ISSN 1392-2785 ENGINEERING ECONOMICS. 2006.

No 2 (47)
COMMERCE OF ENGINEERING DECISIONS

Model of Strategic Analysis Tools Typology

Sigitas Vaitkevičius, Gediminas Merkys, Asta Savanevičienė

Kauno technologijos universitetas
K. Donelaičio g. 20, LT-44239, Kaunas

With the growing number of tools to be used for stra- Besides, the organization executives would also be able
tegic analysis it is getting more and more difficult to to more easily choose the tools that would not duplicate
make a choice. This problem has been tackled by working the information of each other. This will allow the leaders
out different taxonomies of tools of strategic management to more effectively use the tools of strategic analysis.
and planning which include number of tools used for The typology of the strategic analysis designed for
strategic analysis. Following the review of the available the organization leaders, especially the beginners, will let
taxonomies it has been found that (1) they failed to en- them more quickly and purposefully choose the tools for
compass all tools classification criteria necessary for strategic analysis from a great variety of tools. This is
strategic analysis, (2) they were not oriented to the clas- especially important for the leaders of Lithuanian or-
sification of strategic analysis tools and to the highlight- ganizations, who make their first steps in the field of stra-
ing specific typological features of the tools used for stra- tegic management and planning. Such leaders have to
tegic analysis. choose the tools and their combinations to satisfy their
In this article the analysis of the available taxono- needs and identify the specific situation of the enterprise.
mies performed enabled to select 41 tool to be used for
Keywords: tools, strategic analysis, taxonomy, strategic
strategic analysis which were later included into the “ex-
management, strategic planning.
pert evaluation questionnaire of strategic analysis tools”.
All of them were theoretically divided on the framework
of certain classification attitude. During the study, the Introduction
classification of tools to be used for theoretical strategic Strategic analysis as an independent object of scien-
analysis has been studied in detail according to 19 classi- tific study has been dealt with but insufficiently (Vaitke-
fication criteria / indicators. By comparing practical and vičius et al., 2002). It has been reviewed, however, by
theoretical tools taxonomies the classification criteria comparatively numerous authors. It may be stated that
were selected and analyzed in detail which are equally some authors assigned more functions to strategic analy-
important both in practical and theoretical respect. On sis (Lindblom, 1959); Cyert and March, 1963; Ham-
the framework of this the “questionnaire of strategic meresh et al., 1978; Porter, 1980; Stoner and Fry, 1987;
analysis tools expert evaluation” was formed. The corre- Johnson and Scholes, 1993; Rowe et al., 1994; Grant,
spondence survey of experts using anonymous question- 1998; Peel et al., 1996; Jucevičius, 1998; Godet, 2000;
naire has been chosen for the study. Barnes, 2002; Analoui and Karami, 2003; Eng, 2004;
As the result of this paper, it was stated that the McNamee et al., 2004), others much fewer (Clark and
evaluation of the tools of strategic analysis according to Scott, 1995; Clark, 1997). All these authors, however,
the 19 chosen criteria has been partly justified. By means state that strategic analysis is a fundamental element in
of this study the tools can be classified according to 16 forming the strategy of the organization. Strategic analy-
different features. Thus, the 41 tool typological model has sis can be defined as understanding of organization and
been comprised for strategic analysis of the used tool. its environment with respect to long-range perspective.
According to the judgment of the authors of this paper, Kaye and Dyason (1998) proved that if preliminary stra-
this will give the possibility in the future not only to com- tegic analysis is missing, the organizations start imple-
pare the above mentioned tools with each other, but also menting their strategy without having a clear set of goals.
to include and position new tools to be used for strategic The framework of strategic management and plan-
analysis. The typological model enables to form the ning, the essential constituent and sustaining element is
groups of homogeneous tools of strategic analysis ac- specifically the tools of strategic analysis. Nevertheless,
cording to some specific criteria (sets or portfolios). Such they lacked attention for a long time. As early as 1980
groups can help to more fully study the tools of strategic Eilon marked the main shortcoming why the tools failed
analysis, as well as their investigation, research and to attract attention in the subject of strategic management.
modification. According to Eilon, “the tool is only a means to obtain
The designed typological model makes it possible to the result, but it is not a result in itself.” This is because
form individual portfolios of the tools of strategic analy- the tool defines only a part of the problem, rather than all
sis for the managers of various organizations according the aspects of strategic decisions. Nevertheless strategic
to the previously stated features or characteristics. By management tools play a important role in the process of
means of the designed model, the managers would be strategic management, where they perform a number of
able to choose such tools that would be more informative. different functions, sometimes even at a time (Eilon,

99
1980; Day, 1986; Langley, 1988 and 1991; Dyson, 1990). mine the role of the tool in the decision-making process
These functions include information generation, struc- Next taxonomy of strategic management tools was
turization of the object for the analysis, facilitating the developed only in 1997. It was presented by Clark
exchange of ideas, assistance in coordination and control (1997). The set of tools formed by the author can be iden-
of strategic planning processes and symbolic significance tified as taxonomy, though Clark does not formally relate
(Clark and Scott, 1995). Properly selected strategic the results of his study to the concept of taxonomy. Clark
analysis tools and strategic planning techniques can en- and Scott (1995), Clark (1997) studied actual applicabil-
sure enough simple application of strategic planning in ity of 66 strategic management tools in the New Zealand
the decision-making process of the organization. and UK – based companies. The researchers stated that
Presently it can be definitely stated that strategic the organizations commonly used 33 tools for strategic
analysis tools play an essential role in the strategic plan- management. The author described them referring to 32
ning process, however, the studies of this area are still steps of strategic management process. Clark devotes five
behind and are of fragmentary nature. It must be noted tools for each stage in the organizations investigated and
that most empiric studies on the usage of strategic man- used for this purpose. In the formed taxonomy of strate-
agement tools included only a couple of issues on strate- gic management tools the tools are positioned according
gic analysis tools into the general study of strategic plan- to their practical application in specific steps of strategic
ning process (Caeldries and van Dierdonck, 1988; management. According to Clark and Webster et al.
Ackelsberg and Harris, 1989; Bazzaz and Grinyer, 1981; (1989), the taxonomies are partially similar: they both
Wee et al. 1989). have a definite relative with the strategic management (or
Often, the researchers form small sets of similar planning) process when relevant tools are ascribed to
tools; e.g. Walt et al. (1989) studied the usage of only six each particular stage. The taxonomies mentioned have
planning tools in New Zealand according to a modified several differences: Clark’s strategic management proc-
version by Hooley (1984). Several authors presented ess is more detailed than Webster’s et al. Therefore, in
exemplary sets of strategic analysis tools specifying them effect, Clark has expanded the definition limits of Web-
as an instruction for the managers: ster’s et al. taxonomy. Nevertheless, both taxonomies,
according to the authors, have at least several identical
1) Webster et al. (1989) formed most frequently
used 30 tools set for strategic planning. disadvantages: 1) they fail to reveal the nature and pri-
mary purpose of the tool and 2) they fail to define the
2) Clark (1997) combined 33 methods of strategic
place of the tool in the decision-making process rather
analysis with the model of strategic management
than in the process of strategic management or planning.
process.
Miles et al. (1997) performed the research which
3) Miles et al. (1997) revealed the usage of several dealt with the application of seven strategic planning
analysis tools in agricultural companies, thus techniques in the USA agricultural sector. Compared to
highlighting the contextual usage of analysis tool. the taxonomies discussed above, this set of strategic
4) Rigby (2001 b) studied the application of 25 main planning techniques was specific in that the application of
management tools used for strategic analysis and the tools mentioned in agricultural companies was com-
revealed that strategic analysis tools play a rela- pared to that in other corporations. The established dif-
tively important role in the organizational process. ferences between the analyzed tools enable to state that
Upon the review of the mentioned studies, it was the tools can be divided with regard to their place in the
found that they can relatively be referred to as taxono- strategic management or planning process.
mies. For example, Webster et al. (1989) on forming the Rigby (2001 a, 2001 b) formed another rather signifi-
set of 30 strategic planning tools and techniques de- cant taxonomy. This author studies the usage of 25 main
scribed the tools in terms of nine features. This taxonomy management tools by Top Managers of North American
encompasses tools and techniques which in a narrower organizations, which included several tools used for stra-
context may be defined as strategic analysis tools, never- tegic management. Since the latter taxonomy, equally to
theless, several classification criteria are meant to relate Clark’s (1997) was derived from practical application of
the tool with the strategic planning process. This is to tools, it uses the rating principle in dividing the tools.
show that the taxonomy formed by Webster et al. (1989) Rigby divided 25 above mentioned principles according
is meant to validate the relation of the tools with the stra- to three criteria: 1) the frequency of usage of specific
tegic management process. This taxonomy, as one of the tools in the organizations studied, 2) satisfaction form
first ones, joins such things as: 1) data entry definition in using a particular tool, 3) efforts necessary to use a tool.
terms of contents and form necessary for the tool, 2) the Rigby’s taxonomy differed from others in that he selected
definition of the information obtained by means of the such relatively “sophistic” criteria as satisfaction and
tool in terms of contents and form, 3) the time required efforts. According to the authors of this article, the efforts
for the application/adaptation of the tool, human and can partially be identified as the category generalizing
financial resources, as well as skills necessary to use the Webster’s et al. (1989) criteria: time necessary to apply
tool and the need to use a computer. Webster’s et al. the tool, human and financial resources and skills neces-
(1989) taxonomy provided a lot of theoretical informa- sary for using the tool as well as the need for the com-
tion on the practical use of the tool. This taxonomy, how- puter. The actual application taxonomy of management
ever, according to the authors’ opinion, had a couple of tools formed by Rigby as well as those formed by the
relative disadvantages: 1) it fails to reveal the nature and authors mentioned can be characterized by the same dis-
the primary purpose of the tool, and 2) it fails to deter- advantages. Rigby’s taxonomy fails to disclose the nature

100
of particular tools, their primary purpose; also, it lacks the same tools, only, they are named differently. Such
the definition of the role of the tool in a decision-making situation brings about confusion. For example, one of the
(rather than strategic management) process. most commonly used tool “Mission statement” was
In summing up the results of the literature review, it can named as “Mission”, “The formal statement of mission
be stated that up to now much has been done in the area of and objectives” and “Mission and vision statements”.
systemizing tools. It has to be noted, however, that the tax- Another example is “Portfolio analysis” identified as
onomies discussed lack clear identification of the identity of “Portfolio analysis”, “Portfolios”, “Boston consulting
tools. The latter reason restricts the decision of the organiza- group matrix”. Discrepancies like these were numerous.
tion as to when and which strategic analysis tools should be They were all analyzed and evaluated and given in the
used. The cases when the organizations try to avoid select- article under the unified names.
ing certain tools are also frequent, because they are not cer- In the taxonomies discussed for the most part six strate-
tain whether or not their application will ensure the solution gic analysis tools, e.g. SWOT, Portfolio, Models, Bench-
of the problems. The formation of the typology of strategic marking, Core competences, Scenarios and Mission were
analysis tools will provide the possibility for the organiza- analyzed. They were included in three of the four taxono-
tions to compare their strategic analysis tools based on uni- mies reviewed. Ten tools were included in at least two sets,
form criteria and decide more objectively on the selection of e.g. Critical success factors, Delphi, Financial ratios,
tools for settlement of the problem. McKinsey 7S, Market opportunity analysis, Process map-
The objective of the research is to form a typologi- ping, Focus groups, Competitor analysis, Porter’s 5F, Stake-
cal model of strategic analysis tools with reference to holder analysis, Budgeting and Value chain.
theoretical analysis and expert’s evaluation and to estab- The taxonomies analyzed contained 18 tools men-
lish criteria for selection of strategic analysis tools. tioned from 2 to 3 times. The biggest number of mentioned
tools (20) was used by Clark (1997). Seventeen tools of
The expert evaluation methods for particular them were reviewed by Webster et al. (1989). In studying
the application of strategic planning techniques in the USA
strategic analysis tools
agricultural sector, Miles et al. (1997) analyzed only seven
Definition of expert evaluation objects out of 20 tools mentioned. Among all taxonomies within
In analyzing the studies reviewed, it has been estab- the scope of those under consideration the least number of
lished that for the most cases the taxonomies dealt with tools (only four) were studied by Rigby (2001 a, 2001 b).
Table 1
General-science Tools Used for Strategic Analysis by Organization
THE
IDEOLOGICAL NATURE OF

TOOL’S ROLE
NECESSARY
IN DECISION NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TOOL AND
FACTUAL AND
MAKING THE ENVIRONMENT
LOGICAL
PROCESS
THE TOOL

JUSTIFICATION
NAME OF THE TOOL
for internal envi-

for the operating

Indifferent with

ronment and/or
respect to envi-
ronment analy-

of uncontrolled
Data collection

Tools designed

Tools designed

Tools designed
for the analysis

ronment of the

universal tools
making tools

environment

remote envi-

Rationalistic
Decision-

company

Sophistic
analysis
tools

sis

Brainstorming + + +
Dialectic inquiry + + +
Nominal group technique + + +
Multidisciplinary strategic

Factor analysis + + +
analysis tools

Trend analysis + + +
Multidimensional scaling
(MDS)
+ + +
Cluster analysis + + +
Discriminant analysis + + +
Conjoint analysis + + +
Delphi + + +
Focus groups + + +
Market opportunity nalysis + + +
gement theory methods as
tools of strategic analysis
Economics and mana-

Mkt. segmentation + + +
Financial ratios + + +
Process mapping + + +
Product/ market mapping + + +
PIMS + + +

101
 The analysis of the taxonomies performed enabled 2) tools designed for the operating environment analy-
us to select 41 tool to be used for strategic analysis sis; 3) tools designed for the analysis of uncontrolled
which were later included into the “expert evaluation remote environment of the company; and 4) indifferent
questionnaire of strategic analysis tools” (Tables 1 and with respect to environment and/or universal tools.
2). All of them were theoretically divided on the frame-
work of certain classification attitude and on the attitude According to the necessary factual and logical justifi-
that the tools to be used for strategic analysis according cation, it is reasonable to divide them into 1) rationalistic
to their role in the decision making process might be tools; and 2) sophistic tools. According to ideological
divided into: 1) decision-making tools; and 2) data col- nature of the tool they may be divided into:
lection tools. According to nature of relationship be- 1) multidisciplinary strategic analysis tools; 2) economics
tween the tool and the environment they may be divided and management theory methods as tools of strategic
into: 1) tools designed for internal environment analysis; analysis; and 3) strategic management tools.
Table 2
Strategic Management Tools Used for Strategic Analysis by Organization

TOOL’S ROLE THE NECESSARY

IDEOLOGICAL NATURE OF

IN DECISION NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TOOL FACTUAL AND

MAKING AND THE ENVIRONMENT LOGICAL
PROCESS JUSTIFICATION
THE TOOL

NAME OF THE TOOL

Decision-making

ment of the com-

ronment analysis
for internal envi-

for the operating

remote environ-

Indifferent with
of uncontrolled

respect to envi-
ronment and/or
for the analysis
Tools designed

Tools designed

Tools designed
Data collection

universal tools

Rationalistic
environment

Sophistic
analysis
tools

tools

pany
Balanced scorecard + + +
Benchmarking + + +
Core competences + + +
Critical success factors + + +
Driving force + + +
Experience curves + + +
Future study + + +
Life cycle analysis + + +
McKinsey 7-8 + + +
Strategic management tools

Multiple scenarios + + +
Outsourcing + + +
PEST + + +
Porter’s 5F + + +
Portfolio classification analysis + + +
Reengineering + + +
Simulation technique + + +
SPACE + + +
SPIRE + + +
Strategic gap analysis + + +
Value chain analysis + + +
SWOT + + +
Technology assessment analysis + + +
Vulnerability analysis + + +

Design of the study retical respect. Thus, four criteria / indicators groups
The classification of tools to be used for theoretical were formed:
strategic analysis has been studied in detail according to 1) The character of analyzed objects.
19 classification criteria / indicators (Table 3). By com- 2) The sources of analytical information required
paring practical and theoretical tools taxonomies the clas- for using the tool and collection of data.
sification criteria were selected and analyzed in detail 3) The character of the tool-obtained information.
which are equally important both in practical and theo- 4) The tool-usage cost and sources.

102
 The formed four criteria / indicator groups divided sis, also together with the character of strategic man-
into 19 independent classification criteria on the frame- agement was highlighted by several indicators of human
work of which the “questionnaire of strategic analysis resources costs and their utilization, such as, the in-
tools expert evaluation” was formed. volvement degree of highest-level leaders, external ex-
The formed specification of indicators can be char- perts and consultants, lower- and medium – level man-
acterized by several features of strategic analysis. It has agers, specialists and ordinary employees. Typically to
to be noted that often (especially in strategic manage- strategic analysis is the fact that in the process of infor-
ment and planning textbooks) strategic analysis is iden- mation accumulation, staff of all levels is involved ac-
tified as the set of cognition actions of internal activity cording to their competence. Some are more active in
and remote environment of the organization (Juce- performing the organization’s internal activity analysis;
vičius, 1998). Therefore, strategic analysis tools classi- others assist the organization to get to know the opera-
fication models include criteria indicating the character tional and remote environments.
of tool-analyzed objects. Other group of criteria is re- To design strategic analysis typology several more
lated to the completeness of the information produced, universal tools assessment criteria have been used: suffi-
workability and practical application. The purpose of ciency of the standard information collected in a routine
strategic analysis tools is to accumulate, systemize and way in a certain organization; sufficiency of informal
prepare the information required for decision-making information available at the organization and necessity of
strategic management. The character of strategic analy- collection and aggregation of extra data.
Table 3
Specification of Study Criteria (Indicators) of the Tools to be used for Strategic Analysis

Criteria/ indicators Specification of indicators

Tool analyses (is designed to analyze) internal environment of an organization
Nature of objects analyzed by
Tool analyses (is designed to analyze) operational environment of an organization
the tool
Tool analyses (is designed to analyze) remote environment of an organization
Already collected data in the organization is
Collected standard information is for the most part sufficient for
sufficient for successful application of the
successful application of the tool in an organization
tool. Simply, this information only needs
Sources of analytical informa- analysis and generalization in the relevant Informal information which is available at the organization is
tion required for the tool and aspect enough for successful application of a tool
data collection
Successful application of the tool requires collection of extra data and aggregation. Reliable information sources
have to be found, indicators have to be described and information unavailable up to now has to be collected and
processed
The tool produces “mono-field” versus “total” knowledge
Completeness of the The tool-obtained information can be readily used to make a strategic management
Nature of the information information produced, decision
obtained by the tool workability and practical The obtained result is a ‘ready to cook’ information which cannot be readily used
application or implemented, i.e. analytical processing should be continued
Heuristics of information
Time-consumption
Material and financial costs
Senior executives’ degree of involvement
External experts and consultants’ degree of involvement
Costs and resources related to Junior and medium-level executives’ degree of involvement
using the tool Human resources
costs and modes of Organization specialists’ degree of involvement
their use Ordinary employees’ degree of involvement
Receptivity to knowledge, Sophistic knowledge and specialized competencies
specialized competencies and
technologies Sophistic technologies

Table 4
The Harmony of Expert Evaluation (Internal Consistence), N=4
Corrected Extraction Kaiser-
Cronbach’s
Item-Total Inter-Item Inter-Item Inter-Item Sums of Meyer-Olkin
Alpha Based
Factor Correlation Correlation, Correlation, Correlation, Squared Measure of
Expert on Standard-
(Item-total- mean minimum maximum Loadings % Sampling
ized Items
correlation) of Variance Adequacy
L i/tt α rmean rmin rmax % KMO
Fourth 0.827 0.620
Third 0.718 0.482
0.713 0.383 0.289 0.469 53.973 0.731
First 0.699 0.462
Second 0.686 0.447

Calculating Tool: The principal analysis of components

103
 Another two indicators, relatively more universal, lyze all the tools according to the number of n-criteria
provide the assessment of totality of tool-produced cog- simultaneously (in corpore). For this purpose the Multi-
nizance and heuristics of the tool-obtained information. dimensional scaling (MDS) was used (Merkys et al.,
The rest four indicators serve to reveal the usage cost of 2001). The classification results are reflected in Figures
the selected tool (not only of strategic analysis) and the 1, 2, 3 and 4.
indispensable resources, such as time, material and finan- All the tools presented in the survey were described
cial costs, sophistic knowledge and special competencies by giving their English name, Lithuanian equivalent, the
and elaborate techniques. The criteria discussed enable application characteristics (what is carried out) of the tool
the identification of distinguishing features of any (not and the result of the application of the tool (what is pro-
only of strategic analysis) tools; therefore, they can be duced). The description is followed by 19 classification
used in future to form tool taxonomies for other disci- criteria (indicators) presented for the evaluation in the
plines or typological models. three-stage Likert scale.
The correspondence survey of experts using anony- Four experts took part in the evaluation of particular
mous questionnaire has been chosen for the study. The tools. Three of four were directly connected with the
empirical data obtained in this manner could later be subject of strategic management. Two of the experts were
processed by means of statistical-classification tools. The Habilitated Doctors, other two are Doctors. Out of four
adequacy of experts’ answers (Table 4) was tested by three experts represented strategic management and one
using the tools of “factorial analysis” and “Reliability”. was a representative of methodology of social sciences.
Having processed the data, it was determined that evalua- The latter was included because relatively a considerable
tions of experts and those of the author are homogeneous. number of tools used for strategic analysis were taken
The obtained high descriptive power of the factor from social sciences methodology.
(Lmin=0.686: Lmax=0.827) shows that the experts’ opin- The correspondence technique was chosen to avoid
ions may be combined by forming the index of expert direct contact with the expert leading to the possible di-
opinion. This statement is confirmed by high internal rect influence on the expert’s decision, while survey by
consistence of the factor (α=0.713). It shows that expert using anonymous questionnaire was chosen to achieve
assessment was characteristic of high internal consis- the experts’ honesty. Its application proved to be correct
tence. because the experts identified the objective reasons abso-
On that basis, a uniform index of expert evaluation of lutely openly why they had not evaluated one or another
tools was developed which enabled to search for univer- tool by particular criteria. The objective empirical data
sal and more generalized classification of tools used for obtained this way not only provided the possibility to
strategic analysis. As the third dimension of data presen- classify the tools to be used for strategic analysis accord-
tation was avoided, there emerged an opportunity to ana- ing to the 19 criteria, but also determine their validity.

Figure 1. The tool classification according to the nature of the analyzed object and the need for the sources of analytical information

104
 Figure 2. The classification of tools in accordance to the nature of the information received (MDS – model)

The Expert Evaluation Results of Particular The classification in accordance with the nature of
Tools of Strategic Analysis information received enabled to define four tools accen-
tuating classification extremes (see Figure 2). In the
The experimental tool evaluation enabled their classi- horizontal level of “the holistic – mono-field knowl-
fication according to the character of the analyzed object edge” the tool of the “experience curves” could be
and the sources of analytical information indispensable
named as the benchmark of the mono-field knowledge.
for their utilization. Figure 1 shows the classification
Meanwhile, the tool “PTGG (SWOT)” can be reasonably
results. These results show the meaningful distribution of
mentioned as the analysis tool generating the complete
the tools according to the mentioned dimensions. The
knowledge. In the vertical level of “the known – heuris-
tools are clearly classified in accordance to the nature of
objects analyzed by the tool (horizontal axis) and in ac- tic information” the extremes are best characterized by
cordance with sources of analytical information required the “Multidimensional scale (MDS)” tool and “Budget-
for the tool and data collection (vertical axis). Two criti- ing”. The “Multidimensional scale” tool in the discussed
cal points are defined in classifying in the horizontal classification distinguishes itself for the heuristic char-
level: “Reengineering”, meaning the obvious tool orienta- acter of its information, while the “Budgeting” is char-
tion into the investigation of the internal environment and acterized by the recasting of the information. The analy-
“PEST”, which demonstrates the tool orientation into the sis of MDS results “disclosed” the theoretically mean-
investigation of the uncontrolled environment of the re- ingful complex structure of the analyzed characters.
mote organization. The extreme points are also deter- This enabled to define four groups of the estimated
mined in the vertical level, but here they characterize the tools:
impact of the sources of analytical information. 1) Heuristic tools generating holistic knowledge.
The “Financial ratios” characterize the tool group for 2) Heuristic tools generating mono-field knowledge.
which the sources of analytical information are indispen- 3) Reproductive tools generating holistic knowledge.
sable. Meanwhile, the “Stakeholder analysis” highlights 4) Reproductive tools generating mono-field knowl-
the need of the non-analytical information of the tools. edge.
According to the extreme points the tools are classified The tool classification in accordance to the utilization
into four groups: costs and required resources has been fulfilled. It enabled
1) “Sophistic” tools of internal environment analysis. to differentiate the tools used for the strategic analysis
2) “Sophistic” tools of remote environment1 analysis. into two main dimensions: 1) time-consuming and 2)
3) “Rationalistic” tools of internal environment material expenditure and cost (see Figure3). High – low
analysis. expenditure and the cost can be best differentiated by the
4) “Rationalistic” tools of remote environment three tools with extreme significance: “Experience
analysis. curves”, “Multiple scenarios”, and “Benchmarking”.
The “Experience curves” characterize the low mate-
1
In MDS classification model remote environment includes uncontrolled rial expenditure and cost, while the “Multiple scenarios”
environment of the enterprise and its operating environment and the “Benchmarking” are characteristic of high expen-

105
diture and cost. The time consuming dimension has been In this case “PEST” is associated with high time expendi-
best defined by the tools of “PEST” and “Focus groups”. ture, while “Focus groups” with low time expenditure.

Figure 3. The tool classification according to the utilization expenditure and required resources (MDS – model)

Figure 4. The tool classification according to the knowledge and complex technologies receptivity (MDS – model)
The classification carried out made it possible to de- strategic analysis made it possible to classify them in
fine the tools into four qualified groups: accordance to the obligatory technologies and know-how
necessary for their use (see Figure 4). The tools in this
1) Costless time-consuming tools.
classification are divided into ones that require sophisti-
2) Expendable tools.
cated and the others that require simple technologies and
3) Cost-efficient tools. knowledge. According to the knowledge, two tools are
4) Time-efficient tools. defined that accentuate classification extremes: “Out-
The experimental assessment of the tools used in sourcing” and “Multiple Scenarios”.

106
 In this case the “Outsourcing” characterizes the tools 1. The taxonomy of strategic analysis tools expands
the simple knowledge for the use of which would be suffi- the limits of the tools knowledge and enables to
cient. Meanwhile, the “Multiple Scenarios” are more related group them as follows:
to the sophisticated knowledge. It so happened that during a. The tool’s role in decision making process is
the classification five tools in the level of the technologies divided into:
necessary for their use significantly differentiate the whole
• Decision-making tools.
set. They are as follows: “Brainstorming”, “Budgeting”,
• Data collection tools.
“SPACE”, “Cluster analysis”, and “Factor analysis”. The
first two, i.e. “Brainstorming” and “Budgeting” characterize b. Nature of relationship between the tool and the
the technological simplicity of the some part of the tools. environment is divided into:
The rest three tools (“SPACE”, “Cluster analysis”, and • Tools designed for internal environment
“Factor analysis”) are associated with sophisticated tech- analysis.
nologies. The latter MDS analysis enabled to theoretically • Tools designed for operating environment
organize the meaningful complex structure of the discussed analysis.
features and to divide these tools into four groups: • Tools designed for analysis of uncontrolled
1) Technology-requiring tools. remote environment of the company.
2) Competency and technology-requiring tools. • Indifferent with respect to environment
3) Primitive tools. and/or universal tools.
4) Competency-requiring tools. c. The necessary factual and logical justification into:
In conclusion it can be stated that the assessment of the • “Rationalistic”.
tools of strategic analysis according to the 19 chosen criteria • “Sophistic”.
has been justified in part. By means of this study the tools 2. The results of the expert assessment of the tools
can be classified according to 16 different features. Thus, the showed that one can state that strategic analysis
41 tools typological model has been comprised for strategic tools should be defined according to the following
analysis of the used tool. According to the assessment or the features:
judgment of the authors of this paper, this will give the pos-
sibility in the future not only to compare the above men- a. The nature of the analyzed object and the need
for the analytic information sources (the tool
tioned tools with each other, but also to include and position
new tools to be used for strategic analysis. The typological analysis the internal environment of the or-
model enables us to form the groups of homogeneous tools ganization, its activity, external environment,
and whether the enterprise has sufficient or in-
of strategic analysis according to some specific criteria (sets
or portfolios). The authors think that such groups can help to sufficient data collected, etc.).
more fully study the tools of strategic analysis, as well as b. The nature of information received (“The ho-
their investigation, research and modification. listic” of the knowledge generated by the tool,
The designed typological model makes it possible to the perfection of the generated information,
workability and practical application, heuristics
form individual portfolios of the tools of strategic analy-
sis for the managers of various organizations according to of information, etc.).
the previously stated features or characteristics. By means c. The utilization costs and required resources (time-
consumption, material and financial costs, etc.).
of the designed model, the managers would be able to
choose such tools that would be more informative. Be- d. The knowledge and complex technologies recep-
sides, the organization executives would also be able to tivity (whether sophisticated knowledge is needed
or not, as well as sophisticated technologies, etc.).
more easily choose the tools that would not duplicate the
information of each other. This will allow the leaders to The technique for the tool classification (position-
more effectively use the tools of strategic analysis. ing) has been prepared. In the future it can be used
The typology of the strategic analysis designed for the for the comparison of the new tools (especially the
organization leaders, especially the beginners, will let them ones introduced into strategic analysis) with the
to more quickly and purposefully choose the tools for strate- ones classified according to the defined criteria.
gic analysis from a great variety of tools. This, according to 3. The typology of the methods used for strategic
the authors is especially important for the leaders of Lithua- analysis has, actually, some indicators of strategic
nian organizations, who make their first steps in the field of analysis:
strategic management and planning. Such leaders have to a. The classification according to the nature of
choose the tools and their combinations to satisfy their needs the object analyzed by means of the tool.
and identify the specific situation of the enterprise. The b. The classification according to the criteria of
badly-chosen tools at the very beginning, especially if their the perfection of the generated information,
use was not successful and failed to give expected results, workability and practical application.
may form negative attitudes to the whole process of strategic c. The classification according to some input of
management. human reserve and the criteria of their use,
such as: the degree of involvement of senior
Conclusions executives, the degree of the involvement of
The research performed enabled to make the follow- the outside experts and consultants, the degree
ing conclusions: of the involvement of junior and medium-rank

107
 executives, the involvement degree of the or- 18. Jucevičius, R. Strateginis organizacijų vystymas. 2 leidimas. Kaunas:
Pasaulio lietuvių kultūros, mokslo ir švietimo centras, 1998.
ganization specialists, and the involvement de-
19. Kaye, M.M. Harnessing Human Resources to Achieve Business
gree of the ordinary employees. Excellence / M.M. Kaye, M.D. Dyason // The TQM Magazine, 1998,
4. The typological model prepared for strategic analy- Vol. 10, issue 5, p. 387-96.
sis of the used tools enables the researchers and 20. Langley, A. The Roles of Formal Strategic Planning // Long Range
practitioners not only to choose the specific tools Planning, 1988, Vol. 21, p. 40-50.
but, also, to compare them according to 16 essential 21. Langley, A. Formal Analysis and Strategic Decision Making //
OMEGA, 1991, Vol. 19, p. 79-99.
features. It opens the ways to getting to know the
22. Lindblom, C.E. The Science of Muddling Through // Public Admini-
tools better. Besides, the designed typological stration Review, 1959, Spring.
model will enable: 23. McNamee, P. The Competitive Analysis Model: Approach to Strate-
a. The scientists more rationally to use homoge- gic Development for Small Businesses Benchmarking / P. McNamee,
neous tools and to analyze them in detail ac- K. Greenan, B. McFerran // An International Journal, 2004, Vol. 6,
issue 2, p. 125-146.
cording to some feature or characteristic.
24. Merkys, G. Lytiškumo stereotipų raiška Lietuvos mokytojų ir
b. The leaders and specialists of the organizations mokinių populiacijoje: apklausos raštu duomenys / G. Merkys, G.
to choose such specific tool portfolios that Purvaneckienė, J. Ruškus, I. Kazlauskaitė // Lytiškumas ir švietimas:
could ensure that the tools included into these pažiūrų, stereotipų ir ugdymo turinio tyrimai. Mokslo darbai. Vilnius:
Moterų informacijos centras, 2001, p. 69-107.
portfolios should not overlap one another.
25. Miles, M.P. Strategic planning and agribusiness: an exploratory study
c. The leaders of Lithuanian organizations to be of the adoption of strategic planning techniques by co-operatives /
aware of the variety of strategic analysis tools M.P. Miles, J.B. White, L.S. Munilla // British Food Journal, 1997,
and to reasonably choose specific tools or their Vol. 99, issue 11, p. 401-408.
combinations according to their needs and the 26. Peel, M.J. Working Capital and Financial Management Practices in
situation in their company. the Small Firm Sector / M.J. Peel, N. Wilson // International Small
Business Journal, 1996, Vol. 14 issue 2, p. 52-66.
References 27. Porter, M. E. Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press. 1980.
28. Rigby D. K. Management Tools 2001-Global // Paper presented at the
1. Ackelsberg, R. How Danish Companies Plan / R. Ackelsberg, W. C. meeting on the Two Copley Place Boston, Massachusetts. 2001a, June.
Haris // Long range planning, 1989, Vol. 22, p. 111-116.
29. Rigby D. K. Putting Tools to the Test: Senior Executives Rate 25
2. Analoui, F. Strategic Management in Small and Medium Enter- Top Management Tools // Strategy and leadership, 2001b, Vol. 3, is-
prises / F. Analoui, A. Karami. UK: Thomson, 2003. sue 29, p. 4-12.
3. Barnes, D. The Manufacturing Strategy Formation Process in Small 30. Rowe, A.J. Strategic Management: A Methodological Approach /
and Medium-sized Enterprises // Journal of Small Business and En- A.J. Rowe, R.D. Mason, K.E. Dickel, R.B. Mann, R.J. Mockler. 4th
terprise Development, 2002, Vol. 9, issue 2, p. 130-149. ed. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1994.
4. Bazzaz, S. J. Corporate Planning in the UK: The State of the Art / S. 31. Stoner, R. Fred Strategic Planning in the Small Business / R. Stoner,
J. Bazzaz, P.H. Grinyer // Strategic Management Journal, 1981, C.L. Fry, Cincinnati: South-western publishing co, 1987.
Vol. 2, p. 155-168.
32. Stonehouse, G. Strategic Planning in SMEs - Some Empirical Find-
5. Caeldries, F. How Belgian Businesses Make Strategic Planing Work / ings / G. Stonehouse, J. Pemberton // Management Decision, 2002,
F. Caeldries, R. Van Dierdonck // Long range planning, 1988, Vol. Vol. 9, issue 40, p. 853-861.
21, p. 41-51.
33. Vaitkevičius, S. Instrumentarium for the Preparation of a Company
6. Cyert, R.M. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm / R.M. Cyert, Strategy: Conception and Structure / S. Vaitkevičius,
J.G. March, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963. Z. Monkevičienė, V. Bartosevičienė // Engineering economics, 2002,
7. Clark, D. N. Strategic Management Tool Useage: a Comparative Vol. 5, issue 31, p. 100-105.
Study // Strategic Change, 1997, Vol. 6, p. 417-427. 34. Webster, J.L. The Managers Guide to Strategic Planning Tools and
8. Clark, D. N. Strategic Level MS/OR Tool Usage in the United King- Techniques / J.L. Webster, W.E. Reif, J.S. Bracker // Planning re-
dom: an Empirical Survey / D. N. Clark, J.L. Scott // Journal of the view, 1989, Vol. 22, p. 1-9.
operational research society, 1995, Vol. 46, p. 1041-1051. 35. Wee, C. H. Corporate Planning Takes off in Singapore / C. H. Wee, J. U.
9. Day, G. S. Analysis for Strategic Market Decisions. St Paul: West Farley, S. K. Lee // Long range planning, 1989, Vol. 22, p. 78-90.
publishing company, 1986.
10. Dyson, R. G. Strategic Planning: Models and Analytical Techniques. Sigitas Vaitkevičius, Gediminas Merkys, Asta Savanevičienė
Chichester : Wiley, 1990.
11. Eilon The Role of Management Science // Journal of the Operational Strateginės analizės instrumentų tipologinis modelis
Research Society, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 17-28.
Santrauka
12. Eng, T.Y. Does Customer Portfolio Analysis Relate to Customer
Performance? An Empirical Analysis of Alternative Strategic Per- Didėjant strateginei analizei naudotinų instrumentų skaičiui, vis
spective // Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 2004, Vol. 19, sunkiau juos pasirinkti. Šis klausimas spręstas sudarant įvairias strate-
issue 1, p. 49-67. ginio valdymo ir planavimo instrumentų taksonomijas, į kurias įtraukta
13. Godet, M. The Art of Scenarios and Strategic Planning: Tools and ir keliasdešimt strateginei analizei naudojamų instrumentų. Atlikus
Pitfalls // Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2000, esamų taksonomijų apžvalgą, pastebėta, kad 1) jos apėmė ne visus
Vol. 65, p. 3-22. strateginei analizei būtinus instrumentų klasifikavimo kriterijus, 2) jos
nebuvo orientuotos būtent į strateginės analizės instrumentų klasifika-
14. Grant, R. M. Contemporary Strategy Analysis. 3rd ed. Cambridge:
vimą ir į strateginei analizei naudojamų instrumentų specifinių tipolo-
Blackwell, 1998.
ginių bruožų išryškinimą. Dėl šių priežasčių organizacijų vadovams
15. Hammeresh, R.G. Strategies for Low Market Share Businesses / R.G. sunku aprėpti visus galimus instrumentus ir pasirinkti optimalius.
Hammeresh, J.J. Anderson, J.E. Harris // Harvard Business Review, Apžvelgta literatūra parodė, kad strateginė analizė kaip savarankiš-
1978, May-June, p. 95-102. kas mokslinio nagrinėjimo objektas vis dar ganėtinai menkai tenušviestas
16. Hooley, G.J. The Implementation of Strategic Marketing Planning (Vaitkevičius ir kt., 2002). Vis dėlto ji fragmentiškai buvo apžvelgta
Techniques in British Industry // International Journal of Research in palyginti daugelio autorių. Galima konstatuoti, kad vieni autoriai strategi-
Marketing, 1984, Vol. 1, p. 153-162. nei analizei priskyrė daugiau funkcijų (Lindblom, 1959; Cyert ir March,
17. Johnson, G. Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and Cases / G. John- 1963; Hammeresh ir kt., 1978; Porter, 1980; Stoner ir Fry, 1987; Johnson
son, K. Scholes, 3rd ed. / Prentice-Hall, London, 1993. ir Scholes, 1993; Rowe ir kt., 1994; Grant, 1998; Peel ir kt., 1996; Jucevi-

108
čius; 1998; Godet, 2000; Barnes, 2002; Analoui ir Karami, 2003; Eng, pasirinkta siekiant ekspertų atvirumo. Jo taikymas buvo naudingas, nes
2004; McNamee ir kt., 2004), o kiti kur kas mažiau (Clark ir Scott, 1995; tyrime dalyvavę ekspertai atvirai nurodė objektyvias priežastis, kodėl
Clark, 1997). Tačiau visi minėtieji autoriai vieningai teigia, kad strateginė nevertino vieno ar kito instrumento pagal konkrečius įvardytus kriteri-
analizė yra fundamentalus elementas, formuojant organizacijos strategiją. jus. Tokiu būdu gauti objektyvūs empiriniai duomenys ne tik leido
Kaye ir Dyason (1998) įrodė, kad jeigu trūksta išankstinės strateginės klasifikuoti strateginei analizei naudotinus instrumentus pagal apsibrėž-
analizės, tada organizacijos pradeda strategiją įgyvendinti, neturėdamos tus devyniolika kriterijų, bet pagal tai buvo galima ir juos validuoti.
aiškaus tikslų rinkinio. Apibendrinant tyrimo rezultatus galima teigti, kad:
Jau galima drąsiai teigti, kad strateginės analizės instrumentai strate- 1. Sudaryta strateginės analizės instrumentų taksonomija praple-
ginio planavimo procese vaidina svarbų vaidmenį, tačiau šios srities čia instrumentų pažinimo ribas ir leidžia juos grupuoti pagal:
tyrimai vis dar atsilieka ir yra fragmentiški. Pažymėtina, kad dauguma a. Instrumento paskirtį sprendimo priėmimo procese į:
atliktų empirinių studijų, apžvelgiančių strateginio valdymo instrumentų • Sprendimo – priėmimo instrumentus ir technikas;
naudojimą, į bendrą strateginio planavimo proceso studiją įtraukė ne • Fakto – konstatavimo instrumentus ir technikas.
daugiau nei vieną ar du klausimus apie strateginės analizės instrumentus. b. Instrumentų santykio su aplinka pobūdį į:
(Caeldries and van Dierdonck, 1988; Ackelsberg and Harris, 1989; Baz- • Instrumentus, orientuotus į vidinės aplinkos analizę;
zaz and Grinyer, 1981; Wee ir kt. 1989). Be to, dažniausiai tyrėjai sufor- • Instrumentus, orientuotus į veiklos aplinkos analizę;
muoja mažus turinčius panašumą įrankių rinkinius, pavyzdžiui Walt ir kt. • Instrumentus, orientuotus į nuotolinės – įmonės ne-
(1989) tyrinėjo tik šešių planavimo instrumentų naudojimą Naujojoje valdomos – aplinkos analizę;
Zelandijoje pagal modifikuotą Hooley (1984) versiją. Keletas autorių
• Aplinkos atžvilgiu indiferentiškus ir (arba) universa-
pateikė pavyzdinius strateginės analizės instrumentų rinkinius, pristaty-
lius instrumentus.
dami juos kaip naudojimo instrukciją vadovams:
c. Būtiną informacinį ir loginį pagrindimą į:
1) Webster ir kt. (1989) suformavo dažniausiai naudojamų 30- • „Racionalistinius";
ies strateginio planavimo instrumentų rinkinį; • „Sofistinius“.
2) Clark (1997) sujungė 33 strateginės analizės metodus su stra- 2. Instrumentų ekspertinio vertinimo rezultatai parodė, kad ga-
teginio valdymo proceso modeliu; lima teigti, jog strateginės analizės instrumentus tikslinga
3) Miles ir kt. (1997) atskleidė 7-ių analizės instrumentų naudo- skirstyti pagal šiuos požymius:
jimo ypatumus žemės ūkio bendrov ėse, tuo pabrėždamas ana- a. Analizuojamo objekto pobūdį ir analitinės informacijos
lizės instrumentų naudojimo kontekstualumą; šaltinių poreikį (instrumentas analizuoja organizacijos
4) Rigby (2001b) ištyrė naudojimą 25 pagrindinių valdymo inst- vidinę, veiklos arba išorinę aplinką, pakanka ar
rumentų, tarp kurių įtraukė kelis strateginei analizei naudo- nepakanka įmonėje jau surinktų duomenų etc.);
jamus instrumentus ir parodė, kad strateginės analizės inst- b. Gaunamos informacijos pobūdį (instrumentu produkuo-
rumentai atlieka palyginti svarbų vaidmenį visame organiza- jamo žinojimo „visybiškumas", produkuojamos informa-
cijos procese. cijos išbaigtumas, technologiškumas ir praktinis pritai-
Apibendrinant apžvelgtos literatūros analizės rezultatus, galima komumas, informacijos euristiškumas etc.);
teigti, jog iki šiol yra palyginti nemažai nuveikta sisteminant instru- c. Naudojimo sąnaudas ir būtinus išteklius (imlumas laikui,
mentus. Vis dėlto pažymėtina, kad apžvelgtose taksonomijose pasi- materialinės sąnaudos ir finansinės išlaidos, etc.);
gendama aiškesnio instrumentų tapatumo įvardijimo. Ši priežastis d. Imlumą žinioms ir sudėtingoms technologijoms (ar
riboja organizacijų apsisprendimą, kada ir kokius strateginės analizės reikia, ar nereikia specialių mokslo žinių, specialių kom-
instrumentus rinktis. Dažnai pasitaiko ir tokių atvejų, kad organizaci- petencijų ir technologij, etc.).
jos vengia rinktis tam tikrus instrumentus, nes nėra tikros, ar jų nau- Parengta instrumentų klasifikavimo (pozicionavimo) metodika atei-
dojimas leis išspręsti iškilusias problemas. Strateginės analizės inst- tyje gali būti panaudota naujiems (ypač naujai įvedamiems į strateginę
rumentų tipologijos sudarymas leistų organizacijoms pagal bendrus analizę) instrumentams sugretinti (palyginti) pagal nustatytus kriterijus su
kriterijus tarpusavyje palyginti strateginės analizės instrumentus ir jau klasifikuotais.
objektyviau apsispręsti, kokius instrumentus pasirinkti sprendžiant 3. Sudaryta strateginei analizei naudojamų metodų tipologija turi
iškilusią problemą. kelis, iš esmės tik strateginei analizei būdingus indikatorius:
Šio tyrimo tikslas – remiantis teorine analize ir ekspertų verti- a. Klasifikavimas pagal instrumentu analizuojamo objekto
nimu, sudaryti strategin ės analizės instrumentų tipologinį modelį ir pobūdį;
nustatyti strateginės analizės instrumentų atrankos kriterijus. b. Klasifikavimas pagal produkuojamos informacijos išbaig-
Atlikta jau esamų taksonomijų analizė leido išskirti iš viso 41 stra- tumo, technologiškumo ir praktinio pritaikomumo kriterijus;
teginei analizei naudotiną instrumentą, kurie vėliau buvo įtraukti į c. Klasifikavimas pagal kai kuriuos žmogiškųjų išteklių sąnaudų
„strateginės analizės instrumentų ekspertinio vertinimo klausimyną“. ir jų panaudojimo ypatumų kriterijus tokius kaip: aukščiausio
Visi jie teoriškai suskirstyti laikantis tam tikro klasifikacinio požiūrio. lygio vadovo įsitraukimo laipsnis, išorinių ekspertų ir konsul-
Teorinė strateginei analizei naudotinų instrumentų klasifikacija tantų įtraukimo laipsnis, žemesnio ir vidutinio lygio vadovų
detaliau buvo tiriama pagal 19 apibrėžtų kriterijų (indikatorių). Paly- įtraukimo laipsnis, organizacijos specialistų įtraukimo
ginus praktines ir teorines instrumentų taksonomijas, atrinkti ir deta- laipsnis, eilinių darbuotojų įtraukimo laipsnis.
lizuoti klasifikaciniai kriterijai, kurie, vienodai svarbūs praktiniu ir 4. Parengtas strateginei analizei naudojamų instrumentų tipologinis
teoriniu požiūriu. Tokiu būdu sudarytos keturios kriterijų (indikato- modelis sudaro galimybes tyrinėtojams ir praktikams ne tik pasi-
rių) grupės, kurios išskirstytos į 19 pavienių klasifikacinių kriterijų. rinkti konkrečius instrumentus, bet ir palyginti juos pagal 16 es-
Pagal šiuos kriterijus sudarytas „strateginės analizės instrumentų minių požymių. Tai atveria daugiau galimybių instrumentus to-
ekspertinio vertinimo klausimynas“. liau pažinti. Be to, sudaryto tipologinio modelio dėka:
Konkrečių instrumentų vertinime dalyvavo iš viso keturi eksper- a. Mokslininkai galės racionaliau, pagal tam tikrą požymį,
tai. Trys iš keturių dalyvavusiųjų tiesiogiai susiję su strateginio val- pasirinkti homogeniškus instrumentus ir juos detaliau
dymo disciplina. Du iš keturių ekspertų yra habilituoti daktarai, išanalizuoti;
profesoriai, vienas daktaras, vienas – docentas. Iš keturių trys eksper- b. Organizacijų vadovai ir specialistai galės pasirinkti
tai atstovavo konkrečiai strateginiam valdymui ir vienas – bendrai konkrečių instrumentų portfelius, tokius, kad į juos
socialinių mokslų metodologijai. Pastarasis ekspertas įtrauktas, ka- patenkantys instrumentai tam tikrais požymiais nedub-
dangi palyginti nemaža dalis instrumentų, naudojamų strateginei liuotų vienas kito;
analizei, yra perimti iš socialinių mokslų metodologijos. c. Lietuvos organizacijų vadovai galės kryptingiau orien-
Tyrimui pasirinkta neakivaizdinė individuali ekspertų apklausa – tuotis strateginės analizės instrumentų įvairovėje ir są-
„anoniminė“ anketa, kai nenurodomi ekspertai. Taigi, gauti empiriniai moningai pasirinkti konkrečius instrumentus ar jų deri-
duomenys vėliau galėjo būti apdorojami statistiniais–klasifikaciniais nius pagal savo poreikius ir konkrečią įmonės situaciją.
instrumentais. Neakivaizdinis būdas pasirinktas siekiant išvengti tiesio-
ginio kontakto su ekspertu, kad tyrimo metu nebūtų daroma tiesioginė Raktažodžiai: instrumentai, strateginė analizė, taksonomija, tipologija,
įtaka eksperto apsisprendimui. Tuo tarpu apklausa anonimine anketa strateginis valdymas.

The article has been reviewed.

Received in February 2006; accepted in April, 2006.

109