t areas. The first area, labeled concept tactic, used a solution to a problem to guide the decision. The second, problem solving, uses an existing problem to direct the decision. The third area, objective setting, uses a preferred performance level to decide the course to follow. The last area, reframing, uses benchmarking to prove that a decision must be made. The last area was implemented more times in the study than the others. I believe that this is because competition is very fierce, and executives often feel that they must keep ahead of others in their industry. By comparing themselves to others of equal size and direction, companies must act fast if they want to keep their competitive advantage.The next step in the decision making process is to identify the alternatives. According to the author of the study, there are three ways to generate options; by copying, searching, or designing. The first way is to adapt an existing option to fit the need. The second way, searching, is to find a company that has a prepackaged solution to achieve the goals. The last way, designing, employs consultants to design a solution. The two most successful ways were copying and searching. I believe this is because the third option requires the company to attempt to explain to the consulting group exactly what they need and want.Both the text and the study agree that the next step is to evaluate the options. The study breaks down the evaluation into four areas; analytic, bargaining, judgment, and subjective. The first approach is very quantitative and can be based on data from a database, a field test, or even a simulation. Bargaining evaluations involve upper level management and stakeholders voting on options based on qualitative data. Judgment evaluations are made with no real explanation, and often are made on a hunch. The subjective evaluations are based on real data from current marketing efforts. Out of the four evaluation me...
