1. THE SOCIAL ROLE OF THE MARKETING AUDIT IN
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
Douglas Rohde
Dr. Mark Palmer, Supervisor
Birmingham Business School, PhD Proposal
October, 2011 Intake
douglasrohde@post.harvard.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 RESEARCH PROPOSAL
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Overall Aims and Objectives
1.3 Theoretical Rationale
1.3.1 The Rise of Management Tools and their Discourses
1.3.2 The Increased Importance of Management Tools and their Effect
1.4 Literature Reviews
1.5 Methodology
1.6 Timeline
1.7 Theoretical Contribution
1.8 Summary of PhD Proposal
1.9 References

2. 2
1.0 RESEARCH PROPOSAL
1.1 Background of the Study
It is through management tools – those conceptual frameworks that focus the attention
of strategic planners on the most important considerations given the tasks with which
they are confronted – that strategic planners better understand the resources at their
disposal, the threats they face, and the landscapes within which they must compete.
Management tools in one form or another are used by most if not all organizations
and play a significant role in defining and shaping strategic planning and management
thinking today. It therefore follows that a focus on management tools is both an
attractive and relevant direction for academic inquiry. This thesis will focus on the
social role of the Marketing Audit in the strategic planning process.
Management tools are now recognized as a critical element in the strategic planning
process in general (Jarzabkowski, Giulietti and Oliveira, 2009; Rigby, 2001; Jarratt
and Stiles, 2010; Glaister and Falshaw, 1999) and highlighted as an integral part of
the marketing planning process in particular (Kotler, Gregor and Rodgers III, 1989;
Tybout and Hauser, 1981). Management tools are frequently employed by the private
sector in the course of regular strategic planning as well as during crises and in the
turnaround of failing organizations. They are also employed by the public sector to
help them develop a more acute understanding of the political, economic and social
landscapes they face (Dragos and Elena, 2007; Dapice, 2003) and are singled out as
an important aspect in the shaping of organizational boundaries (Goolsby, 1992;
Davenport and Leitch, 2005; Anand and Jones, 2008).
A range of views exist on the efficacy of management tools – from the extremely
positive to the very skeptical. Jarratt and Stiles (2010) consider management tools
from “a positivist perspective, [in that management tools] are presented as
uncomplicated, focusing on key issues, providing important dimensions for
interrogation, and offering a structure for analysis and a framework for strategizing
and strategy decision-making.” While Glaister and Falshaw (1999) find that short-
sightedness, a lack of explanatory or predictive value and tool-bias can affect sound
planning and conclude that “some doubt may be cast over the quality of the analysis

3. 3
which occurs, in particular that associated with SWOT analysis.” Basically, some
claim they are brilliant while others cast doubt on that assertion.
Conventional thinking teaches us that successful utilization largely depends on a rich
understanding of the organization and the environment within which it operates;
without this understanding as a starting point the best tools are of little value and may
indeed mislead and harm planners who use them incautiously. Regardless of whether
management tools are perceived to be wholly beneficial or not, it is clear they will
play an increasingly important role in the shaping of management thought and
strategy in the years to come.
A number of management tools exist to help planners in the course of their analysis
(Rigby, 2001). Although not an exhaustive list, some of the most familiar ones are:
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats), that emphasizes both
internal and external environments; Porter’s FFA (Five Forces Analysis), that
emphasizes the external environment as it relates to an SBU (Specific Business Unit)
(Porter, 2008); the VRIO (Value, Rarity, Imitability, and Organization) framework,
which is a four question framework asked about a capability or resource to determine
its competitive potential (Jugdev and Mathur, 2006); and PESTLE, which more
broadly concerns the political, economic, sociocultural, technological, legal, and
environmental contexts within which planners must operate.
The Marketing Audit is simply a structured review of an organization’s marketing
activities. I will focus on this particular tool because of what I perceive to be the
tendency for organizations to get stuck in marketing routines. My experience has
been that many organizations operate under the mistaken assumption that they will
continue to face the same competitors inside an unchanging external environment
when in fact market positions are inherently ephemeral and organizations are
constantly confronted with changing landscapes and new market entrants. As an
essential component of the marketing planning process since the 1950s (Kotley,
Gregor and Rodgers III, 1989), the Marketing Audit allows organizations to
accurately appreciate their current internal strengths and weaknesses and external
opportunities and threats with the goal of making informed decisions about their
future. A Marketing Audit is not only to be conducted at the start of the planning

4. 4
process, but is typically conducted periodically over the course of a plan’s
implementation to determine if the activity thus far undertaken aligns with stated
objectives, which are always subject to change (Tybout and Hauser, 1981).
Despite these contributions, the deeper social mechanisms behind the Marketing
Audit within the strategic planning process (such as how and to what degree does
language affect audit outcomes, for example) have not yet emerged as an important
topic in the field. As the deployment of management tools has increased significantly
in recent years (Jarzabkowski, Giulietti and Oliveira, 2009), very little is known about
vocabularies of motives (the language by which people describe their motivations and
account for their conduct) and the contested dynamics of the interaction of tools
across organizational contexts. It is argued here that what is required is a deeper
appreciation of the social processes for re-evaluating and further developing the
existing literature on this area. With the more complete picture of the social
mechanisms behind the Marketing Audit that this research aims to provide, both
academics and practitioners will be able to approach the subject of management tools
in general and the Marketing Audit in particular with a more complete understanding
of the roles classification and categorical thinking play (such as the listing and
categorizing of designatory acronyms and the degree to which these acronyms
provide summary labels and identities which bring together otherwise disparate
assumptions and practices and in so doing serve as a form of social control, limiting
the imagination by offering mechanisms for social ordering) and the effect they have
on strategy planning (Bowker and Star, 2002; Simons, 1994; Woolgar, 2004).
The role of tools can be seen as a social process by which individuals come to accept
a shared sense of the social reality from the “way things are” to the “ways things are
to be done” (Scott, 1987). As taken-for-granted, culturally embedded understandings,
tools and their acronymic discourse both formally and informally specify and justify
social arrangements and behaviors (Jarratt and Stiles, 2010). Institutional studies
infer that organizational behaviors become ‘social givens’ precisely because such
social norms, rules and meanings are taken for granted. The rules surrounding the
adoption and adaptation of tools in practice are therefore central to the strategic
planning process. A great number of institutional environments are “characterized by
the elaboration of rules and requirements to which individual organizations must

5. 5
conform if they are to receive support and legitimacy” (Scott, 1995). Decision-
making in dynamic strategic planning contexts is quite complex and hardly a simple
matter of applying some general management tool rules.
1.2 Overall Aims and Objectives
Against this background, this research will investigate the social role of the Marketing
Audit. The research problem aims to discern:
The role played by the Marketing Audit in the strategic planning process
in developing social exchange, control and order across the organization.
In order to explore this research goal, four issues of critical importance were
identified. They are:
 Research Issue #1: To explore the social vocabulary of the Marketing
Audit in general, and acronyms in particular, as a social medium for the
colonization of other corporate functional areas.
This foundational issue will be an investigation into the boundary-spanning elements
of the Marketing Audit. As a result of this focus some important questions emerge,
such as: What types of social vocabulary increase the likelihood of successful
colonization? Why is it the case that some elements may be more effective than
others at being adopted? And what are the mechanics of colonization and to what
degree are the actors involved conscious of the processes to which they are party?
 Research Issue #2: To explore the role of the Marketing Audit in
developing social exchange, control and order across several institutional
contexts: (e.g., “Competitive,” “Permission and Forgiveness,” “Pygmalion
Effects,” “Dirty Hands” and “Tricksterism” contexts).
For this issue I will explore the role of the Marketing Audit in developing social
exchanges, control and order given disparate but commonplace institutional

6. 6
environments. I will question the function of the Marketing Audit and the purpose
behind its introduction given a variety of social contexts. How, if at all, does the role
of the Marketing Audit change when introduced into dissimilar situations where the
expectations and behaviours of the actors involved vary considerably? Does its role
maintain certain attributes across different contexts or not – why is this so and exactly
how does it occur?
 Research Issue #3: To examine the effect of the Marketing Audit in social
exchange development, control and order across the organization.
For this issue I will explore the effect of the Marketing Audit when understood as a
vehicle for the establishment and sustainability of social relationships between actors
from different SBUs within an organization; . Under question will be the outcomes
that result from this exchange. If it is the case that this colonization occurs, what are
the implications for organizational health (i.e., conflict management) in general and
for the functional areas subject to colonization in particular? Namely, is this a
positive or negative thing? Does a higher degree of order, productivity and control
result from this exchange? Regardless of the conclusion, why is this so and exactly
how does it occur?
 Research Issue #4: To examine the effect that the ‘social rules' of the
Marketing Audit have on the facilitation or inhibition of innovation in
market driven and/or market driving environments.
Finally, I will examine the effect of the social rules of the Marketing Audit on either
the facilitation or the repression of innovation in market driven and/or market driving
behaviour (this direction assumes that an organization’s capacity for innovation is at
least in part dependant on successful inter-organizational social exchanges). Some
important questions are: Through what processes do an institution’s social rules
develop? How are those social rules expressed through the vehicle of the Marketing
Audit? And, most importantly, what impact do these rules have on an institution’s
capacity for innovation given different operational contexts?

7. 7
1.3 Theoretical Rationale
The case for researching this area can be made from a synthesis of the existing
literature. In the sections that follow I cover a few of the most important points taken
from the literature.
1.3.1 The Rise of Management Tools and their Discourses
There is good reason to believe that the task of management is becoming more tool-
oriented. The 1980s and 1990s saw a tremendous growth in management
consultancies in many countries, spearheaded by an elite group consisting of
McKinsey & Company, Bain & Company, BCG, KPMG, and reinforced with a
deluge of ancillary, specialist consultancies (Jarratt and Stiles, 2010; Paroutis and
Pettigrew, 2007). The importance of management consultancy is reflected in the
increasing attempts by scholars to understand and explain the phenomenon (Paroutis
and Pettigrew, 2007; Denis, Langley and Rouleau, 2007). To better understand their
clients and increase their value propositions, these consultancies developed a wide
range of management tools and adopted several from academic research.
Much of the early research in this area examined the extent of management tool
deployment (Rigby, 2001; Kotler, Gregor and Rodgers, 1989). These studies found
that tools like those mentioned above are frequently used as planning aids by
practitioners to achieve ever-higher levels of coordination, communication and
collaboration (Jarzabkowski, Balogun and Seidl, 2007; Jarzabkowski, Giulietti and
Oliveira, 2009). A brief examination of the marketing and management literature,
moreover, reveals a list of management tools designed to help business leaders
navigate the challenges they face (Dranove and Marciano, 2005). Jarzabkowski et al.
highlights 14 of the most popular tools “that enable managers to deal with the
challenges they face in managing their organisation’s strategic direction” (2009).
Palmer identifies seven commonly used tools and suggests that as a means for
achieving a more thorough understanding “[s]uch tools may be conceived of in three
ways: as typifying a phase in the development of the marketing department and
setting boundaries; as a defence against separation anxiety with other corporate tools
(e.g., financial audits); and, lastly, as a neutral sphere in which experience is not

8. 8
challenged by other corporate specialists” (2010). These tools are becoming more
ubiquitous and whatever the specifics of their purpose they promise to play an ever-
greater role in the way we perceive the planning process in general and ourselves as
strategic planners in particular (Jarzabkowski, Balogun and Seidl, 2007).
Recent studies have sought to understand the adaptation of tools – what some refer to
as ‘bricolage’ (Baker and Nelson, 2005) – and more generally the social processes
surrounding their use (Benford and Snow, 2000; Jarratt and Stiles, 2010). Advancing
this work, a study by Jarzabkowski et al. (2007) found that a large share of the work
that strategists do includes “specific practices such as meetings, workshops, analytic
tools, management processes and rhetorical and discursive forms.” In a separate
study, Jarzabkowski et al. found that “the number of tools used by professionals is
noteworthy, as it seems to indicate that they are indeed more called upon to adopt
managerial practices and roles that necessitate the use of strategy tools, whereas
previously they were perceived to focus more [attention] on their professions than on
management activities” (2009).
1.3.2 The Increased Importance of Management Tools and their Effect
A number of authors have focused research on the effect of management tools and
demonstrated a relationship between tools and performance (Porter, 2008; Glaister
and Falshaw, 1999; Cassivi, Lefebvre (E), Lefebvre (L), and Léger, 2003; Denis,
Langley and Rouleau, 2007; Kotler, Gregor and Rodgers III, 1989).
Recent scholarship has expanded our understanding of tools beyond the traditional
focus – which emphasizes a broad range of motives for tool adoption (Jarzabkowski,
Giuletti and Oliveira, 2009; Stenfors, 2007) – and refocused it on the vocabularies of
motives (Stenfors and Tanner, 2006). From this perspective, although there is a
sizable amount of research on why managers use tools (Denis, Langley and Rouleau,
2007; Kotler, Gregor and Rodgers III, 1989; Glaister and Falshaw, 1999; Porter,
2008), the deeper social mechanisms behind tool usage quite often and undeservedly
fails to attract the same degree of attention.
1.4 Literature Reviews

9. 9
This thesis will review the management and marketing literatures pertinent to the
study of management tools in general and the Marketing Audit in particular. This
literature will also establish the broad directions of the research effort to date.
Important research literatures reviewed for this thesis will include: (i) the strategy as
practice literature; (ii) the market orientation literature on market driving and market
driven behavior; (iii) the marketing literature on ‘marketing interfaces’ (e.g., the
marketing-strategy interface, the marketing-finance interface, etc.); (iv) the literature
on social exchange, control and discourse colonization; and (v) institutional theory
specifically relating to taken-for-granted social rules. Based on an initial reading of
the literature (I have thus far collected roughly two dozen studies), I am confident that
I will have the scholarly backing necessary to successfully frame my research.
The literature under review will include but is not limited to:
 Jarzabkowski P., Giuletti M., and Oliveira B., (2009) ‘Building a strategy
toolkit: lessons from business', Advanced Institute of Management Research.
 Jarratt D. and Stiles D., (2010) ‘How are methodologies and tools framing
managers’ strategizing practice in competitive strategy development?’, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 28–43.
 Kotler P., Gregor W. T. and Rodgers III W. H., (1989) ‘The marketing audit
comes of age’, Sloan Management Review.
 Palmer M. and Simmons G., (2010) ‘Strategists’ reactions and resistance
towards the forces of inclusion: soothing the anxiety of marketing influence’.
 Bowker G. C. and Star S. L., (2002). Sorting things out: classification and its
consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
 Simons, R., (1994). Levers of control: how managers use innovative control
systems to drive strategic renewal. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
Business Press.
 Jugdev K. and Mathur G., (2006) ‘Project management elements as strategic
assets: preliminary findings’, Management Research News, Vol. 29, No. 10,
pp. 604–617.

10. 10
 Chia R. and MacKay B., (2007) ‘Post-processual challenges for the emerging
strategy-as-practice perspective: discovering strategy in the logic of practice’,
Human Relations, Vol. 60, pp. 217–242.
In addition to the above, a variety of journals deserve special note due to their
relevance to this research. They are: (i) the Journal of Management; (ii) Human
Relations; (iii) Management Research News; (iv) Academy of Management; (v)
Organization Science; and (vi) the Harvard Business Review.
1.5 Methodology
In considering a research design it is a common and prudent practice to seek guidance
from and use precedents set by previous researchers (Eisenhardt et al., 2009). In the
broader strategy-as-practice literature we find evidence that a more qualitative approach
prevails. For instance, Cassivi et al. (2003) investigated supply chain planning and
execution tool efficiency and the impact of upstream and downstream collaboration on
performance and have characterized their qualitative approach as having been “carried
out in two consecutive phases, a detailed case study and an electronic survey, [which
allowed] for an examination of the entire supply chain from both upstream and
downstream perspectives” while Ezzamel and Willmot (2008) used an in-depth case
study of “StitchCo,” a global retailing and manufacturing company, “to analyse how
strategy activity was articulated, mobilized and enacted; and, in particular, to explore how
accounting practices became discursively imbued with strategic significance in ways that
contributed to what the strategy discourse contrived to invoke and prescribe.” In this
regard, there has been a strong precedence of qualitative research investigation. By
contrast, in the marketing literature, a more quantitative approach dominates; at least in
the North American scholarship.
Triangulation – the idea that a researcher can be more confident with a result if
different methods lead to the same conclusion – has become increasingly important in
social science research and was chosen as the preferred methodological approach for
this thesis (Jick, 1979). Through the combination of multiple methods, theories, and
empirical materials, this research endeavors to overcome any inherent weakness or
bias and the problems that may come from too heavy a reliance on any single method.

11. 11
Miles and Huberman (1994) have identified five forms of triangulation: (i) data
source; (ii) method; (iii) researcher; (iv) theory; and (v) data type. These will all be
used in the course of my work with the exception of ‘researcher’ triangulation, as a
single person is conducting the research in this case.
The presence of triangulation in the management tool literature has thus far been
minimal. To be sure, the concept of triangulation is less a case of using one method
to ascertain a ‘fact’ and then justifying the results by means of another than it is about
verifying a ‘fact’ collected by one method through the application of another (Yueng,
1997). As the theoretical relevance in analysis depends largely upon the conceptual
lens employed, the principal advantage of employing three lenses (triangulation) is the
ability to account for the facts which might have otherwise been dismissed as
insignificant. Through the careful application of multiple methods of analysis this
study will aim to uncover the deeper social mechanisms behind the phenomena.
A mixed methodology will be used with approximately 75% of the research being
qualitative and the remaining 25% being quantitative. For the first, qualitative
approach, it is envisaged that a case study methodology will be used. In the broader
management literature, a growing number of researchers argue that the field of
management would benefit from greater use of case-based research (Bonoma, 1985;
Eisenhardt, 1989 and 1991; Yin, 1989 and 1994; Riege, 1997; Perry, 1998; Perry et
al., 1999; Teale, 1999; Johanson et al., 1999; Wilson and Woodside, 1999). In this
research the case study method can be justified on several criteria: (i) the predominant
use of positivism-based methods in the management field; (ii) the nature of the
problem being researched (Yin, 1994); (iii) the contemporary and dynamic nature of
social processes surrounding the Marketing Audit in practice; and (iv) the call for
more qualitative research in general and more case-oriented research in particular by
several strategy researchers, especially strategy-as-practice researchers. The
relatively little attention that addressing the effect of the social role of management
tools has had suggests that this research would benefit from a mixed-method
approach. This approach would perhaps allow for the revelation of previously
unidentified variables and relationships (Esenhardt, 1989).

12. 12
For the second, quantitative approach, I will conduct a questionnaire-based survey.
The basic idea behind the survey methodology is to measure variables through
questioning people and then examining relationships among the variables. In this
case I will be conducting a small-scale sampling (200-300 respondents) of ‘Fortune
100’ organizations and then considering the effect of social processes on market
driven and market driving behavior. I will then attempt to capture attitudes and
patterns relevant to the interests of this research. As far as the methodological
specifics at this very early stage, I will avoid the common ‘cross-sectional design’
because it asks questions specific to a singular point in time (and is troublesome
because the researcher may not be able to analyze the direction of causal
relationships) and instead opt for the more responsible ‘longitudinal design.’ This
design should better serve the integrity of the research because it accounts for two
different periods and thus yields more acute representations of real-world conditions.
In formulating this research design, it is important to ensure that the study uses the
appropriate control measures (Eisenhardt, 1989). Consequently, this study will use a
number of control measures for the research design and will be oriented toward
increasing the inferential possibilities for evaluation. I intend to examine the
Marketing Audit across several institutional contexts, such as: (i) the “Competitive”
context in which the actions of others may justify cases of rule-breaking in the
practice of tools; (ii) the “Permission and Forgiveness” context where what was once
forbidden becomes forgiven; (iii) the “Pygmalion Effect” where the Marketing Audit
may alter the context so that what was once wrong becomes right or what was once
false becomes true; (iv) the “Dirty Hands” context where all the available decisions
may be wrong; and finally, (v) the “Tricksterism” context where outright deception
comes into play. These control measures will sharpen the results because of the
variety of contexts through which the Marketing Audit will be examined. There will
be less reliance on any singular perspective and thus afford a higher degree of
certainty about the outcome.
1.6 Timeline

13. 13
Although it is an oft times difficult task to anticipate in certain terms how long it will
take to complete thesis work, I expect to be done entirely inside 60 months after
having started the Research Methods Course with the October, 2011 intake.
1.7 Theoretical Contribution
Based on my understanding of what constitutes a contribution in an academic context,
a research paper represents a contribution insofar as it is able to create a theoretical
advance on a question of interest. In undertaking this study, it is envisaged that it will
make several contributions to our understanding of management tools. First, the
study will broaden the boundaries of and add nuanced depth to extant theory because
it will help us better appreciate the ways in which the social vocabulary of the
Marketing Audit in general and acronyms in particular act as a social medium to
colonize, order and control other corporate functional areas. Specifically, this study
will identify a range of ‘expressive control strategies’ (Goffman, 1969). Second, it
will show how the social vocabulary is organized around the Marketing Audit in the
strategic planning process across several institutional contexts. Broadening the
conceptual space of deeper social mechanisms is important because it helps to explain
why the Marketing Audit becomes (dis)embedded in organizations. Theoretical
scrutiny of the Marketing Audit under different social conditions is generally limited.
Third, it will link the social mechanisms and ‘expressive control strategies’ to specific
institutional logics that institutionalize social rules of conduct. The triangulated
approach will help to extend three streams of literature – Management Theory,
Strategic Planning, and Innovation – and simulate a range of research topics for future
studies. In so doing, it offers potential avenues for progressive theoretical and
empirical possibilities. Fourth, the study aims to directly link and test the effect of the
‘social rules' of the Marketing Audit in facilitating or inhibiting innovation in market
driven or market driving behavior. Finally, this study will provide insights into the
contests between social groups with different relationships to and experiences with
the Marketing Audit in the strategic planning process. Towards this end it widens the
explanations of growth that point to the territorial competitions between new and
established institutions.

14. 14
Basically, it is a nebulous task at this stage to say with confidence what the resulting
contribution will be. But considering the appeal of management tools for academics
and practitioners, a study which examines through a variety of lenses the social
vocabulary of the Marketing Audit and its acronymic components as a social medium
for the colonization of other corporate functional areas and the effect that this
vocabulary may have on innovation is sure to excite the interests of many and
overcome the ‘so what?’ factor that plagues so many less-relevant studies.
Personally, I feel that the greatest contribution at this stage is my enthusiasm for the
topic and my genuine commitment to a multi-year, multi-angular research regimen.
1.8 Summary of PhD Proposal
This proposal has laid the foundation for this study and what follows is a
summarization of what has thus far been addressed. To recapitulate, the role of
management tools is becoming more and more pervasive and I believe that a thesis
focused on these tools is a well-considered one. Against this background, the
research problem and issues have been developed and a rationale for the research has
been put forward. The research methodology used will be a composition of
qualitative and quantitative approaches. This mixed method was settled on because it
provides a richer analysis of what certainly amounts to a complex, multi-faceted topic.
Although the theoretical contribution has yet to be defined in concrete terms, I am
confident in this study’s relevance because of its emphasis on the social vocabulary of
the Marketing Audit and the effect this vocabulary may have on an organization’s
capacity for innovation. Given that organizational competitiveness is now more than
ever at the forefront of most every manager’s mind, this direction promises to be well
worth the pursuit and may very well set a precedent for future research in this area.
Birmingham Business School is, for a number of reasons, the best place for me to
engage in this research. First, in the course of my search for an appropriate business
school BBS is universally lauded in a variety of prominent UK university league
tables and web forums and, more broadly, the English PhD’s general reputation for
excellence and emphasis on substantive research over coursework appealed to my
desire to undertake a research qualification at the highest level with the most exacting
standards. I am extremely lucky to have found such a patient and supportive yet

15. 15
demanding supervisor and am looking forward to the next half-decade of
collaboration with him. I will make my contribution to human knowledge and know
that my hard-earned work will someday inform other scholars in the course of their
own research projects. I also plan to one day teach at the university level and
consider this qualification as a requisite step to that end. I see BBS as an especially
fine vehicle for achieving these very desirable goals and am thankful for the
opportunity to be party to such a vibrant academic community.
1.9 References
Anand N. and Jones B., (2008) ‘Tournament rituals, category dynamics, and field
configuration: the case of the booker prize’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45,
pp. 1036–1060.
Baker T. and Reed N., (2005) ‘Creating something from nothing: resource
construction through entrepreneurial bricolage’, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 50, pp. 329–366.
Benford R. and Snow D., (2000) ‘Framing processes and social movements: an
overview and assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 611–639.
Bowker G. C. and Star S. L., (2002). Sorting things out: classification and its
consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Buchanan D. and Dawson P., (2007) ‘Discourse and audience: organizational change
as multi-story process’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44, pp. 669–686.
Cassivi L., Lefebvre, E., Lefebvre, L., and Léger P., (2003) ‘Supply chain planning
and execution tool efficiency: the impact of upstream and downstream collaboration
on performance’.
Chia R. and MacKay B., (2007) ‘Post-processual challenges for the emerging
strategy-as-practice perspective: discovering strategy in the logic of practice’, Human
Relations, Vol. 60, pp. 217–242.

16. 16
Cooper R. and Kleinschmidt E., (1995) ‘Benchmarking the firm’s critical success
factors in new product development’, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 12, pp. 374–391.
Dapice, D., (2003) ‘Vietnam’s economy: success story or weird dualism? A SWOT
analysis’.
Davenport S. and Leitch S., (2005) ‘Circuits of power in practice: strategic ambiguity
as delegation of authority’, Organization Studies, Vol. 26, No. 11, pp. 1603–1623.
Denis J., Langley, A., and Rouleau L., (2007) ‘Strategizing in pluralistic contexts:
rethinking theoretical frames’, Human Relations, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 179–215.
Doganova L. and Eyquem-Renault M., (2009) ‘What do business models do?
Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship’, Research Policy, Vol. 38, pp.
1559–1570.
Dwyer L. and Mellor R., (1991) ‘Organizational environment, new product process
activities, and project outcomes’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 8,
pp. 39–48.
Ezzamel M. and Willmott H., (2008) ‘Strategy as discourse in a global retailer: a
supplement to rationalist and interpretive accounts’, Organization Studies, Vol. 29,
No. 2, pp. 191–217.
Glaister K. and Falshaw R., (1999) ‘Strategic planning: still going strong?’, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 107–116.
Goolsby J., (1992) ‘A theory of role stress in boundary spanning positions of
marketing organizations’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 20, No.
2, pp. 155–164.

17. 17
Gronn P., (1983) ‘Talk as the work: the accomplishment of school administration’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 1–21.
Jarratt D. and Stiles D., (2010) ‘How are methodologies and tools framing managers’
strategizing practice in competitive strategy development?’, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 21, pp. 28–43.
Jarzabkowski P., Balogun, J., and Seidl D., (2007) ‘Strategizing: the challenges of a
practice perspective’, Human Relations, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 5–27.
Jarzabkowski P., Giuletti M., and Oliveira B., (2009) ‘Building a strategy toolkit:
lessons from business', Advanced Institute of Management Research.
Jarzabkowski P. and Seidl D., (2008) ‘The role of meetings in the social practice of
strategy’, Organization Studies, Vol. 29, No. 11, pp. 1391–1426.
Jick T., (1979) ‘Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 602–611.
Jugdev K. and Mathur G., (2006) ‘Project management elements as strategic assets:
preliminary findings’, Management Research News, Vol. 29, No. 10, pp. 604–617.
Kotler P., Gregor W. T. and Rodgers III W. H., (1989) ‘The marketing audit comes of
age’, Sloan Management Review.
Palmer M. and Simmons G., (2010) ‘Strategists’ reactions and resistance towards the
forces of inclusion: soothing the anxiety of marketing influence’.
Paroutis S. and Pettigrew A., (2007) ‘Strategizing in the multi-business firm: strategy
teams at multiple levels and over time’, Human Relations, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 99–135.
Porter M., (2008) ‘The five competitive forces that shape strategy’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 78–93.

18. 18
Rigby D., (2001) ‘Management tools and techniques: a survey’, California
Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 139–160.
Simons, R., (1994). Levers of control: how managers use innovative control systems
to drive strategic renewal. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
Stenfors S., (2007) ‘Strategy tools and strategy toys: management tools in strategy
work’.
Stenfors S. and Tanner L., (2006) ‘Evaluating strategy tools through activity lens’.
Suddaby R. and Greenwood R., (2002) ‘Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy:
vocabularies of motive and new organizational forms’.
Tybout A. and Hauser J., (1981) ‘A marketing audit using a conceptual model of
consumer behaviour: application and evaluation’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, pp.
82–101.
Woolgar S., (2004) ‘What happened to provocation in science and technology
studies?’, History and Technology, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 339–349.