Walking between decision models: analogising in strategic decision making

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore the characteristics of situations where managers analogise, and when they change to a different decision model; examine how the analogies are evoked, what characteristics they have and how they are used, and add to the understanding through taking a qualitative approach.

Design/methodology/approach

This is an illustrative case study of a new market entry attempt by a medium‐sized manufacturing firm based on interviews and analytical dialogues with management team members.

Findings

The paper finds that decision makers analogise when cause/effect‐relationships are unclear, and change decision models when the analogy has helped to formulate a theory of the nature of the problem or a recipe for handling the situation. They evoke analogies by automatic recognition, using internal and external sources, for transfer within and between domains. The use of analogy occurs in problem setting, problem solving, action and sensemaking modes.

Research limitations/implications

Misunderstandings can occur in dialogue between researchers and decision makers. Future interpretive research should consider participant observation and conceptual modelling. A computational study might incorporate situational differences, roles, and the issues identified in this study.

Practical implications

Awareness of the prevalence of analogy in decision making can help practitioners critically evaluate the analogies used and consider multiple perspectives on problematic situations.

Originality/value

The paper adds to the literature by taking a qualitative approach to analogising. The findings offer some support to prior research using laboratory and analytical approaches, while suggesting reconsiderations and offering new insights.

Citation

Nilsson, A. (2008), "Walking between decision models: analogising in strategic decision making", Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 104-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640810900531