Advertisement

Heuristics as tales from the field: the problem of scope

  • Simone GuerciniEmail author
Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

The scope of a heuristic decision making rule is a product of its fit to the context, the extension to which a heuristic can be applied successfully. To achieve effective outcomes, decision makers may use a few heuristics with large scopes or many with narrow scopes. Through a directed review of the literature combined with ethnographic research, this paper contributes to the debate on the problem of scope in three types of heuristics, namely, multipliers, thresholds, and calends. The scope of heuristic rules can be explored from different aspects, including the field in which a heuristic rule is applied and specific parameters that are used in a heuristic decision making process. The three types of heuristic rules we analyze were encountered in our ethnographic research, that was based on phenomenological interviews and observations. For these heuristics we discuss their scopes in through to the following organizing structures: (1) the exploration of the adaptive tool-box, (2) the role of ethnographic methodologies, and (3) the categorization of heuristics.

Keywords

Scope of heuristics Ethnographic research Multipliers Thresholds Calends Adaptive toolbox 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Akçay Y, Natarajan HP, Xu SH (2010) Joint dynamic pricing of multiple perishable products under consumer choice. Manage Sci 56(8):1345–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcelus FJ, Srinivasan G (1987) Inventory policies under various optimizing criteria and variable markup rates. Manage Sci 33(6):756–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artinger F, Petersen M, Gigerenzer G, Weibler J (2015) Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management. J Organ Behav.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1950 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhaskaran S, Ramachandran K, Semple J (2010) A dynamic inventory model with the right of refusal. Manage Sci 56(12):2265–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bingham CB, Eisenhardt KM (2011) Rational heuristics: the ‘simple rules’ that strategists learn from process experience. Strateg Manag J 32(13):1437–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bingham CB, Heimeriks KH, Schijven M, Gates S (2015) Concurrent learning: how firms develop multiple dynamic capabilities in parallel. Strateg Manag J 36(12):1802–1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borle S, Singh SS, Jain DC (2008) Customer lifetime value measurement. Manage Sci 54(1):100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce M, Daly L, Kahn KB (2007) Delineating design factors that influence the global product launch process. J Prod Innov Manag 24(5):456–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busenitz LW, Barney JB (1997) Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. J Bus Ventur 12(1):9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen MD, Burkhart R, Dosi G, Egidi M, Marengo L, Warglien M, Winter S (1996) Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: contemporary research issues. Ind Corp Change 5(3):653–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cotterill RW, Putsis WP Jr (2001) Do models of vertical strategic interaction for national and store brands meet the market test? J Retail 77(1):83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2009) Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Adm Sci Q 54(3):413–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deshpande V, Cohen MA, Donohue K (2003) A threshold inventory rationing policy for service-differentiated demand classes. Manage Sci 49(6):683–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenhardt KM, Sull DN (2001) Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Bus Rev 79(1):106–119Google Scholar
  15. Gigerenzer G (1996) On narrow norms and vague heuristics: a reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychol Rev 103(3):592–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gigerenzer G (2019) Axiomatic rationality and ecological rationality. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02296-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gigerenzer G, Brighton H (2009) Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cogn Sci 1:107–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gigerenzer G, Garcia-Retamero R (2017) Cassandra’s regret: the psychology of not wanting to know. Psychol Rev 124(2):179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol Rev 103(4):650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) (2001) Rethinking rationality. Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Research Group T (eds.) (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenbank P (1999) The pricing decision in the micro-business: a study of accountants, builders and printers. Int Small Bus J 17(3):60–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guercini S (2012) New approaches to heuristic processes and entrepreneurial cognition of the market. J Res Mark Entrepreneurship 14(2):199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guercini S, La Rocca A, Runfola A, Snehota I (2014) Interaction behaviors in business relationships and heuristics: issues for management and research agenda. Ind Mark Manage 43(6):929–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guercini S, La Rocca A, Runfola A, Snehota I (2015) Heuristics in customer-supplier interaction. Ind Mark Manage 48:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guyt JY, Gijsbrechts E (2014) Take turns or March in sync? The impact of the national brand promotion calendar on manufacturer and retailer performance. J Mark Res 51(6):753–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jagannathan R, Marakani S, Takehara H, Wang Y (2012) Calendar cycles, infrequent decisions, and the cross section of stock returns. Manage Sci 58(3):507–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58(9):697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loock M, Hinnen G (2015) Heuristics in organizations: a review and a research agenda. J Bus Res 68(9):2027–2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malhotra S, Morgan HM, Zhu P (2018) Sticky decisions: anchoring and equity stakes in international acquisitions. J Manag 44(8):3200–3230Google Scholar
  31. Manimala MJ (1992) Entrepreneurial heuristics: a comparison between high PL (pioneering-innovative) and low PI ventures. J Bus Ventur 7(6):477–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. March JG (1994) Primer on decision making: how decisions happen. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63(2):81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moustakas C (1994) Phenomenological research methods. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Newell A (1981) The heuristic of George Polya and its relations to artificial intelligence. Carnagie-Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  37. Newell A, Shaw JC, Simon HA (1963) Empirical explorations of the Logic Theory Machine: a case study in heuristics. In: Felgenbawer E, Feldman J (eds) Computers and thought. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Reilly K (2004) Ethnographic methods. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1993) The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Polya G (1945) How to solve it. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Radas S, Shugan SM (1998) Seasonal marketing and timing new product introductions. J Mark Res 35(3):296–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rajagopalan S, Swaminathan JM (2001) A coordinated production planning model with capacity expansion and inventory management. Manage Sci 47(11):1562–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shafahi A, Haghani A (2014) Modeling contractors’ project selection and markup decisions influenced by eminence. Int J Project Manage 32(8):1481–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shepherd DA, Williams TA, Patzelt H (2015) Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: review and research agenda. J Manag 41(1):11–46Google Scholar
  45. Simon HA (1963) The heuristic compiler. Rand Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  46. Simon HA (1990) Invariants of human behavior. Annu Rev Psychol 41(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sull D, Eisenhardt KM (2015) Simple rules: how to thrive in a complex world. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, BostonGoogle Scholar
  48. Takano Y, Ishii N, Muraki M (2014) A sequential competitive bidding strategy considering inaccurate cost estimates. Omega 42(1):132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Todd PM, Gigerenzer G (2012) Ecological rationality: intelligence in the world. OUP, New York CityCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Useem M (2006) How well-run boards make decisions. Harvard Bus Rev 84(11):130Google Scholar
  52. Van Maanen J (2011) Tales of the field: on writing ethnography. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vilcassim NJ, Chintagunta PK (1995) Investigating retailer product category pricing from household scanner panel data. J Retail 71(2):103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations