This study aims to compare two distinct behaviors to problem -solving adopting a cognitive perspective. [600161]

ABSTRACT

This study aims to compare two distinct behaviors to problem -solving adopting a cognitive perspective.
One is an intuitive reasoning to jump to the solution without problem diagnosis. According to this
behavior, problem -solvers employ immediate corrective actions and quick remedies to temporarily
solve the problem and ameliorate the short -term performance of the firm. Conversely, the other is
considered as an analytical reasoning and a step -wise behavior to fundamentally solve the problems,
prevent problem recur and achieve strategic capabilities (i.e. continuous improvement, and
organizational learning). We label them as intuitive and analytical problem -solving (IPS & APS)
respectively. Although the effectiveness of APS is well -documented by the literature, people are more
likely to adopt IPS, a phenomena that is called IPS dominance. This study provides a systematic
review to determine the factors that hinder APS. We introduce them as first -order and second -order
APS impediments that in turn reinforce the likelihood of IPS adoption.
Keywords: Problem-Solving, Behaviors, Systematic Review

1
Analytical Problem -Solving , “ More Recommended than Used” :
A Systematic Review of The Literature
This study aims to compare two distinct behaviors to problem -solving adopting a cognitive perspective .
One is an intuitive reasoning to jump to the solution witho ut problem diagnosis . According to this
behavior , problem -solvers employ immediate corrective actions and quick remedies to temporarily
solve the problem and ameliorate the short -term performance of the firm. Conversely, t he other is
considered as an analytical reasoning and a step-wise behavior to fundamentally solve the problems,
prevent problem recur and achieve strategic capabilities (i.e. continuous improvement , and
organizational learning ). We label them as intuitive and analytical probl em-solvi ng (IPS & APS)
respectively . Although the effectiveness of A PS is well -documen ted by the literature, people are more
likely to adopt I PS, a phenomena that is called IPS dominance. This study provides a systematic review
to determine the fact ors that hinder APS. We introduce them as first -order and second -order APS
impediments that in turn reinforce the likelihood of IPS adoption.
Keywords – Problem -Solving Behaviors , Cognitive Perspective, Systematic Literature Review
1. Introduction
In today’s competitive env ironment, in which org anizations are striving in the face of
increasing pace and business complexity, a key point to survive is the ability of the firm to
quickly respond to the changes, and constantly seeking out continuous improvement and
organizational learning. One way to advance these capabilities is problem -solving (Astor et al.,
2016; Choo et al., 2015 ; Koskinen, 2012 ; Gray, 2001; Tucker et al., 2002 , 2001 ; Mac Duffie,
1997; Garvin, 1993 ). The reason is that people and also organizations as problem -solving
entities learn from problems and failures , if they are successfully overcome , and accordingly
move toward continuous improvement . However, there is a considerable consensus among
researchers that not every problem -solving behavior would drive the c ompany to the improved
performance and sustainable success. Research on problem -solving makes a clear distinction

2
between fixing the probl ems by just removing the symptoms and overcoming them through
diagnosing and altering underlying causes . In this study, we define problem -solving as the
patterns of behaviors, developed by individuals, in order to solve a problem and i n line with
the literature we distinguish between two different behaviors, or simply two c ognitive
approaches, to problem -solving. One behavior is an intuitive reasoning to employ short -term
remedies and quick fixes that temporarily solve s the problem . Based on this behav ior, problem –
solvers look for the most satisfactory solution by just removing the problem symptoms . The
other behavior is an analytical reasoning , established on a logical framework to go through in
order to solve the problem fundamentally. Root -cause analysis which refers to the efforts to
first discover, and then eliminate or at least reduce t he major sources of the problem plays the
most considerable role in such a behavior. We label these behaviors as intuitive problem –
solving (IPS hereafter ) and analytical problem -solving (A PS hereafter ), respectively, for two
main reasons: first, despite a clear separation between these behaviors , there are no commonly
used terms representing them in the literature. First -order and second -order problem -solving
(Tucker et al., 2002) , symptomatic and generative problem -solving (Choo et al., 2015) , first –
order and second -order improvements (Repenning & Sterman, 2002) , amat eur and professional
problem -solving (Donaldson , 1972) , single loop or implicit learning and double loop or explicit
learning (Argyris, 1976), and front -line mechanism using wo rkarounds and managerial
intervention to allocate resources (Morrison, 2015) , are different terms employed for these
different -in-nature behaviors. Second, we believe that IPS and A PS, as the words imply,
provide a clear and comprehensive explanation rega rding the nature of each behavior.

Comparing these two behaviors in terms of opportunities and threats of each opens up a
less-investigated question. Although the effectivenes s of APS , as a way to solve the problems
fundamentally with a lower probability of recur , contribute to stra tegic capabilities (i.e.

3
organizational learning and continuous improvement ) through detection and constantly error
correction and consequently ameliorate the long -term performance of the firm is well –
highlighted by the literature, problem -solvers are still more likely to ad opt IPS (Baer et al.,
2013; Tucker & Edmondson, 2003; Tucker et al., 2002; Repenning & Sterman, 2002) . This is
called IPS dominance or fire-fighting syndrome in problem -solving which is defined as a
phenomena of a higher tendency to pursue IPS. IPS dominance impedes APS adoption as well .
This study is an attempt to address the factors that hinder A PS and the major reasons for IPS
dominanc e.

In order to find the answer to the question , a systematic review is carried out. F irst, we
conduct a bibliometric co-citation analysis to identify different research streams in the studied
literature . We believe that doing so can be helpful to gauge the di ssemination of results in a
comparable way especially when the review sample is quite large. Following a sequence of
statistical analyses , known as factor analysis, multidimensional scali ng, and cluster analysis,
we obtain three major cluster s: (1) problem formulation, (2) general definition and APS
characteristics , and (3) strategic decision -making . However, t he firs t and the third clusters seem
more relevant to our focus since they contain the articles with the fundamental and detailed
level of analysis . We investigate thoroughly them to determine the factors that hinder APS. We
conclude that regardless of the nature of the challenge , if this is a problem (first cluster ) or a
decision (third cluster ), there exist common factors that favor APS and th e absence of each
might increase the likelihood of IPS. Identified factors are presented in two levels: first-order
and second -order APS impediments. The former refer s to both insufficient organizational
antecedents and an extremely high environmental dynamism that prevents APS and also
indirectly leads to IPS dominance . In other words , lack of a multitude of organizational
antecedents (internal contingencies) for APS as well as operating in a high environmental

4
dynamism (an external contingency factor ) activate s a higher level of impediment. The latter,
typically rooted in the problem solver’s beliefs and the ir cognitive style , is the result of first –
order and directly leads to IPS. In line with identified impediments for A PS, a framewor k is
proposed to overcome IPS dominance or at least minimize such a tendency.

To our understanding, this study is the first attempt that sheds light on the major reasons
of IPS dominance, despite the well -proven effectiveness of APS. Also, we demonstrate why
many effo rts for APS fail according to organizational, environmenta l and behavioral
considerations. Moreover, this study provides insightful information for managers and
practitioners to better understand when and under what circum stances they are better capable
of gaining the most out of A PS.

The remainder of th e paper is organized as follows: In section 2, definition s, examples ,
and characteristics of each behavior are thoroughly discussed . Section 3 describes the review
methodology in details , which is then followed by the results in section 4. In section 5 , we
discuss cluster investigation to address our research question. This section ends with a
framework for IPS dominance and proposed solutions for this challenge. Sec tion 6 provides a
conclusion and outlines the contribution of the paper .
2. Bulding Blocks : Definitions and Characteristics
2.1 Intuitive Problem -Solving (I PS)
According to the definition, IPS is an intuitive behavior in which problem -solvers simply
take immediate remedies and prompt fixes while confronting a problem . Indeed , problem –
solvers tend to follow this behavior by focusing more on the solution rather than the problem

5
itself. Smith ( 1989 ) addresses such a behavior as “people often design solution alternatives
without having carefully diagnosed the problem’s causes”. Donaldson ( 1972 ) employs the term
“amateur a pproach ” in problem -solving which is based on assumptions, guesswork , intuition,
and hope and seems to pursue a trial -and-error approach rather than a stepwise -logical
behavior. Some authors interpret IPS as a willingness to jump to the solution without deep ly
reasoning the current situation (Baer et al., 2013; Schroeder et al., 2008; Lyles & Mitroff,
1980) . Under this condition , different steps of the logical problem -solving behavior are
implemented simultaneously, sometimes skipped or abbreviated. In many cases, the root-cause
analysis is neglected (Marksberry et al., 2011 ; Tucker et al., 2003, 2002 ). For instance,
Morrison ( 2015 ) and Repenning & Sterman ( 2002 ) characterize IPS as a way to increase
pressure on front -line employees to meet the production target without realizing where the
production deficit comes from. Tucker & Edmondson (2002), in a qualitative study conducted
in hospitals, analyze it under the heading of “First -Order Problem Solving” in which nurses , as
front -line employees , focus more on providing quick care to patients while ignoring the
possible root -causes. When no efforts are made to discover the major sources of the problem,
there is a higher chance of solving the wrong problem -error type III (Basadur et al., 1994 ;
Mitroff & Featherirjgham, 1974; Ramaprasad & Mitroff, 1984) . Moreover, a lthough I PS might
tempora rily solve the observed problem and bring short -term improvements, it cannot prevent
it from re -occurrence (Tucker, 2016 ; Marksberry et al., 2010 ; Tucker et al., 2003 ; 2002) . Lyles
(1981) finds evidence for this fact claiming that in approximately 75 percent of the studied
cases on problem formulation , managers had to cycle back to the problem initiation phase due
to inappropriately fo rmulating the problem . Also , individuals who rush into the solution are
not able to fully learn from the failures and eventually organizational learning capabi lity is
difficult to achieve . Argyris (1976) calls this as “single -loop” or implicit lea rning where
problem -solvers act as satisfiers by just removing the problem symptoms while root -causes are

6
still remaining. Short-term impro vements obtained by the use of I PS, through solving the
problem temporarily , cannot contribute to sustainable continuous improvement as well . As
such, the long -term organization’s success could be n egatively affected as Choo et al. (2015)
empir ically demonstrate that the I PS, decreases internal knowledge s tock which, in turn,
reduces manufacturing improvements.

There are vario us explanatory accounts for I PS in the literature . Different scholars use
different terms referring to the same behavior . It is also so -called “fire -fighting” in management
literature (Bohn, 2000 ; Longenecker et al., 1994) , “solution -mindedness” or “ready -made –
solution” (De Mast & Lokkerbol, 2012; Büyükdamgaci, 2003 ; Lyles & Thomas, 1988;
Mintzberg et al., 1976) , heuristics (Hodgkinson et al., 2002 ; Smelcer & Carmel, 1997) , and
shortcut application (Morrison, 2015 ; Mueller et al., 2007) are also commonly employed for
this behavior . In s trategic management literature an incre mental approach, as opposed to
rationalism, refers to the same beha vior (Priem et al., 1995 ; Schwenk, 1995 ; Eisenhardt, 1989 ).
2.2 Analytical Problem -Solving (A PS)
In terms of nature, problems vary from ill -structured to well -structured ones . Ill-structured
problems are characterized by uncertainty, unknown and co mplex relationships for problem –
solvers to deal with , whereas problems conceived of as well -structured are the ones with
complete informat ion that in turn can be explicitly formulated and quantified to solve
(Ellspermann et al., 2006; Büyükdamgaci, 2003 ; Cowan, 199 1; Smith, 1988; Brightman,
1978 ). Problem formulation following A PS is emphasized to transform such ill -structured
problems into well -structured ones in a very logical way (Baer et al., 2013 ; De Mast &
Lokkerbol, 2012 ; Mac Duffie, 1997) . Based on the definitio n, APS is an analytical reasoning
with deliberate and reflective efforts that assumes a logical and step-wise process to link the

7
observed problem t o a diagnosis, and eventually an appropriate solution through a systematic
search process (Astor et al., 2016 ; Schwenk, 1995 ; Smith, 1989 ; Mintzberg et al., 1976 ).
Donaldson (1972), describes it as a “professional approach” which is well -organized and
results in the best possible solution in the first attempt.

Like IPS, we identify different terms repre senting A PS in the literature. Scholars,
especially in strategic management , may emplo y the term “ strategic problem f ormulation” as
a logical behavior which contains primarily of generation, evaluation, and selection of
alternative solutions (Baer et al., 2013 ; Volkema, 1986 ; Ramaprasad & Mitroff, 1984) . Authors
stress “rationality” (Elbanna & Child, 2007 ; Hough & White, 2003 ; Priem et al., 1995 ), as well
as “comprehensiveness” in decision making (Miller , 2008 ; Fredrickson & Mitchell, 1984) as
the most substantial characteristic of A PS. APS adop tion is also widely studied in operations
management l iterature . Indeed, there are different tools and approaches used to structure this
behavior . DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze , Improve, Control) in Six S igma (Easton &
Rosenzweig, 2012 ; Schroeder et al., 2008), emerging from the famous Deming’s PDCA cycle
(Plan -Do-Check -Act) for continuous improvement is the most well -know n one.

Over years, the effectiveness of APS is well -supported by the literature . It is directly
associated with quality of solutions and decisions made (Baer et al., 2013 ; Gray, 2001 ; Lyles
& Thomas, 1988) , indicators of quality improvement s such as defects reduction and
productivity enhancement ( Marksberry et al., 2011 ; Longenecker et al., 1994) and ultimately
firm performance (Marksberry et al., 2011; Schroeder et al., 2008 ; Volkema & Coraian, 1998) .
Moreover, researchers recognize it as the main driver of strategi c capabilities such as
continuous improvement and organizational learning , in order to make the organiza tion stand

8
one step ahead of its competitors (Astor et al., 2016; Choo et al., 2015 ; Tucker et al., 2002;
Schroeder et al., 2008 ; Spear & Bowen, 1999 ). For instance, Repenning and Sterman ( 2002 )
emphasis APS for a higher performance where the attention is placed to reduce the process
problems rather than just re moving the symptoms . In this regard, problem -solvers view
problems as the opportunities to learn rather than just liabilities to be avoid ed (Mac Duffie,
1997) . This way of approaching the problems is intr oduced as “double -loop” or explicit
learning where problem -solvers not only correct the problem fundamentally but also change
the underlying causes behind suc h a problem (Argyris, 1976) .

Although problem -solving models proposed by differ ent authors vary in emphasis, they
are all established on a common theme . A successful adop tion of APS includes six main steps :
(a) problem detection, (b) problem d efinition, (c ) problem a nalysis , (d) solution d esign , (e)
routinization , and (f) best practice s haring . In general, a variation from the desir ed status creates
a gap that leads to a problem . This gap should be difficult enough to bridge (Astor et al., 2016;
Nickerson & Zenger, 2004; Smith, 1988) otherwise , we simply do not call it a problem .
Attempts made to realize whether a challenge is really worth investigating is called problem
detection . This initial phase then is followed by problem definition which involves a clear
statement of the detected problem containing information wit h regard to problem scope and
specific improvement goals t o reach (Astor et al., 2016; Choo, 2014) . Next is problem ana lysis
which aims at achieving a greater certainty regarding why the problem occurs , or simply root –
causes (Choo et al., 2015; de Mast, 2011; Repenning & Sterman, 2002; Tucker et al., 2002) . In
line with the identified causes, solution alternatives are proposed , evaluated based on
experiments, and selected according to their effectiveness ( solution design ) (Astor et al., 2016;
Schroeder et al., 2008) . APS persists routinization or standardization which means to
incorporate positive change i n the existing operating routines (Marksberry et al., 2011 ; Spear

9
& Bowen , 1999) . Finally , managers are required to outline the main lessons learned from the
problem -solving project (best practice sharing) . However this could be accomplished through
horizontally transferring the information and knowledge across the organization (Astor et al.,
2016; Marksberry et al., 2011, 2010) .
3. Research Methodology
To address the research question , a systematic review was carried out . An in-depth re view
of the existing literature sheds light to realize the conditions and determine the factors th at
hinder A PS. This review began with a bibliometric document co-citation analysis as a strong,
objecti ve, and quantitative mean to explore the major research streams within the literature of
the studied field (Nerur et al., 2008 ; Culnan, 1986) . This could be very helpful for widely
covered topics like problem -solving that is stressed by different management literatures such
as strategic management, organizational behavior, operations management, and project
management. Moreover, it makes us capable of discussing and comparing APS inhibitors in
different clusters . Then a sequence of sta tistical analysis, in particular, factor analysis (FA) ,
multidimensional scaling (MDS) , and cluster analysis (CA) was performed to analyze the data .
3.1 Selection of Source Documents
We obtain ed a collection of representati ve scientific papers through the keyword search .
We retrieve d our data from Scopus as one of the world’s leading citation databases of peer –
reviewed literature . We searched for terms in the title, abstract, and keywords. The keywords
that to our understanding could well -present a rational behavior in problem -solving are
“structured p roblem -solving”, “systematic problem -solving”, “i ll-structure d problem -solving”,
“managerial p roblem -solving” , and “operational p roblem -solving”. In addition , to retrieve all
the documents in strategic management , the terms “strategic problem f ormulation”, and
“strategic d ecision -making” are considered as well . The initial search included 1081 journal

10
articles confined in business, management , and accounting. No time intervention was imposed
since we we re interested to study this behavior from its birth . Given such a larg e number of
articles, we decide d to narrow it down by staying with only high-quality journals that are
deemed to contribute more to the literature . To do so we ranked all the journals, offered by
Scopus in our initial search, according to CiteS core. CiteScore calculates the average number
of citations received in a calendar year by all items published in that journal in the preceding
three years. Out of 80 different journals that contained articles with our desired keywords , we
considered the fi rst quarter with highest CiteScore. These Journals are: “Academy of
Management Annals ” (11.96), “Academy of Management Journal” (8.41), “Academy of
Management Review” (7.50), “International Journal of Management Review” (6.86), “Journal
of Management”(6.82), “Journal of Operations Management”(6.01), “Journal of International
Business Studies” (6.00) , “Journal of Cleaner Production” (5.83), “Administrative Science
Quarterly” (5.83), “Strategic Management Journal” (5.82), “Academy of Management
Persp ective” (5.45), “Omega”(5.42) , “Journal of Management Studies” (5.25), “Decision
Support Systems”(4.67), “International Journal of Project Management” (4.58), “Inter national
Journal of Operations a nd Production Management”(4.41), “International Journal of
Production Economics”(4.28), “Organization Science” (3.72), “Management Science” (3.62),
“Technovation” (3.49), “Organization Studies” (3.27) . This restriction resulted in obtaining
262 articles to be reviewed . In order to ensure that only relevant articles were included, we
thoroughly investigated the abstracts as well the introduction and conclusion parts of the
identified papers . Irrelevant paper s were dropped out and hence we retained 139 qualified
articles that address ed a rational -comprehensive behavior for deal ing with the problem .
However there might be other articl es, necessary to fully explore APS, which still were not
covered in the sample simply because authors employed different keywords . This is consistent
with the conclusion by Greenhalgh and Peacock (2005) claiming that a systematic review

11
solely based on pre -determined searching rules increases the chance of missing some critical
sources. Therefore we used snowballing technique in order to identify more relevant articles
(Sorkun & Furlan, 2016) . As such , 52 more articles were added into our sample by pursuing
references of references . Eventually , a total of 191 papers were recognized as the core set to
proceed w ith co -citation analysis method. The sampling procedure , robust enough with a clear
logic and a sequence to be traced, is outlined in figure 1.
Insert Figure 1 about here
3.2 Retrieval of co -citation Matrix
The next step wa s to provide a co-citation matrix based on 191 identified source
documents or cited articles (Hua & Yang, 2011 ; Nerur et al., 2008; Ramos -Rodrigeuz & Ruiz –
Navarro, 2004 ; Mccain, 1990 ). From Scopus , we retrieved a total of 1985 citing documents
which cite those cited ones. However, we followed the same restrictions meaning that only the
same journals identified previ ously were targeted . Next, each cited document was paired with
every other cited one to count the frequency in which those two articl es are referenced together
by the citing article. It should be noted that we considered our matrix with the minimum citation
threshold as 3 whi ch means only documents cited together three times or more we re presented,
otherwise we excluded them from the analysis . This could be considered as the most substantial
drawback of this methodology since it favors older articles with the higher citation number.
Due to this limitat ion, we had to exclude relevant but recent articles and hence, out of 191
identified articles, 93 qualified articles remained (table 1). Then, we formed a 93 × 93 square
co-citation matrix whose main diagonal was filled out by missing values or zeros (Hua & Yang,
2011; Ramos -Rodrigeuz & Rui z-Navarro, 2004) . The last step was to convert this co -citation
matrix into the Pearson’s co -relation matrix for the following statistical analyses .
Insert Table 1 about here

12
4. Results of Co -citation Analysis
4.1 Factor Analysis
Factor analysis ( FA) is used, with Varimax rotation , to extract the key conceptual themes
in the studied literature (Hua & Yang, 2011) . FA generates different factors as well as the
loading values of each cited article for the produced factors . These loading values reveal how
relevant on e article is to that produced factor and how different articles could be grouped
together (Hua & Yang, 2011; Nerur et al., 2008) . However articles could contribute differently
to the factors . The higher loading value, the more contribution of the doc ument on that
particular factor . Conside ring the highest loading value , we group all the cited articles into
three main stream s or clusters : (C1) problem formulation, ( C2) general definitions and APS
characteristics, ( C3) strategic decision -making. The results are presented in table 2 .
Insert T able 2 about here
4.2 Cluster Analysis & Multidimensional Scaling
FA is then followed by multi -dimensional scaling (MDS) and cluster analysis (CA) in
order to validate th e resul ts obtained (Tarantini et al., 2017) . MDS , as a data reduction
technique, arranges cited articles in a two -dimensional space based on the correlation between
articles. The map provided (figure 2 ) is the result of grouping articles based on similarities
(Nerur et al., 2008) . The stress value (0.194, lower than 0.2 as an acceptable level) shows a
good fit for our data (Hua & Yang, 2011 ; Nerur et al., 2008 ). The horizontal axis represents
the nature of the challenge . From left to right along the x -axis, the nature switches from the
problem to the decision. The vertical axis serves the artic les accor ding to the level of analysis,
or perspective adopted by the authors . As we go further from below to above the y -axis, the
attention moves from a broad -big picture view – to a more focused one. Finally, d ocument co –
citation analysis ended with a hierarchical CA. As such, all documents were analyzed into a

13
Dendrogram using a complete link where the distances between clusters e qual the distance
between those two articles (one in each cluster) that are farthest away from each other .
Insert Fi gure 2 about here
5. Discussion
So far we identified three main cluster s in the APS literature. Although this classification
assists to determine the main res earch streams , it cannot provide the expected answer to our
question as what factors hinder APS. Consequently we thoroughly analyzed each cluster.
However the articles positioned in problem formulation (C1) and strategic deci sion-making
(C3) clusters seem more relevant to our focus since they provide a detailed and fundamental
level of analysis. Indee d adopting a micr o level of analysis for problem -solving can explain
better those factors that increase the likelihood of A PS adoption . We then claim that l ack of
these factors might hinder A PS and eventually lead to I PS dominanc e. Identified factors are
grouped i n first -order and second -order A PS impediments. The former includes insufficient
organizational antecedents and high environment turbulence as internal and external
impediment respectively to hinder APS. This indirectly results in a higher tendency to follow
IPS. The latter , as the result of the first -order, refers to the main limitation of informa tion
processing of individuals and directly leads to IPS adoption .
5.1. First -Order A PS Impediments
We realized that regardless of the nature of the challenge , if this is a problem (C1) or a
decision (C3), a set of generic factors could favor APS. According to the cross -cluster analysis,
it is possible to claim that i n both clusters , APS is recommended as a way to positively
ameliorate the firm performance but such a relationship is contingent at the presence of some
factors . In other words , a contingent rather than a deterministic relationship might provide a
more accurate explanation of A PS adoption. So we determine both internal an d external
contingency factors , present in both clusters, through which A PS is more likely to be ado pted.

14
Internal contingency factors , from one hand, refers to a set of organizational antecedents for a
successful A PS. Hence, an insufficient attention to establishing them would impede this
behavior . On the other hand, the external contingency factor is the one that is imposed by the
external environment and mostly beyond control. Although some studies encourage A PS in a
high environmental dynamism to gather informatio n and reduce external uncertainty (e.g. Child
& Rodrigues, 2011; Mueller et al., 2007) , some others highlight it as a barrier for this behavior
(e.g. Hough & White, 2003 ; Fredrickson & Iaquinto, 1989; Fr edrickson & Mitchell, 1984;
Dutton et al., 1983) . Therefore lack of organizational antecedents for A PS and operating in a
high-velocity environment are introduced as first-order impediments for APS that directly
cause a higher order one (second -order ) and in turn accelerate I PS adoption.
5.1.1. Internal Contingency Factors
Internal contingency factors are the controllable ones that are completely based on
business decisions. Cross -cluster analysis highlights common factors present in both C1 and
C3. This means solving a problem fundamentally and making a strategic decision properly ,
different in nature though, require a bundle of organizational anteceden ts for a successful APS .
We introduce these organizational factors , necessar y to reap the full benefits of A PS, as (a)
time availability, (b) resource access, (c) collaborative culture, (d) management support and
leadership, (e) supportive requirements and finally (f) ill-structur ed problems.
Time Availability – Problem -solvers and decision -makers are required to spend a lengthy
time in order to comprehensively formulate a problem (Morrison, 2015; Choo, 2014; Tucker
& Edmondson, 2003; Tucker et al., 2002; Bohn, 2000; Mac Duffie, 1997; Mi ntzberg et al.,
1976 ). Moreover, literature well -promotes the idea that such a behavior should not be rushed
(Marksberry et al., 2010 ; Grundy & Wensley, 1999) . Repenning and Sterman ( 2002 )
characterize A PS as a process -improvement behavior whose output is paid off in a long -run.
Therefore, managers should have a sufficient amount of time to gain the most out of this

15
behavior with a substantial delay. Otherwise, if they are under time pressure to react as soon as
possible, they easily ju mp to the solution and adopt I PS. Based o n a study conducte d by Tucker
et al. ( 2002 ) lack of slack time to spend for A PS is one of the major reasons that makes front –
line employees take immediate cares. This is the case, in particular when a crisis such as a fire
occurs. Fire -fighters are less li kely to adopt A PS simply because they do not have time to seek
the major causes of the fire . All they should care is to react quickly using remedies to stop the
dangerous situation from getting worse and save people’s life. In other words, when the re is no
time pressure, problem -solvers can take their time engaging in problem formulation activities
and reasonably overcome the observed challenge.
Resource Access – Literature emphasizes that easy access to organizational resources
seems necessary for both problem formulation and decision -making (Büyükdamgaci, 2003;
Lyles, 1981; Nickerson & Zenger, 2004 ; Schroeder et al., 2008; Trull, 1966) . This claim is
reinforced by Smith ( 1988 ): “It pays to think before you act” w here the th inking refers to A PS.
Knowledge -based theory (KBT) of the firm also indicates the importance of information access
to create valuable knowledge, which is eventually necessary for decision success ( Macher,
2006; Nickerson & Zenger, 2004 ; Gray, 2001 ). Moreover, c omplex problems are often
uncertain in the sense that there is no clear explanation regarding the problem structure (e.g.
why they occur, what the major causes are ). This holds true for strategic decisions as well
where the best op tion to take is not available yet. Information, as the most considerable
strategic resou rces and the main dimension of rationality , plays a very critical role for
uncertainty reduction in A PS (Baer et al., 2013 ; Mueller et al., 2007 ; Frishammar, 2003 ;
Argyris, 1976; Duncan, 1972). Without relevant and valid information it is nearly impossible
to develop a s et of alternative actions and subsequently select the most appropriate solution
(Tucker et al., 2002; Nutt, 1998 ; Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992 ; Cowan, 1986) . Put it differently,
when managers do not obtain the relevant information, they just rely on their prior knowledge.

16
This increases the likelihood of IPS by taking already -made -solutions according to their
personal hypotheses (Astor et al., 2016 ; Das & Teng, 1999; Metcalfe, 2005; Trull, 1966) .
However, information gathering is costly. Hence, other operational resources such as money,
and manpower are necessarily required as well (Baer et al., 2013 ; Koskinen, 2012 ; Iaquinto &
Fredrickson 1997 ; Mintzberg et al., 1976; Dutton et al., 1983) . For instance , Mac Duffie ( 1997 )
highlight s money as a key point of comprehensive problem formulation and considers cost
concern as a barrier that often precludes A PS. Therefore , we confirm the findings reported by
Rodriguez & Hick son (1995 ) that having access to organizational resources refers to not only
sufficient quantity of operational resources suc h as human, money, and energy but strategic
one in particular relevant informat ion for comprehensively formulate the challenge.
Collaborative Culture – Reviewing the literature reveals that group problem -solving is
likely to facilitate APS (Morrison, 2015; Choo, 2014; Staa ts et al., 2011; Frei, 2007 ; Repenning
& Sterman, 2002; Bohn, 2000; Longenecker et al., 1994) . For instan ce, Morrison (2015)
prescribes working collaboratively with the higher employee participation to respond properly
to the resource shortage problem and increase the productivity accordingly. The reason is that
working in a team generates more idea s regardin g how to structure a problem and what to do
in order to discover the best alternative solution to take. This happens when a problem is viewed
through multiple perspectives of team member s as Baer et al. ( 2013 ) conclude that
heterogeneous information sets, provided by different team members with different cognitive
structure, lead to the problem formulation comprehensiveness. This is also consistent with what
Argyris (1976) calls as “double -loop” learning” where the interac tions among team members
result in an effective information sharing and speeding up the problem resolution process
(Choo, 2014; Mac Duffie, 1997; Ashmos & McDaniel, 1996) . Indeed, when a synthesis of
different v iewpoints to the same problem is developed and consensus among group members
is reached, managers are able to achieve more solution with higher quality (Baer et al., 2013;

17
Dooley et al., 2000) . Brainstorming (Staats et al., 2011 ; de Mast, 2011 ; Miller , 2008 ), open
internal communication (Tucker, 2016 ; Itabashi -Campbell et al., 2011 ; Dooley & Fryxell,
1999 ; Powell, 1995) , increased employee involvement (Marksberry et al., 2010, 2011) , and
productive debriefing sessions (Keats, 1991) represent the same factor.
Management Support & Leadership – Since problem -solving and decision -making are
among the most considerable func tions of the managers, how they cope with the problems as
well as the decisions is a key point (Brightma n, 1978) . Isenberg ( 1986 ) well-notes that a
manager’s job is planning and implementation of actions for problem formulation
comprehensiveness . In order to do so, managers are required to accomplish different tasks
under a proper leadership. To allocate resources (Morrison, 2015 ; Spradlin, 2012 ; Huber &
Mcdaniel, 1986) , provide necessary training (Marksberry et al., 2010; Repenning & Sterman,
2002; Gray, 200 1; Garvin , 1993) , encourage front -line employees to participate in A PS by
motivating them (i.e. making incentive system and praise) (Baer et al., 2013; Garvin , 1993 ),
create commitment (Dooley et al., 2000 ; Powell, 1995; Keats , 1991) , and establish the culture
of continuous improvement and organizational learning (Bohn, 2000 ; Carayannis, 1999 ;
Longenecker et al., 19 94) would be recognized as the most considerable responsibilities a
senior executive should carr y to implement a successful A PS. Besid es the aforementioned roles
of an appropriate leadership, there is a common fallacy that since managers mostly care abo ut
short -term and tangible outcomes, the y are more likely to prefer I PS with more tangible and
less uncertain outcomes (Repenning & Sterman, 2002) . So, it is quite common to hear from
top m anagers that “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions” (Frei, 2007) . This creates an
additional pressure from top -management t o front -line employees to solve the problem
immediately even without carefully analyzing the situation. Obviously, this results in IPS
adoption and jumping to the solution (Bohn, 2000) . In addition, top managers sometimes might
blame employees for their mistakes (Lyles, 2014 ; Ho & Sculli, 1997 ; Mac Duffie, 1997;

18
Volkema, 1986) . This also makes employees act as satisficers and employ the most immediate
solution that is not necessarily based on the comprehensive problem formulation. Hence, it is
possible to claim that a good manager to support A PS is the one that acts as a leader rather than
a boss.
Supportive Requirements – APS is more likely to be successful when suppo rtive
requirements are present in the organization. These requirements include a structured
framework to follow as well as the infrastructural facilities that significantly assist the
problem -solvers in orde r to fully take advantage of APS. The former is de fined as a codified
and rigorous framework , based on rationality , so that problem -solvers can go through in order
to solve the problems fundamentally. This sequential framework usually starts with problem
definition, goes through problem diagnosis and fina lly ends with solution implementation
(Choo, 2014; Marksberry et al., 2010, 2011; D. Mast, 2013; Schroeder et al., 2008) . Different
examples regarding such could be A3 paper used by Toyota (Astor et al. , 2016; Marksberry et
al., 2011 ), a written platform for Six Sigma DMAIC ( D. Mast, 2013; De Mast & Lokkerbol ,
2012; Easton & Rosenzweig, 2012) , or problem solving eight disciplines (8D) (Myszewski,
2013) . This could be also very helpful to establish a common descriptive language to define
and solve the observed problem in a consistent way (Mac Duffie, 1997) . However, the latter
indicates the basic but necessary facilities to guarantee the decision success such as standard
operating processes (Baum & Wally, 2003 ; Lyles & Thomas, 1988 ; Brightman, 1978) , efficient
and formal communication channels (Clark & Maggitti, 2012 ; Baum & Wally, 2003;
Martinsons et al., 1999 ), and decentralized decision -making structure to allow participation of
lower -levels employees (Papadakis et al., 1998 ; Powell, 1995; Huber & Mcdaniel, 1986) . In
addition, management support s ystems such as quality management sys tem (QMS)
(Marksberry et al., 2010 ; Powell, 1995), as well as decision support syste m (DSS) (Lari, 2003 ;
Mart insons et al., 1999) could also be included in this group.

19
Ill-Structured Problems – In general, there exist two different types of problems according
to nature . The first type is well -structured and second one is ill -structured problems. According
to the definition, well -structured problems are those with a clear explanation for their
occurrence and complete information usually with known and certain relationships between
problem variables, w hereas ill-structured or uns tructured problems are known as the ones with
uncertainty, complex interconnectedness and causal ambiguity ( Ellspermann et al., 2006;
Büyükdamgaci, 2003 ; Cowan, 199 1; Smith, 1988; Brightman, 1978 ). The best examples that
represent well -structured problems are routine or repetitive problems with a clear gap to bridge.
In this case, manage rs are more likely to adopt I PS since the problem, its root -causes, and the
best solution to take are already known. However , strategic decisions are well-known as ill –
structured problems (Mitchell et al., 2011; Mintzberg et al., 1976) . In order to deal with this
kind of problems, A PS is encouraged since there is no complete and already -known -solution.
Indeed , attempts should be made to gather the relevant and necessary information regarding
how to approach and respond properly to the observed challenge.
5.1.2. External Contingency Factor
Competing in today’s turbulent market substantiates the importance of problem -solving
and decision -making . However, this factor is more stressed in strategic decision -making
cluster. External factors in pa rticular environmental elements are difficult to manage since they
are mostly beyond th e control. In some studies, A PS is encouraged in high environmental
dynamism while other studies conside r it as an impediment for A PS.
Environmental Dynamism – In general, turbulent environments are characterized by
continual changes in customers’ requirements, high technological developmen t, and intense
competition (Duncan, 1972) . Many studies highlight the importance of environment while
making decisions ( Miller , 2008; Mueller et al., 2007; Elbanna & Child , 2007; Iaquinto &
Fredrickson, 1997; Dean & Sharfman , 1996; Elenkov, 1997; Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt &

20
Bourgeois, 1988; Jemison, 1981) . However , despite a considerable agreement on the effects of
external environment on decision -making, no consensus is found in the literature regarding
how it affects the performance of the firm. Reviewin g the literature indicates that there are two
opposing view points regarding the use of A PS in turbulent environments. Some authors believe
that A PS should be encouraged in a high -velocity environment. They argue that when there is
a higher pressure from the external environment (e.g. sudden changes in customer
requi rements, fast technological development, intense competition), there is a higher need for
information gathering to react. One way to obtain necessary information and also reduce the
impo sed uncertainty is to adopt A PS (Child & Rodrigues, 2011; Muell er et al., 2007) . On the
contrary, some other studies support the use of APS in stable environments (Fredrickson, 1984;
Fredrickson & Mitchell, 1984) . They believe that, in a less turbulent environment, there is no
pressure from external actors (e.g. customers, and competitors) and as a consequence, problem –
solvers can take their time, comprehensively formulating the faced problems and implement
the best solutions. But this is not the case in high environmental dynamism, as Eisenhardt
(1999 ) stated: “ in high -velocity markets, there is no time for formal meeting and no place for
careful consideration of extensive information”. Put it differently, in high-velocity
environments, A PS is less applicable because information in rather difficult to gather due to
unpredictable, unstable and complex environmental changes (Hough & White, 2003 ;
Fredrickson & Iaquinto, 1989; Fredrickson & Mitchell, 1984; Dutton et al., 1983) Therefore
IPS is more likely to be adopted by the problem -solvers and decision -makers.

In a nut shell, at the presence of internal con tingency factors such as time, resource,
collaborative culture, leadership, supportive requirements and also for ill-structured challenges,
problem -solve rs are more likely to adopt A PS. It is possible to claim that, lack these
organiz ational antecedents (internal contingency factors) together with operating in an

21
extremely h igh environmental dynamism ( extern al contingency factor) are the barriers for A PS
adoption (f irst-order impediments) that in turn lead to a higher -order impediment (second -order
impediments).

Besides, in a cross -cluster analysis , we investigated the importance of each contingency
factors using a social network analysis. We defined the importance of a contingency factor as
the total number of times that particular contingency factor is cited by different documents.
The results are see n in figure 3 .
Insert Figure 3 about here
According to t he results , resource access and leadership are the most important one since
almost all the studied articles highlight them. H igh environmental dynamism is seen to grab
less attention among researchers. The reason could be that three is still a debate in the literature
in the sense that so me researchers believe that A PS should be adopted in low environmental
dynamism.
5.2. Second -Order A PS Impediment
Second -order A PS impediment, may not be easily apparent, refers to the main limitation
of information proce ssing capability of individuals, known as cognitive bias. Different authors
emphasized the importance of awareness of the cognition in decision -making, problem
diagnosis and problem formulation (Volkema & Coraian, 1998 ; Schwenk, 1988; Mintzberg et
al., 1976) . Literature on management supports the idea that problem -solving capability of
people could be influenced by individual’s attitudes, value, personality and cognitive style
(Lyles, 1981) . Individuals are goal -oriented and they can be affected direc tly by their cognitive
style (Ulrich, 1997 ). IPS comes naturally as the result of cognitive bias and this can hinder APS
adoption . As such, individuals capture the first idea or solution that arrives to their mind prior

22
to any deliberate efforts. This is so -called “Automatic Information processing” (Astor et al.,
2016) or “Type 1 processing” (Evans & Stanovich, 2013) . In this view, problem -solvers tend
to seek a quick remedy and shortcut to a problem . This quick default reaction then is followed
by matching the current challenge with the previous situation and use the past experience to
act (McKenzi e et al., 2009 ; Das & Teng, 1999; Lyles & Thomas, 1988; Nutt, 1984) .

First-order would increase t he likelihood of second -order APS impediment . Firstly , the
influence of insufficient organizational antecedents on the cognitive bias is well -observed. For
instance, Baer et al., 2013, demonstrate that lack of managerial attention to encourage team –
work boosts cognit ive bias that in turn leads to I PS dominance. Repenning & Sterma n, 2002,
well support this idea by claiming that top management failure to provide training and smartly
allocate resources is recognized as a majo r reason for cognitive bias. According to this study,
more certain outcomes of IPS with less uncertainty, delay, and cost might drive manager s to
adopt IPS rather than A PS. Secondly , literature well -indicates the idea that the o ther element
of first -order APS impediments, introduced as high environmental dynamism, might also cause
cognitive bias. In high environmental dynamism when there is no time to comprehensively
formulate the problem, managers simply rely on their existing knowledge and prior experienc es
to find out a solution (Fredrickson & Mitchell, 1984; Dutton et al., 1983) . Hodgkinson et al.
(1999 ), for instance, emphasize IPS adop tion in a complex and uncertain business world or,
Elenkov (1997) empirically prove s that managers rely more on their personal modes when
environmental uncertainty is extremely high. A PS impediments, the major reasons for IPS
dominance and the results of this ph enomena are depicted in figure 4 .
Insert Figure 4 about here

23
In order to encourage APS and as a consequence to overcome the phenomena of I PS
dominance, a framework consisting of first and second -order solutions is proposed ( figure 6 ).
In this model, leadership plays a substantially critical role, as the key i nput. The importance of
leadership , as one of the most considerable contingency factor s, is well -indicated by the use of
social network analysis previously . As explained earlier, ill -structured problems , such as
complex operational problems an d strategic decisions, are uncertain in nature. In addition, the
external environment is known as another important cont ributor to the uncertainty . First -order
solutions are proposed in order to reduce both problem (internal) uncertainty and
environmental (external) uncertainty. However problem uncertainty reduction could be done
through efforts by senior managers to structure the problem and minimi ze its uncertainty. To
do so managers are required to establish organizational antecedents for APS. To allocate
resources smart ly, encourage collaborative culture and provide supportive requiremen ts are the
most significant responsibilities of a good leade r to overcome first -order A PS impediments .
Also , the role of the managers is undeniable for environmental scanning to reduce the perceived
environmental ( external ) uncertainty . To monitor the external actors, such as customers and
competitors, aids to reduce this type of uncertainty. Therefore , first -order solutions consist of
a set of actions to minimize both internal and external uncertainty through providing necessary
organizational antecedents and environmental scanning respectively.

We define s econd-order sol ution as cognitive debiasing which means to gather relevant
and necessary information to minimize the cognitive bias. First-order solution is considered as
a baseline for second -order solution . In other words, t o establish org anizational antec edents for
APS and en vironmental scanning (first -order solutions) provide relevant and necessary
information for cognitive debiasing (second -order solution) . In this case, individ uals rely on
valid information for their decisions rather than prior expe riences and existing hypotheses .

24
These lead to A PS adop tion and comprehensively formulating the problem (or decision) . As
such, there is a lower likelihood for problem -recur as well as improvements in the long-term
performance of the firm through strategic capabilities achievement. Figure 5 demonstrates the
proposed framework.
Insert Figure 5 about here
6. Conclusion
The focus point of this study is to compare two distinct problem -solving behaviors from a
cognitive perspective. APS and IPS are thoroughly discussed and we argued the major
inhibitors of AP S, as a more effective behavior . The systematic literature review revealed
interesting results regarding the way a challenge, either a problem or a decision, could be
successfully overcome. First of all, b y the help of co -citation analysis, we realized that a
rational and step -wise behavior -APS- could be employed not only to solve the problems
fundamentally, but managers are able to reap the full benefits of its adopt ion in their strategic
decision -making. Then, we argued that althou gh problem -solving and decision -making are
different in nature, there exist common factors to gain the most out of A PS adoption in bo th
problem -solving and decision -making clusters . In line with this conclusion, w e identified two
main groups that might hinder APS as first and second -order impediments. According to f irst-
order impediments , we determined insufficient org anizational antecedents and high -velocity
environments that activate a higher level impediment of APS. In other wo rds, second -order
impediment , introduced as cognitive bias, could be reinforced when managers fail to provide
organizational antecedents or when the firm operates in a n extremely high-velocity
environment . According to cognitive bias, problem -solvers and d ecision -makers just rely on
their prior experience, which is not necessarily bas ed on valid information, to jump to the
solution. Fi nally to encourage APS and overcome I PS dominance over APS , a framework with

25
two solutions is proposed. To establish necessary organizational antecedents for A PS and scan
the external environment are proposed as two components of first-order solution . This, in turn ,
provides necessary and relevant informatio n for cognitive debiasing as second -order solution.

This stud y, unlike many other types of research in this stream, is not about tools and
techniques for pr oblem -solving . Instead, we built on two potential solutions fo r confronting the
challenges ado pting a cognitive perspective. To our understanding, this study is an original
attempt to first explicitly determine all the factors that might hinder A PS and then propose the
solutions for it. This s tudy also provides some implications for managers and practitioners. It
provides useful comments regarding the major barrie rs for APS at work -place and shares
valuable information about when and under what circumstances they are able to get the most
out of it .

However , the study , like any other one, is not without limitation. We utilized c o-citation
analysis which is based on a premise that most cited articles are more influential than those
with lower citation number (Culn an, 1986) . Consequently, relevant but recently published
articles should be dropped out from study sample due to the lower citation number. This could
reduce the reliability of our review though.

26
7. References

Abdulrahman, M. D. A., Subramanian, N., Liu, C., & Shu, C. (2015). "Viability of remanufacturing
practice: A strategic decision making framework for Chinese auto -parts companies ". Journal of
Cleaner Production , 105: 311–323.
Ackoff, R. L. (1981). "On the Use of Models in Corporate -Planning ". Strategic Management Journal,
2 (4): 353–359.
Alexiev, A. S., Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2010). "Top management
team advice seeking and exp loratory innovation: The moderating role of TMT heterogeneity ".
Journal of Management Studies, 47(7): 1343 –1364.
Amason, A. (1996). "Distinguishing The Effetcs of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on
Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams ". Academy of
Management Journal, 39 (1): 123–148.
Argyris, C. (1976). "Single -Loop and Double -Loop Models in Research on Decision Making ".
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (3): 363–375.
Armstrong, J. S. (1982). "The value of formal planning for strategic decisions : review of empirical
research ". Strategic Management Journal , 3 (3): 197–211.
Ashmos, D. P., Duchon, D., & McDaniel, J. R. R. (1998). "Participation in strategic decision making:
The role of organizational predisposition and issue ". Decision Sciences, 29 (1): 25–51.
Ashmos, D. P., & McDaniel, R. R. (1996). "Understanding the participation of critical task specialists
in strategic decision making ". Decision Sciences, 27 (1): 103–121.
Astor, T., Morales, M., & Repenning, N. (2016). "What Problem Are You Trying To Solve: An
Introduction To Structured Problem Solving ". MIT Sloan School of Management, Working
Paper .
Baer, M., Dirks, K., T., & Nickerson, J., A. (2013). M icrofoundations of strategic problem
formulat ion". Strategic Management Journal, 34: 197–214.
Basadur, M., Ellspermann, S., & Evans, G. (1994). "A new methodology for formulating ill -structured
problems ". Omega, 22: 627–645.
Baum, J. R., & Wally, S. (2003). "Strategic decision speed and firm performa nce". Strategic
Management Journal, 24 (11): 1107 –1129 .
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990). "Why Change Programs Don’t Produce Change ".
Harvard Business Review, 68 (6): 158–166.
Bohn, R. (2000). "Stop Fighting Fires ". Harward Business Review, 83–91.
Brightman, H. J. (1978). "Concepts , Theories and Techniques Differences in Ill -Structured Problem
Solving along the Organizational Hierarchy ". Decision Sceince, 9: 1–18.
Büyükdamgaci, G. (2003). "Process of organizational problem definition: How to evaluate and how to
improve ". Omega, 31 (4): 327–338.
Carayannis, E. G. (1999). "Knowledge transfer through technological hyperlearning in five
industries ". Technovation, 19 (3): 141–161.
Chen, J. Q., & Lee, S. M. (2003). "An exploratory cognitive DSS for strategic decision making ".
Decision Support Systems, 36 (2): 147–160.
Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. B. (2011). "How Organizations Engage with External Complexity: A

27
Political Action Perspective ". Organization Studies, 32(6): 803–824.
Choo, A. S. (2014). "Defining problems fast and slow: The U -shaped effect of problem definition
time on project duration ". Production and Operations Management, 23(8): 1462 –1479
Choo, A. S., Nag, R., & Xia, Y. (2015). "The role of executive problem solving in knowledge
accumulat ion and manufacturing improvements ". Journal of Operations Management, 36: 63–
74.
Clark, K. D., & Maggitti, P. G. (2012). "TMT Potency and Strategic Decision -Making in High
Technology Firms ". Journal of Management Studies, 49(7): 1168 –1193.
Cowan, D. a. (1 986). "Developing a Process Model of Problem Recognition ". Academy of
Management Review , 11 (4): 763–776.
Cray, D., Mallory, G. R., Butler, R. J., Hickson, D. J., & Wilson, D. C. (1988). "Sporadic, Fluid and
Constricted Processes: Three Types of Strategic Decision Making in Organizations ". Journal of
Management Studies , 25 (1): 13–39.
Culnan, M. J. (1986). "The Intellectual Development of Management Information Systems , 1972 –
1982 : A Co – Citation Analysis ". Management Science, 32 (2): 156–172.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. -S. (1999). "Cognitive Biases and Strategic Decision Processes: An Integrative
Perspective ". Journal of Management Studies, 36 (6): 757–778.
De Mast, J. (2011). "The tactical use of constraints and structure in diagnostic problem solving ".
Omega, 39 (6): 702–709.
De Mast, J., & Lokkerbol, J. (2012). "An analysis of the Six Sigma DMAIC method from the
perspective of problem solving ". International Journal of Production Economics, 139 (2): 604–
614.
Dean, J., W., & Sharfman, M., P. (1996). "Does Deci sion Process Matter? A Study of Strategic
Decision -Making Effectiveness ". Academy of Management Journal, 39 (2): 368–396.
Donaldson, R., M. (1972). "Systematic Problem Solving ". Management Review -Condensed from
Journal of Systems Management , 48–50.
Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1999). "Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The
moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision -making teams ". Academy of
Management Journal, 42 (4): 389–402.
Dooley, R. S., Fryxell , G. E., & Judge, W. Q. (2000). "Belaboring the Not -So-Obvious: Consensus,
Commitment, and Strategy Implementation Speed and Success ". Journal of Management, 26 (6):
1237 –1257.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). "Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Envir onmental
Uncertainty ". Administrative Science Quartely, 1 7 (3): 313–327.
Dutton, J. E., Fahey, L., & Narayanan, V. K. (1983). "Toward Understanding Issue Diagnosis ".
Strategic Management Journalt Journal, 4 : 307–323.
Easton, G. S., & Rosenzweig, E. D. (20 12). "The role of experience in six sigma project success: An
empirical analysis of improvement projects ". Journal of Operations Management, 30 (7-8): 481–
493.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). "Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High -Velocity Environments ".
Acade my of Management Journal, 32 (3): 543–576.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999). "Strategy as Strategic Decision Making ". Sloan Management Review , 40
(3), 65.

28
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). "Politics of Strategic Decision Making in High -Velocity
Environ ments : Toward a Midrange Theory ". Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4): 737–770.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). "Strategic decision making ". Strategic Management
Journal, 1 3: 17–37.
Elbanna, S. (2012). "Slack, planning and organizational performance: Evidence from the Arab middle
east". European Management Review, 9 (2): 99–115.
Elbanna, S. , & Child, J. (2007). "Influences on strategic decision effectiveness: Develeopment and
test of an integ rative model". Strategic Management Journal, 28 : 431–453.
Elbanna, S., & Child, J. (2007). "The influence of decision, environmental and firm characteristics on
the rationality of strategic decision -making ". Journal of Management Studies, 44 (4): 561–591.
Elenkov, D. (1997). "Strategic uncertainty and e nvironmental scanning: the case for institutional
influences on scanning behavior ". Strategic Management Journal, 18 (4): 287–302.
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). "Dual -Process Theories of Higher Cognition:
Advancing the Debate ". Perspective s on Psychological Science, 8 (3): 223–241.
Fahey, L. (1981). "On strategic management decision processes ". Strategic Management Journal, 2
(1): 43–60.
Fredrickson, J. W. (1984). "The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extension,
observatio ns, future directions ". The Academy of Management Journal, 27 (3): 445–466.
Fredrickson, J. W., & Iaquinto, A. L. (1989). "Inertia and Creeping Rationality in Strategic Decision
Processes ". Academy of Managemeni Journal, 32 (3): 516–542.
Fredrickson, J. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1984). "Strategic decision processes: Comprehensiveness and
performance in an industry with an unstable environment ". Academy of Management Journal,
27 (2): 399–423.
Frei, F. (2007). Conventional wisdom "“ Don’t bring me problems -bring me solutions!” ". Harvard
Business Review, 3.
Frishammar, J. (2003). "Information use in strategic decision making ". Management Decision, 41 (4):
318–326.
Garvin, D., A. (1993). "Building a Learning Organization ". Harward Business Review , 78–91.
Gray, P. H. (2001). "A problem -solving perspective on knowledge management practices ". Decision
Support Systems, 31 (1): 87–102.
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). "Information in practice reviews of complex evidence : audit
of primary sources ". BMJ, 331 : 1064 –1065.
Grundy, T., & Wensley, R. (1999). "Strategic behaviour: The driving force of strategic management ".
European Management Journal, 17 (3): 326–334.
Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. (2009). "Decision comprehensiveness and corporate
entrepreneurship: The moderating role of managerial uncertainty preferences and environmental
dynamism ". Journal of Management Studies, 46 (8): 1289 –1314.
Helfat, C. H., & Peteraf, M., A. (2015). M anagerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of
synamic capabilities" . Strategic Management Journal, 36 (2): 831–850
Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic Decision Models : In tegrating Different Perspective .
Strategic Management Journal, 12 (5): 327–351.
Ho, J. K. K., & Sculli , D. (1997). The scientific approach to problem solv ing and decision support

29
systems" . International Journal of Production Economics, 5273 (96): 249–257.
Hodgkinson, G. P., Bown, N. J., Mauler, A. J., Glaister, K. W., & Pearman, Alan, D. (1999). "An
analys is of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty" . Strategic Management
Journal, 20 : 977–985.
Hodgkinson, G. P., John Maule, A., Bown, N. J., Pearman, A. D., & Glaister, K. W. (2002). "Further
reflections on the elimination of framing bias i n strategic decision making ". Strategic
Management Journal, 23 (11): 1069 –1076.
Hough, J. R., & White, M. A. (2003). "Environmental dynamism and strategic decision -making
rationality: An examination at the decision level ". Strategic Management Journal, 24 (5): 481–
489.
Hua, C., & Yang, C. (2011). "International Journal of Information Management The intellectual
development of the technology acceptance model : A co -citation analysis ". International Journal
of Information Management, 31 (2): 128–136.
Huber, G . P., & Mcdaniel, R. R. (1986). "The Decision -Making Paradigm of Organizational Design ".
Management Science, 32 (5): 572–589.
Iaquinto, A. L., & F redrickson, James, W. (1997). "T op management team agreement about the
strategic decision process : A test of some of its determinants and consequences ". Strategic
Management Journal, 18 : 63–75.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). "Thinking and Managing: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Managerial Problem
Solving ". The Academy of Management Journal, 29 (4): 775–788.
Itabashi -Campbell, R., Perelli, S., & Gluesing, J. (2011). "Engineering problem solving and
knowledge creation: An epistemological perspective ". Proceedings of the 1st International
Technology Management Conference, ITMC 2011 , 777 –789.
Jemison, D. B. (1981). "Organizational versus environmental sources of influence in strategic
decision making ". Strategic Management Journal, 2 (1): 77–89.
Judge, W., & Miller, A. (1991). "Antecedents and Outcomes of Decision Speed in Different
Environmental Contexts ". Academy o f Management Journal, 34 (2): 449–463.
Keats, B., W. (1991). "Research Notes and Communications an Empirical Investigation of Strategic
Investment Decision Models ". Strategic Management Journal, 12 (3): 243–250.
Koskinen, K. U. (2012). "Problem absorption as an organizational learning mechanism in project –
based companies: Process thinking perspective ". International Journal of Project Management,
30 (3): 308–316.
Kukalis, S. A. L. (1991). "Determinants of Strategic Planning Systems in Large Organizations: A
Contingency Approach ". Journal of Management Studies, 28 (2): 143–160.
Langley, A. (1990). "Patterns in the use of formal analysis in strategic decisions ". Organization
Science, 11 (1): 17–45.
Levinthal, D., A. (2011). A behavioral approach to strategy -What's the alternative?". Strategic
Management Journal, 32 (2): 1517 –1523.
Longenecker, C., O., Scazzero, J., A., & Stansfield, T., T. (1994). "Quality Improvement through
Team Goal Setting , Feedback , and Problem Solving ". International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 11 (4): 45–52.
Lucy, A. A., Richard, L. P., & Hermann Achidi, N. (2005). "A CEO -Adviser Model of Strategic
Decision Making ". Journal of Management, 31 (5): 680.

30
Lyles, M. (1981). "Formulating Strategic Problems: Empirical Analysis and Model Development ".
Strategic Management Journal, 2 , 61–75.
Lyles, M. A. (1987). "Defining strategic Problems: Subjective Criteria of Executives ". Organization
Studies, 8 (3): 263–280.
Lyles, M. A. (2014). "Organizational Learning , knowledge creation , problem formulation and
innovation in messy problems ". European Management Journal, 32 (1): 132–136.
Lyles, M. A., & Mitroff, I. (1980). "Organizational Problem Formulation : An Empirical Study ".
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (1): 102–119.
Lyles, M., A., & Thomas, H. (1988). "Strategic problem formulation :Biases and assumptions
embedded in alternative decision making models" . Journal of Management Studies, 25 (2): 131–
145.
Mac Duffie, J. . (1997). "The road to “rootcause”: shop -floor pro blem solving at three auto assembly
plants ". Management Science, 43 (4): 479–502.
Macher, J. T. (2006). "Technological Development and the Boundaries of the Firm: A Knowledge –
Based Examination in Semiconductor Manufacturing ". Management Science, 52 (6): 826–843.
Marksberry, P., Badurdeen, F., Gregory, B., & Kreafle, K. (2010). "Management directed kaizen:
Toyota’s Jishuken process for management development ". Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 21 (6): 670–686.
Marksberry, P., Bustle, J., & Clev inger, J. (2011). "Problem solving for managers: a mathematical
investigation of Toyota’s 8 -step process ". Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
22 (7): 837–852.
Martinsons, M., Davison, R., & Tse, D. (1999). "The balanced scorecard: a foundation for the
strategic management of information systems ". Decision Support Systems, 25 (1): 71–88.
Mast, D. (2013). "Diagnostic Quality Problem Solving : A Conceptual Framework and Six
Strategies ". Quality Management Journal, 20 (4): 21–36.
Mccain, K. W. (1990). "Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space: A Technical Overview ". 41(6): 433–
443.
McKenzie, J., Woolf, N., Winkelen, C. van, & Morgan, C. (2009). "Cognition in strategic decision
making ". Management Decision, 47 (2): 209–232.
Metcalfe, M . (2005). "“Conjecture -First ” Problem Solving ". System Research and Behavioral
Science, 546 : 537–546.
Miller, C. C., Burke, L. M., & Glick, W. H. (1998). "Cognitive diversity among upper -echelon
executives : Impli cations for strategic decision p rocesses ". Strategic Management Journal, 19
(1): 39–58.
Miller, S. (1997). "Implementing Strategic Decisions: Four Key Success Factors ". Organization
Science, 18 (4): 577–602.
Miller, C., C. (2008). "Decisional Comprehensiveness and Firm Performance: Towards a More
Complete Understanding ". The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27 : 179–189.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). "The Structure of “ Unstructured ” Decision
Processes ". Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (2): 246–275.
Mitroff, I., I., & Featherirjgham, T. R. (1974). "On systematic problem solving and the error of the
third kind ". Behavioral Science, 19 : 383–393.
Morrison, B. (2015). "The problem with workarounds is that they work: The persistence of resource

31
shortages ". Journal of O perations Management, 39 -40: 79–91.
Mueller, G. C., Mone, M. a., & Barker, V. L. (2007). "Formal Strategic Analyses and Organizational
Performance: Decomposing the Rational Model ". Organization Studies, 28 (6): 853–883.
Myszewski, J. M. (2013). "On improve ment story by 5 whys ". The TQM Journal, 25 (4): 371–383.
Nerur, S. P., Rasheed, A. A., & Natarajan, V. (2008). "The intellectual structure of the strategic
management field: An author co -citation". Strategic Management Journal, 29: 319–336.
Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2004). "A Knowledge -Based Theory of the Firm: The Problem –
Solving Perspective ". Organization Science, 15 (6): 617–632.
Nutt, P. C. (1984). "Types of organizational decision processes ". Administrative Science Quarterly,
29 (3): 414–450.
Nutt, P. C. (1998). "Evaluating alternatives to make strategic choices ". Omega, 26 (3): 333–354.
Nutt, P. C. (1998). "Framing Strategic Decisions ". Organization Science, 9 (2): 195–216.
Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Yongjian Bao. (2007) . "Strategic decision making: The effects of
cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision o utcomes ". Journal of Management, 33 (2):
196–222.
Papadakis, V. M., Lioukas, S., & Chambers, D. (1998). "Strategic Decision -Making Processes: the
Role of Ma nagement and Context ". Strategic M anagement Journal , 19 (19): 115–147.
Papke -Shields, K. E., & Malhotra, M. K. (2001). "Assessing the impact of the manufacturing
executive’s role on business performance through strategic alignment ". Journal of Operations
Management, 19 (1): 5–22.
Powell, T. C. (1995). "Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical
study ". Strategic Management Journal, 16 : 15–37.
Preston, D. S., Chen, D., & Leidner, D. E. (2008). "Examining the antecedents and consequences of
CIO strategic decision -making authority: An empirical study ". Decision Sciences, 39 (4): 605–
642.
Priem, R. L., Rasheed, A., M., A., & Kotulic, A., G. (1995). "Rationality in Strategic Decision
Processes, Environmental Dynamism and Firm Per formance ". Journal of Management, 21 (5):
913–929.
Ramaprasad, A., & Mitroff, I. I. (1984). "On Formulating Strategic Problems ". Academy of
Management Review, 9 (4): 597.
Ramos -Rodrigeuz, A. -R., & Ruiz -Navarro, J. (2004). "Changes in the Intellectual Struc ture of
Strategic Management Research : A Bibliometric Study of the “ Strategic Management
Journal”", Strategic Management Journal, 2 5 (10): 981–1004 .
Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2002). "Capability Traps and Self -Confirming Attribution Errors
in the Dynamics of Process Improvement ". Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (2): 265–295.
Rindova , V. P. (1999). "What Corporate Boards Have To Do With Strategy: a Cognitive Perspective ".
Journal of Management Studies, 36 (7): 953–975.
Robert Mitchell, J., Shepherd Dean, A., & Sharfman Mark, P. (2011). Erratic strategic decisions:
When and why managers are inconsistent in strategic decision making". Strategic Management
Journal, 704 : 683–704.
Rodriguez, S., B., & Hickson, D. J. (1995). "Sucess in Decision Making: Different Organizations,
Different Reasons for Success ". Journal of Management Studies, 32 (5).

32
Sage, A. P. (1981). "Behaviour and organizational considerations in the design of information systems
and processes for planning and decision suppo rt". IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, SMC -11 (9): 640–678.
Schmidt, J. B., Montoya -Weiss, M. M., & Massey, A. P. (2001). "New Product Development
Decision -Making Effectiveness: Comparing Individuals, Face -To-Face Teams, and Virtual
Teams ". Decision Sciences, 32 (4): 575–600.
Schroeder, R. G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A. S. (2008). "Six Sigma: Definition and
underlying theory ". Journal of Operations Management, 26 (4): 536–554.
Schwenk, C. R. (1988). "The Cognitive Perspective on S trategic Decision Making ". Journal of
Management Studies , 25 (1).
Schwenk, C. R. (1995). "Strategic decision making ". Journal of Management, 21 (3): 471–493.
Sharfman, M. P., & Dean, J. W. (1997). "Flexibility in strategic decision making: Informational an d
ideological perspectives ". Journal of Management Studies, 34 (2): 191–217.
Smelcer, J. B. ., & Carmel, E. . (1997). "The effectiveness of different representations for managerial
problem solving: Comparing tables and maps ". Decision Sciences, 28 (2): 391–420.
Smith, G. F. (1988). "Towards A Heuristic Theory of Problem Structuring ". Management Science , 34
(12): 1489 –1507.
Smith, G. F. (1989). "Defining Managerial Problems: A Framework for Prescriptive Theorizing ".
Management Science, 35 (8): 963–981.
Sorkun, M. F., & Furlan, A. (2016). "Product and Organizational Modularity : A Contingent View of
the Mirroring Hypothesis ". European Management Review .
Spear, S., & Bowen, H., K. (1999). "Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System ". Harvard
Busines s Review, 77 (5): 96–106.
Spear, S. J. (2004). "Learning to Lead at Toyota ". Harward Business Review .
Spradlin, D. (2012). "Are You Solving the Right Problem? ". Harvard Business Review, 90 (9): 84–
93.
Staats, B. R., Brunner, D. J., & Upton, D. M. (2011). "Lean principles, learning, and knowledge work:
Evidence from a software services provider ". Journal of Operations Management, 29 (5): 376–
390.
Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., & Chinnam, R. B. (2009). "Remanufacturing for the automotive
aftermarket -strategi c factors: literature review and future research needs ". Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17 (13): 1163 –1174.
Subramoniam, R., Huisingh, D., & Chinnam, R. B. (2010). "Aftermarket remanufacturing strategic
planning decision -making framework: Theory & practice ". Journal of Cleaner Production, 18
(16-17): 1575 –1586.
Tarantini, M., Pernigotto, G., & Gasparella, A. (2017). "A Co -Citation Analysis on Thermal Comfort
and Office Buildings ". Building Review Journal, 7 (36): 1–17.
Thomas, H. (1984). "Strategic decision analysis : Applied decision analysis and its role in the strategic
management process ". Strategic Management Journal, 5 : 139–156.
Trull, S. G. (1966). "Some Factors Involved in Determining Total Decision Success ". Management
Science, 12 (6): B–270–B–280.
Tsang, E. W. K. (2004). "Toward a scientific inquiry into superstitious business decision -making ".
Organization Studies, 25 (6): 923–946.

33
Tucker, A. L. (2016). "The impact of workaround difficulty on frontline employees’ response to
operational fa ilures: A laboratory experiment on medication administration ". Management
Science, 62 (4): 1124 –1144.
Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2003). "Why Hosp itals Don’t Learn from Failures". California
Management Review, 45 (1): 55–72.
Tucker, A. L., Edmondso n, A. C., & Spear, S. (2002). "When problem solving prevents
organizational learning ". Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15 (2): 122–137.
Tuggle, F. D., & Gerwin, D. (1980). "An Information Processing Model of Organizational Perception,
Strategy and Choice ". Management Science, 26 (6): 575–592.
Turner, K., L ., & Makhija, M., V. (2012). The role of individuals in the information processing
perspective" . Strategic Management Journal, 33 (2): 661–680.
Ulrich, W. (1997). "The Design of Problem -Solvin g Systems ". Management Science, 23 (10), 1099 –
1108.
Volkema, R. J. (1983). "Problem Formulation in Planning and Design ". Management Science, 29 (6):
639–652.
Volkema, R. J. (1986). "Problem Formulation as A Purposive Activity ". Strategic Management
Journalent, 7 : 267–279.
Volkema, R. J., & Gorman, R. H. (1998). "The influence of cognitive -based group composition on
decision -making process and outcome ". Journal of Management Studies, 35 .
Walker Ii, E. D., & Cox Iii, J. F. (2006). "Addressing ill-structured problems using Goldratt’s thinking
processes: A white collar example ". Management Decision, 44 (1): 137–154.
Werder, A. V. (1999). "Argumentation Rationality of Management Decisions ". Organization Science,
10 (5): 672–690.
Wolfe, J., & Jacks on, C. (1987). "Creating Models of the Strategic Decision Making Process Via
Participant Recall: A Free Simulation Examination ". Journal of Management, 13 (1): 123–134.
Wright, G., & Goodwin, P. (2002). "Eliminating a framing bias by using simple instructi ons to “think
harder” and respondents with managerial experience: Comment on “breaking the frame ”".
Strategic Management Journal, 23 (11): 1059 –1067.
Zehir, C., & Özsahin, M. (2008). "A field research on the relationship between strategic decision –
making s peed and innovation performance in the case of Turkish large -scale firms ".
Management Decision, 46 (5): 709–724.

34
Table 1
ID Author (Year) ID Author (Year) ID Author (Year)
A1 Mac Duffie (1997 ) A36 Alexievet al. (2010) A71 Thomas (1984)
A2 Lyles (1981 ) A37 Miller (2008) A72 Walker Ii & Cox Iii (2006)
A3 Garvin (1993 ) A38 Heavey et al., 2009) A73 Volkema (1986)
A4 Büyükdamgaci (2003) A39 Chen & Lee (2003) A74 Turner & Makhija (2012)
A5 Baer et al. (2013) A40 Cray et al. (1988) A75 Levinthal (2011)
A6 Schwenk (1995) A41 Abdulrahman et al. (2015) A76 Ackoff (1981)
A7 Lyles (1987) A42 Grundy & Wensley (1999) A77 Powell (1995)
A8 Easton & Rosenzweig
(2012) A43 Schmidt et al. (2001) A78 Hitt & Tyler (1991)
A9 Hodgkinson et al. (1999) A44 Dooley et al. (2000) A79 Macher (2006)
A10 Papadakis et al. (1998) A45 Rindova (1999) A80 Elbanna (2012)
A11 Eisenhardt & Zbaracki
(1992) A46 Tuggle & Gerwin (1980) A81 Jemison (1981)
A12 Elbanna & Child (2007) A47 Subramoniam et al. (2010) A82 Armstrong (1982)
A13 Elbanna & Child (2007) A48 Mueller et al. (2007) A83 Elenkov (1997)
A14 Nutt (1998) A49 Judge & Miller (1991) A84 Olson et al. (2007)
A15 Kukali s (1991) A50 Bohn (2000) A85 Langley (1990)
A16 Dutton et al. (1983) A51 Repenning & Sterman
(2002) A86 Miller (1997)
A17 Dooley & Fryxell (1999) A52 Tucker et al. (2002) A87 Tsang (2004)
A18 Dean & Sharfman (1996) A53 Tucker & Edmondson
(2003) A88 Werder (1999)
A19 Amason (1996) A54 Staat s et al., (2011) A89 Iaquinto et al. (1997)
A20 Clark & Maggitti (2012) A55 Volkema (1983) A90 Martinsons et al. (1999 )
A21 Preston et al. (2008) A56 Volkema & Gorman (1998) A91 Schwenk (1988)
A22 Ashmos & McDaniel
(1996) A57 Nickerson & Zenger (2004) A92 Subramoniam et al. (2009)
A23 Lucy et al. (2005) A58 Schroeder et al. (2008) A93 Papke -Shields & Malhotra
(2001)
A24 Hough & White (2003) A59 De Mast (2011)
A25 Ashmos, et al. (1998) A60 Choo (2014)
A26 Zehir & Özsahin (2008) A61 Helfat & Peteraf (2015)
A27 Sharfman & Dean (1997) A62 Gray (2001)
A28 McKenzie et al. (2009) A63 Das & Teng (1999)
A29 Wolfe & Jackson (1987) A64 Sage (1981)
A30 Baum & Wally (2003) A65 Nutt (1984)
A31 Milleret al. (1998) A66 Beer et al. (1990)
A32 Keats (1991) A67 Priem et al. (1995)
A33 Fahey (1981) A68 De Mast & Lokkerbol
(2012)
A34 Wright & Goodwin (2002) A69 Ho & Sculli (1997)
A35 Nutt (1998) A70 Spear (2004)

35

Table 21
Cited
Articles Factor 1
Loading
Value Factor 2
Loading
Value Factor 3
Loading
Value Problem
Formulation Genral
Definition &
APS
Characteristics Strategic
Decision
Making
A 1 -0.868 A 2 -0.869 A 6 0.816
A 3 -0.736 A 4 -0.724 A 9 0.703
A 5 -0.871 A 7 -0.910 A 10 0.823
A 8 -0.821 A 15 -0.544 A11 0.571
A 50 -0.635 A 16 -0.853 A 12 0.834
A 52 -0.844 A 29 -0.855 A 13 0.834
A 53 -0.817 A 32 -0.741 A 14 0.804
A 54 -0.863 A 33 -0.922 A 17 0.756
A 57 -0.488 A 40 -0.673 A 18 0.744
A 58 -0.681 A 46 -0.931 A 19 0.759
A 59 -0.452 A 55 -0.902 A 20 0.787
A 60 -0.869 A 64 -0.621 A 24 0.809
A 61 -0.568 A 65 -0.599 A 27 0.834
A 68 -0.668 A 71 -0.967 A 30 0.775
A 69 -0.452 A 73 -0.968 A 37 0.825
A 70 -0.787 A 77 -0.869 A 42 0.721
A 74 -0.661 A 82 -0.645 A 49 0.747
A 75 -0.650 A 86 -0.686 A 56 0.844
A 78 -0.724 – – A 67 0.754
A 80 -0.652 – – A 79 0.805

1 20 out 28 articles in factor 1, and 20 out of 47 articles in factor 3, with highest loading values, are reported.

36

Figure 1

37

Figure 22
Papers in C1 (problem formulation) emphasize a disciplined approach for permanent
problem resolution. Stress is mainly laid on root -cause analysis that assists problem -solvers to
put fundamental solutions in place. Papers positioned in C2 (general definition and APS
characteristics) consider a full panorama of A PS. Indeed, the macro perspective adopted
provides a clear definition for A PS and its structure. The focus point is to present a framework
with main processes to follow in the face o f dealing with unstructured and complex problems .
C2, mostly, includes old papers though. Finally, papers positioned in C3 (strategic decision –
making) address a rational -comprehensive behavior while making strategic decisions. Authors
describe strategic de cision -making as an organizational managerial process where formal
planning and systematic environmental scanning play the most significant role for the long –
term decision success.

2 Co-citation analysis following MDS, FA and CA is done by UCINET softward. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G.
and Freeman, L.C. 2002. Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis.
Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

38

Figure 3
The yellow and red circles repr esent the cited articles in C1 and C3 respectively . The
articles are shown by their IDs ( discussed previsously in table 1). The squares refer to the
contingency factors. However, the blue squares stand for internal factors while the green one
represents the external factor in particula r high environmental dynamism. Then, the size of
each square represents the importance of that particula r contingency factor.

39

Figur e 4
In the model, we argue that why problem -solvers and managers are more likely to adopt IPS even
if the effectiveness of APS is well -highlighted by the literature. We conclude that insufficient
organizational antecedents, and environmental conditions (as first -order impediment) and cog nitive bias
(as second -order impediment) lead to IPS dominance that in turn bring short -term improvements.

Figure 5
In line with the impediments for APS, we propos two solutions to encourage APS and overcome
the phenomena of IPS dominance. It is built on managerial awareness , as the key input, to establish
necessary antecedents of APS in the organization as well as environmental scanning. This seems
important to gather necessary information for cognitive debiasing.

40
Table/ Figure Captions
Table 1 Set of Source Documents
Table 2 Results of Factor Analysis
Figure 1 Flow Diagram of Sampling Procedure
Figure 2 Results of Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and Cluster Analysis (CA)
Figure 3 Social Network Analysis (SNA) for Contingency Factors
Figure 4 Proposed Framework for IPS Dominance
Figure 5 Proposed Mechanism for APS Adoption