Transformation of Marketing Planning Processes through a Question-Centric Paradigm: A Cross-AI Comparative Experiment Using KIS (Knowledge Innovation System)
Authors/Creators
Description
AbstractMarketing failures frequently originate not from flawed execution, but from flawed problem formulation—a phenomenon formalized as the "Error of the Third Kind" by Mitroff & Silvers (1984). This study applies KIS (Knowledge Innovation System), a question-centric AI thought-control protocol, to marketing planning processes and investigates whether it can structurally overcome the problem-setting vulnerability endemic to conventional frameworks.
Using three fictional SME personas across four conditions—KIS-off (standard prompt), KIS-on (Analytical×Creative Mode Lv3 with KIS-SourceCheck), MECE framework intervention, and Design Thinking framework intervention—we conducted a cross-evaluation experiment with three AI models (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude). Responses were scored using a five-axis rubric grounded in prior problem-setting research (Malhotra, 2019; Mitroff & Silvers, 1984) and extended with KIS-specific ontological depth criteria.
Results indicate that KIS-on responses were consistently rated higher than KIS-off and both control conditions across all evaluators and scoring rounds, despite confirmed limitations in the absolute reliability of AI-based scoring. Notably, existing framework interventions (MECE, Design Thinking) produced lower scores than the KIS-off baseline, suggesting that fixed-template frameworks structurally constrain the cognitive exploration space—consistent with design fixation theory (Jansson & Smith, 1991). KIS, by contrast, functions as a dynamic catalyst that expands rather than fixes the question space.
This study is a proof-of-concept preprint with limitations including fictional personas, AI-only evaluators, and small sample size (N=3 models). Human evaluator validation and real-world data integration are planned for v2.
Keywords: KIS, question-centric paradigm, marketing planning, problem formulation, AI comparative experiment, design fixation, Being layer, MECE, design thinking, cognitive fixation, Error of the Third Kind
Abstract (Japanese)
Abstract
マーケティング企画の失敗は、施策選択の誤りよりも問題設定の誤りに起因することが多い(Malhotra, 2019; Drucker引用)。本稿では、問い中心パラダイムに基づく思考制御プロトコルKIS(Knowledge Innovation System)をマーケティング企画プロセスに適用し、KISなし/ありの条件下で3つの異なるAIモデル(ChatGPT・Gemini・Claude)が生成したマーケティング企画を、5軸ルーブリックによるクロスチェック採点で比較した。
結果として、KISなし評価者による統一評価では、KISあり(61.7点)がKISなし(55.3点)・MECE(46.3点)・デザイン思考(43.7点)を上回った。特筆すべきはKISなし(標準プロンプト)がMECE・デザイン思考より高スコアを示した点であり、既存フレームワークによる思考フレームワーク付与型プロンプト介入(以下、フレームワーク介入)は思考を収束・固定させる一方、KISは思考を拡張することが示唆された。さらにKISあり評価者による参考値(66.7点)との比較から、KISは回答生成能力のみならず評価・認識能力も向上させることが示された。
本稿は概念実証段階のプレプリントであり、架空事例を用いた実験設計による限界を持つ。今後、勉強会での実データ取得によるv2での検証を予定する。
キーワード: KIS、問い中心パラダイム、マーケティング企画、問題設定、AI比較実験、批判的思考、Being層、MECE、デザイン思考、認知的固着
Files
KIS_marketing_paper_v1_8.pdf
Files
(4.9 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:5ea98d70b18d5490f818f113f1e16285
|
4.9 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Additional titles
- Translated title (Japanese)
- 問い中心パラダイムによるマーケティング企画プロセスの変容: KISを用いた複数AI横断比較実験
Related works
- Cites
- Thesis: 10.5281/zenodo.17541295 (DOI)
- Thesis: 10.5281/zenodo.18730671 (DOI)
- Thesis: 10.5281/zenodo.18951932 (DOI)
- Thesis: 10.5281/zenodo.18980745 (DOI)
- Thesis: 10.5281/zenodo.19003967 (DOI)
References
- [1] Malhotra, N. K. (2019). *Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation*, 7th ed. Pearson.
- [2] Akbar, M. B., Foote, L., & Lawson, A. (2023). Conceptualizing, Embracing, and Measuring Failure in Social Marketing Practice. *Social Marketing Quarterly*.
- [3] Fayed, M. (2023). Artificial Intelligence for Marketing Plan: The Case for E-Marketing Companies. *International Journal of Scientific Research and Analysis*.
- [4] Bibliometric Analysis (2023-2024). Artificial Intelligence in Marketing Plan: Bibliometric Analysis. *Journal of Marketing Management*.
- [5] Overview (2024). An Overview of Artificial Intelligence and Its Application in Marketing. *International Journal of Scientific Research in Applications*.
- [6] CarneyCo. (2025). Why Most Businesses Solve the Wrong Problem First. Carney & Co. Blog.
- [7] Rawal, R. (2025). September 2025 LLM Question Answering Benchmarks Report. *Hugging Face Blog*.
- [8] Datacamp (2025). A Guide to Comparing the Best AI Models.
- [9] Wilkins, N. (2026). Critical Thinking for Marketers. Cambridge Marketing College.
- [10] McKinsey & Company (2015). Why Your Marketing Planning Process Is Broken, and What to Do About It.
- [11] Hasegawa, H. & Kamogawa, T. (2025). Knowledge Innovation System: A Phenomenological Framework for Living Intelligence. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17541295
- [12] Hasegawa, H. & Kamogawa, T. (2026a). KIS: A Question-Centric Protocol Architecture for Hierarchical AI Thought Control. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18730671
- [13] Hasegawa, H. (2026b). KIS-Genesis v4.2: A Question-Centric Protocol Architecture for Hierarchical AI Thought Control — Defensive Publication. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18951932
- [14] Hasegawa, H. & Kamogawa, T. (2026c). KIS-Based Multi-LLM Verification Protocol: Role-Specialized Heterogeneous AI Debate for Inductive Theory Generation. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18980745
- [15] Hasegawa, H. & Kamogawa, T. (2026d). KIS Comparative Experiment: Cross-AI Evaluation of Protocol Effects on Cognitive Output Quality. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19003967
- [16] Engelbart, D. C. (1962). Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. Stanford Research Institute.
- [17] Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.
- [18] Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design Fixation. *Design Studies*, 12(1), 3–11.
- [19] Adamson, R. E. (1952). Functional fixedness as related to problem solving: A repetition of three experiments. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 44(4), 288–291.
- [20] Mitroff, I. I., & Silvers, A. (1984). Problem Defining and Solving: Conceptual Tools. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 26(4), 303–315.