Index

Action Inquiry

Creating a sales strategy requires a continuous planning and assessment cycle, where goals need to be defined in order to understand the success of the strategy. Action Inquiry formalises what might be considered as the concept of strategy itself. For example action research, a sub-set of a action inquiry, is noted as “usually beginning with a formal reconnaissance, and there are specific data production and analysis phases” (Tripp, 2003 pg 14). This method allows us to follow a structured cycle that is strategic in nature and actively aims for a continually improved process, which in this case is the development of a sales process and strategy. Thus adopting this field of research provides a relevant body of literature that aids meeting our objective of implementing a new strategic sales process.

The problem with literature associated with action research is that there are numerous different schools and a distinct lack of an agreed process (Edwards, 2005). This makes it difficult to understand which structure might be most applicable to adopt in the context of a work environment, where specific demands are outside the realm of theoretical conception. Every subject of Action Inquiry undoubtedly requires a tailored solution as they all have unique needs and aims. As a result it could be argued that applying such frameworks is too rigid to be successful. Although Tripp (2003) argues that modifying the framework to suit the needs of each case, is appropriate in integrating it into an existing (in this case corporate) framework. How the cycle’s structure can be manipulated without damaging the integrity of the action research cycle is not suggested. Although it is likely this will be predominantly as a result of business, resource and company-culture pressures.

Action research is considered useful and applicable to a work environment, by providing a cyclical, stage-based model on which to base a strategic process and research. As Argyris (2004) states the key is to ensure a continual process that grows our knowledge, as this will reduce the gaps in our anticipated outcome (targets/ sales predictions) and actual results. This will be an important outcome in the context of Habbo and this Action Inquiry, where little information is available on which to base our predictions.

Argyris’ (2004) work is useful in suggesting what kind of organisational change might need to occur in order to instigate the kind of changes suggested here. However Argyris’s work focuses on personnel and mind set changes required, but he does not suggest a structure on which to base the action research process. Tripp (2003) however usefully conceptualises the process (Figure 1) and notes that there are two main questions/ concerns in action research; 1. What to do 2. What to measure