, 190, 194, 201, 209, 215, 219,
114–16, 203, 212, 215, 226, 258, 222, 230, 239, 243, 251, 265, 277,
259, 297, 321, 335, 414, 418, 431, 278, 293, 299, 305, 309, 317, 322,
437, 441, 484 330, 333, 340, 346, 350, 354, 358,
focused strategies, 335 364, 367, 371, 388, 392, 399, 409,
focusing on people, 199 425, 433, 436, 442, 444, 446, 448,
followers, 198, 200 450, 474, 479–85, 487–9, 491,
following delivery, 356, 357, 403, 480, 492, 494
484 formulating, 129, 200, 236, 239, 257,
following up, 262 306, 313
follow-through, 76 formulation African, 507
follow up, 117 for-profit, 37, 362
food, 411, 427 Forrester, 203, 205, 206, 209, 215, 218
food chain transformation, 411 Forrester consulting, 523
Food Safety, 522 Forrester Research, 511, 521, 523
INDEX 631
The Forrester Wave™, 203, 205, 206, Fremantle, 533

209, 215, 218 Frenchs Forest, 562
fortune 500, 549 French, T., 512
Forum, 500, 503, 506, 518, 528, 566 frequency, 356, 378, 400
Forum Corporation, 500 frequent change, 410, 426
forward, 6, 7, 338, 347 frequently used, xli, 280n6, 430
forward integration, 338 frequent performance feedback, 369
fostering, 69, 139, 140, 149, 254, 369 Friedman, D., xv, xviii
foundation, viii, xv, xvi, xviii, xxxix, 49, Friedman, L. G., 92, 106, 110, 117,
112, 281n26, 303, 318, 324, 359, 118, 259, 261, 310, 311, 349, 353
362, 391–3, 407, 409, 415, 425, Friedmann, R., 92, 106, 110, 117, 118,
441, 443–5, 447, 451, 460–2, 259, 261, 310, 311, 349, 353
471–4, 478, 494 Friedman, T., 507–9, 518, 533
foundation of strategy, 527 Friess, P., 412
Foxall, G., ix, 106, 112, 117, 253, 261 Frizzelle, G., 550
fracturing social fabric, 395 from market research to strategic insight,
fragile, 501 552
fragmentation, 65 front-end technologies, 413
fragmented, 66 Frontiers, 562
Frambach, T. R., 314, 316 frontiers in marketing thought, 562
frame of reference, 148 front-line level, 124
framework, viii, xvii, xxxix, xli, xlii, xliii, frontline management, 223
xliv, 2, 3, 18, 21–3, 37, 38, 59, 64, Frooman, J., 186
65, 74, 75, 84, 110, 122, 133, 145, Frost and Sullivan, 567
150, 151, 163, 165–7, 168n12, Frost, P. J., 561
169n19, 173, 176, 194, 214, 217, FT Pitman, 539
218, 221–5, 229, 230, 238, 239, FT Press, 523
243, 263–5, 278, 279, 279n1, Fugate, M., 67, 68
280n5, 280n7, 280n9, 280n15, Fuld, L. M., 179, 183, 189, 317, 319
282, 283, 289, 293, 307, 308, 329, full, 23, 24, 26, 102, 321, 333, 335, 346,
365, 366, 388, 389n7, 389n17, 353, 358, 361–3, 370, 385, 439
392, 410, 411, 414, 416, 449, 450, full coverage, 102
474, 487–94 full dialogue, 321
framing the future, 435 Fullerton, R., ix
franchise organization, 349 function(s), ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xxxix, xliv,
franchising, 366 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 22, 23, 27, 28,
Frank, B., 505 34, 38–41, 43–50, 54, 56, 59, 61,
Franklin, A., 569 65, 67, 68, 72, 74, 76, 78, 79, 81,
Franklin, D., 394 84–6, 90, 91, 93, 99, 104, 129, 140,
Frankus, R., 502 153, 189, 194, 196–8, 200, 207,
Frans. A. J., 105, 106, 140, 142 208, 217, 223, 226, 231–4, 236,
Franz, P., 3, 5, 11, 251, 253, 255–8, 238, 245, 249, 254, 257, 260, 261,
265, 297, 298, 310, 312, 326, 426 264, 276, 291, 292, 295–7, 299,
fraud detection, 407 304, 306, 315, 320–2, 324, 335,
Frazier, G. L., 349, 353 348, 352, 356, 362, 363, 374, 378,
Frechette, H., 69 379, 382, 383, 392, 393, 402, 405,
freedom’s ragged march, 395 408, 422, 428, 431, 434–6, 437,
Free Press, 500, 515, 518, 541, 558, 439, 440, 449, 451, 464–6, 472,
559 474, 478, 479, 482, 483, 488, 494
632 INDEX
functional, xxxix, 6, 7, 14, 38, 39, 51, future disruption, 397

56, 61, 67, 70, 76, 84, 93, 126, future foundations requirement response
204, 232–6, 238, 243, 244, 260, (FFRR) matrix, 393, 450, 460–2,
262, 293, 337, 355, 373, 379, 386, 472, 474, 494
388, 408, 418, 421, 428, 493 Future Functionality and Marketology
functional compatibility, 293, 373, 379, Interaction (FFMI) Matrix, 393,
386, 388, 493 451, 462, 463, 472, 474, 494
functional (positive or driving) effects, 30 future goals, 341, 342
functionalist approach, 498 future intelligence systems, 175
functionality, 7, 80, 164, 189, 276, 385, future Market-Related Functions and
387, 393, 451, 462, 463, 465, 472, Marketology (FMRFM) Matrix,
474, 494 393, 451, 464, 465, 472, 474, 494
functional managers, 126 future market research, xii
functional organizational structure future market size, 485, 486
(U-form), 38 future megatrends, 394
functional perspective, 7, 233, 244 future of BOB, 392, 434
functional skills, 76, 80, 84, 204, 233, future of BOD, 392, 434
444 future of BPM, 434
functional spin-offs, 501 future of business, 387, 391, 392, 407,
function based competencies, 85, 90, 91 409–11, 413–16, 425–6, 433–6,
functioning, 18, 218, 238, 264, 311, 443, 444, 449
351, 363 future of business functions, 392, 434–6
functions of brain, x, 212, 411 future of business intelligence (BI), 391,
fundamental, 57, 129, 176, 226, 299, 413–16
300, 318–20, 428, 431 future of business markets and
fundamental contributions of stakeholders, 391, 425–6
marketology, 299 future of business SCS/SSS, 434
fundamentally, xii, 139 future of consumer, 391, 426–7, 433
fundamental responsibilities, 226, 320 future of decision-making, 391
funding MMC, 59, 60 future of marketing, 419
funding support, 59 future of marketology (FOM), vii, xli,
funnel as suspects, 327 xliii, 294, 387, 391–477, 489,
Furey, T. R., 310, 311, 349, 353 494–6
future, 26, 59, 174, 294, 391, 477 future of marketology functions, 392,
future big changes of modern business 434
environment, 391–3, 399–403, 409, future of market orientation, 391, 392,
443–5, 447, 472–4, 494 428–33, 474, 494
future business needs, 59 future of market research, 391, 423–5
future business strategy, 411 future of MOA, 392, 434
future changes, 410, 443, 447, 449, 450, future of MOB, 392, 434
470 future of MOC, 392, 434
future competitor, 104, 129, 178, 184, future of MOD, 392, 434
329, 341, 342, 344, 355, 369, 387, future of MSM, 434
428–30, 465 future of society, 394
future conditions, 176, 444, 449 future of strategic marketing, 391, 418,
future customer needs, 428 425
future decision-making profile (FDMP), future of strategy, 391, 418, 425
393, 451, 468, 469, 472, 474 future of technology, 391, 412–13, 425
future directions, 573 future of war, 395
INDEX 633
future oriented, xxxix, 258–60 Gann, D. M., 518

future-oriented intelligence, 259 Gantz, J., 398, 411, 436, 441
future profitability, 178 Gao, G. Y., 581
future scanning systems, 175 The Global Information Technology
future shopping experience, 419 Report, 518
future situation, 26, 129, 176, 426 Graupner, E., 504
future strategic moves, 184 Gray, B., 321, 367, 370, 430
future studies, 329 Gray, C. S., 418
future success of businesses, 410 Gray, D. M., xviii
future tense, 441 Great Britain, 529, 545, 568
future transformations, xii greater transparency, 418
future trends, 391–9, 410, 414–16, 418, great levelling, 395
424, 443–5, 447, 471–4, 485, 486, Greek philosopher, 135
494 Greenan, K., 550
future trends of business, 414, 415 Greenbook, 553
future trends of technology, 391–9, 416, Green, Brian, 505
443, 444, 447, 472–4, 494 green concerns, 355
future uncertainty, 175 Greene, H. F., 41–3, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52
futuristic, 175, 258, 418, 449 Greene, W. E., 8, 432
futuristic issue, 418 Greenley, G. E., 8, 149, 154, 177, 189,
futuristic thinking, 449 254, 259, 265, 304, 305, 312, 422,
fuzzy, 545 429, 430, 432
Green, M., 134, 135, 137–9, 142, 229,
232, 239, 247, 251, 300, 304–6,
G 311, 313, 315
G20, 556 green movement, 181
Gabler Edition Wissenschaft, 546 Greenwich, 515, 556
gain, 77, 84, 105, 113, 114, 175, 245, Greenwood Publishing Group Inc., 549
248, 253, 257, 329, 402, 405, 410, Grefen, P., 313, 363, 366, 370
412, 419, 440 Grewal, R, 537
gain creators, 113, 114 grey rough set evaluation, 501
gaining enactment of executives, 58 grid, 185, 325, 345, 346, 356, 358, 400
gaining new customers, 417 Grid Publishing, xxiii, 534
galaxy, 36, 39–40, 44, 167n2, 419 Griffin, R. W., 37–41, 43, 46, 48, 49,
galaxy of marketology, 36, 39–40, 44 51–4, 65, 75–9, 85, 92, 99, 112,
galaxy of marketology structure, 36, 123, 126, 127, 134, 136–40, 142,
39–40, 44 145, 146, 148, 151, 154, 173, 175,
Galbraith, J. R., 13, 38, 39, 46, 48, 49, 176, 185, 186, 188, 189, 196,
51–3, 110, 111, 117, 123–6, 135–7, 198–200, 202, 203, 205–7, 209–12,
139, 140, 142, 195, 196, 199, 200, 214, 215, 219, 223, 239, 247, 249,
202, 203, 205, 207, 209–12, 214, 255, 297, 298, 302–4, 306, 307,
218, 227, 402, 407, 408 312, 314
Galgatia Publications Private Ltd, 555 Griffith, E., 403, 404
Gallagher, S., 70, 71, 110, 117, 258, Griffith, T. L., 76–8, 83, 85, 123, 125,
261, 265 130
Gallen, 546, 562 Grigsby, M., 408
Gamble, J. E., 572 Grimm, C. M., 175, 179, 183, 229, 261
game changers, 557 Grönroos, C., ix
game theory, 506, 510 Grossman, R. L., 407, 408
634 INDEX
grounding the MMC, 59 Gulati, R., 431

group, ix, xxxix, xlii, 4, 5, 10, 11, 20, 32, Güler, M. E., 357
37–40, 44, 52, 53, 62, 63, 65, 68, Gummesson, E., 422
71–3, 75, 76, 78–83, 86–9, 98, 102, Gunasekaran, A., 349, 353
104, 108, 114, 119, 120, 123, 125, Guo, C., 439
126, 131–3, 140, 143, 144, 146, Gupta, M., 564
148, 153, 155, 157, 163, 166, 177, Gupta, N. J., 93, 99, 102, 124–7, 137,
179, 180, 183–7, 189–91, 194–6, 139, 140, 142, 247, 251, 311, 315
199, 201, 207, 209, 212, 213, 215, Gupta, S., 433
216, 219,–221, 225, 228, 230, Guthrie, J., 92, 106
239–41, 246, 247, 251, 252, 254, Guth, W., 544
257, 265, 266, 268, 275, 289, 295,
297, 299, 301, 305, 308, 309, 314,
317, 322, 324–8, 330–3, 336, H
338–41, 344, 346, 347, 350, 354, Haas, M., 538
358, 362–7, 371, 386, 399, 402, Habbegger, B., 175
409, 413, 417, 425–7, 433, 436, Habermas, J., ix
440, 442, 444, 446, 448, 450, 451, habits, 65
453–6, 458, 459, 461, 462, 464, Hadoop, 415
470, 474, 479–88, 490 Hadoop Apache, 401
Group and Organizational Studies, 578 Hagedoorn, J., 97, 112, 126, 127, 129,
group cohesiveness, 212 258
group decision-making, 194, 212–13, Hagen, A. F., 179, 183
216 Hagerty, J., 413, 414, 440
group roles, 75, 76 Hahn, C. K., 357
groupthink, 212 Hajkowicz, S., 394
Grover, R., 545 Hakansson, H., 313, 316, 363, 366, 370
growing advantage gap, 499 Halbert, M. H., ix, viii
growth opportunities, 406 Hall, H., 41–3, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 61
growth path, 485 Hall, R., 106, 223, 229
growth prospects, 184 Hambrick, D. C., 179, 185, 186, 188,
growth strategies, 368 229
growth trend, 250 Hamel, G., 92, 97, 99, 102, 105, 111,
Gruner, K., 580 117, 126, 226, 229, 251, 265, 297,
GSA, 367, 370 298, 302, 303, 307, 310, 313, 336,
Guan, W., 350, 353 339, 340, 345, 361, 420, 439, 440
guaranteeing product quality, 211 Hana, U., 548
guest, 122 Handbook of Marketology (HOM), xli,
guidance, 34n10, 83, 233, 328 387, 394, 473, 477–96
guide, viii, 34n10, 139, 181, 184 Handbook of organization development,
guidelines, xli, xlii, 25–6, 32, 63, 64, 73, 524
74, 88, 89, 108, 120, 121, 132, handling conflict, 369
144, 157, 159–63, 191, 192, 220, Han, J. K., 429
240, 241, 268–73, 275, 283–9, Hannabarger, C., 253, 261, 265
373, 375, 377, 379, 382, 385, 386, Hansen, M. T., 295, 299, 314
421, 452, 453, 455, 456, 458–60, hard, 56, 226, 406
462, 464, 466, 468, 470, 471, 473, hard drive, 403
495 hardware, 355, 403
INDEX 635
harmonizing, 91 healthy, safety and environment (HSE),

Harmon, P., 112, 117, 123, 125, 130 355
harmony, 83 Heath, C., 135, 137–9, 142
Harper and Brothers, 565 Heath, D., 135, 137–9, 142
Harper and Row, xxi, xxii, 518, 523, 565 heaven, 395
Harper Business, 512, 565 Hedin, Hans, 399, 402
Harper, E., 570 Heene, A, 564
Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 565 Heffring, M., xxix, 580
Harris, J. G., 106, 111, 117, 118, 123, HEG–RSD, 503
127, 151, 154, 197, 209, 223, 308, Helfat, C. E., 97, 151, 154, 182, 186,
309, 312, 326, 345, 353, 406, 413, 189, 229
414, 429 Helmy, Y., 566
Harris, L. C., ix, 70, 71, 106, 253, 261, Helsen, K., 525
428, 430, 431 Henderson, B. D., 183, 336, 345
Harris, T., 505 Hennepin County Minnesota, 507
Hart, S., 295, 299, 314 Heraclitus, 135
Harvard Business Review (HBR), 5, 6, 9, Heriot-Watt University, 523, 558
134–40, 142, 198, 199, 201, 206, heroes, 65, 70
212, 219 Herring, J., 186, 226, 227, 239, 311,
Harvard Business Review Classics, 538 312
Harvard Business Review Press, 514, Hersche, G., 510
530, 541, 560 Herschel, R. T., 437
Harvard Business School (HBS), xxvi, Heskett, J. L., 65, 70, 71, 110, 117,
538, 556 254, 259
Harvard Business School (HBS) Press, Hesterly, S. W., 253, 254, 259, 265, 302,
514, 529, 538, 546, 549, 558 303, 305, 307, 330, 332, 339, 361,
Harvard Business School Publishing 367
Corporation, 530 heterogeneous data sources, 475n12
Harvard University Press, 501 Heudecker, N., 543, 564
Hasegawa, Fabio, 502 Heuer, J. R., Jr., 186, 189
Hassan, F. Q., 404 Hewett, K., xxiv, 537
Hatcher, D., 413, 414 Hewlett-Packard (HP), 225, 227, 229,
Hatch, M. J., 13, 38–41, 46, 48, 49, 239, 314, 316, 318, 319, 404, 408,
51–4, 66, 71, 113, 116, 123, 126, 413, 414, 440, 443, 445, 448
127, 130, 135, 137, 139, 142, 148, Hewlett-Packard Development
195, 196, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205, Company, 533
207, 209–12, 214, 218, 307, 308, Hiatt, J., 76, 77, 83, 85, 139, 142
326, 345, 370, 426 Hicyilmaz, T., 38, 39, 49, 51, 52, 54,
Hauser, J. R., xx, 511 55, 58, 59, 61
Haveman, H. A., 439 hierarchic, 212
Hawkins, D., 329, 332, 426 hierarchical capability, 102
Haworth, 572 hierarchical effects, 331–3
Haydock, M., 502 hierarchical levels, 27, 245, 314, 315,
headlines, x 321, 373, 375
health, 403 hierarchical model of cultural dynamics
healthcare, 400, 407 (HMCD), 66
healthcare transformation, 411 hierarchical perspective, 244
health of nations, 395 hierarchical relations, 366
health reimagined, 395 hierarchic decision-making style, 215
636 INDEX
hierarchism, 66 Holt, xxiv, 539

hierarchy, 46, 76, 80, 84, 103, 323 HOM. See Handbook of Marketology
hierarchy of business competencies (HOM)
(HBC), 90–2, 96, 98, 101, 102, Homburg, C., 13, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46,
109 48–50, 52–5, 57, 59, 69, 135, 136,
hierarchy of effects model (HEM), 331, 142, 149, 154, 174, 189, 254, 265,
389n16 306, 307, 311, 312, 428, 430, 433,
Higham, James, 551 439
high-growth markets, 184 homegrown BI applications, 205
high-moderated uncertainty, 151 homegrown MI applications, 205
high-performance organizations, 504 Homewood, xix, xx, xxiii, xxv, 498, 503,
high-quality products, 37, 95, 186 513, 529, 534, 544, 549
high-speed, 400 homogeneous data sources, 475n12
high uncertainty, 151, 214 honesty, 186
high-variety, 401 Hopkins, B., 412
high-variety information, 401 Hopkins, M. S., 504
high-velocity information, 401 Horizon scanning, 172, 174, 175, 179,
high-volume information, 401 192
Hillman, A. J., 186, 247, 311, 312, 315 Horizon scanning for environmental
hindsight, 408 foresight, 504
Hinsch, C. A., 518 Horizon Scanning Program, 515
hiring, 417 horizontal, 27, 38, 39, 64, 77, 146, 153,
Hirvensalo, I., 531 352, 366, 482
Hislop, D., 127 horizontal alignment, 237
Hisrich, R. D., 97, 101, 102, 127, 134, horizontal collaborators, 366, 367
136–8, 142, 229, 232, 306 horizontal conflicts, 352
historical trends, x horizontal coordination, 125
history of marketing thought, xx, xxvii, horizontal direction, 27
503, 566 horizontal integration: forward and
Hitt, L., 506 backward, 6
Hitt, M. A., 92, 93, 99, 102, 105, 112, horizontal marketing system, 349
125–7, 189, 195, 202, 203, 214, horizontal organizational structure:
218, 227, 229, 251, 253, 265, 297, coordination, learning, innovation
298, 302–4, 306, 310, 312, 313, and flexibility, 38
336, 339, 345, 418 Horn, J., 183, 198, 308, 309, 312, 323,
Hoboken, xxvi, 499, 500, 504, 531, 324, 326, 336, 339, 345, 353, 357,
540, 541, 555, 557, 558, 568, 580 426
Hofstede, G. J., 65, 66, 148, 168n11 Hoskisson, R. E., 105, 106
Hohhof, B., 223, 228, 232, 316 hospitality, 122
holding company, 37, 83 hosted internally or externally, 403
holistic approach, 175 host galaxy, 419
holistic manner, 236 Hostmann, B., 413, 414, 440
Hollenbeck, J., 555 Hotchkiss, G. B., ix
Holmberg, S. R., 367, 370 hotel industry, 503, 537
Holmqvist, M., 350, 353 Houghton Mifflin Company, 502
holographic attribute, 245 Hourihan, G., 506
holographic principle in physics, 14 Houston, F. S., ix
holonic, 13 Howard, J. A., ix
Holoportation, 395 how scientific is marketing, xxii, 526
INDEX 637
Howson, C., 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 225, human spirit, 541
227, 239, 314, 316, 318, 323 hungary, 537
how to contribute, 295, 297 Hung Up, 515
how to market, 422 Hunt and Morgan’s Comparative
how to perform, 218, 238, 264 Advantage Theory, 571
how to stabilize, 218, 238, 264 Hunt, B., 69
HP business intelligence maturity model, hunting new opportunities, 53
414 Hunt, S. D., ix, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xviii, 297,
HR. See human resource (HR) 298, 302, 314, 316, 321, 322, 363,
Hrebiniak, L. G., 97, 112, 229, 261 367, 370, 431
HRM. See human resource management Hunt’s scientific realism, xxvi, 558
(HRM) Hutchinson, K. D., viii
HSBC, 576 Hwang, H.-S., 535
HSG, xxv, 546 hybrid, 14, 36, 39, 46, 48, 51, 52, 349,
Hsieh, C.-T., 92, 106 350, 397, 403, 408, 416, 447, 457
HTML5, 397 hybrid cloud, 397
hub, 226, 366 hybrid control, 416
Huber, G. P., xii hybrid distribution channels, 349, 350
Hubert, C., 127, 135, 140, 142 hybrid/federated structure, 447
hub service, 403 hybrid IT, 397
Huellmantel, A. B., 506 hybrid organizational structure, 39
Hughes, R., ix hype cycle, 565
Hult, G., 14, 38 hyper-connected internet of humanity,
Hult, G. T. M., viii, ix, xvi, 14, 38, 39, 411
46, 48, 49, 51–3, 69, 123, 418, hyper-function, 2, 6, 7, 11, 14, 16, 28,
419, 429, 430, 440 34n1, 43, 51, 54, 71, 83, 133, 140,
human, ix, xii, 14, 38, 65, 85, 90, 92, 142, 143, 154, 216, 261, 295, 296,
99, 104, 111, 113, 138, 180, 199, 314, 333, 408, 434
211, 214, 226, 244, 355, 395, 397, hyper-functional capability, 408
404, 410, 411, 417, 419, 421, 424, hyper-function of marketology, vii, xxxix,
426, 430, 435 xl, xli, xlivn6, 1, 2, 6–8, 10, 14, 16,
human augmentation, 411 22–4, 26, 30, 31, 33, 39, 43, 51, 54,
human-based barriers, 430 55, 65, 70–2, 78, 81, 83, 85, 102,
human behavior patterns, xii 106, 127, 129, 130, 133, 140–2,
human capital, 211, 404, 424 153–5, 164, 174, 175, 187, 189,
human change, 138, 426 202, 216–18, 223, 225, 227, 228,
human enhancement, 435 236, 238, 239, 245, 249, 251, 256,
human experience, ix, 397 258–61, 263, 264, 267, 295, 297,
human insight, 417 301–4, 306–8, 311–14, 322, 338,
humankind, ix 343, 382, 386–8, 409, 434, 437,
Human Knowing, 574 449, 472, 473, 476n16, 478, 496
human relations, 38 hypotheses, x
human resource (HR), 14, 40–1, 85, 90,
104, 111, 113, 115, 122, 226, 244,
337, 355, 430 I
human resource based competencies, 104 IAM. See identity and access management
human resource management (HRM), (IAM)
113, 430 Iannello, P., 561
638 INDEX
Ibima Publishing, 571 identity, vii, viii, xi, xv, xvi, xviii, 23, 67,
IBM, 3, 5, 14, 61, 123, 125, 127, 129, 301, 308, 328, 339, 355, 362, 407,
225, 253, 254, 256, 257, 259, 261, 412, 421
265, 316, 404, 413, 416, 440, 441, identity and access management (IAM),
443, 446, 448, 450 407, 412
IBM Cognos Express, 524 identity building (branding), 421
IBM corporation, 499, 502, 505, 512, identity crisis in marketing, xx, 503
535, 538, 543, 548 IEEE Transactions on Engineering
IBM Institute, 502, 543, 558 Management, 565
IBM Press, 526 IESE Business School, 500, 509
IBM publication, 524 IFC-WB, 326, 363, 426
IBM Redbooks, 535 IGDEE. See identification, generation,
IBPM. See intelligent business dissemination, exploitation and
performance management (IBPM) evaluation (IGDEE)
Ibrahim, J., 553 IGI global publication, 570
Ichijo, K., 575 ignorance of market orientation, 430
ICT. See information and communication IIBA, 573
technology (ICT) Iijima, K., 554
idea champions, 139 Illinois, xxii, xxviii, 529, 532, 566, 570,
ideal procedure, 211 572
ideas, xi, 76, 102, 133, 136, 138–40, IMA. See Institute of Management
167, 199, 211, 212, 360, 361, 402, Accountants (IMA)
410, 449, 476n15, 479 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook,
ideas sharing, 410 535
identification, vii, xlivn5, 2, 117, 130, imitability, 515
175, 184, 189, 213, 281n25, imitating, 198
295–7, 311, 318, 319, 332, 335, Immanuel, K., 576
351, 374, 375, 400, 447, 450, 483 immaterial data points, 406
identification, generation, dissemination, immature function, 16
exploitation and evaluation immediate decisions, 441
(IGDEE), vii, xl, xliin1, xlivn5, 2, 3, immersive communication, 511
6, 11, 16, 19, 28, 30, 33, 41, 55, immersivity, 411
79, 117, 127, 130, 140, 153, 164, impact, 2, 9, 40, 43, 56, 69, 70, 77, 123,
189, 202, 216, 218, 223, 226–8, 129, 175, 181–3, 246, 295, 369, 406,
232, 234, 236, 239, 245, 249, 251, 410, 412, 413, 419, 429, 440, 472
261, 264, 265, 276, 277, 280n16, impediments, 530, 571
281n25, 292–9, 304, 306–11, imperfect integration, 430
313–19, 322, 323, 372, 375, 377, impermanent, 577
386, 387n1, 388, 392, 434, 437, implementation, xiii, 133, 138, 139, 143,
438, 447, 449, 450, 472, 474, 478 175, 200, 203, 226, 229, 257, 428,
identification of market DIKII, 117, 483, 430–2
484 implementation level, 112
identifiers, 399 implementation of marketing concept,
identify, x, 118, 168n12, 174, 178, 180, xiii, 428, 432
234, 243, 329, 335, 338, 352, 355, implications, x, 180, 182
363, 370, 402, 424, 426, 427, implicit, 250
475n4 implicit forcing, 139
identifying alternatives, 210 importance-Performance (IP) matrix, 93,
identifying needs, 53 377
INDEX 639
importance, quality and result (IQR), 93 indirect marketing channel, 348–50

impression, 356 individual based competencies, 102, 104
improve, ix, x, 61, 71, 111, 138, 139, individual consumers, 403
202, 223, 225, 228, 244, 254, 258, individual decision-making, 210
318, 356, 406, 407, 411 individual ethics, 196
improvement plan, 26, 28 individual firm, 182, 431
improve performance, 548 individualism, 66
improving organization performance, 123 individual-organization relationship, 75
IMP theoretical structure, xxiii, 534 individual usage, 413
inanimate objects, 394 industrial, 180, 335, 348–50, 357, 420
inbound logistic, 113 industrial change, 420
Inc., xxii, 499–502, 507, 508, 510, 511, industrial channel, 348–50
518, 521–4, 529, 533, 538, 540, industrial customers, 348
541, 543, 549–51, 553, 557, 558, industrial economics, 565
561, 562, 564, 565, 567, 572, 574 industrial engineering, 357
incentives, x, 196 Industrial Management and Data
in-charge body of enterprise, 449 Systems, 514, 533, 562
in-charge of business analytics, 449 Industrial Marketing Management, xix,
inclusive growth, 395 xxiii, xxviii, 501, 504, 518, 534,
in collaboration with, 83, 227 562, 573, 574, 577, 579
income, 180, 331, 357, 368, 405 industrial organization (IO), 335
income distribution, 180 industrial organization economics, xxvi,
income expectations, 331 560
income levels, 180 industrial organization view (IOV), 335
income statement, 357 industrial revolution, 420
incompatibility, 43, 48, 369 industry, xxxix, 5, 30, 31, 56, 162, 172,
incongruence, 48 178, 182, 183, 192, 202, 274, 287,
in conjunction with, 407 288, 303, 334–6, 355, 365, 366,
incoordination, 48 369, 395, 396, 402, 410, 427, 432,
incorporating, 38, 252, 259, 282, 400, 455–62, 466, 467, 485, 487, 488
432 industry conduct, 334
increasing decisions, 211 industry dynamism, 539
increasing participation, 173 industry environment, 172, 178, 182–3,
incremental, 137, 139, 144, 214 190–2, 303, 487, 488
incremental change, 137 industry features, 435
incremental model, 214 industry landscape, 395
incubation, 133 industry performance, 334
independence, 95, 366 industry perspective, 334
independent, 16, 99, 100, 302, 303, 349 Industry-specific applications, 396
independent perspective, 16 industry standards groups, 366
independent Publication by Raconteur, industry structure, 334, 485, 486
561 industry trends, 369
independent representatives, 349 IN-EX mode: from inside to outside, 149
in-depth technical knowledge, 424 Inf2K (information to knowledge), 449
Indianapolis, 524, 574 influencer, 332
Indiana University, xxvii, 562 influences, 13, 16, 29, 68, 71, 76, 126,
indications, 149, 175 142, 178, 180, 185, 186, 188, 199,
indifferent, 379 202, 211, 308, 324, 325, 331, 332,
indirect competitor, 337, 338, 340 341, 346, 352, 357, 362, 363, 427
640 INDEX
influential action, 228 information-led analytics, 406

influential capability, 92 information management (IM), 41, 49,
influential identity, 23 56, 123, 348, 402, 440, 441, 449
influential role, 11, 53, 93, 127, 223, information market, 316, 318, 319, 375,
227, 311 384
info-centric business, 405 information orientation, 69
infographic, 407, 436, 475n5 information-related benefits, 405
infomercials, 349 information-related costs, 405
infonomics, 391, 404–6, 443, 458, information reporting system, 124
475n3 information resources, 199
infonomics based, 447, 468, 469 information retrieving, 449
Infonomics Valuation Matrix (IVM), information revolution, 450
393, 451, 458, 459, 472, 474, 494 information richness, 147
informal governance of MMC, 53 information scope, 320, 321
informal groups, 76 information search, 332
informal organization, 27, 53, 68, 76, information security, 126, 224
149, 153 information-sharing, 37, 186, 208
informal styles, 27 information silo, 50
informatica, 401, 402 information sources, 205, 215, 224, 321,
information, xxxix, 2, 37, 129–30, 174, 328, 483
295, 400, 482 information system, 111, 122, 125–6,
Information Age Publishing (IAP), 546 129–32, 235
informational, 90, 92, 99, 102, 199, 482 information system dynamics, 122, 126
informational assets, 90, 92, 99 information systems journal, 546
informational capability, 49, 93 information technology (IT), x, xii,
informational capital, 92, 99 xxxix, x, xii, xvi, xxxix, 3, 13–14, 39,
informational control, 200 41, 50, 53, 54, 56–7, 59–61, 78–9,
informational iceberg, 250 82–5, 104, 115, 117, 122–8, 130–2,
informational needs, xii, 9, 83, 126, 232, 188, 204–5, 221, 224–7, 229, 231,
250, 303, 315, 480 244, 249, 320, 331, 335, 355,
informational needs of executives, 437 399–401, 403–7, 413, 415, 417,
informational river, 118 420, 437, 440–1, 443
informational role, 199 information technology (IT) application,
information anarchy, 413 124, 132, 398
information and communication information technology (IT) as Service
technology (ICT), 47, 341, 351, Broker, 397
356 information technology based
information as a new asset class, 404 competencies, 104
information asset management, 404 information technology (IT)-based
information asset valuation models, 405 methods and tools, 125
information based competencies, 104 information technology (IT)-based
information center, 53, 205, 348 processes, 10, 83, 115, 123, 140,
information delivery, 53, 224 225
information-gathering, 184, 185 information technology (IT)-based
information graphic, 475n5 self-service reporting systems, 226
information has both potential and information technology (IT)-based
realized value, 404, 405 solutions, 227
information infrastructure process, 3 information technology (IT)-centric, 441
information is an actual asset, 404, 405 information technology (IT) control, 416
INDEX 641
information technology (IT) department in-group language, 148

experience, 397 inherent value, 43
information technology (IT) driven, 84, in-house division, 127
439, 441, 449 initial contact, 138
information technology (IT)-driven initial descriptive analytics (What
management, 449 happened?), 408
information technology (IT) initializing, 38, 58
effectiveness, 229 Initializing, Planning, Implementing and
information technology (IT) efficiency, Evaluating (IPIE), 58
227, 230 initial marketology, 439, 467
information technology (IT)-enabled initial price, 357
businesses, 398 initial test, 542
information technology (IT)-enabled initiated ideas, 76
business process management, 111 initiating, 66, 76
information technology (IT)-enabled initiative, 53, 204, 226, 228, 252, 405,
business trends, 400, 443 441, 479
information technology (IT) experts, 54, initiator, 332, 354
82 in-memory analysis, 519
information technology (IT)-focused in-memory computing, 397
functional unit, 56 in-memory technologies, 407
information technology (IT) glossary, innovate, 137, 140, 256, 303, 400
525 innovation, 5, 11, 15, 17, 23–5, 31, 35,
information technology (IT) governance, 38, 69, 89, 90, 95, 116, 133–44,
57 147, 156, 158–62, 164, 188, 216,
information technology (IT) 218, 229, 238, 239, 244, 245,
infrastructure, 84 252–4, 257, 263, 264, 281n19,
information technology (IT) 283, 287, 301, 302, 310, 312, 324,
management, xxxix, 396 338, 345, 347, 355, 360, 365, 366,
information technology (IT) 368, 370, 398, 411, 413, 418, 429,
organizations, 127, 205 434, 440, 444, 447, 463
information technology (IT) relationship Innovation Adoption model, 331
management, 57 innovation based competencies, 105
information technology (IT) resources, innovation consequences, 429
403, 415 innovation environment, 412
information technology (IT) specialists, innovation hub, 366
78 innovation orientation, 429
information technology (IT) support innovation role, 89, 142
teams, 84 innovative approaches, 160
information value, 404, 406, 408, 459 innovative capital, 90
information value gap, 404 innovative culture, 5, 15, 17, 23, 24, 35,
infrastructural challenges, 413 38, 69, 156, 158–62, 164, 188,
infrastructure, 202, 324, 396–8, 402, 216, 218, 229, 238, 239, 244, 245,
407, 412, 483, 484 252, 257, 263, 264, 281n19, 301,
infrastructure adequacy, 402 302, 310–12, 338, 347, 355, 365,
Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), 396, 434, 447
403, 409, 456, 457 innovative information processing, 401
infrastructure elasticity, 202 innovative marketing, xiv
infrastructure optimization maturity innovativeness, 69, 70, 356
model, 414 innovative procedures, 210
642 INDEX
innovative products, 410 inspiring changes, 410

Innovative Research in Management, 513 Instagram, 435
innovator, 556 installation, 138
innumerable information, 250 installing, 130
in-person dialogs, 426 instinct, 417
in-place working structure, 76 Institute for the Study of Business
in-process, 416 Markets (ISBM), 545
input, 92, 93, 99, 104, 118, 177, 181, Institute of Food and Agricultural
215, 249, 483–4 Sciences (IFAS), 580
input medium, 123 Institute of Information Systems and
input needs, 320, 321 Management (IISM), 577
inputs landscape, 395 Institute of Internal Auditors Research
inquiring organizations, 512 Foundation (IIARF), 551
inquiry, 373 Institute of Management Accountants
inside based competencies, 104 (IMA), 4, 9, 14, 41–3, 46, 48, 49,
inside-out activities, 14 51, 52, 54, 55, 93, 102, 126, 186,
inside-out marketing, 14 189, 226, 227, 247, 254, 257, 311,
inside-out perspective, 335 312, 399, 402
insider trading, 427 Institute of Manufacturing, 550
inside the chain, 347 institutional, 194
insight, vii, xlivn5, 2, 41–3, 49, 51, 54, institutionalism, 173
56, 58, 60, 61, 78, 83, 95, 103, institutionalize, 117, 136
117, 130, 133, 168n15, 175, 184, institution-based, 558
185, 222, 223, 225, 226, 228, 257, institutions, x, xi, 180, 325, 363
258, 264, 281n25, 295–7, 311, in-store POS, 426
318, 328, 343, 399, 401, 402, 406, instrument, 426
410, 417, 436, 438, 440, 444, 480, instrument orientation, 430
482, 483, 485 insurance, 348, 407
insight based competencies, 104 insurgency game, 77
insight-driven, 447 Ins2V (insight to value/outcomes), 449
insight-driven decision-making, 449 intangible, 92, 104, 310, 315, 316, 404
insightful actions, 447, 480 intangible asset, 43, 90, 99, 368
insightful analysis, 76 Intangible Assets and Regional Economic
insightful business performance Growth (IAREG), 565
management (BPM), 3, 252 intangible capital, 43, 104
insightful content, 417 intangible competencies, 104
insightful corporate governance, 198 integrate, 16, 97, 227, 323, 373
insightful decisions, 42, 103, 228, 259, integrated, 2–4, 6, 13, 16, 33, 38, 97,
402, 447, 480 127, 141, 148, 149, 153, 167,
insightful management, 8 227, 236, 252, 253, 257, 279,
insight future, 223, 410 282, 293, 323, 373, 388, 392,
insight management (IM), 228, 424 474, 491–4
insourced, 449 integrated decision support, 417
insource data, 399 integrated digital experiences, 400
in-source data production, 449 integrated ecosystems, 397
insource data sources, 399 integrated enterprise, 125
inspiration, 402 integrated logistics management, 348
inspiration from the future, 418 integrated marketing communication
inspire, 198, 200, 280n13 (IMC), 149, 465
INDEX 643
integrated marketing philosophy, 431, intelligent investigation, 352

432 intelligently, 3, 8, 117, 256, 261, 338,
integrated physical experiences, 400 343, 347
integrated system, 349 intelligent marketing strategy, xix, 498
integrating data, 417 intelligent organization, 8, 142, 338, 343
integrating information systems, 126 intended subjects, 402
integration (procedural), 222 intended value, 355
integration based competencies, 104 intensity, 67, 182, 207, 222, 332, 441
integration building mechanisms, 154 intensity of business competition, 332
integration of internal and external intensity of competition, 332
marketing, 148 intensity of rivalry, 182
integration skills, 81 intensive competition, 91
integration style, 320, 321 intensive competitors, 339
integrative communication, 447 intensive development, 449
integrative decision-making style, 215 intensive effects, 56
integrative manner, xli, 26, 36, 172, 226, intensively competitive, 69, 102, 176
231, 270, 304, 359, 416, 473, 478 intensive marketing channel, 351
integrative method, 165, 172, 294, 387, intensive technology, 123
393 intention, 77, 83, 135, 250, 315, 331
integrators, 38 intentional behavior, 77
integrity, 357, 405 interact, 149, 296, 321, 362, 363, 365,
Intel, 402 439
intellectual assets, 90 interaction-based organization design,
intellectual capital, 92, 104, 127, 482 145, 151–2, 155, 157
intellectual capital competencies, 104 interaction data, 401
intellectual property (IP), 395 interaction dynamics, 365
intellectual stimulation, 200 interaction mode with clients, 424
intelligence, vii, xlivn5, 2, 41, 43, 46–52, interaction style, 5
61, 69, 78, 104–6, 125, 130, 153, interactive dashboard, 81
168n15, 175, 176, 184, 202, 205, interactive effectiveness, 31, 149
206, 208, 221–3, 225–8, 231, 250, interactive influence, 31
258, 259, 264, 281n25, 281n29, interactive relationship, 10, 206, 361
295–7, 311, 318–20, 328, 329, interchangeable, 34n4, 99, 174, 320,
334, 401, 406, 407, 412, 416, 417, 399, 429
430, 431, 436, 438, 443, 447, 449, inter-cloud, 403
475n13, 480, 482, 483, 485 interconnected, 135
intelligence advantage, xxv, 549 interconnected global cloud of clouds,
intelligence based competencies, 51, 102, 403
482 intercultural, 146
intelligence-based competitive advantage interdepartmental dynamics, 429
(IBCA), 221, 228–30 interdepartmental relationships, 182
intelligence dissemination, 70, 428 interdependence, 122, 123, 290n30, 369
intelligence generation, 70, 428 interdependent, 348
intelligence management (IM), 49, 228 interdisciplinary, 557, 577
intelligence to insight (Int2Ins), 449 Interdisciplinary Journal of Information,
intelligent behavior, 428 557
intelligent business performance interest-power matrix, 325
management (IBPM), 242, 255, interests of society, 181
259, 260, 266, 269 interface, 394, 397, 398, 400, 415, 438
644 INDEX
interfirm, 366 internal forces, 136, 151

interfirm collaboration, 366 internal-indirect, 484
interfirm dynamics, 366 internal information and technology, 130
inter-firm learning, 528 internal integration, 65, 67
inter-firm market orientation (IMO), internalization of skills, 368
431–3 internal-linked, 141
inter-functional cooperation, 70 internally, 102, 153, 401, 403, 404, 406
inter-functional coordination, 39, 428 internal market, 425, 426
inter-functional coordination of internal marketing, 429, 431, 432
marketology, 7 internal marketing (focused on
intergroup conflict, 78 employees), 431
interindustry networks, 432 internal marketology, 1, 2, 8, 33, 172,
interlinks, 31, 64, 74, 76, 89, 109, 121, 189–90, 192, 217, 238, 264, 298,
132, 144, 153, 157, 162, 192, 194, 311, 375–7, 382, 384, 439
220, 241, 269, 274, 283, 287, 288, internal market orientation (IMO), 149,
431, 483 428–9, 432
inter-market networks, 13 internal networks, 13
intermediary, 165, 348, 352 internal organization, 432
intermediate diagnostic analytics (why internal oriented, xxxix
happen?), 408 internal process based interaction, 149,
internables, 427 254, 401
internal, 8, 11, 13, 28, 49, 53, 56, 67, internal process data, 401
71, 78, 83, 90, 92, 97, 102, 104, internal publics, 183
106, 123, 136, 137, 141, 142, 145, internal scanning, 5, 306
146, 149–51, 164, 165, 169n17, internal sensors, 427
171, 176, 178, 182, 183, 200, 213, internal situation, 3, 38, 69, 150, 182,
214, 223, 225, 229, 231, 236, 243, 222, 252, 341
250, 259, 276, 280n6, 303, 306, internal stakeholder, 5, 15, 18, 23, 37,
307, 313, 335, 342, 359, 360, 365, 44, 174, 185, 188, 192, 194, 196,
390n21, 396, 402, 411, 418, 424, 243, 267, 301, 308, 324, 325, 359,
425, 432, 440, 483 360, 426, 445
internal analysis, 24, 176–8, 192, 301, internal stakeholder analysis, 302, 303,
306, 307, 324, 359, 364, 381, 383, 312
488 internal workings, 176, 178, 223, 225
internal business analysis, 172, 176–9, international, 70, 180, 324, 362, 369
280n7, 280n8 International Atomic Energy Agency
internal capability, 233 (IAEA), 517
internal capacity, 70 international business, 111
internal communication, 69, 70, 153, 154 International Business Governance and
internal coordination, 125, 428 Ethics, 564
internal data sources, 399 International Business Machines (IBM)
internal-direct, 484 Corporation, 502, 526, 538
internal dynamics, 176, 432 international business organization, 39
internal-efficiency, 150 International Business Review, 565, 566
internal-external focused, 259 International Center for Research on the
internal factors, 18, 46, 70, 172–4, 176, Management of Technology, 550
177, 179, 187–90, 192, 270–4, international channels, 521
307, 324, 341, 343, 351, 356, 359, international communities, 362
368, 429, 479, 480 international conference, 511, 557
INDEX 645
International Conference on Digital International Journal of the Information

Information Management (ICDIM), Systems for Logistics and
511 Management, 535
International Data Corporation (IDC), International Marketing Review, 514,
524 539
International Finance Corporation (IFC), international markets, 183
535 International Review of Retail,
international innovation, 424 Distribution and Consumer
The International Institute of Informatics Research, 517
and Systemic, 557 International Safeguards, 517
internationalization, 68, 419 International Series in Operations
International Journal of Artificial Research & Management Science,
Intelligence and Interactive 578
Multimedia, 567 international vision, 369
The International Journal of Bank internet, 83, 112, 126, 147, 277, 329,
Marketing, 542 348, 349, 362, 387, 394, 400,
International Journal of Business and 402–3, 419, 449, 476n15
Commerce, 554 internet-based computing, 403
International Journal of Business and internet-based decision-making devices,
Management, 498, 537, 580 395
International Journal of Business and internet-based facilities, 406
Social Science, 566 internet behavior, 402
International Journal of Business internet-controlled systems, 395
Information Systems, 509 internet in the contact lenses, 419
International Journal of Commerce and internet marketing strategies, 498
Management, 541, 570 internet network of networks, 403
International Journal of Contemporary Internet of things (IoT), 329, 394, 397,
Hospitality Management, 530, 537 400, 407, 412, 415, 443, 447
International Journal of Logistics internet services, 400
Management, 503, 542 internet stores, 349
International Journal of Management inter-organization, 125, 173, 365, 370,
Reviews, xxiii, 534, 558 431
The International Journal of inter-organizational cooperation, 431
Management Science, 534, 543, 558 inter-organizational relationships, 125,
International Journal of Production 173, 431
Economics, 525, 545, 573 inter-organization coordination, 370
International Journal of Production interpersonal, 48, 78, 146, 199, 280n13
Research, 508, 510 interpersonal conflict, 76, 78
International Journal of Productivity and interpersonal power, 77
Performance Management, 503, interpersonal processes, 38
547 interpersonal relationships, 75, 76
International Journal of Research in interpersonal role, 199
Marketing, xx, xxviii, xxix, 510, 527, interpersonal skills, 76
542, 563, 567, 580 interpretation, 260
International Journal of Retail and interrelated, 3, 11, 53, 127, 252
Distribution Management, 499, inter-relationship, 22, 23
520 intervener, 136
International Journal of Service Industry interview, 503, 516
Management, 548 intimacy management programs, 327
646 INDEX
intranets, 125, 126, 147 215, 218–23, 225, 230, 231, 234,
intra-organization, 362 237, 239, 240, 242, 245, 251, 258,
intrapersonal, 146 261, 264, 265, 268, 269, 275, 276,
intrinsic, 58, 404, 475n3 289, 291, 294, 295, 299, 301, 303,
Intrinsic Value of Information (IVI), 305–7, 309, 310, 317, 320–3, 326,
405, 458, 459 330–4, 336, 337, 340, 341, 343,
introductory analysis, xxii, 523 345–7, 350–2, 354, 355, 358–61,
intuition, 417 364, 365, 367–9, 371, 375, 380,
intuitive decision-making, 211 381, 386, 387, 393, 394, 399, 406,
inventory assessment, 58 408–10, 418, 424–7, 432, 433,
inventory management, 348 436, 437, 442, 444, 446, 448, 450,
investigate situation, 485 459, 472–4, 477–9, 481–5, 488,
investment, 232, 344, 366, 419 495, 496
investment justification, 402 Ittnerá, D. Christopher, 253–5, 265
investors, 185, 196, 431 Ivancevich, John M., 525, 536
invisible analytics, 397 Ivergard, Toni, 69
invisible assets, 92 Ivey Business Journal, 557
invited, xxv, 550 IVM. See Infonomics Valuation Matrix
involvement, xviii, 66, 139, 233 (IVM)
IoT architecture, 397
IoT platform, 397
Iran, 498 J
Iranian Economic Review, 498 Jackson, J. H., 75, 76, 78, 83, 85
Irani, Z., 546 Jackson, M., 311, 418, 441
Ireland R. Duane, 93, 112, 227, 253 Jackson, T., 65–6, 136, 138, 139, 142,
Iriana, Reiny M. M, xii 175, 247, 311–12
irrefutable, 302 Jackson W. M., 357
irrespective, 43 Jacoby, J. M., 4, 8, 9, 253–5, 261
Irwin, xix, xx, xxii, xxiii, xxv, 498, 503, Jagdish, N. S., ix
513, 516, 529, 534, 544, 549, 563 Jaikumar, R., 349, 353
Isaac M. H, 504 JAI Press, 515, 556
is a marketing man just a marketing James, L., 127, 130, 413, 416
man?, xxv, 551 Jamhour, M., 498
ISBM framework, xxiii, 534 Jamieson, B., 149, 177, 189
Islamic, 168n13 Janet, F., 177, 183, 189
is marketing a science, xi Jansen, O., 532
ISO, 357 Jansen, S., 315–16, 363, 366, 370
isolated phenomenon, 418 Japanese, 516
isolated predictive attempts, 441 Jaroslav, D., 304, 329, 332, 336, 350,
Isoraite, Margarita, xiv, xv, 367, 370 357
issues, vii, x, xiv, xv, xxxix, xii, xiii, 2, 3, Javalgi, G. R. (Raj), 439
10, 11, 16, 20, 21, 31–4, 36, 38, Javidan, M., 91–2, 101–2, 105–6, 113,
41, 42, 44, 48, 50, 52–4, 57, 59, 116–17, 226, 251, 265, 298, 310
62–4, 68, 70, 72–4, 78, 82, 87, 89, Jawahar, I. M., 186
98, 99, 108, 109, 112, 119–22, Jaworski, B. J., 69, 71, 118, 148–9, 151,
131, 132, 135, 140, 141, 143, 144, 154, 173, 185, 188, 223, 228,
146, 148, 153, 155, 157, 163–5, 312–16, 319, 321–3, ix, 428, 440
167, 168n6, 172, 174, 175, 178, Jayachandran, S., xii
179, 190–2, 196, 200–2, 209–11, Jayaram, J., 350, 353
INDEX 647
Jebarajakirthy, C., 433 Joshua, W., 514

Jerome, C. G., 175 Jossey-Bass, 524, 527, 561–2, 565
Jeston, J., 3, 5, 111, 117, 254, 259, 261, Journal Marketing Management, 534
265 Journal of Academic and Business Ethics,
Jiang, X., 223, 225, 229, 232, 316, 323 547
Jiri, F., 548 Journal of Advertising Research, 551
JIT/Repetitive Sourcing Strategies, 507 Journal of Applied Business Research, 538,
job designing, 123 568, 570
job enlargement, 123 The Journal of Applied Business
job enrichment, 123 Research, 538, 568, 570
job rotation, 123 The Journal of Behavioral Economics,
job satisfaction, 553 560
job security, 75 Journal of Business and Industrial
job simplification, 123 Marketing, xxvi, 561
Jocz, K. E., 577 The Journal of Business and Industrial
Joel, R., 514 Marketing, 504, 540, 549, 561
Jogaratnam, G., 92, 106, 254, 265 Journal of Business Ethics, 569
Johanson, J., ix, 14, 229, 232, 306 Journal of Business Inquiry, 519
Johnson, J. L., 418–19 Journal of Business Logistics, 542
Johnson, R., 538 The Journal of Business Perspective,
John Wiley, xxii, 518, 531, 533, 558, 538
566 Journal of Business Research, xxi, 519,
John Wiley and Sons, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, 528, 532, 545, 577, 581
499–500, 504, 506, 514, 519, Journal of Business Strategy, 571
521–2, 524, 526–7, 540–1, 548, Journal of Competitiveness, 516, 548
557, 558, 565, 566, 568, 575–7, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 555
580 Journal of Consumer Research, xxiii, 534
joint, 366 The Journal of Defense Software
joint distribution, 366 Engineering, Crosstalk, Data
joint marketing, 366 Mining, 530
joint optimization, 123 Journal of Economic Behavior and
joint promotion, 366 Organization, xxii, 524
joint R&D agreements, 366 Journal of Education for Business, 552
joint sale, 366 Journal of Engineering and Technology
joint ventures, 366 Management, 576
Jones and Bartlett Learning Llc, 504 Journal of Engineering Economic, 574
Jones Brian, D.G., xxiv, 537 Journal of Euro-Marketing, 546
Jones, D. G. B., xii Journal of European Industrial Training,
Jones, E. P. C., 404 506, 572
Jones, G., 66 The Journal of High-Performance
Jones, N. E., 437 Business, 555
Jones, W., 97 Journal of High Technology Management
Jonker, R., 416 Research, 519
Jonk, G., 501 Journal of Historical Research in
Jordan, J., 93, 96, 111, 117, 123, 125–6, Marketing, xxi, xxiv, xxviii, 517,
130, 151, 154, 173–4, 177, 183, 195, 537, 571
202–3, 214, 218, 226, 307–8, 326, Journal of Human Resource Management,
339, 357, 360, 363, 370, 418, 426 505
648 INDEX
Journal of Information and Management, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise

498 Development, 545
Journal of Information Science, 529 Journal of Small Business Management,
Journal of Information Technology in 503–4, 562
Construction, 510 Journal of Strategic Marketing, xxvi,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 506, 510, xxvii, 508, 537, 545, 553, 555–6,
528, 558, 565, 575 563, 573
Journal of Knowledge Management, 531, Journal of Technology and Innovation,
546 569
Journal of Macromarketing, xxvii, 551, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
566, 574 Science, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxvii,
Journal of Management, xxiii, xxvi, 502, xxviii, xxix, 497, 515–16, 522, 528,
505–7, 514–15, 534, 542–3, 546, 532–3, 537–9, 542, 544, 547, 552,
550, 552, 558, 568–9 559–60, 566–7, 569, 574–6, 580
Journal of Management and Marketing Journal of the Faculty of Science, 34n1
Research, 506 Journal of the Institute of Economics,
Journal of Management Medicine, 506 573
Journal of Market-Focused Management, Journal of Theoretical and Applied
501, 503, 505, 522, 537 Information Technology, 561
Journal of Marketing Management, xxi, Journal of Yasar University, 528
xxvi, 510, 516, 530, 545, 550, 553 The Journey of Strategic Management,
Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied 519
Marketing Science, 529, 559 The Journey to Business Intelligence,
Journal of Marketing Research, xxiv, 509, 527
525, 532, 540, 546, 552 Jozic, D., 532
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Judge Business School University of
xxix, 501, 580 Cambridge, 559
Journal of Medical Marketing, 568 Judge, T. A., 37–9, 41, 43, 46, 48–9,
Journal of Operations Management, 528 51–4, 67, 69, 75–9, 83, 85, 113,
Journal of Organizational Change 116, 123, 126, 129, 134, 136–9,
Management, xix, 498, 511, 536 142, 148, 154, 196, 198–200, 206,
Journal of Organization Design, 504, 524 211–12, 218, 223, 239, 247, 300,
Journal of Purchasing and Materials 302–4, 306–7, 311–12, 315–16,
Management, 500, 506, 528, 542, 401–2
552, 569, 572 judgment, 148, 211
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Juhani, S., 513
Management, 554, 572 Jurevicius, O., 94, 229, 232, 306
Journal of Quality Management, 502 justifiable cost, 401
Journal of Relationship Marketing, xxiv, justification, 402
536 just-in-time, 510
Journal of Research in Marketing and
Entrepreneurship, 514
Journal of Research Policy, 571 K
Journal of Service Management, 545 Kaden, R. J., 320, 323, 424
Journal of Service Research, 545 Kahn, B. E., 422
Journal of Services Marketing, 510, Kale, P., 367, 370
526–7, 536, 544, 546, 564, 577 Kamel, A., 53–5, 58–9, 61, 226–7, 229,
The Journal of Services Marketing, 510, 239, 312, 315
526, 527, 536, 544, 546, 564, 577 Kandemir, D., 431
INDEX 649
Kaplan Financial Knowledge Bank Kerlinger, F. N., xiii

(KFKB), 229, 251, 253, 255–9 kernel of organization, 75
Kaplan, R. S., 8, 76–7, 85, 91, 99–102, Keskin, H., xix, 498
136, 138, 140, 142, 151, 154, 169, Ketchen, D. J., Jr., viii, ix, 429
182, 197, 202, 205, 211, 226, 229, Kevin, A., 400
232, 251, 253–4, 259, 265, 297–8, key activities, 113–15, 281n29
302–4, 307, 310, 312, 316, key capabilities, 110–11
329–30, 332, 339, 361 key channels, 115
Kappos, A., 65, 148 key competency, 441
Kardashev Scale, 419 key competitors, 69, 91, 94, 102, 105,
Karpak, B., 357 245, 328, 334–5, 338–40, 344–5
Kartajaya, H., 541 key concepts, 539
Kasdan, D., 502 key considerations, 153
Kasuganti, R. R., 538 key customers, 115
Katata, xxiv, 540 key enablers, 398
Kathawala, Y. A., 302, 367, 370 key input, 13
Katherine, M., 65, 71 key intelligence topics (KIT) models,
Katz, R. L., 38–9, 49, 51–4, 75–9, 85, 485–6
113, 116, 123, 126–7, 135–40, key issues, vii, xiv, 11, 48, 59, 99, 148,
142, 195–6, 199–200, 202–3, 205, 202, 222, 234, 352, 375, 393, 484
207, 209–12, 214, 218, 307–8, key minus(−) stakeholders, 188
326, 345, 370 key output, 13
Kaufman, P., xxiv key partners, 113–15
Kaur, J., 149, 173, 176, 198, 200–1, key performance (revenue and cost), 54,
314, 318–19, 323 115, 224, 248, 264, 405
Kazakevičienė, G., 3, 5, 55, 57, 59, 61, key performance indicators (KPIs), 54,
254, 257, 259, 300, 307, 330, 332, 224, 233, 248, 264, 405
336, 361 key plus(+) stakeholders, 188
Kearney Inc., 501 key processes, 115
Keenan, J., 511 key resources, 113–15
Keenan, M., 525 key stakeholders, vii, 3, 6, 8, 96, 102–3,
Keen, M., 113, 116–17, 125–6, 129 105, 111–12, 184, 188, 194,
Keim, G. D., 186, 247, 311–12, 315 196–8, 200, 202, 216, 222–3, 227,
Keith, R., ix 233, 243, 245, 248, 253, 259,
Keller, J., 418 308–9, 339, 344, 353, 359–60,
Keller, K. L., 8, 112, 116, 118, 125–6, 363, 365, 390n20, 401, 421, 426,
149, 151, 154, 173–4, 176, 182, 431, 434, 449, 468, 480, 485
185, 189, 196, 198, 218, 232, 239, key success factors (KSFs), 60, 184, 324
245, 249, 307–9, 317, 319, 321–2, key suppliers, 115
326, 329, 332, 339, 349, 353, 357, key value propositions, 115
360, 363, 370, 418, 422, 426, 443, keyword, xxv, 550
445, 448, 450 Khan, I., 547
Keller, S. S., 569 Khan, R. A., 123, 126, 129, 413, 416,
Kelly, E. J., xxv, 544 441
Kendall, A., 301, 304, 363 Khayat, Z., 504
Kendall, N., 301, 304, 363 Khedr, A., 566
Kennedy, A., 65 Kiely, T., 93, 126
Kerin, R. A., 173–4, 177, 183, 317–19, Kienzle, L., 302, 304–5
323, 336, 339, 345 Kilar, V., 510
650 INDEX
Kilmann, J., 13, 38–9, 49, 51–3, 123–4, knowledge sharing, 528
135, 137–8, 142, 148 knowledge silo, 226
Kilmann, L. D. R., 563 knowledge society, 502
Kim, H., 506 knowledge transfer, 368
Kim, J., 538 knowledge value, 366
Kim, J. S., 528 knowledge workers, 126
Kim, K., 349, 353 Knox, M., 518
Kim, K. H., 528 Knox, S., xxv, 547
Kim, N., 529 Kock, S., 367, 370
Kim, Y., 429 Kogan Page, 500, 508, 518, 527, 549, 562
King, A. W., 97, 112, 254, 265 Kohli, A. K., ix, 14, 69, 71, 118, 148–9,
Kinicki, A., 67–8, 70–1, 146, 151 151, 154, 173, 185, 188, 314, 316,
Kinser, C., 502 319, 321–2, 428–30, 440
K2Int (knowledge to intelligence), 449, Komatsu, H., viii
487 Konopaske, R., 525, 536
kiosks, 426 Konrad, A., 569
Kirca, A. H., 429 Kooistra, F., 537
Kirchmer, M., 3, 5, 11, 251, 253, 255–8, Korhonen, S., 93, 126
265, 297–8, 310, 312, 326, 426 Ko, R. K. L., 111
KITs Revisited, 531 Kossyva, D., 363, 367, 370
Kjellberg, H., xix, 500 Koster, S. R., 111, 117, 123, 125, 129
Kleinaltenkamp, M., 559 Kothari, A., 245, 247, 251
Kleiner, A., 566 Kotler, P., ix, xii, xiv, xvi, 14, 112–13,
Kliesch-Eberl, M., 100, 102, 110, 117, 116, 127, 173, 183, 186, 189, 229,
123 308, 319, 321, 326, 330, 332, 336,
Kluwer Academic Publisher, xix, 498 353, 361, 421–2, 426, 436, 438,
Knecht, M., 336, 340, 345 443, 445, 448, 450
knot, 507 Kotter, J. P., 38, 40, 61, 65, 70–1, 75–6,
know-how, 78, 95, 444 78–9, 83, 85, 92, 99, 110, 117,
knowing-doing, 558 123, 134–9, 142, 195–6, 198–200,
knowing the customer, 422 202–3, 205–6, 210–12, 214–15,
knowledge, 2, 41, 184, 295, 395, 479 218, 223, 239, 247, 249, 254–5,
knowledgeable, 449 259, 302–4, 307, 310, 312,
knowledge-based organizations, 545, 548 315–16, 330, 332, 339, 361, 363,
knowledge bases, 438 367, 370, 418
Knowledge Creation Diffusion Kouvas, G., 527
Utilization Journal, 511 Kovac, M., 541
knowledge development, 533–4 Kozlenkova, I. V., 544
knowledge dissemination, 202 KPMG Advisory, 521
knowledge-level, 126 KPMG Capital, 541
knowledge management (KM), 111, KPMG International, 541
122, 125, 127, 130–2, 228, 235, Kramer, M. R., 182, 196, 200, 202–3,
322, 329–30, 407, 437, 441, 449 205, 251, 265
knowledge management office (KMO), Kraus, F., 542
322 Kreitner, R., 70–1, 146, 151
knowledge management system, 228 Krohmer, H., 532
Knowledge Production and Innovation Kropp, F., 567
Conference, 510 Kruschwitz, N., 504, 543
INDEX 651
Kuehnl, C., 532 Lamb, R. B., 563

Kumar, A., xxiv, 540 Lam, S. K., 429
Kumar, K., 183, 186, 229, 254, 259, Lancaster, G., 429
265, 304, 312 landscape, 395, 435
Kumar, N., 70, 148–9, 151, 154, 173, Laney, D., 401–6, 408, 440, 475n3
185, 188, 232, 429–30 Langer, M. E., 569
Kumar, R. K., 323–4, 336, 340, 345, Langley, A., 183, 186, 189, 211, 232,
408 295, 299, 314, 316
Kumar, V., xii Lanvin, B., 518
Kumcu, E., 538 Lapkin, A., 509, 543
Küster-Boluda, I., 505 Larcker, D., 302, 304, 322, 363
Küster, I., 505 Larcker, F. D., 253–5, 265
Kutwaroo, G., 550 Larcker-Tayan, 543
Kyriakopoulos, K., 420 large-scale enterprise, 548
Larrechart, J., 502
Larsson, R., 506
L latent, 328, 440, 482
labelling, 140 Laudan, L., xii
laboratory, x launching, 9, 36, 58–9, 62, 84, 139,
labor market, 316 207, 235, 260, 363
labor unions, 363 Laurea University of Applied Sciences,
Lackner, J., 245, 247, 251 555
lack of clear goals, 369 Lavalle, S., 223, 225–6, 228–9, 245,
lack of competitive differentiation, 430 247, 249, 311–12, 402, 417, 440–1
lack of coordination, 139, 369 Lavidge, R. J., 329, 332, 389n16
lack of managerial power, 430 Lavoix, H., 175, 311
lack of trust, 139, 369 law firm partnership, 574
ladder of business intelligence (LOBI) Law Journal Newsletters, 574
maturity model, 414 law/laws, viii, ix, 37, 180–1, 186, 243,
Lado, A. A., 105–6, 127, 229, 295–7, 250
299, 307–8, 326, 339, 353, 361, lawlike generalizations, xxvii, 566
370 law man, xi
Lado, N., 429 Law, P. J. S., ix
Lafferty, A. B., 69, 429–30, 440 lawyer, xi
Lafollete Study, 553 Layard Richard, 500
lagging indicators, 441 layers of Earth, 167
laid back, 343 laying out roadmap, 58
Lai, F., 533 layoffs, 68
Lake, D., 93, 126 Layton, R. A., ix
Lake, P., 401–2 Lazer, W., ix
Lakhder, D., 538 lead analysts, 49–50
Lal, R., 503 leader reactions, 68
Lamb, C. W., xxi Leadership and Organization
Lambe, C. J., 431 Development Journal, 563
Lamberson, L. R., 357 leadership-based capability,
Lambert, D. M., 300, 302–4, 309, leadership commitment, 138
311–12, 349, 353, 357 leadership competencies, 499
Lambin, J,-J., 251, 295–97, 299, 422, leadership platform, 396
429, 443, 446, 448, 450 leadership skills, 449
652 INDEX
leadership style, 410 Leppävaara, 555

leaders of public sector, 401 Lesser, E., 543
leading communication, 154 Leszinski, R., 3, 5, 8, 247–48, 256
leading indicators, 441 leverage cross-market insights, 419
leading to leaners, 126 leverage points, 344
lead time, 356 leveraging, 10, 96, 302, 405
leaks, 427 Levin, D., 408
Learned, E. P., 105 Levinthal, D. A., 420
learning, 35, 38, 61, 69, 75, 81, 89–90, Levitt, T., ix
104, 169n17, 253, 329, 353, 370, Levy, H., 395, 412
401, 412, 429, 449 Lewis, I., 551
learning capabilities, 357 Lewis, W., 245, 247, 249
learning competencies, 553 Lexington, xxi, 517
learning organization, 39, 133, 135–6, liabilities, 83
143, 368 liaison, 199
learning organizational structure, Liang, T. P., 573
38–9 Liberty University, 549
learning orientation, 501, 522, 547–8 Library Trends, 532
lecture notes in Mathematics series, xxiv, licensing, 357, 363, 366
540 Lidija, B., 97, 101–2, 127, 134, 136–38,
lectures, 176 142, 229, 232, 306
Ledingham, D., 541 Lid Publishing Inc, 550
Lee, E., 350, 353 life cycle stage, 218, 329, 331
Lee, J., 499 lifestyle, 329, 331, 427
Lee, J. S., 509 lifestyle network effect, 427
Lee, J.-Y., 544 likeability effect, 419
Lee, S.-H., 580 like-minded management philosophies,
Lees, M., 113, 116–17, 126 369
Lee, S. S. G., 580 Lilien, G. L., xviii
legacy modernization, 396 Lilly, B., 544
legacy systems, 233 limited outlet distribution, 517
legal department, 40 Linda, G. L., 538
legal/regulatory barriers, 369 Linden, A., 404
legends, 68 Linde, T., 350, 353
legitimacy-oriented, 369 Lindgren, M., 105, 418
legitimate, 38, 77 Lindgren, R., 105, 418
Lehman, D. J., 183, 186, 189, 232, 306, Lind, R. C., 8, 105, 247, 254, 265
308, 313, 326, 350, 357 linear programming, 525
LeHong, H., 543 Lings, I. N., 8, 149, 154, 177, 189, 254,
Leibold, M., 514 259, 265, 304–5, 312, 422,
Leidner, D. E., 53–5, 59, 210, 212, 215, 429–30, 432
225–7, 229, 232, 239 Lings, N. I., 106, 149, 176, 189
Leisen, B., 431 linguistic, 424
Lemaster, K., xxix, 580 Lin, H., 357
Leonard-Barton, D., 97, 229, 232 LinkedIn, 320
Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Linton, J. D., 92, 97, 105–6, 130
513 Li, Q. P., 546
Leo, P., 502 liquid assets, 331
INDEX 653
liquidity, 253 long-term benefits, 432

Lisbon, 503 long-term customer equity, 113
Litan, D., 123, 125, 129, 424 long-term direction, 427
literature, 37, 91, 196, 248, 280 long-term external social, 432
literature of marketing, 544, xxv long-term focus, 428
Littleboy, A., 528 long-term interests, 181
little competition, 211 long-term participation, 410
Litwin, G. A., 13, 258 long-term partnership, 351
Litwin, G. H., 69 long-term relationship, 196, 355
Liu, H., 430 long-term return, 181, 184
Liu, H.-K., 395 long-term value, 198
Livari, J., 123, 125–6, 129, 416 long timeframe (years, months, weeks),
Liyanage, 295, 299, 314, 316 417
Ljungberg, J., 545 long-time utilization, 227
loaned out, 49 Lonial, S., 564
lobbying, 13, 102 Lopez, S., 8, 112, 116, 125–7, 129, 149,
local communities, 362 173–4, 176, 185, 189, 195–6, 198,
local competitor, 369 200–1, 232, 245, 251, 265, 296,
local computing, 403 298–9, 306, 308, 313, 326, 350,
local government, 185 418, 426
localized analytics, 408 loss value of information (LVI), 405,
local networks, 403 458–9
local publics, 183 Love, P. E. D., 349, 353
local storage, 403 low-cost, 400
Lockshin, L. S., 301–4, 312, 322 Lowe, S., xii, xv, xviii
Lockwood, C. A., 69, 97, 101–2, 105–6, low-moderated uncertainty, 151
111, 124–5, 229, 245, 251, 298, low tolerance, 139
311, 315 low uncertainty, 151
Lockwood, N. R., 105 loyalty-turnover, 345
Löffler, M., 511 Lucas, G. H., ix
Logan, D., 578 Lucas, M., 173, 183
Logica Publication, 575 luck, 502
Logica’s maturity model, 414 Luckner, S., 577
logistical capability, 352 Ludicke, M., ix
logistics information management, 348 Luffman, G., 429, 439
Lo, H., 576 Luhmann, N., ix
Lokkesmoe, K., 507 Lumpkin, G. T. T., 91
London, xxv, 500, 508, 513, 518–19, Lumpkin, J. R., 558
527, 539, 544, 546, 549–50, 554, Lum Richard, A. K., 546
562, 566, 568 Lundberg, C. C., 561
longer-term strategic approach, 175 Lund University, 532
longevity, 327, 330 Luo, X., 363, 367, 370, 431
long-linked technology, 123 Luo, Y., 105–6
long live location, 395 Luthans, B. C., 38, 40, 75–7, 83, 85,
long-range perspective, 199, 356 123, 136–9, 142, 148, 151, 154,
Long Range Planning, xix, 498, 501–3, 195–6, 200, 202–3, 205, 207,
513, 532, 536, 563, 572 209–12, 214, 218, 223, 249, 298,
long relationship, 186 302–4, 306, 310, 312
654 INDEX
Luthans, F., 38, 40, 75–7, 83, 85, 123, Maignan, I., xxii, 522
136–9, 142, 148, 151, 154, 195–6, mail, 80, 147, 348–9, 426, 440
200, 202–3, 205, 207, 209–12, main part of business, 31
214, 218, 223, 249, 298, 302–4, main piece, 35–6, 165n5, 171–2,
306, 310, 312 277n4–6, 294, 393
Luthans, K. W., 38, 40, 75–7, 83, 85, maintain, 78, 200, 303, 327
123, 136–9, 142, 148, 151, 154, maintenance, 40, 415
195–6, 200, 202–3, 205, 207, maintenance records, 407
209–12, 214, 218, 223, 249, 298, major process, 111
302–4, 306, 310, 312 Makadok, R., 313, 336, 340, 345
Lynch Kathy, 557 make effective decisions, 8, 105, 248,
Lynn, L. M., 92, 106 296, 334, 402, 406
Lyras, D., 564 make-or-break, 415
Lytle, S. R., 92, 106, 254, 259, 265, 312 make sense, 404, 429
make sense of surroundings, 67
make-to-order environment, 508
M Makhija, M., 336, 340, 345
machine learning modeling, 81 making strategy, 50, 177, 257
machinery, 400 making the world a better place for
machine-to-machine (M2M) everybody, 421
communications, 400 Maklan, S., xii, xv, xvi
Machlin, I., 498 Malden, 531
Macinnis, D. J., xiii, 295, 297, 302, 304, Malgorzata, P., 406
307, 312, 314–15, 318, 321, 367, Malhotra, N. K., xxiv, 540
370 Malone, M., 404, 443, 445, 448
Maclachlan, A., 125, 127, 129 Maltz, E., 14
Macmillan, 168n8 Malviya, N., 513
macro-culture, 66 manageable, 413
macroeconomics, x manage change, 485–6
macro environment, 43, 180, 188, 192, manage conflict, 78
324, 363, 395 management accounting, 535
macro environment forces, 429 management capability, 116, 356
macro/general/remote environment, management characteristics, 430
172, 178, 180–2, 190–2, 488 management commitment, 356
macro marketing, xii, 432 management competencies, 526
macro marketology, xii, 5 management control system, 122, 125,
Madden, C. S., xxi 131–2
Madden, S., 513 management decision, 38, 64
Madden, T. J., xxi, 517 management experience, 53, 430
Maddern, H., 568 management-focused, 441
Madison, xix, 501 management information system (MIS),
Madsen, T., 93, 99, 102, 123–4, 126–7, xxxix, xlivn6, 124–6, 228, 244, 337,
229, 239, 295–, 299, 306, 308, 392, 437–9, 442
313, 326, 350, 357, 361, 418, 422, management information systems (MIS),
426, 443, 446, 448, 450 xxxix, xlivn6, 124, 228, 244, 437–8,
Madu, B. C., 65, 69, 71, 146–7 442
Maedche, A., 504 Management International Review, 570
Magill, P., 512 management level (operational to top),
Mahmoud, M. A., 429, 431 41, 124–5
INDEX 655
management of metadata, 224 manner, xv, xli, 3, 11, 23, 26, 36–7, 43,
management philosophy, 432 46, 48–9, 51, 55, 60, 68, 71,
management priorities, 70 78–81, 93, 116, 147–8, 158, 172,
management processes, 126, 137, 222, 175–6, 199, 205, 226, 228, 231–2,
233, 306 236, 238, 248, 254, 256, 258, 260,
management reporting, 475n13 270, 281n29, 304, 306, 320, 326,
management science, 214 337, 344, 351, 359, 365, 368, 379,
management science model, 214 416–17, 420–1, 449, 473, 478
management skills, 95 Mansfield, R. S., 105
management style, 46, 337, 410 manufacture, 40, 122, 169n16, 324,
management team, 36, 49–52, 313, 343, 334, 345, 411
369, 485–6 manufacturer, 349, 431
management technology, 113 Manyika, J., 398, 403, 408, 411, 436
manager capability, 178 many-to-many collaboration, 421
managerial ability, 342 many-to-many model relationships, 421
managerial approach, 475n4 mapping business collaborators, 292, 365
managerial business processes, 111 mapping future of business, 410
managerial capabilities, 342 mapping marketology, 36, 40–2
managerial commitment, 449 MapReduce, 401
managerial competencies, 103 March, J. G., 100, 102, 295, 299, 314,
managerial controls, 125 420
managerial dashboards, 125 margin/margins, 328, 334, 398, 405
managerial ethics, 196 market, 1, 36, 172, 292, 391, 477
managerial innovations, 139–40 market analysis, xlivn7, 129, 169n19,
managerial knowledge, 353 174, 177–8, 184–5, 192, 279n1,
managerial marketing, 348 280n5, 280n9, 281n19, 292, 321,
managerial piece, 11, 18, 33, 35, 171, 324, 361–2, 364, 389n7, 389n17,
294, 386, 393 477, 481, 485, 487–9, 496
managerial process, xii, 111 market analytics, 53
managerial role, 84 market as a whole, 423
manager perspective, 432 market assessment, 481
managing customer relationships, 14, market attractiveness, 184
303, 327, 415, 423 market-based capability, 10–11, 432
managing information security (firewall), market-based competencies, 85
129 market-based management, xviii
Managing Service Quality: An market-based organizational learning,
International Journal, 576 xxvi, xxviii, 552, 567
managing value, 113 market-based view (MBV), 335–6, 359
Manhattan, 503 market capabilities, 332
Manicas, P. T., xii market changes risks, 184
manifestation, 23, 25–6, 31, 63–4, 68, market channels, 324
73–4, 81, 88–9, 108–9, 120–1, 132, market competencies, 422
144, 157, 162, 191–2, 194, market complexity, 148, 151, 487–8
216–20, 222, 236, 238, 240–1, market condition, 46, 70, 349, 365
243, 261, 264, 266, 268–9, 274, market context, 395, 487
283, 287–8 market cost structure, 324
manipulation, 139 market creating, 422–3
Mankins, M. C., 418, 441 market cultures, 65, 70–1, 73–4, 447
man-machine systems, 545 market data collection, 424
656 INDEX
market data management team marketing contribution, 385

(MDMT), 36, 49–52 marketing debate, vii–viii, xviii 10, 31–2,
market data processing, 130 78, 112, 189, 404
market data provision, 206 marketing decision support system, 498
Market DIKII, 3, 41, 189, 292, 392, marketing discipline, xiii
478 marketing domain, 28, 102, 140
market-driven, 70, 429, 433, 481 marketing engineering, 175
market-driving, 429–30, 433 marketing evolution, xlivn7, 389n11,
market dynamics, 53, 259 392, 439, 442, 472, 474, 477,
market dynamism, 70 479–81, 494–6
market engineering, 172, 174–5, 179, marketing exists in an identity crisis, xv
192, 279n3, 361–2 marketing exploration and exploitation,
market entry, 334 xlivn4
marketer, viii, x, xi, 180 marketing first generation (marketing
market expansion, 338 1.0), 420–1
market-focused, 484 marketing functions, xiii, 295
market forces, 135, 341, 356 marketing history, xii
market growth, 184 marketing identity, xi
market information, 41–3, 46–8, 184–5, marketing identity crisis, viii
208, 235, 257–8, 315–16, 318–20, marketing information systems (MkIS),
329, 375, 384, 423, 447, 451, 423, 437
458–9, 484 marketing in moderation, xix, 502
market information clients, 423 marketing institutions, xii
market information sharing, 262 marketing intelligence, 481
marketing, 8, 39, 175, 295, 391, 480 marketing intelligence and planning,
marketing 3.0, xvi, 420–1, 425 129, 481
marketing activities, 14, 332 marketing intelligence implementation
marketing; an art or a science, viii, xvi process (MIIP), 428
marketing and its discontents, xxv, 545 marketing is not a discipline, xv
marketing and sales, 93, 113, 334, 398 marketing is not a philosophy, xv
marketing as an art, xv marketing legends, 68
marketing as a practice, xv, xvi Marketing Letters, 502
marketing as a profession, xi marketing lies on economic science, xv
marketing as a science, xv marketing literature, xix, 502
marketing as a technology, 506 marketing logistics, 348
marketing automation, 415 marketing man, xi
marketing behavior, xix, xxi, 498, 517 marketing management, xii, xlivn6, 327,
Marketing Bulletin, xxii, 522, 580 331, 402, 428, 430, 432, 439
marketing channel bargaining power, marketing management performance, xii
352, 354 marketing mediators, 348
marketing channel conflicts, 352, 354 marketing metatheory, xx, 503
marketing channel design, 351, 354 marketing mix, 331, 353–4, 390n20
marketing channel management, 351–2 marketing myopia, xx, xxv, 545
marketing channels, 347–54, 390n20 marketing opportunity, x, 349
marketing commodities, xii marketing organization, 13, 93
marketing communications, 39, 149 marketing orientation, xiii, xvi
marketing competences, 555 marketing paradigms, xii–xiii
marketing concept, xiii, xvi, xvii marketing PBC: marketing practice in a
marketing consultancy, 497 business context, xvii
INDEX 657
marketing performance, x, 248, 432 428, 430–1, 436, 438, 447, 451,
marketing philosophical patterns, xvii 481–4, 487
marketing philosophy, xiii, xvii, 431–2 market intelligence and planning, 568
marketing planning, 129 market intelligence competency center
marketing practice, xiii, xv, xvii, 432 (MICC), 36, 51–2, 57, 78, 193,
marketing principles, xii 204–9, 280n14
marketing profession, 422 market intelligence networks, 48
marketing PSC: marketing practice in a market intelligence pervasiveness, 262
social context, xvii market intelligence unit, 436
marketing redefined, xxii, 527 market intelligent strategy, 262
marketing relationships, 327, 345 marketist, xi
marketing research, x, xii, 320–2, 423, 481 market knowledge, 41–2, 168n15, 258,
Marketing Research Association (MRA), 318–19, 375, 423, 447, 450, 481,
562 484–5
marketing responsibilities, 422, 425 market landscape, 395
Marketing Review, xx, 506, 514, 539, market-led, 530
562 marketmetrician, xi
The Marketing Review, 506 market momentum, 395
marketing revolution, xxiv, 538 market monitoring, 224, 262, 323, 481
marketing scholars, xii, xv Marketo, 520
marketing science, viii, xii, xv marketologist, xi
marketing science research, xxix, 580 marketologosphere, 39–40, 44
marketing science thinking, xxi, 516 marketology, vii, xi–xii, xiii–xiv, xvi–xviii,
marketing second generation (marketing xxxix, 1–169, 171–496
2.0), 420 marketology and organization directional
marketing services agencies, 183 effects matrix (MODEM), 2, 21,
marketing strategy, 83, 180, 183, 231, 28–30, 32, 158, 161, 163, 167,
248, 327, 417, 465 270, 273, 275, 279, 282, 286, 288,
marketing systems, xii, 349–50 289, 491, 492
marketing systems analysis, xxii, 523 marketology and organization mutual
marketing tasks, 487 contribution (MOMC), 293, 373,
marketing TBC: marketing theory in a 385, 386, 388, 493
business context, xvii–xviii marketology and organization
marketing technology, xx, 503 relationship directions: O2M and
marketing theory, viii–x, xiii, xvii–xviii M2O, 29
marketing theory and applications, xxi, marketology and organization
517 relationship perspectives diagram
marketing theory of the firm, xix, xxii, (MORPD), 2, 21, 27–30, 32, 158,
499, 513, 533, 563 160, 163, 167, 217, 270, 272, 275,
marketing third generation (marketing 279, 282, 285, 288, 289, 491, 492
3.0), xvi, 420–1 marketology approach, 440
marketing thought, xii marketology architecture, 224, 229
marketing TSC: marketing theory in a marketology as an assistant to
social context, xvii–xviii organizational competency, 103
market insight, 42, 258, 318–19, 343, marketology as an organizational
375, 419, 447, 451, 480 competency, 102
market intelligence (MI), 175, 223, 227, marketology as earth, 39
258–9, 318–19, 328–9, 346, 353, marketology assets, 90, 99, 166, 447,
358, 361–3, 370, 375, 407, 412, 490
658 INDEX
marketology-based outcomes, 16 marketology environment, 232, 236

marketology-based skills, 75, 85 marketology evolution, 392, 439, 442,
marketology behavior, 290n30, 292, 474, 494
310, 312, 317 marketology executive committee, 49
marketology benchmark matrix (MBM), marketology feedbacks, 232, 249, 295,
2, 21, 30–2, 158, 162, 167, 270, 483–4
274, 275, 279, 282, 287–9, 491, marketology fingerprint, 260
492 marketology FOCUS Box, xli, xlii, 1, 2,
marketology budgeting, 90, 99–101 21, 34, 36, 65, 75, 90, 110, 122,
marketology building blocks (MBB), 10, 133, 145, 165–7, 173, 194, 222,
11, 34n4 243, 277, 278, 293, 388, 392, 474,
marketology canvas, 437, 444, 447 481, 483
marketology canvas reengineering marketology foundations, 391–3,
(MCR), 447 409–33, 443, 472–4, 494
marketology capabilities, 90, 101–2, 235, marketology functionalities, 392, 393,
449, 461 434–6, 443, 472–4, 494
marketology clients/audience, 42, 251, marketology functions, 48, 260, 392,
439 434–7
marketology community, 204 marketology governance, 28, 79, 82,
marketology competencies, 90, 102–5 193, 194, 202–9, 231, 232, 278,
marketology context, 35, 164, 172, 294, 313, 447, 491
387, 393, 473 marketology group, 39, 71, 75, 78–9,
marketology contribution, 295, 297, 81, 102, 140, 166, 187, 228, 297,
314, 318, 323, 373 314, 440
marketology council team, 49 marketology hierarchy, 292, 310, 314–15
marketology coverage, manifest and marketology impact assessment matrix
contribute (MCMC) analysis (MIAM), 2, 21, 31–2, 279, 282,
framework, 2, 21, 32, 37, 65, 75, 289, 492
79, 90, 110, 122, 133, 145, 162, marketology influence, 236
165–7, 173, 194, 221, 222, 243, marketology infrastructures, 90, 99
263–5, 269, 274, 275, 278, 282, marketology initiatives, 53, 59, 226, 235,
283, 289, 489–92 236, 249
marketology culture and climate, 65, marketology in practice (MIP), xli, 1, 21,
70–1, 165, 490 33–6, 65, 75, 90, 110, 122, 133,
marketology data governance, 236 145, 158–63, 164–7, 171–3, 194,
marketology delegates, 79, 117, 379, 222, 243, 270–5, 276–9, 282–90,
382, 449, 468, 470 293, 294, 373–86, 386, 387, 392,
marketology department/unit, 53 393, 451–72, 473, 478, 495
marketology design, 17, 292, 310–12, marketology inputs, 118, 249, 483
317, 449 marketology is not a single function, 296
marketology DNA, 260 marketology management center
marketology-driven business performance (MMC), 36, 49, 51, 53–64, 78, 79,
canvas (MDBPC), xli, 1, 2, 33, 34, 81–5, 90, 165, 193, 204–9, 225–6,
434, 472, 489 231–3, 280n14, 322, 389n13, 408,
marketology dynamic capability, 90, 449, 489
106–7 marketology manager, 82
marketology effectiveness and maturity marketology match matrix (MMM), 2,
evaluation (MEME), 293, 373, 385, 21, 32, 34n10, 37, 75, 90, 110,
386, 388, 493 122, 133, 145, 162, 165–7, 173,
INDEX 659
194, 222, 243, 274, 275, 278, 282, marketology philosophical patterns, xvii
289, 489–92 marketology pillars, 292, 310, 313–14
marketology maturity, 234, 392, 393, marketology practice style, 236
439–40, 441, 467, 474, 494 marketology process management, 34n3,
marketology maturity assessment matrix 110, 117–19, 490
(MMAM), 393, 472, 474, 494 marketology products (market DIKII),
marketology methodology, 236 280n16, 292, 297, 299, 315–18,
marketology organizational architecture 386
(MOA), xli, 1–35, 171, 189, 218, marketology PSC: marketology practice
223, 226, 231, 238, 277, 282, in a social context, xvii
284–6, 289, 294, 311, 312, 319, marketology relationship manager, 49
386, 434, 472, 477, 478, 489, 496 marketology reporting, 236
marketology organizational audience, 75, marketology requests, 292, 310, 315–16
79 marketology schemes, 235
marketology organizational behavior marketology services (IGDEE), 386
(MOB), xli, 1, 2, 35, 171–290, 294, marketology skills, 75, 83–5
311, 319, 323, 343, 389n5–7, marketology stakeholders, 172, 187–9
389n10, 389n12, 389n14, 434, 437, marketology standards, 42, 225, 239,
443, 472, 477, 478, 491–2, 496 265
marketology organizational behavior marketology status analysis matrix
(MOB) canvas, 18, 172, 190–3, (MSAM), 2, 21, 27, 32, 158, 167,
194, 219, 222, 240–3, 266 270, 271, 275, 279, 282, 284, 288,
marketology organizational contribution 289, 491, 492
(MOC), xli, vii, 1, 2, 35, 171, 277, marketology strategic management
291–390, 434, 443, 472, 477, 478, (MSM), xli, 1, 2, 221, 222, 236,
492–3 292, 295, 310–13, 319, 389n10,
marketology organizational contribution 392, 434, 437, 443, 472
(MOC) canvas, 19, 372 marketology strategy, 222–6, 236, 240,
marketology organizational delegates, 75, 313, 447
79–83 marketology strategy effectiveness, 221,
marketology organizational design 232
(MOD), xli, vii, 1, 2, 35–169, 171, marketology strategy execution, 221,
172, 174, 188, 189, 218, 223, 226, 231–2
231, 233, 234, 238, 264, 276, 285, marketology structure, 36, 39–40, 42–8,
289, 294, 311, 319, 323, 338, 339, 52, 165, 167, 446, 447, 489
343, 386, 389n3, 389n4, 389n8, marketology structuring pattern, 100
389n9, 389n13, 434, 437, 443, marketology success, 11, 261, 292, 297,
472, 477, 478 310–12, 317
marketology organizational design marketology system, xliv, 32, 34n3, 117,
(MOD) canvas, 36, 65, 75, 110, 207, 231, 236, 276, 289, 297, 316,
122, 133, 145, 156–7 318, 319, 323, 386, 392, 434,
marketology organization styles, 47 483–4
marketology outputs, 79, 204 marketology TBC: marketology theory in
Marketology PBC: marketology practice a business context, xvii
in a business context, xvii marketology team, 225
marketology people, 75, 78–9, 85, 447 marketology theory, viii, xvi–xviii
marketology people: 3E groups, 82 marketology throughout an organization:
marketology performance management, autonomous or merged, 45
34n3 marketology toolset, 233
660 INDEX
marketology TSC: marketology theory in market-related ideas, 102

a social context, xvii, xviii market-related information, xxxix, xl,
marketology users, 54, 79, 80 xliv, 41, 53, 55, 129, 168n8, 232,
marketology value proposition (MVP), 249, 250, 295, 304, 306, 307, 315,
242, 249–52, 269, 292, 295, 374, 375, 377, 386
316–17 market-related informational needs, 9,
marketology working committee, 49 83, 232, 250, 303
marketor, xi market-related inquiry(ies), 373, 374
market-oriented, 69, 70, 85, 105, 141, market-related issues, decisions, plans and
148, 203, 236, 260, 296, 428, 437, actions, 41
439, 447 market-related processes, 10
market-oriented activity, 505 market-related products, 30, 55, 71, 106,
market-oriented behaviors, 70, 431 129, 130, 141, 142, 154, 218, 233,
market-oriented communication, 145, 239, 296, 484
148–9, 155 market-related services, xxxix, xliv,
market-oriented culture, 65, 69–70, 72 168n8, 295, 296, 386
market-oriented management, 503 market-related technologies, 129
market-oriented mindset, 260, 262 market-related units of organization, 439
market-oriented organization, 69, 118 marketrician, xi
market-oriented vs. product-oriented marketry, xi
culture, 69 markets, vii, xi–xii, xiv–xv, xxxix, 3,
marketplace, xxxix, 5, 69, 92, 94, 96, 48–54, 56, 69–70, 112, 117, 118,
102, 105, 123, 129, 148, 204, 216, 129, 148–9, 151, 154, 164, 174–5,
223, 226–8, 246, 248, 281n20, 184–5, 202, 204, 205, 216, 218,
327, 334, 335, 339, 343, 344, 395, 225, 227, 228, 245, 250, 251, 257,
397, 450 258, 264, 281, 292, 295–7, 303,
market-related (market+), 479 314, 315, 318–24, 335, 359,
market-related actions, 54, 218, 256, 361–2, 368, 386, 422–6, 428–33,
257, 295, 304, 306, 313, 322 447, 478, 481, 484–9
market-related action-taking, 218, 256, markets as networks, xxiv, 537
304, 306, 322 MARKOR, 430
market-related analysts, 10 MARKOR: a measure of market
market-related analytics, 408 orientation, xxiv, 540
market-related business actions, 174 markosphere, 39, 40, 44
market-related business decisions, 174 Marland, James, 314, 316, 363, 366,
market-related competencies, 423 370
market-related components, 13 Marn, Michael V., 3, 5, 8, 247, 248, 256
market-related concepts, vii Marques, Alzira, 567
market-related decision-making, xl, 6, 189, Marquit, Erwin, x
223, 225–8, 232, 258, 295, 306, 313 Marr, Bernard, 3, 247, 248, 251, 254,
market-related decisions, vii, 2, 11, 33, 257, 259, 265, 296, 298, 299, 309,
54, 164, 175, 202, 216, 218, 317, 319, 350, 357, 402
226–8, 231, 232, 236, 252, 256, Marshall, A., 558
257, 276, 294–6, 304, 307, 313, Martina, Königova, 93, 102
314, 322, 386, 408, 434, 437, 438, Martin-Consuegra, D., 521
449, 472, 478, 483 Martinette, Louis, 569
market-related executives, 105 Martin, J. A., 97, 106
market-related functions, 292, 320–2, Martin, L., 576
379, 393, 451, 464, 465, 472, 474 Martinuzzi, M., 569
INDEX 661
Marx, Karl, ix Matyska, Jr. Robert J., 577

Mason, C., 553 Maull, R. S., 568
Mason, Edward S., 321, 336, 339, 345 Mavondo. T. Felix., 69, 135, 136, 138,
Mason, R. O., 3, 9, 197, 199, 206, 212, 140, 142, 149, 151, 154, 174, 189,
219 254, 259, 265, 312, 315, 429
Massachusetts, 514 Maximini, Dominik, 70, 71
Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press maximize, 212, 404, 406
Books, 580 Maydeu-Olivares, Albert, 429
mass group of customers, 327 Maynard, Harold H., xii
massive amounts of addressable data, 419 Maynard, Sean, 512
massive changes, 410 Mazur, Jolanta, 510
mass merchandisers, 349 MBB. See marketology building blocks
master data, 399, 407, 415 (MBB)
master data management (MDM), 407, MBM. See marketology benchmark
412, 449 matrix (MBM)
mastery, 411 Mcafee, Andrew, 398, 411, 417, 436,
Matear, Sheelagh, 527 440, 441
material assets, 404 McAlister, L., 544
mathematical background, 321 McCarthy, E. Jerome, ix
mathematical model of communication, Mcclinton, Pamela, 183, 186, 189, 227,
566 229, 232, 251, 297, 298, 310
mathematics, 243 Mcclure, Rex E., 429
Matheson, Phil, 527 Mccourtie, Simone D., 38, 167n1
Mathis, Robert L., 75, 76, 78, 83–5 Mccroskey, James C., 70, 71, 145–9,
Matillion Business Intelligence, 548, 549 151, 154, 174, 189, 227
Matillion Ltd, 548, 549 Mcdaniel, Carl, 411, 436, 442
matrix for company analysis by Mcdonald, Malcolm, 3, 8, 113, 116,
stakeholders, 360 256, 416, 422, 424
matrix like world, 419 Mcfadden, Michael, 569
matrix organizational structure, 38–9 Mcferran, Brendan, 550
matrix structure, 38 Mcgahan, A. M., 303, 336, 339, 345
Matsuno, Ken, 429 Mcgee, John, 505
matter(s), viii, xi, xii, xv, 28, 61, 76, 84, Mcgonagle, John J., 41–3, 46, 48, 49,
141, 153, 174, 175, 203–5, 210, 51, 52
222, 225, 227, 231, 303, 306–8, Mcgrath, M., 66
323, 328, 334, 337, 345, 352, 353, Mcgrath, M. R., 563
359, 363, 365, 373, 393, 394, 404, McGraw-Hill Education, 501, 517, 524,
408, 418, 434, 437, 440, 451, 472, 525, 529, 532, 533, 536, 541, 553,
473 555, 565, 572, 574, 576
mature function, 16 McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 513, 516, 525,
maturity, 16, 24, 59, 111, 139, 216–18, 539, 563
225, 234, 238, 293, 303, 334, 385, Mcguinness, Tony, 553
392, 407, 408, 413, 414, 417, 425, Mckinnon, Cheryl, 412
439–42, 459, 464–7, 474, 494 Mckinsey, 411
maturity examination, 58 Mckinsey and Company, 178
maturity model for data warehousing Mckinsey and Company Insights and
(MMDW), 414 Publications, 503
maturity of marketology, 16, 28, 321, Mckinsey Global Institute, 547, 550
440, 466 Mckinsey Insights, 503
662 INDEX
Mckinsey Quarterly, 324 Mell, Peter, 404

McKinsey 7Ss Model, 13, 168n12, 178 MEME. See marketology effectiveness
Mclaughlin, G. L., 186 and maturity evaluation (MEME)
Mclean, Ian., 569 memorial lecture, 498
Mcleod, Raymond Jr, 118 Mena, J. A., 534
Mcmaster M. D., xii Mendelson, M. B., 502
MCMC. See marketology coverage, Mendling, Jan, 518
manifest and contribute (MCMC) mental healthcare, x
analysis framework mentor, 10, 20, 44, 52, 62, 63, 72, 73,
Mcmillan, Elizabeth, 13, 38, 39, 49, 87, 88, 98, 108, 119, 120, 131,
51–3, 123, 135, 137, 142 132, 143, 144, 155, 157, 179, 190,
Mcnamara, Gerry, 517 191, 201, 209, 216, 219, 220, 230,
Mcnamee, Patrick, 183, 186, 189, 227, 240, 241, 252, 266, 268, 299, 305,
229, 232 309, 317, 322, 330, 333, 340, 346,
Mcnaughton, Rod B., 245, 247, 251, 350, 354, 358, 364, 367, 371, 399,
296, 298, 309, 317, 319, 357 409, 425, 433, 436, 441, 442, 444,
m-commerce, 329, 338 446, 448, 451, 480, 481, 483, 484,
Mc Press Online, 505 487, 488
McWilliams, Abagail, 253, 254, 257 mentoring, 226
MDBPC. See marketology-driven Mentzer, John T., 429
business performance canvas mercatus, xi
(MDBPC) mercenary, 66
mechanism(s), 30, 68, 93, 126, 154, merchandising products, 95
244, 327, 333, 346, 348, 349, 353, merged and incorporated, 177
358, 361–3, 370, 459, 475n6 mergers and acquisitions (M&A), 68,
mechanistic organizational structure, 38, 338
138 merits, 569
Medford, 502, 511, 551 Merkys, Gediminas, 574
media analysis, 364 Merlo, Omar, xiii, 297, 298, 302, 309,
media engineering, 292, 362–4 314, 318, 321, 322, 357, 363, 367,
media publics, 146, 183 370
media silos, 420 Mesh app, 397
media tablets, 397 mesosphere, 167n2
Mediated Model, 548 messiness, 402, 455
mediating technology, 123 meta-analysis, 567
mediator, 182, 186, 188, 244, 308, 324, metadata, 50, 224, 399
347, 348, 429 metadata management, 49, 84
medicine man, xi metadata repository, 49
Meer, David, 183, 186, 188, 189, 227, metadata storage, 49
229, 232, 251, 403, 406, 408 Meta Group, 542
me + free + ease, 400 metaphors, 65, 280n4
mega marketology, 482 metatheory, viii
mega process, 111 meta-trends of marketing, 420
megatrend(s), 291, 394, 395, 399, 443 Metayer, Estelle, 183, 186, 189, 227,
Mehandjiev, Nikolay, 527 229, 232, 251, 295–7, 299, 312,
Mehta, Rajiv, 510 314, 315
Meindl, Peter, 350, 353 metrics, 125, 414, 417
Mela, Carl F., xii Meyer, Alan D., 93, 102, 126, 127, 129,
Melbourne, 581 229, 332
INDEX 663
Meyer, M. H., 97 Mimir, xix, 501

MGI, 401, 402 Mines, Christopher, 511
MIAM. See marketology impact ministers, 556
assessment matrix (MIAM) Minkov, Michael, 532
MI center of excellence, 53 minority equity, 366
MI center of knowledge, 53 Mintzberg, Henry, 38, 40, 75, 76, 85,
MI center of practice, 53 134, 136, 138, 139, 142, 148, 151,
Michael, Shanahan, 539 154, 173, 174, 176, 185, 186, 189,
Michel, Lukas, 76, 77, 83, 85 195, 196, 198, 199, 201–3, 205,
Michigan State University, 569 206, 209–12, 214, 218, 223, 307,
MI community of practice, 53 308, 312, 326, 345, 370, 418
microcredit, 537 MIP. See marketology in practice (MIP)
micro-culture, 66 MIP-Cumulative, 171, 172, 276, 277,
microeconomics: study of choices by 279, 282–9, 492
individuals, x MI programing, 53
micro environment, 180, 182, 183, 188, miscommunication, 43
192, 307, 324, 363 misconceived, 526
micro marketology, 188, 440, 482 misconception, 248
micro/operating/task/industry Mishra, Aneil K., 66, 154
environment, 487 mission, 5, 68, 111, 122, 199, 200, 222,
micro, small, and medium enterprise 229, 306, 307, 341, 355, 363, 411,
(MSME), 440 421
Microsoft Corporation, 259, 261, 265, mission-based, 66
395, 403, 415 mission-critical, 203
Microsoft Excel, 81 misunderstanding, 139
Micu, Anca Cristina, 320, 323, 424 misuse(s), 545
middle future (1–3 years), 411 misuse of marketing, xx, 504
Middlewood, David, 65, 69, 71, 147 Mitchell, R. K., 551
MI department, 53 Mitchell, Robert W., 432
midsize, 524, 535 MI technology services, 53
midstream collaborators, 366 MIT Sloan Management Review, 499,
Miguel, Marta, 226, 227, 232, 239, 316, 502, 504, 515, 543
323 MIT Sloan School of Management, 526,
MI initiatives, 437 550
Miles, Ian, 525 Mittal, V., 553
milestones in marketing, 533 MIT Technology Review, 513, 562, 564
Millan, A., 521 mixed analysis, 176
millennium intelligence, 551 mixed IT and market/business focused
The millennium project, 526 cross-functional unit, 56
Miller, Jerry P., 41–3, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 mixed reality living, 411
Miller, Katherine, 70, 71, 145–9, 151, MKTOR, 430
154 MMAM. See marketology maturity
Miller, Patty, 183, 186, 189, 229, 232, assessment matrix (MMAM)
247, 312, 326, 426 MMC. See marketology management
Miller, R., 245, 247, 249 center (MMC)
Millican, Richard D., xi MMM. See marketology match matrix
Milton, Nick, 127, 223, 225, 295–7, (MMM)
299, 312, 314, 315 MMS, 426
664 INDEX
MOA. See marketology organizational model-based, 510

architecture (MOA) model of national culture, 66, 168n11
MOB. See marketology organizational models of decision-making, 214
behavior (MOB) MODEM. See marketology and
MOB canvas. See marketology organization directional effects
organizational behavior (MOB) matrix (MODEM)
canvas modern business environment, 391–3,
mobile, 329, 349, 412, 413, 423, 426, 399–409, 443–5, 447, 472–4, 494
443, 447 modern business world, xiii, 129
mobile analytics, 415 modern cooperative (“beta”) leadership
mobile-application-like, 415 style, 410
mobile applications, 447 modern enterprise, 204, 205, 413
mobile-centric, 397 modern IT-based world, 128
mobile communication, 424, 447 modernity, xii, 528
mobile device adoption, 395 modern managerial functions, 236
mobile device battles, 397 modern marketing, 419–20, 422, 425
mobile devices and solutions, 329, 412, modern marketing theory, xxiii, 534
436, 443 modern market research, 424
mobile first world, 395 modern partnership, 365
mobile internet, 400 modern society, xxii, xxvi, 526, 558
mobile stores, 349 modern style of strategic management,
mobile technology, 130, 396, 398, 424 222
mobilizing, 562 modern technologies, 447
MOC. See marketology organizational modifiable, 231
contribution (MOC) modifications, 140, 246, 476n13
Mocanu, Aura-Mihaela, 545 Modinger, Wilfried, 421, 422
MOC audience(s), 291, 295–6, 299 Mohr-Jackson, I., 106
MOC Business Support Matrix (MOC- mold, 427
BSM), 293, 373, 379–81, 386, 388, Molina, A., 521
493 Moliner, Miguel A., 573
MOC Client Inquiry Analysis (MOC- Mollá, Alejandro, 510
CIA) Inquiry Form/ Matrix, 293, Moller, Kristian, 573
373–5, 386, 388, 493 MOMC. See marketology and
MOC dynamics, 291, 299–300 organization mutual contribution
MOC Importance Performance (MOMC)
Assessment (MOC-IPD) Diagram/ momentum, 395
Matrix, 293, 373, 375–7, 386, 388, Monczka, R. M., 552
493 monetary, 92, 243
MOC Primary Function Matrix (MOC- monetary assets, 92
PFM), 293, 373, 382–4, 386, 388, Mongay, Jorge, 419
493 Monieson, David D., ix
MOC Product and Service Profile Matrix monitor(s), x, 116, 176, 185, 199, 204,
(MOC-PSPM), 293, 373, 377, 378, 253, 257, 259, 260, 320, 329, 333,
386, 388, 493 337, 426, 485
MOD. See marketology organizational monitoring market, 46
design (MOD) monitoring the stream, 484
Modarress, B., 357 monologue, 520
MOD canvas. See marketology Montgomery, C. A., 97, 225, 323, 324,
organizational design (MOD) canvas 336, 339, 345, 416
INDEX 665
Montgomery, David B., 323, 336, 339, Mouncey, Peter, 549

345, 416 Moutinho, Luiz, 567
Moon, C., 535 movement to new learning, 136
Mooney, Ann, 93, 102 Moyer, Mel S., ix
Moore, D. R., 514 MSAM. See marketology status analysis
Moore, Elizabeth S., ix, xvi matrix (MSAM)
Moore, L. F., 561 MSM. See marketology strategic
Moore, Marian Chapman, 552 management (MSM)
Moorhead, Gregory, 75–9, 85, 136, 138, MSU Business Topics, xxii, 526
139, 146, 151 Muchinsky, Paul M, 69, 145–9, 151, 154
Moorman Christine, 55, 57, 59, 69, Mueller-Heumann, G., ix
75–7, 79, 83, 85, 99–102, 110, Muhammad, Gul, 437
117, 126, 196, 229, 298, 307, 309, Muller, Marié-Luce, 4, 9, 14, 38–43, 46,
312, 315, 321, 345, 350, 353, 357, 48–50, 52–5, 57, 59, 253, 256,
363, 367, 370, 420 258, 261
Moorthy, S., 310, 349, 353 multi-business firm, 539
Moose, Sandy, 562 multichannel distribution system, 349
Moran, Robert, xii, 320, 323, 424 multi-cloud, 403
more for less, 395 multi-criteria, 528
Morgan James Publishing, 497 multi-device, 416
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 579 multi-dexterous, 409
Morgan, Neil A., 93, 102, 127, 418, multidimensional model, 505
419, 422 multi-disciplinary, 409
Morgan, R. M., 367, 431 multifaceted coopetition (win-win-win),
Morgan, Robert Edward, viii, ix, xiii, xiv, 366
xvi, 295, 300, 307, 311, 312, 314, multi-factor, xxi, 516
318, 321, 322, 330, 332, 339, 361, multifunction(s), 296
363, 367, 370, 418, 419, 431 multi-item approach, 516
Morieux, Yves, 504 multi-layered governing architecture, 48
Morison, Robert, 514 multimedia, 511, 567
MORPD. See marketology and multinational, 37, 180
organization relationship Multinational Business Review, 521
perspectives diagram (MORPD) multinational companies, 565
morphology, xxiii, 534 multinational networks, 528
morphology of theory, xxiii, 534 multi-objective, 538, 577
Morphy, 186, 311, 312 multiple business processes, 399
MORTN, 430 multiple cloud services, 403
Mosco, Vincent, 404, 443, 446, 448, 450 multiple criteria, 525
Moseley, James L., 575 multiple distribution channels, 349, 350
Mosimann, Patrick, 223, 226, 228, 232, multiple-layer, 532
239, 259, 261 multiple levels, 504, 574
Mosimann, Roland, 223, 226, 228, 232, multiple marketology, 225
239, 259, 261 multiple models, 403
Mothersbaugh, David, 329, 332, 426 multiple regressions, 566
motion, 522 multiple roles, 76
Motivation and Organizational Climate, multiple sourcing, 252
546 Muncy, J. A., xxiii, 535
motivations for collaboration, 369 Munich Personal Repec Archive
motives, 368 (MPRA), 552
666 INDEX
Muñoz-Gallego, Pablo A., 526 natural resource management, 181

Murphy, Leonard, 320, 323, 424, 439 natural resources, 181
Murphy, Patrick E., 439 natural user interfaces, 398, 400
Murray, Fiona E, 198–202, 211, 212, 214 nature and organization of technology,
Murray, Peter, 92, 105, 106, 112, 117, xxii, 526
134, 137, 138, 140, 142, 259, 261 nature and scope of marketing, 482
mutation, 365 Navigator, 80
mutual beneficially, 355 Nayar, Vineet, 198–201, 206, 212, 219
mutual beneficial relationship, 327 Near Real-time, 416
mutual interactions, 31, 32 necessary, xiii, 22, 46–9, 68, 102, 175,
mutually compatible goals, 431 183, 222, 428
mutual respect, 369 Nedungadi, Prakash, 323, 324, 336,
mutual second sourcing agreements, 366 339, 345, 432
mutual trust, 369 need identification, 332
My Cloud, 403 Needle, David, 65
Myers, Paul S., 100 Neely, Andy, 3, 5, 253, 254, 256–8, 261,
myopia, xx, xxv, 506, 544, 545 265
mystery, 575 negative/discouraging, 29, 30, 67, 68,
myth of “production era,”, xxii, 524 149, 161, 211, 246, 261, 273, 286
negative power, 149
negative/restraining, 29, 30, 67, 68,
N 149, 161, 211, 246, 261, 273, 286
Nahavandi, Afsaneh, 71, 146 negotiation and market engineering, 577
Nalebuff, B, 182, 313, 363, 366, 370 negotiation skills, 95
Nanduri, Prakash, 414, 415 neighbor competitor, 338
nanotechnology, 411, 419 neighbor governance of MMC, 207, 208
Narasayya, Vivek, 510 Neighbor, Hope, 302, 304, 305
Narasimhan, R, 357 Nelis, Johan, 3, 5, 111, 117, 254, 259,
narratives, 65 261, 265
narrow view, 51 Nellis, Joe, 394
Narver, John C, ix, xiii, 8, 69, 71, 118, neo-realism, 579
146, 149, 151, 154, 173, 185, 188, nested governance of MMC, 207, 208
261, 314, 316, 318, 418, 419, Netherland, 563
428–30, 432, 439 net income, 368
Nasri, W, 225–7, 229, 232, 239, 314, Netizen journalists, 427
316, 323 netovation, xiv
Nasr, Mona, 566 net short-term assets, 345
National Aeronautics and Space net value, 182, 365, 366
Administration (NASA), 39, 40, network and IT operations, 407
167n2 network attached storage (NAS), 403
National Information Standards network-based market, 502
Organization (NISO) Press, 401, network collaborators, 173
402 network competition, 431
National Institute of Standard and network connectivity, 400
Technology (NIST), 401, 402 network economy, 431
Natis, Yefim, 404, 443, 445, 448 networked actuators, 398, 400
native cultures, 410 networked architecture, 83
natural disasters, 419 networked enterprise, xiv, 13, 41, 48, 59,
natural environment, 181 296, 315, 407, 410, 443, 449
INDEX 667
networked organizational team, 39 next for science, 395

networked readiness index (NRI), 412, next generation analytics, 397
413, 425 next-generation BI, 416
networked sensors, 400 Next Generation Data (NGD), 515
Network for Business Sustainability Ngai, E. W. T, 349, 353
(NBS), 527 Nguyen, Bang, 418, 419
network-linked, 447 niche group of customers, 327
network location, 528 Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 566
network of distribution, 348 Niemeia, Juhas, 93, 126
network of physical objects, 400 Nigel, Rayner, 533
network organizational structure, 39, night nursing, 506
125 Nijssen, J. Edwin, 314, 316
network structure, 40, 64, 125 Nilan, K, 105, 106, 195, 199, 201
Netzer, Oded, 551 nimbleness, 424
Neuijen, B, 532 Nist Big Data (NBD), 555
neural network, 567 Nixon, Kamille, 407, 408, 420
neuro-marketing, 419 Nochols, M, 501
neutralization, 368 no-data, 236
new businesses, 369 Noe, Raymond, 76, 77, 83
new competition, 412 noise, 145, 148
new customers, 328, 330, 398, 417 nominal group technique (NGT), 212
New Delhi, 501, 555 Nonaka, I, 313, 336, 340, 345
new entrant competitors, 366 non-business, xi
new entrants, 182 non-business motivations, xii
new forms of interaction, 419 non-coercive influence, 199
new generation marketing, 419 non-commercial, 153
The New IT Reality Emerges, 397 non-competitor collaborators, 366, 367
New Jersey, 523, 563, 576, 577 non-competitors, 366
Newman, David, 507, 578 non-consumers, 327
new market, 102, 137, 303, 323, 349, non-core technology, 122, 169n16
368, 398, 410, 412 non-customers, 327
new (unmet) needs of customers, 328, non-economic, xi, xii
330 non-economic motivations, xii
new path, 502, 555 non-electronic business, 338
new product development (NPD), 95, non-existent, 408
303, 328, 345, 357, 369, 423 non-financial, 104, 105, 178, 243, 248,
new reality, 397 253, 344, 352
new revenue sources, 418 non-financial based competencies, 105,
News Center, 561 253
new service development (NSD), 95, non-financial performance, 105, 178,
328, 345, 357, 369, 423 344
newspapers, 348, 362 non-financial perspectives, 253
new technology, 368 non-governmental organizations
Newton, xxv, 549 (NGOs), 195, 292, 325, 360,
new wave technology, 420 362–5, 381, 387, 390n22, 419, 442
new wearables, 427 non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
New York, 168n8 analysis, 292, 362–4, 387
New York University, 513 non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
New Zealand, xxii, 504, 533 engineering, 292, 362–4
668 INDEX
non-managers, 77 O’cass, Aron, 70, 148, 149, 151,

non-physical data integration, 415 154, 185, 188, 198, 307, 308,
non-profit organizations (NPOs), 547 326, 345
non-programmed decisions, 210 occupation, 180, 329, 331
non-routine, 122 Oczkowski, Edward, 69, 92, 106, 110,
non-standard marketology architecture, 117, 135–7, 139, 140, 142, 149,
224, 229 151, 188, 258, 261, 314, 316, 318,
non-verbal message, 145 319, 321, 429
non-verbal symbol, 145 O’dell, Carla, 127, 135, 140, 142
Noordewier, Thomas, xxviii, 567 O’donnell, Orla, 65, 71, 148, 151, 154
Nordmeyer, Billie, 173, 183, 189 O’driscoll, Aidan, 92, 105, 106
normal competency, 94, 95 OECD. See Organization for Economic
normal competitive success (NCS), xxxix, Cooperation and Development
5, 6 (OECD)
normal performance, 253 Oestreich, Thomas W., 557
Normann, R, 245, 247, 249 offensive, 343
normative paradigm, xii offerings, x, xvi, 76, 105, 183, 246, 316,
norms for governance, 370 334, 337, 338, 343, 427, 483
norms for market orientation, 70 office applicators, 126
Northampton, 566 office systems, 126
Norton, D. P, 8, 76, 77, 85, 91, 99–102, offline, 400
136, 140, 142, 154, 169n17, 226, off-price stores, 349
232, 253, 254, 257–9, 265, 302, Ogbonna, Emmanuel, 429
307, 329, 332, 361 Ogden, S., 186, 259, 261
NoSQL (non SQL or non-relational), Ohayv, D., 532
401, 407, 475n6 The Ohio State University, 502, xix, 502
not an over night but an over time effort, Ojha, Nikhil, 573
229 Olaru, Stefan, 545
not-for-profit, 37 Olavarrieta, Sergio, 92, 106, 110, 117,
not-for-profit business organizations, 362 118, 259, 261
Not Only SQL, 475n6 old customers, 328
not quite destiny, 395 Oliver, Christine, 93, 102, 126
number of businesses, 37 Olson, Eric M., 14, 76, 78, 83, 85, 110,
number of options for decision-makers, 117, 229, 261, 295, 299, 307, 309,
215 312, 315, 321, 322, 345, 353, 357,
Nunes, Paul F, 426, 427 363, 367, 370
Nurmi, Niko, 449, 450 Olson, Jerry C., xv
Olszak, Celina M., 4, 14, 55, 57, 59, 61,
71, 75–7, 79, 83, 85, 99, 106, 123,
O 127, 136–40, 142, 146, 147, 151,
Oakland, 510 154, 196, 198–200, 202, 203, 205,
obedience to laws and regulations, 37, 206, 210–12, 214, 215, 218, 225,
186 245, 249, 254, 257, 300, 309, 361,
objectivity, 405 406, 413, 437, 440
O’brien, C., 357 O2M. See organization to marketology
O’brien, Frances A., 179, 183, 189, 195, (O2M)
196, 200–3, 207, 209–12, 214, 215 Omega, 543
O’brien, James A., 118 Ommerborn, T. G., 575
O’brien, Terrence V., 118 on becoming, 504
INDEX 669
oncomouse, 553 operational decision-making, 204, 406

on-demand delivery, 403 operational design, 151, 152
one-dimensional view, 43 operational efficiency, 366, 441
one-off report, 413 operational excellence, 402, 411
one-off visualizations, 417 operational forces, 406
one-on-one training, 60 operational issues, 406
“one size fits all” approach, 56 operationalize, 28, 30, 78, 299
one-time practice, 116 operational knowledge, 353
on hybrid, 515 operational/line-of-business (LOB)
online, 60, 130, 403, 410, 417 supervisors, 41
online advertising, 426 operational-managerial (OM) business
online analytical processing (OLAP), processes, 111
130, 224, 401, 438, 475–6n13 operational-primary (OP) business
online connection, 403 processes, 111
online conversations, 410 operational problems, xv
online markets, 400 operational purposes, 366
online searches, 410 operational reconciliation, 416
online transaction processing (OLTP), operational requirements, 151
401, 476n13 operational results, 398
the only thing that is constant is change, operational speed, 355
135, 472 operational-supportive (OS) business
onsite, 60 processes, 111
OnStrategy, 38, 39, 41, 49, 51, 52, 54, operational systems, 81
55, 58, 59, 61, 229, 232, 306, 313 operational value, 94
on the spot, 394 operation improvement, 356, 410
Open Mind, 513 operation management, 41, 110, 356
openness of internal communication, 69 operation system, 345
open-source platforms, 205 opportunistic meta-trends, 422
open system, 173, 177, 359 opportunistic thinking, 449
open university, 521 opportunities for synergy, xxiv, 539
operating controls, 356 opportunity, 13, 26, 40, 53, 75, 97, 174,
operating environment, 182 180, 181, 184, 204, x, 204, 214,
operating procedures, 369 225, 250, 264, 303, 306, 323, 324,
operational, xv, 5, 10, 28, 30, 39, 41, 42, 328, 329, 344, 349, 366, 370, 394,
48, 78, 79, 81, 82, 102, 104, 105, 401, 402, 406, 412, 417, 422,
111, 112, 124, 184, 188, 216–18, 426–7, 440, 449, 450
223, 231, 238, 244, 254, 257, 258, opportunity networks, 13
264, 296, 299, 310, 314, 315, 321, opposing forces, 246
323, 353, 355, 398, 408, 411, 418 optimal level of conflict, 78
operational action-taking, 204 optimal value proposition, 113
operational business processes, 94, 110 optimized prescriptive analytics (How
operational change, 137 can happen?), 408
operational collaborators, 366, 367 optimize marketing investment, 419
operational competencies, 90, 94, 95 optimum balanced return on value
operational costs, 53 (OB-ROV), 248, 249
operational customer relationship optimum balanced value (OBV), 8, 242,
management (CRM), 14 245–8, 329
operational data store, 84, 475n12 orchestrate, 13
670 INDEX
order backlog, 356 organizational culture functions, 65, 67,

order-based market information 72
containers (OMIC), 315, 316 organizational culture power, 65, 67–8,
order processing, 351, 356 72
O’Reilly III, Charles A., xliv, 13, 76, 78, organizational customers, 327, 330
79, 83, 85, 97, 99–102, 113, 116, organizational decision making, 194,
125–7, 134, 137, 138, 142, 229 211, 213–16, 218, 406
O’Reilly Media/Yahoo Press, 578 organizational decisions and actions
organic organizational structure, 38, 138 (ODA), 194, 215–19, 278, 491
organization, vii, xxxix, 1–169, 171–390, organizational decisions and actions
393, 408, 410, 429, 434, 437, 449, (ODA) by marketology, 194,
450, 475, 492, 496 218–19
organizational ambidexterity, xliii organizational decisions and actions
organizational architecture, 10, 13, 14, (ODA) for marketology, 194,
227 216–17, 219
organizational assessment, 518 organizational decisions and actions
organizational assets, 90, 92, 98, 166, (ODA) of marketology, 194,
404, 409 217–19
organizational barriers, 530 organizational departments, 46, 47, 101,
organizational behavior, 38, 211, 212, 122, 123
351, 368 organizational design, xiii, 37–8, 81,
organizational body, 13 151–2, 245, 347, 365
organizational boundary, 425, 426 organizational dynamics, 79, 150, 213
organizational capability, 90, 92–3, 98, organizational ecosystems, 173
178, 338, 343, 368 organizational effectiveness, 13, 169n20,
organizational capital, 90, 92 242, 254–5, 266
organizational change, 77, 133, 135–9, organizational ethics, 337
143 organizational function, xiii, xxxix, 6, 7,
organizational climate, 68, 74 14, 23, 27, 39, 43, 84–6, 153
organizational committees, 50 organizational goals, 3, 23, 68, 110, 123,
organizational communication, 145–9, 151, 199, 214, 254
153–5 organizational hierarchy, xxxix, 36, 40–2,
organizational competencies, 90, 93–5, 44, 314, 315
98, 102–3 organizational identity, 67
organizational concerns, 41 organizational infrastructures, 90–1, 98,
organizational conflict, 75, 78, 87, 89 99, 109
organizational constraints, 178, 231 organizational innovation, 133, 138–40,
organizational consumer behavior, 332–3 143, 144
organizational context, 5, 57, 211, 496 organizational intelligence, 176
organizational core competency, 129, 141 organizational job design, 123
organizational creativity, 133–4, 140–4 organizational leadership, 90, 147, 337
organizational creativity behavior model, organizational learning, 368
134 organizational life cycles (OLC), 303
organizational crises, 68 organizationally, 418, 431
organizational culture, 61, 65–9, 71, 72, organizational people, 75, 76, 105, 146,
79, 146, 148, 168n11, 205 149
organizational culture change, 148 organizational performance, 70, 76, 78,
organizational culture dynamics, 65–7, 324
72 organizational philosophy, 68
INDEX 671
organizational politics, 68, 77 organization structure, 36, 38–9, 48,

organizational positions, 375 402
organizational power, 77 organization subunits, 529
organizational procedures, 68 organization success, 69, 123, 141, 196,
organizational processes, 92, 111, 122, 213, 222
205, 228 organization theory, xiii
organizational readiness, 235 organization to marketology (O2M), 29,
organizational rent, 499 30, 161, 273, 286, 385
organizational science, 580 organization wide responsiveness, 428
organizational strengths, 178 organizing for complexity, xxv, 549
organizational structure, 37–9, 45, 53, organizing style, 46, 82
55, 68, 90, 92, 125, 204, 205, 232, orientation, xii, xiii, xvi, 5, 8, 65, 69, 70,
402, 432 90, 104, 105, 148, 149, 225, 320,
organizational subculture and climate, 345, 357, 377, 391, 392, 409,
61, 65, 68–9, 71, 72 428–33, 439, 443, 480
organizational subsystem, xxxix, xl, 13, orientation-construct, xxix, 508, 545,
14, 23, 37, 38, 99, 174, 217, 245, 580
249, 276, 311, 434 original contributions, xiii
organizational supports, 232 Orlander, Paul, 504
organizational system, 68, 99, 111, 149, Orlando, xxvi, 557
341, 356, 359, 428, 429 Orr, Linda M., xxviii, 576
organizational technologies, 122 Ortmeyer, G., 310, 349, 353
organizational tolerance, 419 Osborne, Phil, 550
organizational units, 7, 39, 40, 45, 46, OSIRIS, xxix, 580
48, 50, 56, 61, 78, 79, 85, 99, 100, Osterwalder, Alexander, 5, 8, 113, 116,
375, 449 135, 138, 140, 142, 245, 247, 249,
organizational weaknesses, 178 251, 253, 255, 256, 258, 298,
organization as galaxy, 39 309–12, 317–19, 323, 326, 345,
organization based competencies, 75, 90, 350, 353, 357, 361, 422, 426, 437,
91, 93–5, 97, 98, 103–5 441–3, 445, 446, 448, 450
organization coverage, 178, 194, Ostraszewska, Zuzanna, 557
216–17, 261 Otola, Iwona, 313, 316, 323, 336, 340,
organization culture, 428 345
organization design, 13, 23, 26, 36–8, Ou, Chueh-Chu, 522
79, 81, 110, 122, 123, 125, 127, outbound logistic, 113, 347
165 outcomes reports, 424
organization design requirements, 152 outdated equipment, 151
organization development (OD), 138 outdated methods, 174
organization environment, 38 outdate technologies, 128
Organization for Economic Cooperation outline, xli, 323, 345, 496
and Development (OECD), 175, outlook, 355
196, 199, 203, 301, 304, 363 out maneuvering, 522
organization functions, 85 out of context analysis, 292, 360–1, 364
organization hierarchal pyramid, 41 out-of-context evaluation, 360
organization life cycle (OLC), 303 out performing, 522
organization performance, 94, 123, 268 output medium, 123
organization science, 509, 512, 516, outputs/products of marketology, 41
544, 547, 555, 581 outside-in activities, 14
organization skills, 368 outside-in perspective, 335
672 INDEX
outsource data production, 449 Parenteau, Josh, 123, 125, 126, 129,
outsourced marketing channel, 353 399, 402, 408, 413, 416, 441
outsourcing purposes, 366 parenting corporate, 37
outstanding, 176, 248, 411, 496 parents’ willingness to finance, 345
outwitting, 522 Parise, Salvatore, 402
overall control, 257 Park, C. W., xiii, 429
overarching, ix Parket, I. R., xiii, 179, 183, 211, 212
Overby, Stephanie, 547 Parmar, R., 408
over-expectations, 342 parochial, 139
overflow of information, 442 Parry, Mark E., 431
overhead, 415 Parsons, Talcott, ix
overlapping, 233, 320 participation, 6, 139, 173, 198, 204,
overload, 43, 128, 148 222, 328, 329, 356, 365, 410, 421
overlooked, 184, 329 participatory, 362, 365
Owano, Nancy, 395 parties, 154, 196, 243, 365, 366, 394
ownership, 351, 355 partner, x, 40, 113, 115, 127, 129, 135,
Oxford, xix, xxvi, 502, 511, 514, 518, 153, 183, 186, 188, 195, 232, 244,
524, 530, 531, 559, 564, 577 264, 308, 325, 349, 351, 365, 366,
Oxford: Elsevier Pergamon, 564 369, 399, 410, 411, 414, 422, 432,
The Oxford Handbook of Innovation 442
Management, 518 partner attitudes, 369
Oxford University Press, 502, 511, 514, partnering, 441
518, 524, 530, 531, 575 partner-related CSFs, 369
Özsomer, A., 548 partner relationship management (PRM),
351, 354
partner selection, 369
P partnership formation time, 356
pace of decision-making, 54 Parvatiyar, Atul, 302, 367, 370
Pace, Wayne R., 69–71, 145–9, 151, 154 passive techniques, 424
packaging ability, 356 past strategy, 337
Padula, Giovanna, 363, 367, 370 patents, 345
Paepe, Piet De, 573 pattern of feeling of humans, 65
Paessler, Dirk, 404 pattern of perceiving of humans, 65
Pagh, J. D., 542 pattern of structuring, 99
pain relievers, 113, 114 pattern of thinking of humans, 65
Palgrave Macmillan, xix, 498, 545, 549, Patton, Michael Quinn, 507
564 Paul, Debra, 508
Palmatier, Robert W., 544 Pauline, Arnold, 537
Palmer, Mark, 517 payday, 507
panopticon, 504 payer, 332
Pant, Prashant, 226, 227, 232, 239, payment, 37, 75, 185, 186, 200, 348,
280n17, 316 351, 357, 360
Pan, Xing, 546 payment history, 426
paradigm-breaking burst, 137 payment systems, 400
paradigm dominance, xii, xiii payment terms, 357
paradigm mapping marketing theory, xiii PCMAG Digital Group, 527
paradigms lost, 516 Pearson Education, 510, 515, 523, 562,
paradox, 421 563
parasol, 27, 28, 160, 217, 238, 263, 272 Pearson Plc, 526
INDEX 673
Pelton, Lou E., 300, 349, 353 performance risk, 342, 369
penetration (maturity), 24 Performance Value of Information (PVI),
Peng, Mike W., 313, 316, 323, 336, 405, 458, 459
340, 345 Pergamon Press, 558
Penn State, 551 peripheral, 94
Pennsylvania State University, 545 periphery clouds, 443, 447
people as content producers, 410 Perryman, A. A., 517
people-based capability, 101–2 Perseus Books Group, 504
people competencies, 75, 85, 105, 447 Perseus Publishing Group, 515
people-leveraged, 117 personal beliefs, 430
people lives, ix, 362 personal cloud, 397
people make up markets, 180 personal information security, 395
people participation, 410, 421 personality differences, 78
people preferences, 70, 76, 154, 180 personalized, 394
people to department (P2D), 153 person based competencies, 104
people to people (P2P), 153 Personnel Psychology, 553, 565
people, units, or functions (PUF), 291, pervasive communications, 205
295–6, 299, 315, 316, 320, 322 pervasive marketology, 439, 466, 467
people work, xi, 5, 37, 71, 83, 225, 258 PESTLE, 129, 180
Peppers, Don, xii Peteraf, Margaret A., 97, 106, 151, 154,
perceived inappropriateness, 430 173, 174, 177, 182, 183, 186, 189,
perceived uncertainty, 505 195, 202, 203, 214, 223, 229, 302,
perception(s), 68, 75, 76, 89, 139, 180, 303, 324, 336, 339, 345
245, 246, 327, 329, 331, 369 Peter Drucker on marketing, xxviii, 573,
perception of BI/MI/marketology value, 574
54 Peter, J. Paul, ix
perceptual, 424 Peters, T., 577
Perez, Lourdes, 508 Petroni, A., 97, 125–7, 130
performance, xl, 2, 3, 40, 171, 242–70, Pettey, Christy, 394, 395, 398, 412
295, 404, 479 Petty, Richard, 106
performance based competencies, 105 Pezzini, Massimo, 554
performance-based perspective, 178, Pfeffer, J., 316
488 Pflesser, Christian, 69, 149, 154, 174,
performance effectiveness, 111 189, 254, 265, 306, 307, 311, 312
performance experience, 356, 357 pharmaceutical Industry, 515
performance improvement, 116, 226, Phelps, R., 301–4, 312, 322
235, 368 phenomenology, ix
performance indicators, 54, 178, 224, Phi Learning, 501, 502
248, 264 Phillips, D. C., xii
performance management, vii, xliii, Phillips J. R., 39
xliiin3, 3, 4, 6, 16, 33, 34n3, 40, Phillips, Nelson, 518
43, 53, 54, 56, 58, 78, 83, 94, 116, Philosophical and Radical Thought In
204, 205, 225, 228, 242, 257, 259, Marketing, ix
261, 264, 351, 413, 414 philosophical discourse of modernity,
performance metrics and standards, 125 528
performance outcomes, 70, 229, 342 philosophical foundation, xv, xvi, xviii
performance relationship, 75, 76, 194, philosophical patterns, xvi, xvii
198, 246, 261, 355, 356 philosophic aspects, 544
674 INDEX
philosophy of marketing, 534, 537 playing field, 245, 395

philosophy of marketing science, 534 Plinke, Wulff, 419
philosophy of social sciences, xii Plugged-In Manager, 527
philosophy of technology, x Plummer, Daryl C., 404, 443, 445, 448
physical asset, 400 Plummer, Joseph, 551
physical distribution firms, 183 pluralism, 534
physical flow of materials, 348 pluralistic discipline, viii
physical logistics, 348, 351 Pocket Books, 497
physical resources, 199 Podeswa, Howard, 125, 130, 407, 408
physical role, 368 point of view, xv, 35, 41
physical space, 68, 425, 426 Poised Scorecard (PSC), xvii, xviii, 253,
Piercy, Nigel F., 8, 13, 14, 38, 39, 41, 281n26
42, 46, 48–50, 52, 53, 106, 115, Poland, 510
151, 154, 173–5, 177, 182, 185, policy-based competencies, 105
188, 189, 196, 198–202, 212, 214, policy-making, 140
219, 225, 229, 245, 253, 261, 300, political behavior, 77
303, 304, 306–8, 312, 313, 316, political environment, 180
319, 326, 330, 332, 336, 350, 353, political games, 77
357, 361, 367, 422, 426, 428, 430, political intentions, 77
432, 436, 438, 443, 445, 448, 450 political relationships, 360
Pigneur, Yves, 5, 113, 116, 135, 138, political science, 579
140, 142, 251, 253, 255, 256, 258, political stability, 355
309–12, 317, 319, 326, 345, 350, politics, ix, 75–7, 87, 89, 129, 227, 442
353, 361, 422, 437, 442, 443, 445, Politics and Information Systems:
448, 450 Technologies And Applications
Pike, Stephen, 92, 106, 229, 232, 251, (PISTA), 557
312, 314 Polity Press, 527
pillars of marketology, 28, 314, 482 pollution, 181
Pinho, Jose Carlos, 8, 149, 176, 189, Polonsky, Michael, 433
261, 314, 318, 319, 323, 429 Polsa, Pia, 510
Pinkham, Brian, 558 pooled, 122, 123
Pisano, Gary, 93, 99, 102, 106, 126, pooling of resources, 369
136–40, 142, 307, 330, 332, 336, Popa, Raluca Ada, 513
339, 345, 361 Popper, Rafael, 525
Pitelis, C. N., 93, 102, 127, 136, 139, population ecology, 173
140, 142, 251, 312, 314 Porras J. I., 105
pivotal function, 78 portal(s), 412
planning framework, 509 Porter four corners model, 341, 342,
planning system, 345 346
platform, 4, 204, 205, 224, 231, 235, Porter, Michael E., 3, 97, 101, 102,
396, 404, 407, 413, 415, 423, 443 111–13, 116, 117, 125, 127, 137,
Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), 396, 403, 140, 142, 151, 154, 168n12, 173,
409, 456, 457 174, 176, 178, 182, 183, 185, 189,
platforms for collaboration, 204 196, 198, 200, 202, 203, 205, 209,
platforms for future innovation, 547, 548 214, 218, 223, 226, 227, 229, 239,
platforms report, 571 245, 247, 251, 256, 265, 300,
platinum customers, 327 302–4, 306, 307, 310–13, 321,
players, 117, 181, 185, 245–8, 304, 324, 323, 324, 330, 332, 336, 339, 341,
403, 429 342, 345, 346, 361, 370, 418
INDEX 675
portfolio approach, 418 pre-communication, 153

positional, 424 pre-conducting, 484
positioning strategy, 337, 344 predefined targets, 252
position in industry, 355 pre-design, 13
positive context, 139 predictable, xii, 59, 277, 338
positive/driving, 30, 67, 246 predicting outcomes, xiii
positive power, 149 predictions and future trends of BI, 414,
positive/supportive, 30 415
positivism, xii predictive analytics, 394, 406
post-communication, 153 predictive analytics (What will happen?),
post-conducting, 483, 484 408
post-decision anxiety, 211 predictive insight, 441
post-formation behavior, 368 predictive marketing, 257
post-mature, 154 predictors, 574
postmodern marketing, 419 predicts, x, xiii, 258, 393, 407, 414, 415,
post-purchasing, 331, 332 418, 419, 437, 442, 449, 486
potential business value, 440 pre-emptying competitors, 369
potential competitive entrants, 339 preferable, 137, 264, 320
potential competitor(s), 334, 335, 338, preference(s), 60, 70, 76, 79, 141, 154,
353, 354 180, 327, 331, 369, 423, 426
potential customer, 102, 333 pre-formation behavior, 368
potential effects, 174, 431 preliminary framework, 520
potential for dissonance, 211 pre-mature, 154
potential impact, 175 premises, 279n4
poverty, 419 Prentice, Bill, 413, 414
power asymmetry, xix, 501 Prentice Hall, xxvi, 499, 502, 504, 512,
Power, Daniel J., 9, 118, 210–12, 214 513, 518, 523, 540, 558, 562, 563,
power dynamics, 369 567, 569, 570, 573, 576
power-interest grid, 185, 325 pre-purchase, 331
power sources, 174 presentable behavior, 95
power users, 84, 413 presentation skills, 95
practical problems, vii, xv present strategy, 178
practical references, 348 present tense, 441
practical solution, vii, xv, xviii pressure groups, 180
practical tools and techniques, vii, xli, xlii, pressure of market competition, 207
2, 3, 21, 33, 54, 158, 270, 276, pressure on resources, 395
451, 473 pressure on technology, 395
The Practice of Information Economics, Preston, L. E., 186, 261
543 prevalent marketing, 419
practice of management, 59 preventing decisions, 211
practice of marketing, xiii, xv, xvii, 432 prevention, 246
practitioners, xiii, 424 previously purchased, 417
Prahalad, C. K., 97, 111, 117, 123, Price, Chris, 394
125, 127, 130, 226, 229, 251, price instability, 184
297, 298, 302, 303, 307, 310, price waterhouse coopers Llp. (PwC),
313, 336, 339, 340, 345, 361, 261, 394, 402, 406, 408
420, 439, 440 Priem, R. L., xiii
Prasanta, K. D., 579 primary activities, 113, 315
precision, 405 primary business processes, 111
676 INDEX
primary control, 180 process model of capability, 565

primary corporate stakeholders, 432 process of launching MMC: IPIE, 58
primary goal, 196 processor, 123
primary information collection, 228 process orientation, 357
Primary stakeholders, 13–14, 432 process-oriented, 95, 117
Prince, Melvin, 538 proclivity, 548
principles of marketing, xii, 113 procurement, 40, 113
principles of marketology, xlii, 473, 477, produce market DIKII, 19, 117, 297
495, 496 producers/analysts, xlii, 3, 10, 30, 42,
print media, 362 48, 49, 54, 57, 76, 78, 82, 84, 105,
privacy concerns, 412 117, 126, 129, 130, 153, 176, 188,
private, 37, 403 204, 245, 248–51, 295, 303, 304,
prizes, 356 306–8, 314, 318, 320, 323, 348,
proactive actions, 61 349, 351, 352, 366, 394, 402, 404,
proactive approach, 95 407, 409–10, 412, 414, 432,
proactive business logic, 429 434–7, 449, 473, 485
proactive business performance product acceptance rate, 356
management (PBPM), 242, 255, product acquisition, 331
258–60, 266, 269 product-centered approaches, 419
proactive decisions, 61, 258 product-centric marketing, 420
proactively, 136, 259, 329, 407 product characteristics, 345
proactive risk management, 407 product choice, 332
probability(ies), 327, 355, 485, 486 product development process, 357
problem consensus, 214 product development time, 356
problem identification, 213, 332 product differentiation, 345
problem-oriented research process, 320 product disposal, 331
problem solving, 76, 95, 356 product diversification, 368
problem-solving skills, 76, 95 product engineering experience, 357
problem-solving teams, 76 product expansion, 338
Procedia Economics and Finance, 524 product innovations, 140, 141
Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, production and consumption of
xix, 498 marketing theory, xxviii, 579
procedural compliance, 356 Production and Inventory Management
proceedings of informing science and IT Journal, 504, 507
education conference, 556 production partner, 366
process architecture, 111, 202 production schedules, 423
process-based capability, 102 productive, 129, 254, 264
process-based view, 518 productivity, 76, 229, 242, 254–5, 264,
process classification framework (PCF), 266, 309, 356, 411
500 product level, viii
process control, 356 product life cycle (PLC), 303, 304, 338,
process efficiency(ies), 111, 202 340, 341, 356
process improvement, 253 product line design, 140
process innovations, 140, 253, 257, 283, product line-systems, 345
287, 368 product management, 60
process integration, 370 product mix, 368
process level, 112 product orientation, xvi
process management, 34, 110, 111, product-oriented, 69, 238, 485, 486
116–19, 166, 235, 490 product performance, 332, 368
INDEX 677
product perspective, 331 project management skills, 95

product portfolio, 178 project-oriented alliances, 366
product quality reputation, 345 project structure, 38
product rejection rate, 356 project support, 357
product-related, 140 promoter, 76
product/service change, 138 promoting brand, 95, 418
product/service expedite, 357 promoting MMC, 59, 60
product-service perspective, 233 promotion opportunities, 75
product/service superiority, 345 promotion skills, 345
product support, 345 prompt access, 400
product technology, 357 prompt response, 356
product usage, 331 proof strategy, 522
product-use association, 335 propensity for risk, 211
product volume change, 357 property, 199, 301, 309, 331, 353, 395
profession, viii, xi, xv, 422 prophet, 497
professional concept for marketing, xxvi, propositions, 5, 6, 13, 58, 113–15, 165,
553 184, 248, 264, 301, 308, 309, 316,
professional ethics, 181 317, 327–9, 337, 339, 348, 353,
professional people, 447 368, 390n20, 421, 487
professional teams, 449 Prosci Learning Center Publications, 531
professor, 10, 20, 44, 52, 62, 63, 72, 73, prospective, 482
87, 88, 98, 108, 119, 120, 131, prospects, 184, 327
132, 143, 144, 155, 157, 179, 190, prospectus, xix, 501
191, 201, 209, 216, 219, 220, 230, protection(s), 362, 366, 395, 403
240, 241, 252, 266, 268, 299, 305, protocols, 400
309, 317, 322, 330, 333, 340, 346, prototypes, 357
350, 354, 358, 364, 367, 371, 399, provincial/state, 180, 185, 210, 234,
409, 425, 433, 436, 442, 444, 446, 235, 328
448, 451, 480, 481, 483, 484, 487, provision, 56, 83, 95, 99, 206, 251, 351,
488 424
proficiencies, 84 proxemics behavior, 148
proficient, 53, 440 Prusak, Lawrence, 295, 297, 299, 314,
profile of approaches, 441 315
profitability, 84, 94, 123, 178, 184, 253, pseudo-differential, xxiv, 540
324, 337, 355, 398, 417, 428, 432, pseudo-differential equations, xxiv, 540
487 psychological contract, 75
profit/loss statement, 357 psychologists, x
profit potential, 184 psychology, viii, ix, xii, xv, xviii, 83, 202,
profit rate, 501 496
profit seeking, 37 psychometrics, 561
profound learning, 400 Public Administration Review, 507
program management, 327 public debt, 395
programmatic, 430 Public Management Review, 506, 534
programmed decisions, 210 public organizations, 146
progress, 117, 128, 129, 137, 196, 331, public or government-owned, 37
334, 351, 395, 412 public policy, ix, 181
project-by-project basis, 414 Public Productivity Review, 561
project management, 49, 322 public sources of data, 440
project management office (PMO), 322 Publishing Horizons, xx, 503
678 INDEX
publishing skills, 80, 81 quarter, 520, 581

Pulendran, Sue, 431 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 501, 567
pulling, 519 Queensland University of Technology,
purchase funnel, 424 515, 581
purchase intention, 332 querying, 475n12
purchase market, 316 quick decision-making and reacting, 95
purchase perspective, 331 Quinn, R, 66, 110, 117, 135, 138, 142,
purchase planning, 507 247, 251, 261, 311
purchase stage, 426 quirk, 513
purchasing strategy, 528 Quorum Books, 560, 563
pure business process, 112 quotes, xiii, 410, 428
Putler, D., 186
putting into practice, 210
puzzled form, 35, 171 R
pyramid, 41 race, 180
Rackspace, 403
Raconteur, 320, 323, 424
Q Radcliffe, John, 3–5, 11, 14, 253–9, 261,
QFD, 579 265, 399, 402, 416, 441, 449, 450
Qiu, Tianjiao, 173, 174, 177, 183, 324, radial function, 79
336, 339, 345 radical, 137, 139
Quadrad Analysis, 516 radical change, 137, 144
quadrant, 554 radical innovation, 139
Quadri, S. M. K, 123, 126, 129, 413, radical thought, xxi, 517
416, 441 radio-frequency identification (RFID),
qualified suppliers, 354, 355 400
qualitative analysis, 243 Raffaldi, Silvia, 6, 198–202, 212, 214
qualitative conditions of market, 352 raising alignment, 53
quality assurance, 49 Raja, J., 575
quality circles teams, 76 Rajala, Arto, 573
quality control systems, 125 Rajteric, Irena Hribar, 413, 440
quality engineering, 404 Raju, Jagmohan Singh, xx, 511
quality maintenance, 415 Ramamurthy, K., 565
quality of action-taking, 53, 406 Ramanujam, Vasudevan, 253–5, 265
quality of decision-making, 51, 53, 69, Ramos, Jo, 502
76, 345, 406 Ramırez, R, 245, 247, 249
quality of life, 370 Rand Journal of Economics, 566
quality of products, 356 Random House Business Book, 530,
quality of services, 53 566
quality of strategic decision-making, 345 Rangan, V. K, 349, 353
quality orientation, 70 Rangaswamy, Arvind, 175, 211, 212,
quality performance, 356 214, 215, 218
quality philosophy, 356 Ranjan, Jayanthi, 127, 130, 416, 441
quality systems, 356 Raphael, J, xiii, 179, 183, 211, 212
quantitative analysis, 407 Rapid alert, 522
quantitative conditions of market, 352 rapid change, 213, 225
quantitative methods, xiii rapidly changing environments, 97, 173,
quantity, 356 181, 227
quantum, 546 rapprochement, xxiii, 534
INDEX 679
Raspin, Paul, 118, 125, 130, 135, 140, Reck, R. F., 552
142, 151, 154, 173–5, 179, 182, recognition, 69, 97, 102, 105, 174, 307,
183, 185, 189, 196, 198, 227, 239, 310, 314, 318, 328, 335, 345, 368,
251, 265, 295, 297, 314, 315, 324, 470, 479
329, 332, 336, 350, 357, 361, 363, recognizing expansions, 484
418, 422, 426 recognizing problems, 210
R-A theory, xxiii, 534 reconceptualization, 428, 432
rational decision-making, 210, 212 reconfigure, 97
rationale, 113 reconnecting marketing to markets, xix,
rational–economic, 212 500
rationality, 210, 211, 214 reconstruct, 428
rational management, 214 recruiting, 68
Ravasi, D, 65 recycling, 332
raw data, 399 redefining, 514
raw material, 181, 345, 355 redesigning, 140
Raymond, M. A, ix rediscovering market, 580
Raymond, Van Wijk, 524 rediscovery of marketing concept, 577
Rayner, Nigel, 510 Redmond, Wash, 401, 402
Ray, N. M, xxiii red ocean, 239, 328
R&D cooperator, 366 reduce resistances, 139
reaching consensus, 369 reduction, 357, 368, 410
reaction(s), 68, 253, 343, 452, 453 reengineering, 393, 447, 472
reactive business logic, 429 Reeves, Martin, 324
reactive fixing, 411 reference groups, 331
readiness of enterprise, 59, 483 referent, 77
realism, xxiii, xxvi, 534, 558 refine, x, 303
realization, 30, 202, 314 reflections, 565, 577
real space, 349 refreezing learned behavior, 136
real-time action taking, 176, 258, 313, Regalado, Antonio, 404
437 Reggie, Davidrajuh, 562
real-time business, 176 Reginald, Beal M., 173, 174, 177, 183,
real-time data collecting, 450 336, 345
real-time data flows, 400 regulatory environment, 369, 412
real-time decision-making, 437 Reichers, A. E., 69
real-time insights, 402 Reijers, Hajo, 518
real-time platform, 443 Reinartz, Werner, xii
real-time support of decisions and reinforce, 105, 175
actions, 439 Reinsel, David, 398, 411, 436, 441
real world, 246 reinvent capitalism, 560
reasonable cost, 449 relational assets, 90, 92, 99
reason and realism in marketing, xxiii, 534 relational capital, 90, 92, 99, 482
reasoning bases, 438 relational database management system
Reavis Cox’s Marketing Theory, xxi, 517 (RDBMS), 81, 475n6
Reboullet, K, 575 relational data stream management
receiver, 145, 148 system (RDSMS), 81
reception, 331 relational knowledge, 482
reciprocal, 122, 123, 257, 329, 343, relational online analytical processing
365, 385 (ROLAP), 401
reciprocal arrangements, 356 relational risks, 369
680 INDEX
relationship-based competencies, 104 resilience, 504

relationship-based customer, 419 resilient dynamism, 395
relationship-based database, 407 resistance to change, 139
relationship management, 329 resist authority, 77
relationship managers, 49, 84, 329 resolving, 139, 143, 144
relationship marketing, xvi, 327 resource advantage theory, xxiii, 504,
relationship marketing strategy, 327 517, 534, 535
relations professionals, 82 resource allocation, 260
relative cost, 178 resource-based interaction, 149
relativism, xiii resource-based theory, 502, 526
release the power of innovation, 575 resource-based view (RBV), 228, 335,
relevant content, 417 336, 359
reliability, 38, 95, 250, 356, 415 resource constraints, 184
remote competitor, 338 resource consumption, 411
remote environment, 172, 178, 180–2, resource dependence, 173
487 resource efficiency, 366
render, 186 resourceful planet, 395
renewal, 303 resource-oriented, 368, 369
rent creation, 547 resource profile, 369
replication of endeavors, 48 resource scarcity, x
reporting and analytical services, 224 resource utilization, 254, 366
reporting method, 61 responding change, 133, 144
reporting models, 441 responding model, 331
reporting tools, 225 responding to environment, 150
repositioning, xxi, 517 response models, 331–3
repositioning strategy, xxi, 517 responsibility, xiii, 37, 46, 51, 59, 61, 69,
representation, 369, 415, 475n5 70, 95, 181, 186, 196, 198, 206,
representative(s), 48, 349 211, 226, 250, 308, 320, 328, 337,
repurchase, 332 339, 355, 422
reputation, 345, 355, 356, 362, 369, responsiveness, 70, 185, 202, 253, 356,
370 360, 428
research and development (R&D), 52, restraining forces (barriers), 69, 262
56, 85, 93, 111, 122, 178, 182, restructuring market, 175, 369
185, 244, 345, 357, 366, 368 result-oriented, 231
research in marketing, xx, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, retailer relationship, 345
xxv, xxvii–xxix, 506, 510, 514, 516, retail locations, 95
517, 527, 534, 537, 542, 544, 563, retail market, 349
564, 567, 571, 579, 580 retailor, 349
Research in Organizational Change and retail sales organization, 565
Development, 561 retaining customers, 328, 410
research methods, xii retaining workforce, 410
research procedure, 320 retaliation, 343
research process, 320 retaliatory strategies, 338
research quarterly, 546 retention, 253, 417
research report, 502, 562 rethinking marketing, xiii
research techniques, 424 retreat, 343
reseller, 183, 347–9 retrospective, 482
reseller markets, 183 return on assets (ROA), 178, 248, 253
INDEX 681
return on investment (ROI), 61, 178, rites, 515

184, 227, 248, 253 Ritter, Thomas, 422
return on value (ROV), 8, 32, 242, rituals, 65, 70
248–9, 252, 269 rivalry battles, 91–2, 182
Reuvid, J, 432 Rivard, S., 65, 148
revenues and profitability, 37, 90, 94, Rivas-Echeverria, F., 545
113, 115, 123, 178, 184, 186, 211, Rivera, Janessa, 396, 412
253, 324, 337, 355, 405, 417, 418, River Publishers Series in
428, 432, 487 Communication, 575
revenue streams, 113 roadmap, 58, 231
reverse distribution, 348 roared, 553
reviewable, 231 Robbins, Carrie, 320, 323, 424
reviewing MMC, 59 Robbins, Stephen P., 37–41, 43, 46, 48,
Review of International Studies, 579 49, 51–4, 65, 67, 69, 75–9, 83, 85,
Review of marketing, xxiii, 535 113, 116, 123, 126, 129, 134,
Review of marketing research, xxiv, 540 136–9, 142, 146, 148, 154, 196,
Reviews of Modern Physics, 505 198–200, 206, 210–12, 218, 223,
revise, 129, 306, 435, 436 239, 247, 300, 302–4, 306, 307,
revision, 430 311, 312, 315, 316, 401, 402
revisited, xxi, xxviii, 520, 531, 562, 571 Roberts, Charlotte, 566
revisiting marketing, xxvii, 566 Robertson, Paul, 538
revitalizing, 515 Roberts, Roger, 511
revival, 216, 218 robotics, 411
revolution, xvi, 420 robotic technologies, 395
revolutionary form, 133 robots, 419
reward systems, 125 ROC, 248
Rewoldt, Stewart, xii ROCE, 248
Ricart, E. Joan, 179, 185, 186, 188 Rodenberg, Joseph H. A. M., 420
Ricciardi, F., 363, 367, 370 Rodrigues, Ana Paula, 8, 149, 176, 189,
Richard, D. Irwin, xix, xxii, 498, 529 261, 314, 318, 319, 323, 429
Richards, H., 550 Roekel, Van, 413
Richmond, Virginia Peck, 70, 71, 145–9, Roering, K. R., xxiii, 535
151, 154, 174, 189, 227 Roger, Jenkins, xii
Rietberg, Jeroen, 320, 323, 424 Rogers, John, 118
right market information, 250–1, 258, Rogers, Martha, xii
316 Rogers, Patricia, 4, 9, 14, 41–3, 46, 48,
right people, 258, 417 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61,
right protections, 362 75–7, 79, 83, 85, 111, 123, 125,
right situation, 251 127, 140, 142, 146, 151, 154, 196,
right time, 251, 258, 406 229, 254, 257, 259, 261, 300, 302,
rigid plans, 420 304, 307, 330, 332, 336, 361
Rindfleisch, A., 546 Roghe, Fabrice, 93, 99, 102, 105, 125–7
Rinehart, xxiv Rohrbaugh, J., 66, 251
rise of individual, 395, 431 ROIC, 248
risk-based security, 397 role-based capability, 102
risk management, 56, 356, 402 role conflict, 76
risk mitigation, 368 role of enterprises, 395
risk sharing portfolio, 368 role perceptions, 76
risk-taking, 351 role players, 117, 324
682 INDEX
role set, 76 Sage Publications, 508, 524, 538, 545,

role structure, 76 548, 554
Rome, 522 Sahar, Arooj, 580
Ronald, xxv, 548 Sahay, Arvind, 537
Roos, Goran, 106, 229, 232, 306 Sahi, Gurjeet Kaur, 431
Roos, Jason, 563 St. Martin’s Press, xxviii, 572
root cause analysis, 81 St. Paul, 515
Rosa, Marcello La, 518 St. Pete Beach, 514
Rose Business Technologies (RBT), 407, sale channel, 347
408 sales agent, 349
Rose, Gregory M., 567 sales branch (Agent), 349
Rosemann, Michael, 111, 117, 123, 125, sales capabilities, xvi, 93, 95
130 sales effectiveness, 398
Rosenbloom, Bert, 350, 353 sales force, 345
Rosenbloom, R. S., 125, 127, 129, 138, sales leads, 417
139, 142, 245, 311 sales market, 316, 317
Ross, Richard, 566 sales orientation, xvi
Rothaermel, Frank, 94, 229, 232, 307, sales practice, 512
308, 319, 326, 339, 361, 426 sales records, 402
Routledge, xx, xxiii, 504, 508, 513, 524, sales skills, xvi
526, 534, 537, 546, 550, 553, 554, sales team, 349
579, 580 sales volume, 250
Rowe, A. J., 3, 5, 9, 197–9, 206, 212, salience, 551
219, 253, 254, 257, 259, 261 Sallam, Rita, 403
Rowley, T. J., 186 Sallomi, Paul, 516
Roxburgh, Charles, 547 SAM Advanced Management Journal, 528
Royal Economic Society, 565 Sample, Steven. B., 504
Royal Jordanian Air Lines (RJA), 566 SaŃchez Del RıÓ MarıÁ Elena, 509
Roy, Frederic Le, 580 Sánchez, Javier, 573
Rubinson, Joel, 551 Sánchez, Manuel, 510
Rudd, John M., xiv, xvi Sanchez, Ron, 524, 564, 575
Ruekert, R. W., 430, 440 Sanders, G., 532
Rumelt, R. P., 229 San Francisco, 524, 551, 561–3, 565,
running a tool, 49 571, 573, 575, 579
running programs, 50, 60 Sangle, S., 432
Rusko, Rauno, 302, 304, 306, 367, 370 SAP. See Strategic architectural
Rust, Roland T., xiii, xiv, xviii, 55, 57, perspective (SAP)
59, 75–7, 79, 83, 85, 99–102, 110, SAP Business Objects Analysis, 80
117, 196, 229, 298, 307, 309, 312, SAP Business Objects Explorer, 80
315, 321, 345, 350, 353, 357, 363, SAP Business Objects Web, 80
367, 370 SAP Crystal Reports, 80
Ryals Lynette, xxv, 547 Sapienza, H. J., 186, 261
SAP Predictive Analysis, 81
Sarasota, 542
S Saravanan, A. S., 565
SaaS, 403, 456 Saren, M., 245, 247
Saber, Hussein M, 429 Sarki, Joseph, 357
safety, 254, 355 Sarma, Sanjay, 398
Sage Open, 514, 561 Sarri, Katerina, 540
INDEX 683
SAS information evolution model, 414 school of management, 526, 547, 550,
SAS Institute Inc., 564 554
satisfaction of BI/MI/marketology users, schools of marketing thought, 566
51, 54 schools of thought, xii–xiii
satisfactory transactions, 37, 186 Schreogg, Georg, 100, 102, 110, 117,
satisfiers, 500 123
Sato, Mikio, vii, 8, 34n1 Schrest L. J, 527
Savanevicienė Asta, 574 Schrodt, Paul, 65, 145, 146, 148, 149,
savings, 61, 331 154, 174, 189
Savitt, Ronald, xiii Schuiling, Isabelle, 113, 116, 125, 126,
SBS Swiss Business School, 552 130, 232, 251, 295–7, 299, 422,
scalability, 415 443, 446, 448, 450
scaling offerings, 427 Schultz, M., 65
Scandinavian International Business Schumpeter incorporate, 395
Review, 566 Schumpeter, Joseph. A., 133, 134, 138,
scanning behaviors of executives, 485 140, 142
scanning the environment, 511 science: a body of knowledge, viii
scarcity of resources, 419 science and technology, 410
scattered delegates of marketology, 47 science of craft, x
scattered/distributed in-house, 408 science of market, 496
scattered functions, 16 science of marketing, viii
scattered marketology, 439, 467 science of psychic, ix
scattered people as juniors, 39 Science Research Associates, 563
scenario analysis, 329 science-to-practice, 516
scenario modeling, 81, 441 science-to-practice initiative, 516
scenario planning, 545 scientific acceptance, xviii
Schank, R., 6, 417, 440, 441 scientific associations, 363
Scheer, Lisa, 541 scientific content, viii
Schein, Edgar. H., 65, 66, 148, 195, scientific field, xi
199, 201 scientific growth, 543
Schein’s theory, 66 scientific research, x
Schendel, Dan, 523 scientific revolution, xvi
Schienstock, Gerd, 100, 102, 123, 125, scientific study, ix
130, 134, 136, 138, 142 scientific theories, xv
Schiffman, Leon. G, 329, 332, 353, 426 SCIP Online, 531
Schilling, Melissa, 134–8, 140, 142, 229, scope and functions of MMC, 59
232, 239, 245, 249, 265, 300, 306, scope of activity, 37
308, 313, 326, 350, 426 scope of innovation, 140
Schlegel, Kurt, 416 scorecards, 224, 252
Schlegelmilch, B. B., 316 Scott, S. G., 4, 6, 198–202, 211, 212,
Schmalensee, Richard, 300, 302–4, 336, 219, 253, 255, 261
345 SCP. See Structure-Conduct-Performance
Schneider, Benjamin, 69 (SCP)
Schnizler, Björn, 577 screening, 327
Schoemaker, P. J., 106, 225, 313, 316, scrimmaging, 176
336, 339, 345 scrum culture, 548
Schoenbachler, Deniseand. D., 555 SCS. See sustainable competitive success
School of Business Administration, 523, (SCS)
546 seamless information exchange, 400
684 INDEX
search engines, 126 senior management factors, 429

search-transfer, 529 senior management/leadership support,
seasoned executive decision-making style, 417
506 sense-and-respond era, xxiv, 537
sebastopol, 578 sense-making, 228
secondary beliefs, 181 sense of purpose, 95
secondary corporate stakeholders, 432 sensor data, 402
secondary information services, 228 separate from, 45, 99, 127, 197, 408
secondary stakeholders, 14 separate governance of MMC, 53
secondary values, 181 sequential logic, 211
second sourcing agreement, 366 series of techniques, 401
secretariat delegates, 39 Serpa, L. F., xii
sectoral price behavior, 357 server, 49, 126, 397, 403
Seetharaman, A., 106 service architecture, 397
segmentation, 327, 330, 345, 487, 488 service capability, 356
seizing, 97 service channels, 348, 350
selection, x, 68, 351, 368, 369 service delivery process, 431
selective listening, 148 service-driven, 576
selective (a few) marketing channel, 351 service organization, 528
self-confidence, 95 service orientation, 546
self-directed teams, 76 service oriented business intelligence
self-funding, 60 maturity model (SOBIMM), 414
self-governing department/network, 45 service performance, 569
self-interest, 139 service providers, 431
self-organization, 574 service quality, 178, 429
self-protection, 397 services marketing, 510, 526, 527, 536,
self-regulated BI platforms, 415 544, 546, 564, 577
self-report questionnaires, 561 Setiawan, I., 541
self-service analytics, 415 setting new name for market research, 424
self-service BI, 413 setting value, 544
self-service business intelligence, 407 Shaaban, E., 413, 414
self-service data discovery, 205 shadow BI/MI, 204
self-service data usage, 204, 206 shadow business analytics, 205
Seli, N., 564 shadow market analytics, 205
Selvarajan, T. T., 105 Shaker, T. I., 118, 211, 212, 214, 215
Selznick, P., 105, 195, 198–201 Shankar, V., 336, 339, 345, 418
semantic layer, 49, 80 Shanks, G., 512
semantic problems, 148 Shanley, M., 518
semantic web (web 3.0), 443, 476n15 Shannon, C. E., 146, 148, 149, 154
semi-centralized structure, 51 shaping approach of MMC, 59
semi-dependent, 99, 100 Shapiro, C., 97, 229
semigovernmental, 37 Shapiro, J., 514
Sen, A., 413, 414 Shapiro, J. F., 504
sender, 145, 148 Shapiro, P. B., xiii, 430, 439
Senge, P. M., 134–6, 138, 139, 142 Shapiro Stanly, J. A., xix, 498
senior business executives, 402 Sharda, R., 573
senior leaders, 5, 202 shared accountability, 369
senior management, 417, 429 shared basic values that support market
senior management commitment, 369 orientation, 69
INDEX 685
shared control, 369 Sigmod Record, 510

shared experiences, 410 significant advantage, 184
shared goals, 369 significant importance, 184
shared learnings, 449 silo marketology team, 226
shared power, 369 silo system, 413
shared processing, 403 Silva, M., 429
shared service chargeback, 60 silver customers, 327
shared understanding, 369 similar organizations, 173
shared value, 111, 196 similar products/services, 337
shared value-based manner, 421 Simmons, G., 517
shared value-based marketing, 421 Simmons, R., 253–5, 258, 265
shared vision, 369 Simon, H., xvi, xviii
shareholder, 37, 129, 186, 194–6, 200, Sims, 553
244, 280n10, 301, 304, 305, 308, simultaneous, 176
325, 360, 422, 426 Sim, Y-W., 571
shareholder value, 178 Singapore, 522, 544
share of customer base/market, 417 Singh, H., 367, 370
share value drop, 211 Singh, S., 394
sharing economy, 394, 427 single distribution channels, 349
sharing knowledge, 529 single heterogeneous architecture, 403
sharing power, 369 single network, 403
Sharma, A., xxvii, 566 single organization, 7, 39, 43, 180, 403
Sharma, B., 502 single vendors, 403
Shaw, E. H., xii Sinha, A. P., 565
Shelton, R., 515 Sinkula, J. M., xiii, 298, 307, 309, 312,
Sheng, S., 502 314, 315, 318, 321, 353, 357, 363,
Sherer, L., 418, 441 367, 370
Shervani, T. A., 569 Sion, 504
Sheth, J. G., ix Sisodia, R. S., ix
Sheth, J. N., ix, xviii, 302, 367, 370 situation analysis, 576
Shibulal, S. D., 394 situation of war, 320
Shil, N. C., 357 situations of certainty, 211
Shi, W., 533 six-box model, 13
Shockley, R., 543 six degrees of separation, 146
Shoham, A., 429 six-sigma, 111, 125
short contacts, ix skill based competencies, 105
shortcut, 140 skunkworks teams, 76
short future (1–12 months), 411 Skyrius, R., 3, 5, 55, 57, 59, 61, 254, 257,
short-range view, 198 259, 300, 307, 330, 332, 336, 361
short-termism, 430 Skyrme, D., 112, 123, 125, 129
short timeframe (hours, minutes, Slater, S. F., ix, xiii, xvi, xviii, 14, 65, 69, 71,
seconds), 417 76, 83, 85, 118, 146, 149, 151, 154,
Shrivastava, P., 432 173, 185, 188, 229, 239, 261, 295,
Shuen, A., 572 299, 307, 309, 312, 314–16, 318,
Shugan, S. M., xv 321, 322, 345, 353, 357, 363, 367,
Sicular, S., 402, 403 370, 418, 419, 428–30, 432, 439
Sidney, J. L., ix, xii slight modification, 476n13
Sidorchuk, R., ix Sloan Management Review, 499, 502,
Sigkdd Explorations Newsletter, 527 504, 508, 515, 525, 543
686 INDEX
Sloan School of Management, 526, 550 social based competencies, 104

Slogans, 68 social beings, ix
Slotegraaf, R. J., 546 social benefits, xvi
small beginning, 57 social capability, 407
small businesses, social capital assets, 90
smaller organizations, 125 social change, 138
small firm, 515 social codes, 181
small manufacturing firms, 503, 562 social community, 362
small scale, 394 social competitors, 338
small-to-medium offices, 403 social concerns, xvi
small world phenomenon, 146 social context, xv, xvii, xviii, 196
smart cities, 400 social contracts, 395
smart commuters, 427 social-cultural, 180
smart decisions, 530 social currency, 410
smartest organizations, 502 social customers, 329, 330, 338
Smart Grid, 400 social data sources, 399, 402, 424, 440
Smart, L. D., 253, 254, 257 social devices, 329
smart machines, 397 social effects, 427
smart objects, 400 social empowerment, 416
Smart, P. A., 113, 116, 117, 126 social engagement, 442
smartphone location data, 401 social environment, 180, 196
smartphones, 362 social group of people, ix, 362
smartphone screen, 427 social habit, 520
Smart, T. D., 106 social impacts, 413
smart view, 417 social inquiry, xxvi, 558
Smart, W., 245, 251, 265 social institutions, xii
Smith, A., 91, 101, 102, 105, 113, 116, social interaction, 400
117, 226 socialism, 565
Smith, B., 118, 125, 130, 135, 140, 142, social issues, 531
151, 154, 173–5, 179, 182, 183, socialization of marketology, 232
185, 189, 196, 198, 227, 239, 251, socially responsible actions, 181
265, 295, 297, 314, 315, 324, 329, socially responsible businesses, 181
332, 336, 350, 357, 361, 363, 418, social marketing, 149, 181
422, 426 social market-oriented communication,
Smith, B. D., 118, 135, 140, 142, 175, 149
179, 183, 189, 306, 307, 316, 422 social matrix, 400
Smith, D. M., 404, 443, 445, 448 social media, 320, 362, 364, 401, 410,
Smith, K. G., 179, 183, 229, 261 411, 419, 423, 424, 426, 440, 442,
Smith, T., 179, 183, 186, 189, 229, 232, 476n15
247, 312, 326, 426 social metrics, 417
smooth communications, 48 social network, 111, 147–9, 329, 348,
Snehota, I., 316, 363, 366, 370 362, 365, 412, 421, 427, 449
Snow, C. C., 97, 112, 229, 261 social network dominance, 410
Soa foundation, 538 social networking technologies, 365
Soberman, D., xxi, 516 social organizations, xii
SOBIMM. See Service oriented business social-oriented, 447
intelligence maturity model social perceptions, 369
(SOBIMM) social pervasiveness, 400
social aggregations, ix social process, ix, xi, xii
INDEX 687
social responsibility, 181, 196, 301, 309 Sorensen, Hans Eibe, 429
social role, 368 Sorensen, S., 429
social science, viii, ix sort of impact, 441
The Social Science, 449 Soukup, W. R., 357
Social Science Research Network source credibility, 148
(SSRN), 502, 506 source of business, 432
social sharing, 365 sourcing, 202, 356, 366
social solutions, xv South African Journal of Information
social stakeholders, 419 Management, 572
social system, 67, 123 South Australian, 527
social system perspective, xxv, 546 South-Eastern Europe Journal of
social system stability, 67 Economics, 540
social technologies, 135, 426, 435 Southern Management Association
social unit, 362 (SMA), 514
social user experience, 397, 415 South Holland, xxix, 580
social values, xii South-Western Cengage Learning, 527,
social workgroup, 416 532, 548, 563, 578
societal marketing orientation, xvi South-Western College Publication, 513,
societal progress, 196 532
societal systems, xxv, 123 South-Western Publishing Co, xxiii, 534
Society for Human Resource Spasser Rachel, 547
Management (SHRM), 546 spatial approach, 501
society-oriented, 368, 369 speak, 153
sociocultural, 422 specialists, 78, 82, 126, 399, 486
sociocultural transformation, 422 specialized capacities, 92
sociological view, xx, 509 special libraries, 527
sociologists, xi, xx, 503 special-purpose programming language,
sociology, viii, ix, xv, xviii, 410, 496 81, 475n6
sociotechnical systems approach, 123 special services, 37, 186
Software-as-a-Service, 403, 457 specialty stores, 349
software-defined applications, 397 special value, 37, 186
software implementation, 226 specific business need, 414
software innovation, 202 specific community, 403
Sohi, R., 537 specific container, 118
solid business process, 112 specific function, xi, 93
solidification, 311 specific marketology, 262
solidity, 302 specific set of users, 414
Solis, Brian, 410, 411, 436, 443, 445, 448 spectrum, xii, 38, 46, 207, 482–3
solitary manner, 236 speeches, 176
Solomon, Michael R., 329, 332, 426 speed and quality of decision-making, 51
Soloway, E, 546 Speed, Richard, 560
solvency, 253 speed to market, 368
solving marketing problems, xi Speed Villard Books, 512
solving social problems, xi Spekman, R. E., 542
Song, Michael, 431 Spelman, Mark, 555
sophisticated relationships, 351 sphere of marketology, xlivn7, 477,
sophistication, xxv, 544 482–3, 495
Sopow, Eli, 69, 135, 138, 142, 146, 148, spin-off, 127
149, 154, 174, 189 spiritual marketing, 421
688 INDEX
spokesperson, 199 stakeholder demands, 395

sponsorship game, 77 stakeholder engagement, 395
spotlight on reinvention, xxvii, 564 stakeholder expectations, 185, 196, 197,
spread risks, 368 324
spreadsheet, 413 stakeholder groups, 185
Spreitzer, G, 66, 135, 138, 142, 247, stakeholder interests, 185, 188, 308,
251, 311 324, 325
springer, xix, xxiii, xxiv, xxviii, xxix stakeholder management, 185, 196, 324
Springer Gabler Verlag, 540 stakeholder marketing, xxiii
Springer International Publishing stakeholder of marketology, 6, 8, 11, 13,
Switzerland, 548 14, 18, 23, 70, 102–5, 172–4,
Springer Science and Business Media, xix 187–92, 216, 218, 223, 227, 229,
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 575, 238, 239, 245, 264, 277, 308, 312,
578, 581 386, 389n14, 390n20, 391, 435,
Spurgin, E. W., 105, 106 443, 447, 449
Srinivasan, Kannan, xx stakeholder orientation (SO), 430, 431,
Srinivasan, V., 503 433
Srivastava, Mukesh, 14, 92, 93, 97, 101, stakeholder oriented, 447
102, 106, 111, 123–5, 127, 130, stakeholder power, 174, 185, 196, 308,
134, 139, 142, 306, 307, 311, 313, 324, 325
315, 316, 329, 332, 336, 340, 345, stakeholder theory, 500, 518, 537
353, 357, 422 stakeholder view, 323, 432
Srivastava, Rajendra K., 151, 154, 182, Stamford, 538, 551
185, 189, 196, 251, 265 stand, 111, 112, 207, 215
Srivastava, Shirish C., 97 standalone business process, 4
stabilizing decisions, 211 standard (river) contribution, 218, 239,
Staelin, R., xx, xxv 265, 280n16
Staelin, Richard, xx, xxv Standard-Distant (SD-MI), 484
staff game, 77 Standard-Immediate (SI-MI), 484
stakeholder (internal & external), 5, 15, standardization, 356, 423
18, 165, 171–4, 185–9, 191, 192, standardized enterprise-wide BI, 236
194, 243, 270, 277, 280n10, 302, standard market information river
303, 308, 312, 324, 325, 360, (SMIR), 315, 316
389n14, 426 standard marketology architecture, 2, 12,
stakeholder analysis, 24, 172–93, 267, 35, 171, 172, 277, 294, 393, 437,
275, 276, 281n19, 292, 302, 303, 444, 472
308, 324–6, 330, 343, 351, 356, standard marketology canvas (SMC), 2,
368, 377, 389n14, 434, 447, 471, 12, 35, 171, 172, 277, 294, 393,
491 437, 444, 472
stakeholder assets, 23, 281n19 standard power system, 77
stakeholder based competencies, 90, 104 standard simplify, 512
stakeholder based interaction, 15, 18, standards management, 57
165 Stanford University Press, xxv, 546
stakeholder-based management, 197 Stank, Theodore P., 367, 370
stakeholder-based relational strategic Stanley F. Slater, 539
leadership (SRSL), 197 starting with small, 417
stakeholder-based relational strategic startup (birth), 216, 218
management (SRSM), 197 state government, 185
stakeholder capital, 90 statement, 68, 357
INDEX 689
state of the state, 395 Strange, K. H., 518

state-wide, 362 strategic, xli, xliiin3, 1–3, 5, 10–11, 23,
static, 11, 13, 66, 80, 150, 256, 476n15 27, 39, 41, 42, 47, 48, 54, 56, 57,
static model of organization design, 13 59, 61, 69, 71, 79, 82, 90, 94, 95,
static web pages, 476n15 102, 111, 112, 118, 122, 124, 125,
statistical analysis, 407, 485 127, 129, 130, 137, 140–2, 149,
statistical ensuring, 356 151–4, 175, 177, 178, 184, 185,
statistical learning modeling, 81 188, 193, 197, 199, 200, 204,
statistical reports, 125 216–18, 221–3–227, 229, 232,
status and perspective shifts, 427 236, 238, 240, 242, 244, 249, 252,
status differences, 148 254, 257–60, 264, 296, 300,
status of consumer, 331 306–8, 310, 314, 315, 319, 321,
status quo, 198, 430 323, 325, 328, 335, 336, 339, 341,
status symbols, 68 343–5, 352, 355, 365, 366, 368,
Stauffer, D., 336, 339, 345 386, 395, 397, 398, 402, 406,
Staw, B., 556 409–11, 414, 415, 418, 424,
Stenmark, D., 545 428–32, 434, 437, 439, 443, 447,
step-by-step, 476n14 449, 470–2, 485, 488
step-by-step approach, 476n14 strategic action-taking, 129, 231, 257,
Stephen M. Ross School of Business, 503 306
step-wise approach, 507 strategic advantages, 137
stereotypes, 65 strategic alliance, 365, 431
Stern, L. W., 349, 353 strategically, xli, 417
Stern, P., 151, 154, 179, 182, 183, 198, strategic analysis, 241–2, 486
200, 209, 225, 350, 361, 422 strategic architectural perspective (SAP),
Steurer, R., 432 80, 81, 226, 229, 229, 239, 316,
stewardship, 54 336, 449–50
Stewart, J., 4, 9, 14, 41–3, 46, 48, 49, strategic as perspective, 27
51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 75–7, strategic assets, 499
79, 83, 85, 111, 123, 125, 127, strategic BI, 437
140, 142, 146, 151, 154, 196, 229, Strategic Big Data, 397
254, 257, 259, 261, 300, 302, 304, strategic brand, 355
307, 330, 332, 336, 361, 548 strategic business intelligence (SBI), 259
stickiness, 571 strategic business processes, 259, 398,
Stigler, G. J., 336, 339, 345 399, 414, 488
stimulated, 135, 212 strategic business subjects, 398
stimulus, 141, 331, 333, 421 strategic business trends, 391, 396, 399
stipulations (soft and hard), 56 strategic change, 61, 137
Stites, J. P., 321, 367, 370 strategic channel, 499
stochastic, 343 strategic collaborators, 366–8
stockholder, 185, 196 strategic commitment, 254
Stockholm, 513 strategic competencies, 94, 259, 336,
Stoelhorst, J. W., 429 339
storage device, 123 strategic constituents, 149, 254
storing data, 403 strategic control, 200
storming, 76 strategic cooperative agreements, 366
Stoyko, P., 71, 149, 174, 189 strategic CRM, 39, 41, 56, 95, 125, 130,
Strack, R., 563 328, 396, 417, 465
Strandholm, K., 541, 570 strategic decision-making, 345
690 INDEX
strategic decisions, 118, 177, 184, 185, strategic market intelligence (SMI), 259
257 strategic market management, 177, 178,
strategic development, 519, 550 481
strategic direction, 151 strategic marketology, 50, 82, 221,
strategic envelope, 140 223–6, 229, 230, 232, 240, 249,
strategic environmental scanning, 501 259, 262, 439
strategic executives, 41, 188 strategic marketology framework (SMF),
strategic fit, 355 221, 223–5, 229, 230
strategic flexibility, 536 strategic marketology solutions, 232
strategic foresight, 175, 424 strategic market oriented perspective,
strategic framework, 449 439
strategic goals, 5, 111, 125, 345 strategic model, 498
strategic group, 184, 335, 336, 339, strategic objectives, 79, 84, 223, 229,
344, 488 252
strategic HR Review, 569 strategic options, 178
Strategic Human Resource Management, strategic organization, 531
500 strategic orientation, 431
strategic information systems (SIS), 437 strategic partnership, 127
strategic insight, 95, 424 strategic perspective, 503, 555
strategic intelligence (SI), 129, 227, 259 strategic planning, 23, 260, 262, 465,
strategic intent, 529 485, 486
strategic issues, 82, 122, 178, 200, 220, strategic plans, 368
221, 231, 291, 301, 306, 307, 309, strategic-primary (SP) business processes,
310, 352, 354, 380, 406 111, 112
strategic leadership, 197, 200 strategic problems, 178
strategic management, xl, xli, xliii, 1–3, strategic purchasing planning, 506
10, 20, 33, 111, 193, 197, 200, strategic requirements, 151
201, 220–3, 230, 236, 239–42, strategic response management, 428
278, 291, 292, 295, 300, 301, 306, strategic review, 511
307, 309–13, 317, 319, 336, 341, strategic role, 56, 418
380, 383, 386, 389n6, 389n10, strategic services, 226
392, 393, 418, 434, 437, 443, 446, strategic sourcing, 579
447, 470–2, 491 strategic supply chain management, 534
strategic management insight, 538 strategic support, 130, 141, 154
Strategic Management Journal, 498, 499, strategic-supportive (SS) business
504, 509, 513, 515, 518–20, 523, processes, 111, 112
528, 529, 531, 534, 539, 544, 547, strategic technology, 391, 394, 395, 397,
549, 553, 556, 558, 559, 565, 568, 399, 443
571, 572, 578, 580 strategic themes, 200, 220, 221, 301,
Strategic Management Research, 502 306, 307, 341
strategic-managerial (SM) business strategic thinking, 57, 95, 129, 222, 223,
processes, 111, 112 241, 242, 411, 447, 465
strategic maps, 210, 233, 252 strategic uncertainties, 184
strategic marketing, 82, 93, 391, 409, strategic value, 94, 95, 124, 125, 402
418, 425, 432, 443, 465 strategic warning, 175
strategic marketing effectiveness, 432 strategizing, 252
strategic marketing management, 498, strategy, xxxix, 4, 38, 171, 221–42, 301,
510, 579, 580 391, 418, 479
strategic marketing planning, 526, 555 strategy analysis, 526
INDEX 691
strategy-based perspective, 178 Structured Query Language (SQL), 81,

strategy by marketology (contribution), 475n6
222, 236, 238–40 structure/system, 484
strategy crafting, 222, 241, 242 structuring styles of marketology, 99
strategy dialogue, 515 Strutton, D., 558
strategy evaluation, 222, 241, 242 Stubbs, W., 432
strategy execution, 221–3, 231–2, stuck in the middle, xiv–xv
240–2, 343 study of scarcity, x
strategy-focused organization, 538 Stuttgart Media University, 552
strategy for marketology (coverage), 222, style of organizing, 50
236–8, 240 style of strategic management, 222, 236
strategy innovation, 418 styles of action-taking, 194, 212
strategy making, 418 subcontractor networks, 366
strategy management, 502, 507 subcontractor performance, 356
strategy of marketology (manifestation), subculture, 61, 65, 68, 71, 72, 331
222, 238, 240 subjectivism paradigms, xiii
StrategyOne, 552 submarket analysis, 184
Strategyzer, A. G., 5, 8, 113, 116, 245, sub process, 111
251, 253–8, 265, 309, 311, 314, Subramanian, G., 125, 195, 196, 198,
317–19, 339, 345, 350, 361, 437, 199, 201–3, 205, 209, 211, 215,
441, 443, 445, 448, 450 219, 229, 239, 245, 249, 295–7,
stratosphere, 167 299, 300, 306
stratosphere: 12–50 km (7–31 miles), Subramanian, R., 177, 183
167 Subramanian, S. P., 76, 77, 83, 85, 110,
streaming natives, 427 117, 118, 126, 130, 207
streamline, 508 subsistence economies, 180
stream processing, 81, 475n6 substitute products, 182, 337, 339
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and substitute rivals, 335
threats (SWOT), 129, 306, 313, substitute services, 140, 182, 337
344 substitutes for leadership, 199
stress resistance, 95 subtle, 91
Strickland, A. J., 572 succeeding, 338, 343, 417
Stringer, R. A., 69 success, 2, 3, 5–6, 39, 174, 291, 301–2,
strong brands, 497 311, 401, 479
Strong, C. A., 431 success-driven, 441
strong competitors, 339 successful, 13, 61, 68, 69, 81, 83, 84,
strong market, 251, 284 99, 138, 139, 141, 154, 182, 183,
strong vs. weak culture, 67 202, 205, 223, 227, 229, 231, 232,
Stross, R. E., 105 251, 261, 262, 339, 344, 414,
structural assets, 90, 92, 93, 101 476n14
structural barriers, 413, 430 success well-recognized is half-achieved,
structural capability, 90, 92, 93, 459 479
structural capital, 90, 92, 93 Sulkowski, L., 65, 149, 174, 189,
structural marketing, 544 317–19, 323
structuration of marketology, 39 SUN Microsystems, 570
structuration view, 498 Sun, Sunny Li, 558
structure-conduct-performance (SCP), superior business performance, xix, 498
253, 281n26, 334, 389n18 superior business value (SBV), 53, 244
structured manner, 37, 46, 81, 175, 320 superior perform, 149, 428
692 INDEX
superior value, vii, 3, 8, 32, 94, 105, supportive culture, 66

112, 200, 202, 216, 222, 223, 227, supportive facilitation and acceleration,
245, 248, 259, 359, 428, 480, 485 30
superior value proposition, 6, 308 supportive role, 106, 174, 311
supersmart, 570 supreme importance, 94, 102
Suppe, F., xii survival strategy, 536
supplement, 10, 20, 44, 52, 62, 63, 72, survive, 137, 153
73, 87, 88, 98, 108, 119, 120, 131, Sussin, J., 543
132, 143, 144, 155, 157, 179, 190, sustainability, 181, 217, 370, 411, 422,
191, 201, 209, 216, 219, 220, 230, 431, 432
240, 241, 252, 266, 268, 299, 305, sustainable competitive advantage (SCA),
309, 317, 322, 330, 333, 340, 346, 90, 91, 96–8, 183, 202, 228, 251,
350, 354, 358, 364, 367, 371, 399, 343, 344, 346, 357, 407, 408, 449
409, 425, 433, 436, 442, 444, 446, sustainable competitive success (SCS), xli,
448, 480, 481, 483, 484, 487, 488 xxxix, 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 32, 33, 91, 96–7,
supplier analysis, 292, 293, 354–8, 381, 96–7, 106, 148, 164, 173, 200,
388, 493 218, 222, 223, 225, 227, 228, 239,
supplier attributes, 355, 358 251, 255, 258, 259, 264, 275, 276,
supplier audit grid (SAG), 356–8 294, 301, 302, 336, 341, 365, 386,
supplier behavior, 355, 356, 358 392, 434, 437, 443, 472, 475n8,
supplier characteristics (profile), 355, 358 478
supplier engineering, 355 sustainable development, 569, 577
supplier management, 357, 358 sustainable energy, 419
supplier organizational behavior (SOB), sustainable market orientation (SMO),
356, 358 432, 433
supplier organizational design (SOD), sustainable superior success (SSS), xxxix,
355, 356, 358 xl, xli, 1–8, 10, 32–3, 91, 96, 98,
supplier typology, 355, 358 109, 164, 173, 200, 202, 218,
supplier value proposition (SVP), 355, 222–3, 225, 227–8, 239, 251, 255,
358 256, 258–60, 264, 275–6, 294,
Supply Chain Forum, an International 301–2, 336, 341, 346, 365, 386,
Journal, 566 392, 434, 436–7, 443, 463, 472,
supply chain management (SCM), 56, 475n8, 478
347 sustainable value creation, 432, 433
Supply Chain Management: an sustaining competitive advantages, 502,
International Journal, 513, 546, 579 523
Supply Chain Management Institute, 542 Sutherland, W. J., 175
supply channels, 347, 350 Sutton, R. I., 316
supplying mediator, 347 Sveiby, K. E., 100, 102
supply links, 369 Svendsen, A., 186, 229, 239, 295–7,
supply-side, 429 299, 306
supporting climate, 59, 65, 71, 72, 447 swallowing, 535
supporting structure, 441 Swartjes, S., 537, 575
supportive activities, 93, 113, 316, 324, Swayne, E. L., 518
344 Sweeney, D. J., xv
supportive business processes, 111 switching cost, 327
supportive confirmation and Switzerland, 528, 542, 548, 559
companionship, 30 SWOT analysis, 306, 313
INDEX 693
symbolic, 530 tactical decision-making, 41, 188, 204,

symbolization, 66 258
symposium, 517, 543, 560 tactical decisions, 10, 41, 112, 184, 218,
Synder, A. V., 106, 229 223, 258, 352
synergic link, 314 Tactical-Managerial (TM) business
synergic manner, 68, 79, 473 processes, 111, 112
synergic way, 320 tactical/middle management, 41
synergistic, 580 Tactical-Primary (TP) business processes,
synthesis, 501, 516, 542, 547, 551, 581 111, 112
synthetic biology, 411 Tactical-Supportive (TS) business
system administration, 226 processes, 111, 112
systematic barriers, 430 tactical value, 94, 95
systematic facilitating, 57 Tadajewski, Mark, xv, xii, xviii
systematic investigation, 174 tail, 535
systematic monitoring, 431 Takahashi, K, 357
systematic process, 175 take efficient actions, 8, 105, 226, 227,
systematic themes, laws and principles, viii 248, 259, 296, 334, 406
systematic view, 210 taking MMC as part of the business, 59
system-based barriers, 430 tale, 536
system-based competencies, 104 talent engagement, 395
system competencies, 104 talent platform, 396
systemic examination, 178 Talvinen, J. M, 118
system of modern societies, 558 Talwar, Rohit, 410, 411, 435, 436, 443,
system requirements, 126 445, 448
system resource, 254 Talwar’s framework, 410
Systems, Applications & Products in Data Tamilia, Robert D., xii
Processing (SAP SE), 564 taming leviathan, 395
systems approach, 123 Tan, Chee-Sok, 413
systems-based perspective, 503 tangible asset, 43, 44, 90, 99, 104
systems theory, 254 tangible capital, 43, 44, 90, 92, 99, 104
systems thinking, 95 Tang, M. J., 336, 339, 345
Szulanski, G., 189 Tapadinhas, Joao, 557
target audience, 28, 30, 32, 46, 48, 51,
55, 61, 117, 189, 218, 228, 239,
T 249, 295, 304, 314–16, 318, 373,
taboo, 65 374, 484
tabular relations, 475n6 target business customers, 355
tacit knowledge: knowing how, 127 target customers, 183, 245, 246, 248,
tackling, 6, 35 327–30, 335, 339
tactic, 26, 54, 56, 78, 99–102, 111, 122, targeted analysis, 262
175, 206, 210, 248, 257, 337, 355, target groups, 363
444 targeting, 419, 423
tactical action-taking, 204, 206, 257 target market, 113, 245, 247, 327, 334,
tactical as direction, 27 353, 411
tactical business processes, 41, 94, 111, task environment, 182, 487
112, 137, 204, 257 task groups, 76
tactical change, 137, 144 task-related CSFs, 369
tactical collaborators, 366 TaSTI, 565
tactical competencies, 10, 94, 95, 104 Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), 418
694 INDEX
tax payment, 360 technological competencies, 369

Tayan, Brian, 302, 304, 322, 363 technological developments, 369
Taylor and Francis Group, 504, 570 technological environment, 181, 426
Taylor & Francis, xxiii, 504, 534, 580 technological progress, 351
Taylor, Paul, 559 technological role, 93, 123
Taylor, Weldon J., xii technology, x, xi, 4, 5, 35, 38, 104–6,
Tdwi Best Practices Report, 520 110, 122–32, 164, 166, 169n18,
Tdwi Flashpoint, 579 184, 203, 218, 225–7, 229–31,
Tdwi Monograph Series, 519 233–6, 238–9, 244, 264, 281n19,
team based competencies, 104 302, 310–12, 355–7, 365, 391–9,
team structure, 49, 51, 76 406, 410–13, 440, 443–7, 449,
teamwork, 6, 10, 20, 52, 62, 69, 72, 87, 472–4
95, 119, 131, 143, 155, 179, 190, technology activity, xi
201, 209, 215, 219, 230, 238, 251, technology advances, 141, 412, 449
265, 299, 305, 309, 317, 322, 330, technology analysis, 53
333, 340, 346, 350, 354, 358, 364, technology and business trend evaluation
367, 371, 399, 409, 425, 433, 436, (TBTE) matrix, 392, 451, 452, 471,
442, 444, 446, 448, 450, 479, 482, 474, 494
483, 485, 488 technology and man’s future, xxviii, 572
technical capabilities, 102, 356 technology applications, 122, 124–5
technical challenges, 413 technology based competencies, 104
technical change, 138 technology deployment, 365
technical consultants, 84 technology development, 113
technical core, 138 technology-driven analytics, 406
technical expertise, 413 technology-enabled, 447
technical infrastructure, 398 technology-intensive industries, 518
technical innovations, 139 technology licensing, 366
technical knowledge, 214, 424 technology management, 519, 547, 560,
technical platform, 396 576
technical process, xii, 111 technology market, 84, 122, 166, 277,
technical skills, 233 316, 383, 387, 420
technical standards, 369 technology-powered discipline, 506
technical support, 54 technology priorities, 395, 396, 399, 443
technical system, 123 technology standards, 60
technicians, viii technology systems, 231
technique, x, xi, vii, xli, xlii, xlivn4, 2, 3, technology tools, 4, 54, 93, 130,
21, 33, 36, 84, 111, 112, 122, 129, 169n18, 169n19, 230, 235
130, 139, 158, 164, 169n18, technology utilization, xvi, 227, 412,
169n19, 172, 204, 210, 212, 270, 440, 447
276, 294, 328, 359, 373, 387, 393, technovation, 502, 558
401, 402, 424, 444, 451, 473, Tech Target, 519, 571
485–7 Tech Target Custom Media, 519
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 575 Techxplore, 557
technological assets, 90, 92, 93, 99, 355 Teece, David J., 93, 97, 99, 102, 106,
technological breakthroughs, 395 112, 125, 126, 136–40, 142, 151,
technological capability, 93, 257, 355, 368 154, 173–5, 177, 179, 182, 183,
technological challenges, 413 185, 188, 189, 195, 202, 203, 214,
technological compatibility, 355 218, 223, 229, 239, 245, 247, 249,
INDEX 695
254, 261, 265, 303, 307, 308, 312, thermosphere: 80–700 km (50–440
324, 326, 330, 332, 336, 339, 345, miles), 167n2
361, 367, 370, 416, 418, 426 think out of the box, 175
Teich, Albert H., x third-party logistics (3PL), 348
telecommunications, 407 Thomann, Jim, 413, 414
teleconferencing, 147 Thomas, Anne, 554
Telegraph Media Group, 560 Thomas, H., 505, 541, 564, 571
Telekinetic powers, 419 Thomas M., xxv, 546
teleportation, 395 Thompson, Arthur A, 93, 94, 99, 102,
tempe, 576 111, 123, 129, 151, 154, 198, 202,
temper, 576 205, 211, 218, 226, 227, 239,
tenets, x 295–7, 299, 302–4, 306, 308,
Teng, Bing-Sheng, 303, 367, 370 312–15, 326, 361, 418, 426
Teng Low, Kevin Lock, 565 Thompson, Jr., 94
Teradata BI and MMDW, 414 Thompson, K. N., 357
terminate collaboration, 370 Thomson, 532
TerndWatching, 426, 427 Thomson Learning, 554
terrain, 548 Thorpe, Eleri R, 553
Terrence, Hoffmann, 105, 106 Thousand Oaks, 524, 538, 545, 548,
territories, 83 554
testing capabilities, 357 Thrassou, Alkis, 151, 154, 182, 229, 239
textbooks, 176 threats, 26, 174, 175, 180, 182, 184,
text documents, 401 280n4, 306, 324, 344, 366, 368,
Thaichon, Paramaporn, 537 394, 412, 423, 426, 452, 453, 460,
Tharp, Bruce M, 65, 71, 147, 148, 151, 461
154 throughout the enterprise, xli, 47, 48,
Theodore N. Beckman, xii 53, 54, 57, 79, 164, 205, 217,
theoretical contributions, xlii 223, 231, 249, 259, 260, 315,
theoretical foundation, xv, xvi, xviii 434, 439
theoretical imperfection of marketing, xv tick, 531
theoretical solution, vii Tidd, Joe, 135, 137–40, 142, 229, 232,
theory and research in marketing, xx, 239, 245, 249, 265, 300, 302, 304,
506 306, 308, 311–13, 315, 326, 426
theory-building for marketing, ix ties, 186, 334
theory construction, 501, 580 tiger, 343
theory in marketing (explains phenomena timber product distribution channel, 528
that marketing is concerned with), ix time-consuming, 320
theory of business marketing, 534 time flexibility, 95
theory of buyer behavior, 533 time frame, 441
theory of hyper-functions, 34n1 time horizon, 176, 369, 441
theory of marketing (explains marketing), time in market, 251, 356
xv, ix timely and trusted information, 60
theory of markets and marketing, 501 time management skills, 199
theory of the firm, 499 time pressures, 148
theory of value, 243 time-to-market, 368, 418
theory-practice, 545 time to process orders, 356
theory with marketing (contains Timmerman, E. John, 92, 106, 254,
marketing when explaining 259, 265, 312
something else), ix Timothy, Grance, 404
696 INDEX
Ting-Yi, Ho Danny, 112, 117 Tradewinds Island Grand Resort, 514

TO BE. See desired status (TO BE) trading industry, 533
Toby, Jackson, ix traditional (“alpha”) aggressive
Toit, Adeline Du, 4, 9, 14, 38–43, 46, management style, 410
48–50, 52–5, 57, 59, 253, 256, traditional assets, 404
258, 261 traditional document-based partnerships,
Toma, Andrew, 539, 563 365
Tomas, M., 14, 38 traditional establishments, 394
tomorrow’s global order, 435 traditional functions, 23
Toner, Martin, 418 traditional hierarchy, 410
Tonsetic, Mark, 179, 182, 183, 229, traditional intelligence systems, 228
239, 308, 326, 339, 408, 426 traditional marketing, 321, 420, 423
toolkit, 427 traditional organizational structure, 38–9
tools and techniques, xli, vii, xlii, 2, 3, tragedy, 504
21, 33, 36, 84, 130, 158, 164, Training and Development Journal, 576
169n18, 169n19, 172, 270, 276, training assists, 356
279n2, 294, 328, 359, 373, 387, training programs, 60, 68, 204, 232
389n17, 393, 444, 451, 473, 485–7 transactional leaders, 200
too much data presentation, 417 transactional relationship, 196, 304
top 10 CIO business priorities, 398 transaction processing, 4
top 10 CIO technology priorities, 396 transaction-processing systems (TPSs),
top-down action-taking, 206, 218, 255 124, 126
top-down BI (enterprise BI), 416 transferring and sharing, 61
top-down directives, 441 transformational leadership, 133, 138–9,
top-down information flow, 255 143, 144, 193, 199–201, 447
top-down marketology, 48, 218 transformation of government, 400, 410
top-down pressure, 151, 152 transformation process, 13
Topfer, Jochen, 413, 414 transforming entire organization, 137
Torkkeli, M., 127, 129 transform insights, 502
Tortosa, Vicent, 429 transition, 205
to see the forest for the trees, 337 transmitting channel, 316
Tosheva, Elizabeta, 93, 99, 102, 124, transmitting information, 53, 145, 148
125, 127 transparency of government, 400
total cost, 230, 248, 357 transportation company, 122
total gained benefits (TGB), 248, 249 Trends and Challenges, 501
total marketology, 24, 27, 28, 31, 276, Trice, Harrison Miller, 71, 149, 174, 189
284–6, 288, 376, 377 Trim, R. J. P., 179, 182, 183, 229, 306,
total paid costs (TPC), 248, 249 307, 313, 316
total quality management (TQM), 111, triple bottom line, 395
242, 254–5, 264, 266, 269 Triple helix, 366
touchpoints, 426 tripod, 558
tourism, 581 Triton Digital, 520
Toward A Network Paradigm, 497 troposphere: 0–12 km (0–7 miles), 167
toward an interface, 561 trouble, 578
Townend, Andrew, 504 Trout, Jack, xiv
trade associations, 185 trust mechanisms, 394
tradeoffs, 245 Tsai, Ching-Han, 97, 112, 117, 136,
trade unions, 363 139, 140, 142, 258
INDEX 697
Tsai, Yafang, 65, 148, 151, 195, 199, ultimate consumers, 348
201 Ulwick, Anthony W., 302, 303, 305,
Tse, Ching-Yick Eliza, 92, 106, 254, 265 307, 313, 316, 330, 332, 336, 361,
Tse, D. K., 546 367
T-Systems Enterprise Services Gmbh, 404 Umbeck, Tobias, 541
Tucci, C. L., 557 unavailability, 184
Tucker, W. T., xv, xiv uncertainty avoidance, 139
Tuominen, Matti, 70, 97, 127, 129, 149, unclear view of customer, 430
151, 154, 177, 189, 429, 430 unconscious, 211
Turban, E, 4, 9, 253–5, 257, 259, 261, UNCTAD, 196, 199, 203
265 Underdahl, Brian, 113, 116, 117, 123,
turbulent circumstances, 3, 252 125, 126, 130
turbulent environment, xxxix, 255 under-expectations, 342
turbulent market, 85, 91, 164 underlying philosophy, 439
turbulent world, 553 understand consumers, 113
turn data into value, 402, 455 understanding information system, 126
Turnell, Christopher R, xiii, 295, 297, understanding of behavior, x
300, 302, 314, 318, 321, 322, 363, understanding of marketing, x
367, 370 underutilized resources, 405
Turner, Paul, 508 unemployment, 435
Turner, Stephen, 8, 248, 265 unethical competition, 339
turnover, 253, 345 unfair business practices, 181
Tushman, Michael. L, xlivn4, 13, 76, 78, unfair competition, 181
79, 83, 85, 97, 99–102, 113, 116, unfreezing old learning, 136
125–7, 134, 137, 138, 142, 229 unification, ix
tweeter, 435 unified examination, 22
twenty-first century, 497, 498, 509, 513, unified governance of MMC, 208–9
521, 526, 538, 541, 559, 580 unified team, 207, 208
Twitter, 320 uniform, 399
two-directional contribution of channels, unifying, 48
347 unintentionally, 30
Tylec, Agnieszka, 557 union analysis, 292, 363–4, 381
typological perspective, 243, 244 union engineering, 362–4, 381
Tzokas, N., 245, 247 unit briefing, 520
United Kingdom (UK), 515, 526, 530,
545, 546, 556, 571, 576
U United Nations, 522, 574
Ubius, Ulle, 70, 71 United Nations Industrial Development
ugly research, 499 Organization (UNIDO), 363, 366,
UK. See United Kingdom (UK) 370
Ulieru, Mihaela, 13 United States Agency for International
Ullah, Raza T., 302, 304, 306, 307, 367, Development (USAID), 554
370 United States Department of Agriculture,
Ulrich, Dave, 3, 76, 78, 83, 85, 93, 126, 504
134, 136–40, 142, 197, 223, 253, unit performance, 569
255–8, 265, 300, 302, 305, 307, universal and unified, 177
308, 312, 326, 329, 332, 336, 345, universal framework, 22
353, 361, 370, 426 universe, 181
Ulrich, Mike, 574 Universität Karlsruhe (TH), 577
698 INDEX
University of California Press, xxv, 543 user-friendly manner, 320

University of Cambridge, 550, 559 user-generated content, 476n15
University of Chicago Press, 570 user interfaces, 398, 400, 415
University of Florida, 580 user profiles, 235
University of Houston, 505 user-provider roles, 204
University of Illinois Press, xxviii, 566, users, x, 3, 48, 51, 54, 59, 60, 78–81,
570 84, 126, 204, 226, 231, 235, 326,
University of Michigan, 523 348, 352, 397, 413, 414, 427, 483,
University of Navarra, 509 485
University of Pitsburgh, 536 usher in automation, 400
University of St. Gallen, xxv, 546 using information by decision-makers,
University of Tampere, 565 215
University Of Tehran, 498 using information systems, 126
University of Texas at Arlington (UTA), Uslay, Can, xv
100, 102 UTA. See University of Texas at
University of Tokyo, 34n1 Arlington (UTA)
University Of Twente, 540 utilization of IT, 123
University of Western Australia, xxii, 533 Utterback, J. M., 97
unknown step, 439
unleashed, 536
unlock, 575 V
unmet needs, 184, 328, 330, 344, 487, Vaaler, B. R., 105
488 Vaarnas, Markko, 531
unofficial, 146 Vahlne, J. E., ix, 14, 229, 232, 306
unplanned, 137 Vaitkevicius, Sigitas, 179, 183, 229, 239
unprecedented speed, 415 Valentine, Sean R., 548
unqualified suppliers, 355 validation, 37, 186
unrestrained business behavior, 181 Valos, Michael J., 177, 183, 189, 225,
unstable, 151 258
unstructured, 204, 257 valuable assets, 447
unsynchronized solutions, 236 valuable insights, 402
unsystematic view, 210 valuable manner, 93
unwanted products, 348 value-added flows, 347
updated connections, 447 value-added reseller (VAR), 349
Upper Saddle River, 502, 512, 515, 523, value analysis (VA), 244
567, 573 value-based business process (VBP), 110,
upstream collaborators, 347, 366, 367 112–13, 119, 121
upward, 6, 146 value based competencies, 104
Urbana, 566 value-based marketing, 421
urbanization, 395 value-based marketing orientation, xvi
urban world, 395 value-based perspective, 248, 249
Urbany, Joel E., 552 value = benefits–costs, 243
urgency for change, 139 value chain, 93, 111, 113, 129, 168n12,
USA, 168n8 178, 258, 301, 321, 324, 344, 347,
usability, 79, 405, 416 354, 365, 366
U.S. Department Of Commerce, 550 value co-creation, xiii, 369
user experiences, 397, 415 value creation, 111, 125, 196, 361, 395
user-friendly, 164 value creation at every touch, 422
user-friendly BI (self-service BI), 416 value creation capability, 368
INDEX 699
value delivery network, 182, 183 Venkatraman, N., 253–5, 265

value-driven, 418, 420, 421 Ventana, 179, 183, 229, 239, 251, 265,
value-driven contributions, 418 295–7, 299, 312, 314
value-driven marketing, 420, 421 Ventana Research, 575
value drivers, 559 veracity, 401, 402, 455
value engineering (VE), 244 verbal message, 145
value exchange, 112, 243 verbal symbol, 145
value for customers, x, 113, 328 verification, 133
value-generating, 249 Vermesan, Ovidiu, 412
value judgments, 148 Verna, Allee, 106, 111, 123, 251, 265,
Value Map, 113, 114 312, 314
value net model, 182 Vernon, K. D. C., 544
value network analysis, 575 Vernon Press, 546
value of corporations, 253 Verona, G., 517
value platform, 396 vertical alignment, 237
value proposition, 5, 6, 13, 58, 113–15, vertical collaborators, 366, 367
184, 248, 264, 269, 308, 309, 316, vertical conflicts, 352
317, 327–9, 337, 348, 353, 368, vertical direction, 27, 77, 146
421, 487, 488 vertical integration, 345, 368
value proposition canvas, 113, 114 vertical integration: upward and
value provision network (VPN), 351, 354 downward, 6, 146
value provision situation, 519 vertical marketing system (VMS),
value-switch, 524 349–50
Van Bruggen, Gerrit H, 545, 578 vertical networks, 13
Van Dam, Y., 574 vertical organizational structure
Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., 524, 574 control, 38
Van Der Aalst, W. M. P., 112, 117, 123, efficiency, 38
125, 129 reliability, 38
Van Der Staaij, Ard, 575 stability, 38
Van Der Velden, Hans, 429 vertical: upward or downward, 6, 146
Van De Vanter, Kay, 505 Vervest, Peter H. M., 363, 367, 370
Van Etten, Jelle, 537 very heart of modem marketing, 428
van Liere, D.W., 575 very important customers (VIC), 327,
Van Raaij, Erik M., 429 330
Van Tiem, Darlene, 76, 77, 83, 85, 110, Victoria University of Technology, 581
117, 126, 254, 261, 265 videoconferencing, 147
Van Unen, Keesjan, 416 video feeds, 401
Varadarajan, Rajan, 13, 229, 239, 322 video games, 362
variety, 122, 400–2, 455 Vienna, 517, 574
Vassilikopoulou, Aikaterini, 526 viewer, 80, 485, 487
Vch Publishers, xxv, 548 Vikalpa, 569
vehicles, 400 Vila-López, Natalia, 505
Velaris, 518 virtual assets, 90
Vella, Carolyn M., 41–3, 46, 48, 49, 51, virtual communities, 362
52 virtual enterprises, 527
velocity, 401, 402, 455 virtual gets real, 427
vendor interactions management, 54 virtualization, 130, 396, 412
vendor performance, 504, 572 virtual MMC, 56
Venema, Thijs, 562 virtual structure, 39, 64, 125
700 INDEX
virtual team, 225 Walker Group, 105

virtual technology, 427 Walker, Mike J., 509
virtual world, 397 Wallace, Patricia, 76, 77, 83, 85, 110,
visible assets, 92 117, 123, 125, 126, 130
vision, 5, 13, 50, 58, 65, 68, 71, 139, Wallach, E., 66, 151
198, 200, 202, 221, 222, 229, 301, Walle, Alf. H., 576
306, 307, 331, 337, 341, 355, 369, Waller, Graham, 501
401, 421, 422, 444 Walls, G. D., 527
visionary companies, 512 Wall Street Journal (WSJ), 547
visionary governance, 447 Walsh, Steven. T., 92, 97, 105, 106,
vision for change, 139 130
visioning horizons, 199 Wang, Y., 97, 105, 106, 112, 117, 130,
visions of the future, 435 254, 261, 265
visual analytics, 415 Wansink, Brian, 189
visualization, 81, 407, 409, 413, 417, Waqas, Ahmad, 553
438, 442 Ward, Jonathan Stuart, 401, 402
visualization-based data, 536 Ward, Karen, 394
visualization crucial, 549 warehousing process maturity, 565
visual representation, 415 warning intelligence, 175
visual-thinking aid, 550 warranty, 440
Vittani, Laura, 561 Warren, Kim, 182, 188, 195, 202, 203,
Voelpel, Sven C., 514 214, 229, 295, 296, 299
voice and data communications, 396 water industry, 556
voice-mail, 147 Waterman, R., 13, 38, 39
voice of customer (VOC), 327 Watkins, Phillipa, 428, 430
volume of order processing, 356 Watson, Hugh, 413
voluminous data, 47 Watson, R., 186, 259, 261, 414
Vom, Brocke Jan, 111, 117, 123, 125, 130 Watts, Duncan J., 146, 151
Von Der Gracht Heiko, A., 418 waves of changes, 409
Von Krogh, G., 304 Wayne, Brockbank, 49, 50, 52–5, 57, 59,
Voon, Boo Ho, 92, 106, 429 61
Vorhies, Douglas W., xviii, 93, 102, 127, weak competitors, 339
420 weak managerial support, 430
VPs of information management (IM), 402 weakness, 31, 79, 174, 178, 184, 185,
Vriens, Marco, 545 203, 306, 324, 337, 342, 344, 355,
VRIN framework, 96, 168n12 357
VRIO framework, 96, 168n12 wealth, 571
Vrontis, Demetris, 151, 154, 182, 229, wearable technologies, 443
239 weather forecast, 401
vulnerable concern, 343 weather statistics, 407
Weaver, W., 146, 148, 149, 154
web, 13, 80, 120, 126, 394, 395, 404,
W 416, 426, 443, 476n15
Wadsworth, 551 Web 1.0, 476n15
Waldron, Patricia, 553 Web 2.0, 476n15
Walker, Gordon, 93, 99, 102, 123, 124, Web 3.0, 443, 476n15
126, 127, 229, 239, 295, 296, 299, web click-streams, 426
306, 308, 313, 326, 350, 357, 361, Weber, C. A., 357
418, 422, 426, 443, 446, 448, 450 Webinar, 147
INDEX 701
Weblog, 147 White Paper, 512, 518, 520, 525, 526,

web of knowledge, 395 533, 536, 559, 564, 570–3, 575
Web-Scale IT, 397 White, T., 408
website data, 417 Whittington, R., 506
Webster, Cynthia, ix, xiii, 70, 71 whole human with mind, heart and spirit,
Webster, F. E. Jr, ix, 8, 14, 70, 112, 116, 421
127, 148, 149, 151, 154, 173, 176, wholesaler, 349
182, 185, 189, 195, 196, 201–3, whom to contribute, 295, 298
205, 228, 229, 239, 249, 251, 265, why firms differ, 509
307, 308, 312, 314, 316, 318, 321, wide-ranging interactions, 177
326, 339, 353, 357, 360, 370, 422, wide scaled, xxxix
426, 438, 440, 443, 446, 448, 450 wide scoped, xxxix
web surfing, 102 widespread marketplace, 327
Weerawardena, Jay, 148, 149, 151, 154, Widing, R. E., II., 560
185, 188, 198, 307, 308, 326, 345 Wierenga, Berend, xii, 55, 57, 59, 61,
Weichhart, Georg, 527 111, 127, 210, 215, 418
Weick Karl, E., 183, 186, 188 Wikipedia, 51, 61, 81, 168n5, 280n4,
Weinberg, C. B., 416 400, 404, 419, 475n6, 475n12,
Weinhardt, Christof, A., 175 476n13
Weinheim, 548 Wile, Rob, 394
Weisbord, M., 13 Wiley, 497, 501, 518, 519, 533, 572
Weitz, B., 515 Wiley-Blackwell, 526
Weldon, Lee, 396, 412 Wiley brand, 548
well-accepted central unit, 439 Wiley Inter-science, 524
well-established analysis model, 180 Wiley Periodicals Inc., 524
well-known, xiii, 176, 253, 325, 413, 430 Wiley Publishing Inc., 524, 529, 574
we must adapt or die, 415 Wiley Series on Marketing Management,
Wensley, R., ix, xiii 577
Wernefelt, B., 336, 339, 345 Wilkie, William. L., ix, xvi
Weske, Mathias, 111, 117 Wilkinson, I., 559
Western Australia, 533 Wilkinson, Ian. F., xiv, xvi, xviii, 418
Western University, 527 William, Ho, 357
Westport Conn, 560, 563 Williams, Michael C., 253, 254, 257,
West Publishing Company, 515 265
West Sussex, 526, 576, 577 Williams, Nancy, 245, 265
Wharton, 498, 517 Williamson, S. A., 517
what the hell is market oriented, 566 Williams, Steve, 245, 413, 414, 440
what to contribute, 295, 298, 383, 384 willingness to go beyond boundaries,
what to market, 422 419
Wheaton, 526 willingness to learn, 95
Where’s the beef, 499 willingness to manage risk, 342
Whipple, W. Thomas, 536 Willmott, Paul, 505
whistle-blowing game, 77 Wilson, H. N., 568
White, Andrew, 449, 450 Wilson, Mary. C., 105
White, Katharyn, 502 Wilson, M. S. Richard, 363
Whitelock, Jeryl, 508 Wilson, R., 188
White, Margaret A., 134–7, 140, 142, Wilson, Richard. M. S., 353, 363
229, 239, 245, 249, 300, 306, 313 wineries, 504
702 INDEX
Winer, R. S., 183, 186, 189, 232, 306, world megatrends, 391, 394, 395, 399,
308, 313, 326, 350, 357 443
winnable pilot projects, 417 world of business, xlii, 258, 398, 410,
winning, 320 418
Winson, R. D., 544 world of competition, 246
Winston, Wayne. L., 408 world of life, 329
Winter, S. G., 97, 134, 137, 138, 140, 142 world of market analytics, 204, 205
win-win, 366 World Scientific and Engineering
Wirth, Ferdinand. F., 580 Academy and Society (WSEAS)
Wise, George, x Press, 545
Wisenblit, Joseph, 329, 332, 353, 426 worldwide, 554, 558
Wolf, Celia, 112, 117, 123, 125, 130 world wide web (WWW), 126, 476n15
Wolfe, R., 186 Wrenn, Bruce, xiii, 429
Wood, D. J., 551 Wright, Patrick, 542, 555
wood industry, 540 Wright, Peter, 542, 555
Woodroof, H. J., 175 Wright, Sheila, 223, 226–9, 239, 307,
Woodruff, Robert. B., xiii 308, 312, 315, 326, 345, 361, 370,
Wooliscroft, Ben, 551 418, 426
word-of-mouth, 424 Wright, Thomas. R., x
workability, 231 written, 26, 146, 181
workable balance, 206 Wroe Alderson’s marketing behavior, 517
workable system of marketology, 437 Wu, Eugene, 513
work climate, 59 Wuori, J., 542
work environments, 59, 68 Wysocki, Allen. F., 323, 326, 363, 426
workflow, 68, 122, 396
workforce, 398, 435
workforce attitude, 345 X
workforce retaining, 410 XBOX, 482
work groups, 38 Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off
Working Group (WG), 555 companies, 510
working manner, 71, 205 Xie Hong Yuan, 510
working method, 441 Xin Jiang, 323
Working Paper Series, 519, 559 X-marketology, 482
working process, 130 Xuereb, J., 69, 106, 149, 174, 189, 227,
workloads, 519 259, 261, 429
Workman, J. P., Jr, 46, 48–50, 52–5,
58, 59
work procedures, 356 Y
work processes, 151, 424 Yami, Said, 300, 307, 339, 361, 367,
work teams, 76, 146 370
World Bank (WB) Group, 535, 549 Yang, Y., 576
World Business Council for Sustainable Yang, Zhilin, 581
Development (WBCSD), 394, 421, Yankelovich, Daniel, 188
422 Yaprak, A., 538
world class, 525, 531 Yardley, Samuel, 555
World Economic Forum (WEF), 506, Yauger, C., 570
519, 560, 566 Yellowfin International Pty Ltd., 536
World Future Review (WFR), 539 Yeoh, William, 571
INDEX 703
Yoganathan, Dhanushanthini, 537 Zeithaml, C. P., 97, 112, 254, 265

Yolles, Maurice, 514 Zeituny, N., 509
Yoon, Sung-Joon, 70, 71, 229 Zeldovich, Nickolai, 513
York University, 513, 579 Zhang, Zelin, 518
Young, B. Robert, 536 Zheng, Li, 575
Younger, Jon, 574 Zhou, Kevin Zheng, 69, 92, 106, 135,
Young, Louise C., xiv, xvi, xviii, 418 136, 138, 139, 142, 429
YouTube, 320, 427 Zhou, Nan, 69, 92, 106, 135, 136, 138,
Yusif, Baba, 429, 431 139, 142, 429
Zhu, Zhaohui, 510
Zielinski, K., 539
Z Ziemba, Ewa, 437
Zabriskie, N. B., 506 Zif, Jehiel, 498
Zafar, Fareeha, 580 Zollo, M., 97, 134, 137, 138, 140, 142
Zaltman, Gerald. M., ix Zott, Christoph, 179, 185, 186, 188,
Zamir, Zainab, 367, 370 223, 245, 249, 317, 319
Zebal, Mostaque Ahmed, 429, 430 Zou, Shaoming, 518
Zeid, Aiman, 54, 55, 57, 59, 75, 76, 78, Zupancic, Tadeja, 510
79, 83, 85, 225–7, 239 Zur, Muehlen Michael, 112, 117

Vdoc - Pub - Principles of Marketology Volume 2 Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vdoc - Pub - Principles of Marketology Volume 2 Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Principles of Marketology, Volume 2

ISBN 978-1-137-57980-5 ISBN 978-1-137-54833-7 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015019821

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Cover image © A. T. Willett / Alamy

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

Ultimately marketology as a ‘science of market’ terminates

Market-related theoretical and practical problems in a business context were

Komatsu 2006). In this regard, first, several problems of marketing (mostly

Marketing Identity Crisis

Building Marketing Theory

Definitions of Sciences/Disciplines Related to Marketing and Marketology

Sociology: Sociology is “the study of society; a social science involving

Marketing, Marketing Men and Market Research

• Is marketing a specific function with general applicability or a general

Thus it is clear that the identity of marketing is still in crisis. To define a

Regarding the current drastic changes as well as predictable future trans-

Marketing Paradigms and Schools of Thought

The concept of marketing can be examined in three paradigm spectrums: posi-

In addition to being a concept and a philosophy, marketing is an organiza-

From Marketing to Marketology

At the time of dominance of marketing philosophy it seemed sufficient for

has two—and only two—basic functions: marketing and innovation” (cited in

Concept of the Market: Stuck in the Middle

Theory and Macro

Pracce and Micro

Figure P.1 The concept

As far as the subject of market almost has been bounded/limited/confined

Theoretical Imperfection of Marketing

market, such as producing, distribution, sales, pricing and advertising. In fact

Marketology Theory: Beyond Marketing,

Concept and Content

Figure P.2 A framework for philosophical patterns of marketing/marketology

• Marketing philosophical patterns

Therefore a straightforward and honest response to the abovementioned

­ arketing TBC pattern (with a low degree of success), and to be developed

Aghazadeh, H. (2015, October). Strategic marketing management: Achieving superior

Bartels, R. (1944). Marketing principles. Journal of Marketing, 8, 151–157.

Enis, B. M. (1973, October). Deepening the concept of marketing. Journal of

Retrieved at March 30, 2016, from http://www.anzmac.org/conference_

Hutchinson, K. D. (1952). Marketing as a science: An appraisal. Journal of Marketing,

Rewoldt, S. (1954). Frontiers in marketing thought. Bloomington: Bureau of Business

1 Marketology Organizational Architecture (MOA) 1

2 Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) 35

3 Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB) 171

4 Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC) 291

5 Future of Marketology (FOM) 391

6 Handbook of Marketology (HOM) 477

Figure 1.1 Components of business building blocks (BBB) 4

Figure 1.14 MMM: Examining links between marketology and components

Figure 2.24 Linking distinctive competencies to SSS/SCS through SCA 96

Figure 3.19 The logic of optimum balanced value (OBV) 247

trous (rather than ambidextrous4) core competency is needed by businesses

Business Success (SSS/SCS)

Business performance management (BPM)

Business Organizaonal Design Business Organizaonal Behavior

Business building blocks (BBB)

Marketology Strategic Management (MSM)

Marketology Organizaonal Contribuon (MOC)

Marketology organizaonal architecture (MOA)

Figure I.1 Marketology-driven business performance canvas

an integrative manner, managed strategically and performed effectively to ensure

Pracce and Micro

arketing TBC pattern (with a low degree of success), and to be developed

1 Marketology Organizational Architecture (MOA) 1

2 Marketology Organizational Design (MOD) 35

3 Marketology Organizational Behavior (MOB) 171

4 Marketology Organizational Contribution (MOC) 291

5 Future of Marketology (FOM) 391

6 Handbook of Marketology (HOM) 477

Figure 1.1 Components of business building blocks (BBB) 4

Figure 2.24 Linking distinctive competencies to SSS/SCS through SCA 96

Figure 3.19 The logic of optimum balanced value (OBV) 247

Business Organizaonal Design Business Organizaonal Behavior

Marketology Organizaonal Contribuon (MOC)

Marketology organizaonal architecture (MOA)

Ch. 4- Marketology Organizaonal Contribuon (MOC)

Ch. 1- Marketology organizaonal architecture (MOA)

Business Organizaonal Behavior (BOB)

Business Organizaonal Design (BOD)

Sustainable compeve success

Normal compeve success

Organize a leader and select a name/label for your group

Consider a case or subject for investigation and analysis

Understand, discuss and work on the issue as a teamwork

Set out a report, present it to the class/organization and do an evaluation