Executive views concerning decision support tools

European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938

www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

Interfaces with Other Disciplines

Executive views concerning decision support tools

Sari Stenfors a,*, Leena Tanner b, Mikko Syrjanen c,Tomi Seppala b, Ilkka Haapalinna b

a SCANCOR, Stanford University, CERAS 531, Stanford, CA 94305-3084, USAb Helsinki School of Economics, P.O. Box 1210, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland

c Gaia Group Oy, Bulevardi 6 A, FIN-00120 Helsinki, Finland

Received 23 June 2005; accepted 13 June 2006Available online 22 August 2006

Abstract

Support tools for strategic-level decision-making have become increasingly popular. This study investigates the role ofOR/MS tools in today’s strategic-level decision support tool market. Executives working in Finland’s 500 largest compa-nies were asked about the decision support tools they use when making major decisions. The responses received indicatedthat executives actively use a variety of tools, and an average of five different strategic-level tools. Approximately 10% ofthe tools used could be identified as OR/MS type, these often suit the needs of larger companies with strategic logistical orproduction functions and compared to other tools, have a specific profile. Executives see advantages in using tools thatprovide cognitive, collaboration and communication possibilities, and also in using tools that make processes more effi-cient. OR methodologies have influenced some of the other tools on the market, but ‘soft OR’ tool usage could not beidentified. Tools which support creativity are needed.� 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: OR in strategic planning; Practice of OR/MS; Strategy; Management tools; Survey

1. Introduction

Scholars in the field of operations research andmanagement science (OR/MS) are actively produc-ing strategic-level decision support tools. A litera-ture search of issues of the European Journal ofOperational Research published in the last 29 years

0377-2217/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.024

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 6502832631.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Stenfors), leena.tan-

[email protected] (L. Tanner), [email protected] (M. Syrjanen),[email protected] (T. Seppala), [email protected](I. Haapalinna).

(March 1977–January 2006) found 560 articles withthe word ‘‘strategy’’ in its title, abstract or keywordlist. During 2005 alone there were 62 articles of thistype. Most of these articles describe strategic-leveldecision support tools in the OR/MS field. Thereare however many other support tool alternativesfor the executives making important decisions. Thegoal of this study is to describe the position thatOR/MS tools play in the strategic-level decision sup-port tool market today.

Although OR/MS originally concentrated onsolving problems at the operational level, supporttools for strategic-level decision-making havebecome increasingly popular. Many articles discuss

.

930 S. Stenfors et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938

the use of OR/MS tools in supporting strategic-leveldecisions, i.e. key strategic issues and business prac-tices, and other decisions considered significant bycompany executives. Eom et al. (1998) predicted thatthe main function and the future of decision supportmethods would be at the strategic level. Theysurveyed method descriptions in decision supportjournals through 1976–1994 and showed thatapproximately 30% of articles published in the lastnine years of the period dealt with strategic support,when in the first ten years of the period the corre-sponding figure was less than 20%. More recentarticles also report that the number of academicarticles about support methods which aid strategicdecision-making has been increasing (e.g. Keeferet al., 2004; Bell and Anderson, 2002) as newOR/MS approaches suited to strategic level needshave emerged (for some of these, see Mingers andRosenhead, 2004; Keeney, 1992), and advances ininformation technology have opened up new possi-bilities for companies to use OR/MS methods.Indeed, Clark and Scott (1995) report that almost80% of the OR/MS professionals surveyed in theUK have been directly involved at the strategic level.

The nature of the work done by executives hasalso changed in recent decades (e.g. Hitt et al.,2001). Knowledge-based global competition hascreated a need for purposeful strategy work andeffective decision-making processes. Companiesthrive on growth and competitive advantage andseek more successful ways of working with andmanaging knowledge. To help cope with the every-day work demands executives have graduallystarted to use information technology (e.g. Pijpers,2002; Marginson et al., 2000; Seeley and Targett,1999). The changes have most likely affected theexecutives’ use of strategic-level tools as well.

The strategic-level support tools offered to execu-tives are diverse (e.g. Bain & Company, 2005) andcome from many different disciplines. In additionto the study of strategic management itself andOR/MS, tools that claim to support strategic deci-sions can be found at least in the following fields:systems science, systems thinking, operations man-agement, logistics, industrial engineering, decisionsupport systems, expert systems, knowledge man-agement, management information systems, execu-tive information systems, artificial intelligence,business intelligence, online analytical processing,enterprise systems, marketing, accounting, andfinance. Some of these disciplines could be classifiedas being within the field of OR/MS, and some have

common roots, but some do not even feature inter-disciplinary communication.

Despite the evident increase in the role of strate-gic-level applications in OR/MS literature, theamount of research carried out on the executive viewof different support tools and the role of OR/MStools at strategic level is very limited. Most of theapplication surveys have collected general informa-tion from OR/MS professionals (for some of these,see Chen and Wei, 2002; Abdel-Malek et al., 1999;Jeffrey and Seaton, 1995; Kivijarvi et al., 1995),and have simply reported strategic-level tools asa separate category. The article by Clark andScott (1999) specifically investigates strategic-levelOR/MS usage and provides a useful understandingof the diverse ways in which OR/MS tools areemployed throughout the strategy process. In theirstudy, however, only OR/MS professionals weresurveyed and the actual use of these tools in makingsignificant decisions is unclear.

Some studies in OR/MS journals point out thattop managers do not use support tools (for example,Corner et al., 2001; Nutt, 2002a). The use of strat-egy tools by executives calls for more research. Onthe other hand, the use of the strategic-level toolscannot be measured solely by executives’ direct useof such tools. Morecroft (1992) reports that theuse of support tools at executive level can be uncon-ventional as they are used in strategic thinking,group discussions and learning in managementteams. Executives should therefore be asked directlywhich tools they perceive as being part of the workthey do.

To establish the position of OR/MS tools in thestrategic-level decision support tool market, weasked company executives to define the tools thatthey or their organizations use for support whenmaking significant decisions. More precisely, ourstudy is based on an executive-level survey conductedamong the 500 largest companies in Finland (Tal-ouselama, 2002). Finnish executives were selectedfor specific reasons. Finland has been reported asbeing the most competitive country in the world(World Economic Forum, 2005), and both leading-edge technological possibilities and knowledge ofstrategic-level support tools should exist in Finland’slargest corporations. Furthermore, the relativelytransparent nature of corporate world Finlandallowed us easy access to people working at executivelevel.

The remainder of this paper is organized asfollows. Underneath we describe our methodology

S. Stenfors et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938 931

and data. Thereafter, we present the results of ourstudy in five sections. Firstly, we categorize the toolsthat the executives reported. Secondly, we studycompany and industrial level tool use. Thirdly, weexamine the tasks that tools are used in. Fourthly,we look at the motives for tool use. Fifthly, we listchallenges associated with tool use. The paper endsup with conclusions and discussion section.

2. Research design

The research design was cross-sectional and datawas collected both using questionnaires and throughunstructured interviews according to survey meth-ods described, for example, in Babbie (1990). Thedata consists mostly of open-ended written descrip-tions provided by the respondents, i.e. executivesinvolved in strategic management in the 500 compa-nies reporting the largest annual turnover in Finland(Talouselama, 2002). Executives in the public sectorand in not-for-profit companies were not included inthe study.

Our study had three main objectives:

1. To find out which kinds of tools are used to sup-port major decisions in executive work, andwhether these tools are OR/MS tools.

2. To examine in which tasks, according to the exec-utives, these tools are used.

3. To study the reasons given by executives forusing support tools when making major deci-sions, and also the reasons given for not usingthem.

In our study, following Clark and Scott’s (1999)definition, the term ‘tool’ is used as a generic namefor any method, model, technique, tool, framework,methodology or approach used to provide decisionsupport. Tool, therefore, refers to a decision aidused in a methodological manner for specific pur-poses in decision-making or planning activities. Atool can be either quantitative or qualitative andcan be manual or computerized. It can be basedon OR/MS methods or methods from another disci-pline. A tool can also be based on one or severalmethods.

Furthermore, we have defined strategic-leveldecision as a choice or action that has considerableimportance to the organization as a result of therequired resources and the scope of the expectedimpact (see also Nutt, 2002b; Hickson et al., 1986;Mintzberg et al., 1976). Accordingly, our question-

naire asks about systematic tools that are used toaid major decision-making and planning.

The survey was carried out in the period ofMarch–September, 2003. A short questionnaire withfive questions was mailed to executives involved instrategic management in Finland’s 500 largest com-panies. A Web version of the questionnaire was alsomade available. In total, data was collected from 274respondents from 264 different companies. Thus,from ten companies we had two responses. Further-more, there were two different types of responses:questionnaire responses – 182 respondents filledand submitted questionnaires, and unstructuredinterviews – 92 respondents sent us an e-mail orphoned in their response to any of the issues raisedin the questionnaire. The unstructured interviewstook place for three main reasons: (1) The respon-dent found answering the questionnaire restrictingas in their organization decision-making activitywas spread over several divisions; (2) Tools wereused only in part or tailored to specific situations;(3) There was an ongoing organizational change inthe company, such as merger, reorganization, orrestructuring of the strategy process. The high num-ber of unstructured interviews reflects the challengesinvolved in conducting a strategic-level survey andstudying views held by executives concerning tooluse.

Of the 182 respondents who returned the ques-tionnaire, 16 were chief executive officers, 17 wereexecutive vice presidents, 92 were executive officers,52 were managers, 2 were specialists and 3 did notprovide information concerning the function theyperformed. Thus, approximately 70% of the respon-dents held executive positions. The managers in ourstudy frequently served as close assistants to theexecutives or were important members in strategicmanagement teams. The initially contacted execu-tives in charge of strategic management often men-tioned that responses for our questionnaire werediscussed in top managerial teams. Overall, theexecutives’ viewpoint is conveyed in the responses.

To obtain a general view of tools from execu-tives’ viewpoint, survey answers were depicted andinterpretive classifications were carried out. Theclassifications employed emerged and evolved fromthe data through an iterative analysis process car-ried out by our research group. Statistical analyseswere used to support analysis and conclusions.Dependencies and frequencies are reported in thispaper. Qualitative analysis of the unstructured tele-phone and e-mail responses was carried out to

Table 1Support tools used for major decisions by executives in Finland’s500 largest companies

Support tool category Frequency

SWOT analysis 136Spreadsheet applications 120Balanced Scorecard 104Risk analysis 66Analysis of the financial

statements or investments63

Quality methods 51Scenario planning 46Environment analysis 40Brainstorming 37Statistical analysis 33Life cycle analysis 25Optimization 23Project management tools 20Simulation 20Value chain analysis 10Human resource management tools 7Management information systems

and Business intelligence7

Enterprise resource planning 7

Number of tools classified (94%) 815

932 S. Stenfors et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938

obtain in-depth understanding and provide addi-tional evidence.

3. Executives’ perceptions

3.1. Tools for major decisions

To establish which tools the respondents acknowl-edged using, they were asked to make a list of thetools that supported major decision-making andplanning activities in their company. In our pre-test-ing phase, both the preliminary open interviews andthe initial questionnaire tests showed that executiveswere unable to name tools unless examples weregiven. To clarify the concept of a tool in our survey,we provided an array of examples of systematic deci-sion-support tools: Balanced Scorecard, Spreadsheetapplications, Brainstorming, SWOT analysis, Trans-port optimization models, Six Sigma, Product linesimulation programs, Scenario planning, Risk analy-sis, Life cycle analysis, Data Mining, and House ofQuality. The first four of these (Balanced Scorecard,Spreadsheet applications, Brainstorming, SWOTanalysis) were the tools mentioned most often inour in-depth pre-testing, the eight other tool nameswere selected for their diversity and added in orderto provide wider mental associations.

The 182 questionnaire respondents listed a totalof 865 tools from a variety of disciplines. We wereable to classify 94% of the tools into 18 categories(Table 1). The figure in the Frequency column showsthe number of times each tool was mentioned.

SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Oppor-tunities and Threats) was mentioned 136 times andit is clearly the most common tool used by executivesto support the making of major decisions. Spread-sheet applications came second, but their functionis somewhat different to that of other tools as theyare often used in a supplementary role or for datastorage and calculations. It is worth noting that thefirst two categories consist of tools that are quickand easy to use, and which many people in compa-nies have the ability to use. People in executive posi-tions have probably learnt these tools at universitysince almost every respondent had an academicdegree, mainly in the fields of Business Administra-tion (109/182) and Engineering (52/182). On theother hand, many of the tools described are offeredby consultants who provide specific services to teachand facilitate the use of their tools.

The possibility that the list of examples we pro-vided constrained responses to the named subset

of tools was taken into account, and the compiledlist of tools was compared to the list of strategic-level tools provided by OR/MS professionals with-out an example list in Clark and Scott (1999).Although this article does not provide exact fre-quencies, the two lists appear quite similar. Theabsence of Balanced Scorecard applications in thelist by Clark and Scott is probably a result ofthe fact that the Balanced Scorecard is a recentintroduction. In general, we could not detect evi-dence of anchoring to our list of examples.

The compiled list of tools provided by executivesappears to contain less OR/MS tools than the list inClark and Scott (1999). No ‘softer’ kinds of ORtools (for example problem solving methods) werementioned. The lack of widespread knowledge con-cerning ‘soft OR’ approaches is also a significantfinding in the Clark and Scott article. We identified84 OR/MS tools from a total of 865 tools by sum-ming the frequencies of optimization, simulationand statistical analysis categories and adding thefrequencies of individual OR/MS tools in other cat-egories. The OR/MS tools identified represent toolsthat are introduced in most OR/MS textbooks (suchas Anderson et al., 2000). We refer to these OR/MStools as OR/MS tools and to the complement ofthem as Other tools. It is quite possible that someof the Other tools may have contained OR/MS

Table 2

Average turnovers and the number of companies in different response

categories

Response category

Question-

naire

Interview Non-

respondents

All

No. of companies 172 92 236 500

Percentage 35 18 47 100

Turnover, 2001, average (M€) 637 553 431 524

S. Stenfors et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938 933

modules, or that their design could have been basedon OR/MS theories. However, since most toolswere listed by the names under which they are mar-keted and some were specifically designed for theorganizations using them, this could not be preciselydetermined.

To obtain more specific information about meth-ods that lie behind the listed tools, we asked execu-tives to connect the names of the tools they wereusing to a list of the methods. Only a few respon-dents were able to do this. In general, it becameclear that the methods behind tools are not wellknown. This section of our questionnaire promptedcritical e-mail comments from some respondents.One executive voiced his frustration: ‘‘For your

knowledge. . . I gave up answering [to your question-

naire] when you asked what methods were behind the

tools. I recognize most of the terms from university

studies and professional literature, but. . . Was it even

necessary to ask; is it not your field? [The methodsbehind the tools] are not important in practice if

the work gets done.’’ SSR3A.These people were strongly of the opinion that

knowing the methods that underpin the tools issomeone else’s job – an executive’s job is managingthe business.

3.2. Support tools at company and industry level

The frequencies in Table 1 show that companiesdo use tools to aid strategic-level decision-makingand planning, and that executives take advantageof that support. The questionnaire responses indi-cate that a company used an average of five differenttools.

The use of support tools was most common inthe Construction industry, where the average com-pany used seven tools when making major deci-sions. None of the other industries reported usingmore than six tools, but the next highest group, thatused just about six tools per company, included Fur-

niture, Information technology, Energy, Wholesale

trade/daily goods, Telecommunications, Business ser-

vices, and Food and drink. These companies variedin size, but all of them used information technologyextensively.

Looking at both questionnaire and unstructuredinterview data, only 13% (33/264) of the companiesindicated that they did not use any kind of toolswhen making major decisions. This group includedcompanies whose company culture either did notsupport or actually prohibited the use of tools. It

is likely that the percentage of companies not usingany tools at the strategic level is higher, since somecompanies of this type were probably among theones who did not respond to our survey. Further-more, average annual turnover is highest amongcompanies that responded by returning the ques-tionnaire (Table 2). Small companies did not replyto our questionnaire as often as large companies.Use of tools in larger companies may therefore bemore extensive than in smaller ones.

However, analysis within the survey data revealsthat larger companies clearly use OR/MS tools moreoften than smaller companies. The 56 questionnairerespondents that came from the 100 largest compa-nies reported using a total of 39 OR/MS tools, while126 questionnaire respondents that represented the400 next largest companies only reported using atotal of 45 OR/MS tools. This could reflect thesuperior level of resources available to larger com-panies.

Furthermore, industries have specific needs, andOR/MS tools fit particular purposes in certain indus-tries. OR/MS tools are used more often in the Forest,Energy, and Insurance industries, and all of theseindustries use an average of more than one OR/MS

tool per company. According to the questionnaireresponses, industries that do not use OR/MS tools

in the strategic level at all are Furniture, Informationtechnology, Oil trade, Motor vehicle sales, and Media.The interview answers reveal that the Textiles/

clothing industry also belongs to this list. Overall,less than one-third (54/172) of the responding com-panies used OR/MS tools to support their majordecisions.

Comparing the use of OR/MS tools and Other

tools between industries reveals that the use ofOR/MS tools is more concentrated within industriesthat have a high annual turnover or industries thathave specific logistical or production needs such asFood and drink, Consumer services and Wholesale

trade. Other tools are however in more general usein all industries. Interestingly, companies who make

934 S. Stenfors et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938

extensive use of Other tools are not extensive usersof OR/MS tools. In essence, OR/MS tools target adifferent set of industries than other strategic-leveltools.

3.3. Tool usage

Respondents listed 1033 tasks for the 865 tools.We categorized the tasks to establish which kindof specific decisions, problems and needs the corre-sponding tools were used to support.

The different tool usage categories identified inour study emerged from the support tool taskdescriptions written by the executives. The differenttasks were classified into two hierarchy levels(adapted from Stahl and Grigsby, 1992, p. 104):Corporate and business unit strategy, and Functional

strategy (such as Sales and Marketing, Finance,Human resources, etc.). Furthermore, Corporate

Table 3A total of 1033 tasks for tools were divided between usage ofOR/MS tools and Other tools

Strategic management activities OR/MStools%

Othertools%

Corporate and business unit strategy

Vision 8 12Innovation and development 0 4Investment decisions 8 8

Environment analysis 15 13Internal 4 6External 5 5Risk management 6 2

Strategic planning (goal, strategyand program formulation)

2 22

Strategy implementation 1 7Feedback and control 2 11

Monitoring strategy 2 7Financial control 0 4

Subtotal % 28 65

Functional strategy

Planning of production,logistics and purchasing

35 5

Finance 13 7Planning of sales and marketing 13 2Functional management 6 10Quality and process development 2 4Research and development 2 3Project management 1 3Human resource management 0 1

Subtotal % 72 35

Total % 100 100

Total number of tasks for tools 92 941

and business unit strategy tasks were classified usingthe elements in Kotler’s (1997, p. 80) strategy pro-cess. This allowed us to analyze the reported useof tools in different strategic management activities.

The tasks for OR/MS tools and Other tools wereseparated and the frequencies were cross-tabulated(Table 3). Of the 1033 tasks for tools, 92 (9%) aretasks for OR/MS tools and 941 (91%) are tasks forOther tools. More than 70% of the OR/MS tools

are used for activities at the Functional strategy

level, whereas almost 70% of Other tools are usedat Corporate and business unit strategy level. Thisis indicative of the distinct functions that OR/MS

and Other tools have at the strategic level.At the Corporate and business unit strategy level,

the largest subclass is Strategic planning, which alsoexhibits the biggest difference between the use ofOR/MS and Other tools: only 2% of the reportedOR/MS tools were used for strategic planning while22% of Other tools belong to this category. OR/MStools were most often used for Environment analysis

and less often in Strategy implementation. Theywere not used at all in visionary innovation anddevelopment.

At the Functional strategy level, OR/MS toolswere most often used in the Planning of production,

logistics and purchasing category, where 35% of theOR/MS tool use took place. Even in this class how-ever, Other tools were used more often in absoluteterms (46 times) than OR tools were used (32 times).

Clark and Scott (1995) place strategic-level toolusage also in a strategic management framework.While our framework is derived from the data anddiffers somewhat from Clark and Scott study, thegeneral results appear to be similar, although OR/

MS tools have a lesser presence in our results.

3.4. Motives for using tools

We were interested in establishing the motivesbehind the use of support tools by people in execu-tive positions. Also, Clark and Scott (1995) call foranalysis of the success factors associated with theuse of different tools. In our questionnaire, we there-fore asked respondents to list the advantages theyperceived in the tools. A total of 510 advantageswere recorded, only 22 of them for OR/MS tools.There was not enough data to make a clear distinc-tion between the advantages associated with the useof different support tools.

To make a general analysis of the reportedadvantages we created four classes: (1) Focusing

S. Stenfors et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938 935

on strategy work and strategic decision-making; (2)Supporting collaboration and communication; (3)Activating knowledge, experimenting, and creatingideas; and (4) Making operational processes moreefficient. The three first classes represent More-croft’s (1992) cognitive and collective requirementsfor effective tools. The fourth class represents themore traditional advantages associated with tools.

In his article on the use of strategic-level models,Morecroft (1992, p. 13) writes that in order to beeffective, models must activate and capture executiveknowledge, be an integral part of debate and dia-logue, and allow experimentation. Furthermore, hesuggests that strategic-level models primarily answerthese group and cognitive needs and that the tradi-tional uses of models will play a less important rolein the future. Some 13 years after Morecroft’s articlewas published in EJOR, it is interesting to see thatthe advantages reported by our surveyed executivesmatch Morecroft’s requirements for effective strate-gic-level models.

We were able to classify 96% of the reportedadvantages into our four classes (Table 4). Making

operational processes more efficient and Focusing on

strategy work and strategic decision-making are thestrongest motivators for tool use by executives. Sup-

porting collaboration and communication was oftenalso mentioned as an advantage. It is however worthnoting that our executive respondents did not oftensee Activating knowledge, experimenting, and creat-

ing ideas as an advantage associated with supporttools. In their view, the tools provide more supportfor improving efficiency than enhancing creativity.

In overall terms, the fit between Morecroft’srequirements for effective strategy-level models andthe advantages listed by our respondents indicates

Table 4Advantages of tools in classes modified from Morecroft’s (1992)requirements for effective strategic-level models

Advantages of support tools Frequency Percentage

Focusing on strategy workand strategic decision-making

168 34

Supporting collaborationand communication

112 23

Activating knowledge,experimenting, andcreating ideas

38 8

Making operationalprocesses more efficient

170 35

Number of advantagesclassified (96%)

488 100

that executives are seeking effectiveness. Also, theunstructured interviews confirmed that executiveshave a genuine curiosity about the tools and a posi-tive attitude towards them, and that they are inter-ested in learning more about the tools and theirpossible advantages. In essence, the quest to beeffective is what motivates executives to use supporttools.

3.5. Challenges associated with tools

The questionnaire respondents listed 222 short-comings, dangers, barriers, and problems associatedwith the use of tools. The number of reported disad-vantages is substantially smaller than the numberof reported advantages. Interestingly, what onerespondent listed as an advantage was sometimesconsidered by another to be a disadvantage. Forexample, some executives perceived more structuredwork processes as increased bureaucracy. Otherpairs of this type were: gains in communication/problems in communication; clarified accuracy/lackof accuracy; financial benefits/additional costs; andincreases in efficiency/decreases in efficiency. Statedin simple terms, an executive’s need for tools is pro-foundly dependent on the context in which they areused.

Almost 90% (199/222) of the reported disadvan-tages fit into chronological phases describing famil-iarity with the tool (Table 5). The first phase,Search for tools, indicates the phase before the deci-sion to use a particular tool has been made. Thesecond phase, Implementation of tools, describesthe time when a new tool is introduced and firstused. The third phase, Use of tools, refers to theroutine use of a tool. The frequency figure indicatesthe number of times a specific disadvantage wasreported.

Most of the disadvantages (46%) were in theimplementation phase (18% were in the searchphase and 36% were in the use phase). A fewrespondents noted complications when changingfrom one tool to another, but retiring a tool didnot seem to result in notable distress. Many of thedisadvantages were essentially attitudes towardsthe tools and beliefs in their capabilities. The disad-vantages pile up in phases following the decision toacquire the tool. These later-stage challenges couldpartly be the result of problems in the search phase.Respondents noted that the tool market rarely offersrealistic information about the suitability, andadvantages of different tools.

Table 5Challenges associated with tools divided into three chronological phases indicating familiarity with the tool: search, implementation, anduse

Disadvantages

Search for tools Implementation of tools Use of tools

• Tool market is not buyer friendly(comparison is hard, unclearintegration, oversupply,customization needs are notmet, tools are too focused)

16 • Underestimation of neededwork, resources, and data

29 • Form goes over substance 14• Interpretation of the

results is difficult10

• Tools are complicated andheavy to master

22 • Uncertainty and riskare not eliminated

9

• Lack of skills, learningdemanding

15 • Blind belief in tools 8

• Prejudices and fear of stiffness,technical thinking, andloss of creativity

7 • Change resistance and weaknessof commitment throughoutthe organization

8 • Theory and practicedo not meet

7

• Difficulties in decidingand using parameters

7

• Knowledge of tools isinadequate or inaccurate

6 • Communication problems 6 • Results do not lead tocontinuous or fast actions

7• Unlearning old procedures 5

• Need for an outside consultant 4 • New vocabulary difficultto understand

3 • Burden of building, updating,and maintenance

6

• Total price 3 • Tools not suitable forcompany culture

3 • Thinking is narrowedand limited

4

Total sum 199 36 91 72

936 S. Stenfors et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938

4. Conclusions and discussion

The focus of this research study is on defining theposition of OR/MS tools in supporting strategic-level decisions. The goal was to offer a broaderunderstanding of the use of strategic-level decisionsupport tools by moving the viewpoint from thattaken by OR/MS professionals to that of end users,i.e. executives. The conclusions therefore comparethis study to prior research in the area and discussthe position that OR/MS tools currently play inthe market for strategic-level support tools.

The first and probably most-significant observa-tion is that the executives actively use a variety oftools to support the making of significant decisions.Their use of tools must however be understood in abroad context. They may not be actual ‘‘hands-on’’tool users, and their use of tools can be only concep-tual, but they do see the tools as an important part oftheir everyday working environment. Overall, ourexecutive respondents reported positive experiences,sincere interest and optimistic attitudes towards thetools.

The number of different support tools reported isvery large. OR/MS tools represent only a small pro-portion of the tools listed by respondents. Simplertools are more popular. Our results agree with thoseof Clark and Scott (1995), even though OR/MStools are mentioned less frequently in the results

of our study. This may have something to do withthe finding that executives are not aware of theactual methods that lie behind the tools. Also, someof the tools could have been based in part on OR/MS methods, but marketed under another concept.

As the overall business environment becomesincreasingly unpredictable and intangible assetsbecome more important, new kinds of tools will beneeded. Despite advances in the OR/MS communityrelated to methods that are geared more towardsstrategic problems (i.e. problem-solving techniques,wider perspectives, creativity, and multi-methodol-ogy) our respondents did not mention these typesof OR/MS tools. The more established tools, oftenprovided by strategy consultants, dominate activitiesin which more qualitative information is employed.This result suggests that the situation has not chan-ged significantly since very similar observations weremade in the study by Clark and Scott (1995).

However, the results of our study show that toolsbased on OR/MS approaches are strongly presentat both the functional strategy level and in support-ing operational issues which are important in creat-ing strategic advantage. This echoes the ‘StrategicOR’ view presented by Peter Bell (1999) that high-lights the value of improving the efficiency of strate-gic tasks in a company.

In addition, as Clark and Scott intimated (1999),there are important differences in the use of support

S. Stenfors et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938 937

tools in different industries. Indeed, the use of OR/MS tools at strategic-level is not widespread, sinceonly one third of the respondent companies usethem. OR/MS tools appear to provide a competitiveadvantage in industries that have high turnoverflows, can typically generate numerical data, andhave critical operational functions that can bestreamlined with the help of OR/MS tools toprovide strategic advantage. Overall, traditionalOR/MS tools have a strong foothold in engineer-ing-oriented industries.

Our executive respondents voiced a clear mes-sage: strategic-level tools are needed but must beeffective. The use of tools can be demanding andconsume too many resources. It is important to notethat tools are not only used to achieve efficiency,they are also employed for cognitive and collectivepurposes. Tools better suited to the support of cre-ative activities are needed.

Furthermore, we found that to end users, i.e.executives, the market for strategic decision supporttools appears confusing and time-consuming. Inspite of the research and literature on the subjectof strategic-level decision support, the marketremains disintegrated and ambiguous. Competitionbetween the different disciplines makes unified effortsto improve solutions rare and there is very littleresearch that compares the tools in a sensible way.Clarifying the functions performed by different stra-tegic-level tools and providing accurate informationabout them is a matter of importance. Enhancingevaluation of OR/MS tools to provide better infor-mation about the benefits they provide would indi-cate clear commitment to being a significant playerin the market.

The opinions provided by our executive respon-dents show that there are clear opportunities forstrengthening the position of OR/MS tools at thestrategic-level. The biggest impact in companiescan be made at that level, and the strongest needfor appropriate tools is also there. Time is workingto our advantage in two ways: firstly, economiesbecome increasingly unified and companies becomelarger; secondly, advances in information technol-ogy allow faster computing and yield new techno-logical solutions for dealing with data that is of amore qualitative nature. Collaboration with othersectors and a clear understanding of the overallmarket is necessary, but it is evident that OR/MStools already play an active role in the market forstrategic-level tools.

References

Abdel-Malek, L., Wolf, C., Spencer III., T., 1999. OR practice:Survey results and reflections of practicing INFORMSmembers. Journal of the Operational Research Society 50,994–1003.

Anderson, D.R., Sweeney, D.J., Williams, T.A., 2000. An Intro-duction to Management Science: Quantitative Approaches toDecision Making, nineth ed. South-Western College Publish-ing, USA.

Babbie, E.R., 1990. Survey Research Methods, second ed.Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA.

Bain & Company. 2005. Management tools. Available from<http://www.bain.com/management_tools>, (accessed 09.06.05.).

Bell, P.C., 1999. Management Science/Operations Research: AStrategic Perspective. South-Western College Publishing,Cincinnati, Ohio.

Bell, P.C., Anderson, C.K., 2002. In search of strategic opera-tions research/management science. Interfaces 32 (2), 28–40.

Chen, S.-P., Wei, T.-S., 2002. The practice of operationalresearch in Taiwan. Journal of the Operational ResearchSociety 53, 1330–1337.

Clark, D.N., Scott, J.L., 1995. Strategic level MS/OR tool usagein the United Kingdom: An empirical survey. Journal ofOperational Research Society 46 (9), 1041–1051.

Clark, D.N., Scott, J.L., 1999. Strategic level MS/OR tool usagein the United Kingdom and New Zealand: A comparativesurvey. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research 16,35–51.

Corner, J., Buchanan, J., Henig, M., 2001. Dynamic decisionproblem structuring. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Anal-ysis 10 (3), 129–141.

Eom, S.B., Lee, S.M., Kim, E.B., Somarajan, C., 1998. A surveyof decision support system applications (1988–1994). Journalof the Operational Research Society 49 (2), 109–120.

Hickson, D., Butler, R., Gray, D., Wilson, D., 1986. TopDecisions; Strategic Decision Making in Organizations.Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, M.S., Sexton, D.L., 2001.Guest editors’ introduction to special issue: Strategic entre-preneurship: Entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation.Strategic Management Journal 22 (6–7), 479–492.

Jeffrey, P., Seaton, R., 1995. The use of operational researchtools: A survey of operational research practitioners in theUK. Journal of Operational Research Society 46 (7), 797–808.

Keefer, D.L., Kirkwood, C.W., Corner, J.L., 2004. Perspectiveon decision analysis applications, 1990–2001. Decision Anal-ysis 1 (1), 4–22.

Keeney, R.L., 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to CreativeDecision Making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA.

Kivijarvi, H., Kuula, M., Wallenius, J., 1995. Operations researchand its practice in Finland – An update. European Journal ofOperational Research 87, 435–439.

Kotler, P., 1997. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,Implementation, and Control, nineth ed. Prentice HallInternational Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Mingers, J., Rosenhead, J., 2004. Problem structuring methods inaction. European Journal of Operational Research 152, 530–554.

938 S. Stenfors et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 181 (2007) 929–938

Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, P., Theoret, A., 1976. The structureof ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 21 (2), 246–275.

Marginson, D., King, M., McAulay, L., 2000. Executives’ use ofinformation technology: Comparison of electronic mail andan accounting information system. Journal of InformationTechnology 15 (2), 149–164.

Morecroft, J.D.W., 1992. Executive knowledge, models andlearning. European Journal of Operational Research 59, 9–27.

Nutt, P.C., 2002a. Why Decisions Fail: Avoiding Blundersand Traps That Lead to Debacles. Berrett-Koehler, SanFrancisco.

Nutt, P.C., 2002b. Selecting decision rules for crucial choices. Aninvestigation of the Thompson framework. The Journal ofBehavioral Science, 99–131.

Pijpers, G.G.M., 2002. Understanding senior executives’ use ofinformation technology and the internet. In: Managing WebUsage in the Workplace: A Social Ethical, and LegalPerspective. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.

Seeley, M., Targett, D., 1999. Patterns of senior executivespersonal use of computers. Information & Management 35,315–330.

Stahl, M.J., Grigsby, D.W., 1992. Strategic Management: For-mulation and Implementation. PWS-Kent, Boston, MA.

Talouselama. 2002. The 500 largest companies by turnover inFinland in 2001. Available from <http://www.talouselama.fi/te500list_eng.te>, (accessed 15.02.03.).

World Economic Forum. 2005. Global Competitiveness Report2004–2005. Available from <http://www.weforum.org/gcr>,(accessed 09.06.05.).