As Hill and Jobber 2001

8/3/2019 As Hill and Jobber 2001

1/17

of M arketing M anagement, 2 0 0 1 , 1 7 , 543-558

icholas J. A shilPavid Jobber

Gentre, UK

Defining the Domain of PerceivedEnvironmental Uncertainty: AnExploratory Study of SeniorMarketing ExecutivesAt the very core of Marketing Information Systems(MkIS) design is the identification of the marketinginformation needs of decision-makers. Informationneeds can be defined as the user specifications ofinformation characteristics involved in informationseeking, and refer to those qualities of informationperceived by managers to be 'useful' to facilitate theirdecision-making. Building upon previous qualitativeresearch examining the information needs of seniormarketing executives, the authors present thefindings of a second qualitative research phaseseeking to define the domain of one constructreported by Ashill and Jobber (1999), namelyPerceived Environmental Uiicertainty. The results,based on interviews with 20 senior marketingexecutives suggest that this construct may bemultidimensional and associated with three differenttypes of uncerta inty conditions.

cCleod 1986). Since a prim ary objective of a MkIS is to provide

. M anagem ent accounting systems (MAS) and managem ent


2/17

544 Nicholas J. Ashill and David Jobbermanagers to be useful to facilitate their decision-making (e.g., Gordon anN aray anan 1984; Chenhall and M orris 1986; M angaliso 1995). Researcpertaining to MAS and MIS design is largely based on the informatiocharac teristic continua advocated by Gorry and Scott-Morton (1971). Theresearchers suggest that each item of information has a source (informatiomay come from internal or external sources), scope (information may bnarrow or wide in its representation), level of aggregation (information mabe detailed or aggregated), time-horizon (data items may report what hhappened i.e., ex post or what is expected to occur i.e., ex ante), currenc(information may report on the most recent events or be older), requireaccuracy (information may be high or low in its correctness) and frequency use (information may be used very frequently or infrequently).

W hile studies in MAS and MIS research have en hanced an un dersta ndinof what types of information are appropriate in different situations contexts, there appears to have been no empirical investigation of thimportance of information characteristics in MkIS research . This pa pe r organised into four sections. We first review the conceptualisation reporteby Ashill and Jobber (1999) and describe marketing information needs terms of the user specifications of information charac teristics. The nesection outlines our research objectives specific to one aspect of the Ashand Jobber (1999) framework, namely an examination of the domain oPerceived Env ironm ental Uncertainty (PEU). This is followed w ith dacollection procedures, sample selection and analytical metho ds. Finally, wdiscuss the results of our study, highlighting their exploratory^ nature ansugges ting areas for future research. In this final section, we alacknowledge the study's limitations and offer some insights into how thPEU construct migh t be operationalised.Conceptual FrameworkThe conceptual framework advocated by Ashill and Jobber (1999) presented in Figure 1. The framework exam ines the infiuence of contextusettings on the effective design of MkIS, and draws on three key literatubases and illustrates three categories of antecedents of the usefulness marketing information characteristics: environmental uncertainperceptions, decision-maker characteristics and work environment facto(Ashill and Jobber 1999). Env ironmental uncertainty percep tions are draw


3/17

Perceived Environmental Uncertainty 545contingency theory applications to accounting research, relatively fewempirical investigations exist examining MkIS design.

External EnvironmentalCharacteristics- variability- complexity-

Perceptions of ExternalEnvironmental Uncertainty- state- effect- response

Decision-Maker Characteristics- duration/variet) ' of experience- locus of control- tolerance of ambiguit)'

MkIS DesignCharacteristicsBroad Scope InformationTimel\' InformationAccurate InformationAggregated Information- Cur rent InformationPersonal SourcesImpersonal Sources

Work Environment Factors- decision type- decision importance- decision arrival time- task difficult)- task variabilit)-

Figure 1. A Co nce ptua l M od el of Factors A ffecting the Perce ivedUsefulness of MkIS Design Characteristics (Ashill and Jobber 1999)Using the Gorry and Scott-Morton (1971) information characteristic continuaand empirical work cited in the information systems literature (e.g., Chenhalland Morris 1986), the authors suggest that the information needs of seniormarketing executives can be operationalised in terms of the perceivedusefulness of seven information characteristics: broad scope information,timely information, current information, aggregated information, accuratenformation, personal information sources and impersonal informationources. Information scope represen ts the scope of events, places, peop le, and(Gorr}- and Scott-Morton 1971;

facilitate marketing managem ent decision-making). Timelyenh all and M orris 1986; Mangaliso 1995). Information aggregation refershe deg ree of sum m arisation performed on information (e.g., Chenhall andorris 1986; Specht 1986; M angaliso 1995). For exam ple, a MkIS can provide


4/17

546 Nicholas J. Ashill and David Jobber1997), and describes the length of time between something occurring and tevent being refiected in the information. Cu rrent m arketing informatithus describes marketing data that reports on the most recent evenInformation accuracy refers to the extent to which the output informationsufficiently correct to satisfy its intended use (Li 1997). Accurate informatithus describes data, which is correct for its intend ed use. Personinformation sources involve direct contact with other individuals (such face-to-face conversations, telephone conversations and meetingimpersonal information sources describe those sources of information whiare written in nature, such as computer generated reports and markresearch reports.

The propositions advanced by Ashill and Jobber (1999) posit that Mkdesign should be aligned to a range of contex tual factors. These incluexternal environment factors (variability and complexits^), environmentuncertainty perceptions (state, effect and response), decision-makcharacteristics (experience, tolerance of ambiguity and locus of control) anwork environment factors (nature of marketing management decisioactivits^ decision importance, decision arrival time, task difficulty and tavariability). The framework sugges ts that user specifications of informaticharacteristics may depend on the nature of the external marketienvironment, work conditions that decision-makers have to deal with, athe psychological disposition of the decision-maker. The au tho rs discuss tcomponents of the framework elsewhere (see Ashill and Jobber 1999) adevelop a set of research propositions for empirical study.Perceived Fnvironmental Uncertainty and InformatiCharacteristicsThe relationship between the perceived usefulness of information systecharacteristics and the contextual variable of PEU has been studied numerous MAS and MIS writers (e.g., Gordon and Narayanan 198Ch enhall and M orris 1986; Gul and Chia 1994; M angaliso 1995). The leveluncertainty faced by decision-makers has been cited as an importadeterminant of behaviour in both psychological decision theories atheories of organisa tiona l design (e.g., Th om pson 1967; Duncan 197Environmental uncertainty exists when decision-makers do not feconfident that they understand what the major events or trends are, or whthey feel unable to accurately assign probabilities to the likelihood th


5/17

Perceived Env ironm ental Uncertainty 547three most com mon definitions to be found in the literature are: a) aninability to assign probabilities to the likelihood of future events (e.g.,Duncan 1972; Milliken 1987), b) a lack of information about cause-effectrelationships (e.g., Duncan 1972; Milliken 1987) and/or c) an inabilitv^ topredict accurately what the outcomes of a decision might be (e.g., Duncan1972; Downey and Slocum 1975; Milliken 1987).Milliken (1987 1990) suggests that there are three types of uncertaintvabout environm ents, wh ich may account for these different definitions.These uncertainty types are called state uncertainty, effect uncertainty andresponse uncertainty. State uncertainty occurs when a decision-makerperceives an organisation 's environ ment to be unpredictable. Here,managers do not feel confident that they understand what the major e\ entsor trends in an environment are or feel unable to accurateh' assignprobabilities to the likelihood that particular e\ents or changes will occur.Effect uncertainty refers to the inabilit)^ to predict the nature of the effect of afuture state of the environment on the organisation i.e., an understanding ofcause-effect rela tion ships . This type of uncertainty' is more specific than sta teuncertainty because the experience involves an inability to understand theimpact of events on the organisation, not an inability to predict the state ofthe external environm ent. The third un certainty experience Milliken (1987)identifies is response uncertainty^; this represents an inability to predict thelikely consequences of a response choice, and is experienced when decision-makers attempt to understand the range of strategic responses open to themand attempt to evaluate the relative utility of possible options.There exists a long list of empirical research examining environmentalunce rtainty perceptions in a diverse range of organisational settings. Whilethe conceptual meaning of these constructs is not controversial, operationaldefinitions do differ w idely. M easures of environm ental characteristics anduncertainty perceptions are either induced from properties of the decision-making process (e.g., Duncan 1972; Tung 1979; Gerloff et al 1991) or take amore literal mean ing as reflecting a property- of the environm ent (e.g., Achroland Stern 1988; Teo and King 1997). Because of the wide differences in theway that PEU has been defined in the organisational beha\iour andbehavioural decision-making literatures, we decided to define the conceptempirically so as to provide a definition that senior marketing executixescould un de rstand . It was believed that by involving senior marketingexecutives in defining uncertainty, it would be conceptualised and


6/17

548 Nicholas J. Ashill and David Jobberresearch examining environmental uncertainty in a marketing context (e.gAchrol and Stern 1988) has failed to identify the source of PEU, in othwords the domain of the external markefing environment which tdecision-maker is uncertain about (e.g., com petitors, suppliers etc). Dunc(1972) defines the organisational environment as the totality of physical ansocial factors that are taken directly into considerafion in the decisiomaking behaviou r of indiv idua ls in the organ isation. If the environ m ent defined in this way, there are clearly factors within the boundaries of torganisation or specific decision-maker environment that must be consideras part of that environment.Given the diversity in operational definitions and the failure to identithe source of uncertainty in a marketing decision-making context, this papnow proceeds to report the findings of a second qualitative research phaexam ining the dom ain of the environ m ental uncertainty concept. Tobjectives of the research were twofold: first, to conceptualise the boundariof the external markefing environment i.e., the specific boundaricomprising it, so as to identify those factors outside the boundaries of tdecision-maker that are taken into consideration in marketing managemedecision-making; second, to present a conceptualisation of PEU in m arketing m anag em ent context. In sum m ary, our work seeks to identify tfactors that makeup the external marketing environment as well as tspecific dim ens ions of PEU.Research ApproachSince the PEU construct has been well delineated in previous literature, thstudy did not follow a purely inductive (grounded theory) approach to dacollection (Strauss and Corbin 1992). Its design was partly confirmatory, as to further explicate the work of Milliken (1987 1990) and Gerloff et (1991) in their reconceptualisation based on the earlier work of Dunc(1972), and partly exploratory, to shed some light on the construct withinm arketing decision-making context. To this end, in-depth personinterviews were used as the data collection method (Miles and Huberm1994).

An experience survey (key informant survey) of 20 senior markefiexecutives was selected as the data collection method, given its applicabilifor studying decision-makers (Robson and Foster 1989). The unit of analy


7/17

Perceived En viron m ental Un certainty 549ind ustrie s repre sented . The sam plin g frame consisted of large (employing100-1- full-time employees) manufacturing, business-to-business and serviceorganisations identified as operating a MkIS (Statistics New Zealand 1996).Past literature on uncertainty and decision-making reported by Ashill andobber (1999) was used to develop questions to be included in a semi-structured, undisguised interview guide regarding the nature of the seniormarketing executive's external environment and the marketing decision-m ak ing process. The choice of a sem i-structured ve rsus a structuredquestionnaire was made due to the partly exploratory nature of the study(Strauss an d C orbin 1990). The length of the instru m ent wa s such that theinterview s w ou ld last app roxim ately on e hou r. That pa rt of the researchinstrument, which focused on the domain of PEU, centred on the followingquestions:

a) W hat does you r external m arke ting environ me nt look like (themakeup of this external environment in terms of customers, suppliers,com petito rs etc)? W hat are the factors (things othe r th an peo ple)outside the organisation that you have to take directh' intoconsiderat ion in making marketing management decis ions on yourjob?b) W hat does 'unc erta inty ' m ean to you on you r job?c) Describe some situations w her e you experienced unc ertainty. Why

we re you unce rtain? Are there factors in the external m arketin genvironment that cause you uncertainty when making marketingmanagement decis ions?

Each interview w as tape d an d then transcribed. The analysis followed thesequence of steps described in Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 10), who"define analysis as consisting of three concurrent flows of activity: datareduction, data display, and conclusion draw ing/verif icat ion". Datareduction was undertaken for each of the 20 interviews, using a list of basiccodes dev ised prior to fieldwork. Subcodes we re ad de d to categoriseinformation further w ithin each of the ma in codes. How ever, not all codesw ere pre-specified. Ad ditional insights frequently surfaced du ring datacollection, transcription and analysis, with additional codes emerging as aresult.

The codes were arranged in the form of 20 within-case displays which


8/17

550 Nicholas J. Ashill and David Jobbermatrices that assemble the descriptive data from each of the within-casdisplays in a standard format (Miles and Huberman 1994).FindingsThe first objective of the exploratory work was to identify the source ouncertainty, in other words, the domain of the external marketinenvironment, which the decision-maker is uncertain about. Table summarises aspects of the external marketing environment oconcern/relevance for marketing management decision-making, anidentifies potential sources of PEU for a senior marketing executivFollowing Duncan (1972) we suggest that these factors can be used facilitate the identification if PEU experienced by senior marketinexecutives.Table 1. The Domain of a Senior Marketing Executive's ExternMarketing Environment

External MarketingEnvironment Factors DescriptionDistributors Intermediary customers of the organisation'sprod ucts /servic es i.e., organisations that acquire \ ourproducts/services for sale.End-user customers of the organisation'sproducts/services and their buyer behaviour.Market size/de m and patterns, segmentation,products/services, prices, distribution channels, andpromotions in this m arketCompetitors of the organisation's prod ucts/services e.gnumbers, market positions and strategies.Suppliers of raw materials com ponents, suppliers ofequipments, suppliers of services.Inflation, interest rates, exchange rates, economic g rowthRegulatory constraints such as trade/industry practices,advertising, distribution, and pricing constraintsThe application of new technological advances that areprofoundly affecting the economics of our industry,innovations in product/service production and deliveryPopulation factors such as age shifts, changes in consum

Actual End UsersMarket Characteristics

CompetitorsSuppliersEconomic factorsPolitical/Legal factorsTechnology factors

Socio-cultural factors


9/17

Perceived Env ironmental Uncertainty 551

ify the specific d imens ions of PEU. As prev iously stated, because of the

ves could un de rstan d. Although there was some difficultyrtainty, there w as a degree of similarity w ith regard to the way in whichconcept was ultimately defined. In talking about the concept of

20 responden ts. The three com ponents were as follows:a) The lack of information regard ing environm ental factors com prisingthe decision-maker's environment/not being able to predict what isgoing to happen.b) No t know ing the impact of changes in the external m arketingenvironment on the organisation and marketing managementdecision-making.c) Not knowing how to respond to wh at is hap pen ing in the externalmarketing environment.

educed) data from the 20 single cases. Concep tualh' ordered displays

Milliken 1987; Gerloff et al. 1991) except that the terminology referreda ma rketing mana gem ent op erating environment. In the discussion thatves. The num ber by each code represents the senior marketing

Most respondents described an inability to predict what is happening in


10/17

552 Nicholas J. Ashill and D avid JobberTable 2. Meta-Matrix: Senior M arketing Executive UncertaiPerceptions

Type of UncertaintyConditionExperienced Code and Description Illustration (Examples)

1. An inability topredict what is going tohappen in the externalmarketing environment(state environmentaluncertaintv)

- A lack of information about howenvironmental factors will change in the future(2,5 ,9,1 2, 13 19)- A lack of und erstan ding of the externalmarketing environment in which we compete(2, S, 10,12, 15 19)- The inability to predict what is going tohappen in the marketplace (3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 18 20)- The inability to predict which environm entalfactors will be important considerations infuture marketing management decision-mak ing (4, 9, 10, 13, 18 20)

"Our external environment is changing vquickly because of technology and this affecuncertainty because you never know w hat tcompetition is going to do ""We don't have the ability to predict withdegree of hand on heart certainty what the mgoing to do""It is about not having enough informatioknowledge about what is going on in the ma"If you are making decisions and yes, youhave the information (i.e., the full picture) thyou do feel ver)' uncertain""Our industry' is changing \ ery slowly, it volatile and we can predict what is likely to and what things we need to keep abreast of making decisions"

2. An inability topredict theimpact/effect oichanges in the externalmarketing environmenton the organisation andmarketing managementdecision-making (effectenvironmentaluncertaint\)

- The inability to predict the impact/effect ofchanges in the external marketingenvironment on marketing managementdecision-m aking (4, 6, 11, 14 20)- N'ot understandmg the effect of changes inthe external marketing environment onmarketing management decision-making (4,11, 14 20)- Confidence/sureness as to how externalfactors will affect marketing managementdecision-making (7, 11, 12 20)- Length of time before knowing the effect ofchanges in the external environment onmarketing management decision-making (4, 7,11,13 20)- Not being able to quantify' the impact of whatis going to happen in the external m arketingenvironment on marketing managementdecision-making (3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14)

"We don't know how the introduction of competitors will affect us""We have n o idea about how changes in environment are going to affect us and ourcustomers""Sometimes we h ave difficulty in workinghow a change in our external environment wisales and profitability""Something new which means that we sudon't know w here we stand, an d wha t it meus""We don't have uncertainty as to which wmarketing is going to go, but to quantify it isharder""Uncertainty is about quantifying wh at ishappen . We know what is going to happen,do n't know how significant the event is goinand how it is going to affect us""You don't kno w wha t the impact is goingyour customers and what the impact is goingyou"

3 An inability topredict what themarketing responseoptions are and/or thevalue or utility of eachmarketing course ofaction in terms ofachieving desiredorganisationaloutcomes (responseen\ ironmentaluncertainty)

- The inability to identify and evaluatedifferent alternatives before making marketingman agem ent decisions (5, 8, 13 20)- The inability to anticipate theoutcomes/consequences of marketingmanagement decision-making before they aremad e (5, 8 20)- The inability to work out what the marketingresponse options should be in light of changesin the external marketing envirorunent (8, 9,1819)- Knowledge of how to respnsnd / react to

"We don't know which way to go in respcompetitor activity""At times I feel very uns ure a bout w hich should go with our m arketing strategy""We are uncertain as to how we should chmark eting prog ramm es in respo nse to these consumer attitudes""You can't make a decision and know whoutcome is going to be"


11/17

Perceived Env ironmental Uncertainty 553n't have the information, then yes, you do feel ver)' uncertain". In

example, the Marketing Director of Organisation 4 stated: "Uncertainty'arket is going to do ". Similar statements were made by respondents from3, 5, 6, 9,10, 15, 18 and 20.The inability to predict/determine the effect or impact of vyhat is

nde nts as characterising environm ental uncertainty. Followingilliken (1987) we labelled th is type of uncertain ty condifion 'Effectental Uncertainty'. Resp onden ts described this uncertainty-ition with not being able to predict the impact/effect of changes in thenal m arketing environm ent, not knovying how marketing env ironmen t

o ha pp en in the external marketing env ironmen t. While this type of

ditions. For exam ple, the M arketing Director of Organisafion 6 stated:ertain as how these tren ds will affect u s in the future". Similarh', the

arkefing M anager of Organisafion 12 stated: stated: "We don't havecerta inty as to vyhich way the m arke t is going to go. We know vyhich wayis going to go, bu t to quanfify it is a lot ha rde r". Similar comments vyereade by responden ts fi-om Organisafions 4, 11 and 14 suggesfing that these

A third grouping of respondent comments characterised uncertainty in


12/17

554 Nicholas J. Ashill and David Jobberdecisions, not knowing which direction to take in response to changes in external environment, being unsure about how to respond/react to chanin the external m arketing environm ent, uncertainty as to whether m arketstrategies should be changed in response to environmental shifts, and inability to anticipate the outcomes of marketing decisions before they m ade . The M arketing M anager of Organisation 5 stated: "Un certaintyabout not knowing which way to go, having to weigh up the pros and cof som ething and then in the end m aking a decision". Resp ondents msimilar com ments from Organ isations 6, 9, 13, 18 and 19. The MarketM anager of Organisation 18 stated: "we had to go from CFC'shydrocarbon in aerosols so there was a major shift in consumer attitubecause of that . . . this raised some serious issues such as wh ether to go totally new delivery system, and whether customers would actually like tbecause at the end of the day they are still looking for a product tperform s". Similarly, the M arketing Director of Organ isation 19 stated: "are not clear abou t which direction to take. We hav e identified some vkey trends in our indu stry, and these present some significant threats . . .we are still uncertain as to how we should respond to these trends with marketing strategies".D iscuss ion and M easurement IssuesThe patterns of these results appear to be consistent with the conceptual empirical work of Milliken (1987 1990) and Gerloff et al (1991). Our findisuggest that senior marketing executives associate PEU with state, effect response uncertainty conditions, indicating the need for a large numberindictors to adequately tap the multidimensional and multifaceted naturethe PEU concept. While our findings suggest that senior marketexecutives experience different types of uncertainty conditions, the reseafindings also indicate that senior m arke ting executives experience levelunce rtainty whe n all three unce rtainty conditions are experienced. example, the M arketing Director of Organisation 20 stated: "Uncertaimeans when you cannot predict what changes are going to happen, and ytherefore don't know what the implications of these changes are, and howreact to these chan ges". Further supp ort for the m ultidimensional multifaceted natu re of PEU can be found in the organisationa l behav iour behavioural decision-making literatures. Although our findings suggest t


13/17

Perceived Env ironmental Uncertainty 555

sistent and often difficult to interp ret results. Problem s largely centretrum en ts. MiUiken (1987) sugg ests that external validity may bebiguou s because the subscales involve unidimensional m easures. An

variable. However, we suggest that me asuring PEU in this way mayinapprop riate. A construct with reflective ind icators is one where the1). The variables reflect the construct (the construct precedes the

tors in a causal sense). However, if formative indicators areered, the uno bservab les are considered effects rather than causes. Inf com bining in a linear form, the observed \ ariables. It is in essenceTodd 1995). For exam ple, an overall m easu re of PEU

mpact of change, and the inability to determ ine how to respond to what ispen ing in the extemal environmen t. The mu ltidimensional and

We suggest that a researcher seeking to measure PEU needs to thinke relationship, OR of the

However, this does not always make sense. To illustrate this

cer tain ty cond itions. If a senior marke ting executive experiences anironm ent, th en PEU would be negatively affected. BUT to say that a


14/17

556 Nicholas J. Ashill and David Jobbergoing to happen in the external marketing environment and an inabilitypredict wha t the marketing response options should be.If indicators to measure PEU are truly refiective, then an increase in tinability to predict what is going to happen in the external marketienvironment would also imply an inability to predict the effect of changesthe external marketing environment on marketing decision-making and inability to determine what the marketing response options should be, sinthey are all meant to tap the same concept or phenomenon i.e., PEWhereas for the formative measures, an increase in one type of uncertaincondition does not imply sim ilar increases in the other typ es of conditions.Conclusions and Future Research DirectionsThe research reported in this pape r set out to explore the dom ain of onethe independent variables reported by Ashill and Jobber (1999) in thmodel of MkIS design . Our findings supp or t the work of M illiken (1987) aGerloff et al (1991) who advocate the use of separate scales to measudifferent forms of uncertainty cond itions. Given the m ultidim ensional amultifaceted nature of the PEU concept, research models should inclusepara te scales represen ting each of the three unc ertainty experiences. Walso suggest that a measure of PEU should consider the use of formatiindicators to characterise the cons truct's multidim ension al natu re. Althouour findings suggest a linkage between the three uncertainty conditio(senior marketing executives described higher levels of uncertainty when three uncertainty cond itions exist), each condition m ay no t be correlated wthe other conditions.Given the exploratory nature of this study, the results require furthempirical verification. We suggest that the psychom etric prop erties of scales developed (for state, effect and response conditions) will have to addressed before they could be used in future work (Spector 1992). Rigoropsychometric analysis should be undertaken to assess the dimensionalireliability, and validity of derived scales, using survey data from popula tion of senior marketing executives. It will be importan t to establconvergent and discriminant validity among the three types of PEU.References


15/17

Perceived En viron me ntal Un certainty 557Characteristics on the Perceived Usefulness of Marketing InformationSystems (MkIS): A Conceptual Framework", Journal of MarketingManagement, 15 (6), p p . 519-540.and Interdependence on the Perceixed Usefulness of ManagementAccou nting Systems.", The Accounting Review, 61, pp . 16-35.of structura l eq uatio n m ode ling in MIS research: A note of caution", M ISQuarterly 19 (2), p p . 237-246.Interpetat ion Systems", Academ y of Ma nagement Reviezu, 92, pp . 284-295.w ney , H. K. an d Slocum , J. W. (1975), "U nce rtainty: M easu res, Researchand Sources of Variation", Academy of Management Journal, 18, pp . 562-578.perceived environmental uncertainty" . Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,p p . 313-327.unobservable variables and measurement error" . Journal of MarketingResearch, 18, p p . 39-50.E.A, Muir, N.K. and Bodensteiner, W.D. (1991), "Three Componentsof Perceived En viro nm enta l Un certa inty: An Exploratory An alysis of theEffects of Aggregation", Journal of M anagement, 17 (4), pp . 749-768.Systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organizationalstructure: an empirical in\^estigation". Accounting, Organizatuvis andSociety, 9, p p . 33-47.Information Systems", Sloan Management Review, 13, p p . 55-70.systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and decentralization onm ana ger ial performance: A test of 3 way interaction", Accountnig,Organizations and Society 19, p p . 413-426.J.W. and McLeod, R. (1986), "The Structure of Executive InformationSystems: An Exploratory Analysis", Decision Science, 17, p p . 220-249.i, E. (1997), "Perceived importance of information system success factors: Ameta analysis of group differences", biformation and Management, 32, pp.15-28.


16/17

558 Nic hola s J. Ashill an d D avid JobberState, effect and response uncertainty". Academy of Management Review,pp . 133-143.Milliken, F.J. (1990), "Perceiving and integrafing change: An examinafioncollege adminis trators ' interpretat ion of changing demographicAcademy of Management Journal, 33, pp . 42-63.Senn, J.A. (1987), Information Systems in Managem ent. Belmont, Wadsworth.Specht, P.H. (1986), "Job Characteristics as indicants of CBIS DRequirements" , MIS Quarterly, Septem ber, p p . 271-285.Statistics New Zealand. (1996). Business Activity 1994-95. WellingtInformation Consultancy Group.Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: grounded thprocedures and techniques, Newbury Park , Calif: Sage Publications.

Teo, T.H. and King, W.R. (1997), " Integration between Business Plannand Information Systems Plann ing: An Evo lutionary-C ontingenPe rsp ect ive", 14 (1), 185-214.Th om pso n, J. (1967), Orga nizations in Action, New York, McGraw-Hill .Tun g, R. (1979), "Dim ension s of O rgan ization al En viron m ents: Exploratory Study of Their Impact on Organizational Structure", Acadeof Management Journal, 22, p p . 672-693.Weick, K.E. (1969), The Social Psychology of Organising, Reading, AddisoWesley.

About the AuthorsNicholas Ashill is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing in the School of Marketand International Business at Victoria University of Wellington, NZe alan d. His research interests focus on MkIS design, m arke t plannprocess and implem entation, and m easu ring sponsorsh ip effectiveness. has published articles on these topics in journals such as the ]ournalMarketing Man agement , European Journal of Marketing, Journal of StrateMarketing, QM R: An International Journal and The International JournaSports Ma rketing and Sponsorship.David Jobber is Professor of Markefing at the University of BradfM anag em ent Centre. His research interests are m arketin g research ainformation systems, and sales m ana gem ent. He has published over articles on these and other related areas.


17/17

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kritika-sharma
View:	264 times
Download:	0 times

As Hill and Jobber 2001

Documents