Janaina Grigolin; Denise de Moura

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603793

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

A Business Case analyzed the challenges faced by the Marketing department of an educational institution. The objective was to propose a structural reorganization to sustain the institution’s competitive advantage. A diagnosis was carried out, identifying a 370% growth in the volume of demands, from 107 to 572 monthly between December 2023 and March 2026, without the corresponding development of governance and processes, which led to urgencies and rework. Three reorganization alternatives were analyzed, and Alternative 2 was recommended. This incorporated five drivers: implementation of a RACI matrix, creation of a single demand channel, leadership training, establishment of a Prioritization Committee, and quarterly planning with fixed rituals. The implementation occurred in phases, with process mapping, improvement of the demand management system, and formalization of the Prioritization Committee. The analysis showed that Alternative 2 offered the best balance between feasibility and strategic impact. Ongoing initiatives validated the proposal, signaling the repositioning of marketing as a strategic area. The mapped processes and the structured demand management system reduced rework and defined responsibilities. Organic media performance indicators, such as audience and reach, showed consistent growth between January and April 2026. The reorganization contributed to aligning marketing actions with organizational objectives, strengthening the institution’s positioning and competitiveness in the educational market, with the expectation that the department will act as a strategic partner in value generation.

Keywords: Governance; Educational institution; Marketing; Structural reorganization; Competitive advantage.

1. Introduction

The structuring and organization of the marketing area are widely discussed topics in contemporary literature, especially in a context of growing complexity and integration between corporate functions. The formulation and implementation of marketing strategies depend on a logical sequence of interconnected activities, such as communication between areas, strategic consensus, and resource commitment (Finoti et al., 2019). The alignment between these steps is fundamental for marketing to act in an integrated manner with the organizational strategy, reducing noise and promoting greater coherence in market decisions. Thus, the organization of marketing processes ceases to be merely operational and assumes a strategic role, directly influencing organizational performance.

Lee et al. (2014) expand this discussion by introducing the concept of structural marketing, which relates elements of organizational structure, such as centralization, formalization, and customer focus, to the effectiveness of marketing activities. The authors argue that the adequate structuring of roles and responsibilities within the marketing area favors coordination between functions and improves adaptation to the demands of the external environment. In organizations that integrate marketing with other strategic areas, such as sales and innovation, there is a greater capacity to respond to market changes and better use of information from customers and competitors.

In this context, the Marketing department of an educational institution has faced significant challenges. Between December 2023 and March 2026, the department’s delivery volume grew by 370%, from 107 to 572 monthly demands, without corresponding development in governance, processes, and prioritization criteria. This unaccompanied growth resulted in a work environment marked by constant urgencies, recurring rework, interdepartmental conflicts, and the risk of missing deadlines for institutional campaigns. The absence of structured processes was also reflected in operational indicators, with 30% of demands having a lead time exceeding sixteen days, in addition to systemic rates of overdue approvals.

According to Kotler and Keller (2016), the effectiveness of the marketing function is directly associated with the existence of a well-defined organizational structure and the clear delimitation of roles and responsibilities, factors that favor its strategic integration with other organizational processes. This efficient structuring allows not only effective communication between areas but also ensures that marketing decisions are made based on an integrated vision of the institution. In the case of the Institution focus of this study, the lack of a structured organization and a clear demand management process generated difficulties in achieving strategic marketing objectives.

Porter (1996) emphasizes that the marketing strategy must be fully articulated with the organization’s competitive strategy, so as to sustain the construction of a differentiated and relevant position in the market. In the educational context, an institution’s ability to attract students, strengthen its institutional image, and maintain a consistent relationship with the academic community depends directly on the implementation of a clear, integrated, and effective marketing strategy. In this sense, the fragmentation of marketing actions and the absence of an adequate structure can compromise the construction of a solid and unique value proposition, an essential element for differentiation and competitiveness in the educational market.

The maintenance of the identified scenario implies relevant costs in terms of time, operational efficiency, quality of deliveries, and institutional positioning. It was, therefore, not just an operational problem, but a strategic risk, with a direct impact on the Institution’s ability to sustain its competitive advantage. The proposed reorganization seeks to contribute to the alignment of marketing actions with organizational objectives, sustaining the institution’s positioning and competitiveness in the educational market. Given this panorama, this study aimed to analyze the challenges arising from the accelerated growth of demands in the Marketing sector of an educational institution and to evaluate structural reorganization alternatives capable of enhancing governance, predictability, prioritization, and integration between areas.

2. Material and Methods

The present study was configured as a Business Case, of an applied nature, with the objective of analyzing the challenges faced by the Marketing sector of an educational institution and evaluating alternatives for structural reorganization. The research sought to expand governance, predictability, prioritization, and integration between areas, focusing on sustaining the institution’s competitive advantage in the educational market. The unit of analysis was the Marketing sector of the aforementioned educational institution, a complete educational ecosystem.

The methodological approach began with a diagnostic phase, conducted in July 2025, through the hiring of an external consultant. This process involved actively listening to the Marketing sector teams, encompassing both leaders and subordinates. To guide the discussions, three guiding questions were used: “How do you envision the ideal team?”, “How do you envision the ideal work?”, and “How can leadership contribute to sustaining these two milestones?”.

To deepen the understanding of the problems identified during the diagnostic phase, the 5 Whys technique and the situation/problem statement were applied, as proposed by Larson and Larson (2011). This step aimed to structure the identification of the root causes of operational and strategic challenges. Additionally, historical data on demand volume and operational indicators for the sector, referring to the period between December 2023 and March 2026, were analyzed.

As the main instrument for collecting operational data, the Institution’s Demand Management System (SGD) was used. This internally developed system operates as a kanban tool, visually organizing the workflow. Each demand was registered as a card, with identification of those responsible for each stage, ensuring traceability and continuity of the process from opening to final delivery.

The proposed structural reorganization was implemented in phases, as part of the alternatives assessment procedure. The first phase, which occurred between January and March 2026, involved mapping the current processes of the Marketing department. In this stage, workflows were reviewed with a focus on productivity and role clarity, culminating in the implementation of the Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed (RACI) matrix.

The second phase, developed between April and June 2026, focused on the improvement of the Demand Management System (DMS). The DMS was consolidated as the single entry and control channel for requests, incorporating the prioritization and approval criteria defined in the RACI matrix. This procedure aimed to standardize and make predictable the demand management processes, which were previously informal.

The third phase, underway from July to December 2026, included training leaders for data-driven decision-making, conducted by the Human Resources department. In parallel, the Prioritization Committee was formalized as a permanent governance body for decisions on priorities, resources, and deadlines. Since January 2026, a quarterly planning with fixed rituals has been established, under the leadership of the marketing coordinator and product managers.

For the evaluation of reorganization alternatives, a decision matrix was employed, according to the principles of multicriteria analysis (Keeney, 1994). This tool allowed for a structured comparison of options, considering criteria such as implementation cost, time required, strategic impact, internal acceptance, and complexity. The analysis sought to identify the alternative that best balanced feasibility and organizational impact.

The evaluation of the proposed reorganization was structured into two complementary axes for monitoring indicators. At the operational level, weekly data extraction from the demand management system was carried out by sector leadership. At the strategic level, monthly consolidation of marketing performance indicators was performed in meetings of the Prioritization Committee, with the participation of the product, content, social media, email marketing, and paid traffic fronts.

The collected data and analyzed information were organized to monitor the evolution of the Marketing sector. The systematic monitoring of operational and strategic indicators allowed for the verification of the area’s transition from a reactive role to a strategic one, aligned with the Institution’s organizational objectives. The adopted methodology sought to provide a solid basis for decision-making and for sustaining competitive advantage.

3. Results and Discussion

Situation Analysis

The analysis of the situation of the Marketing department of the educational institution revealed a scenario of accelerated growth in demands, unaccompanied by an adequate governance and process structure, which generated significant operational and strategic challenges. Between December 2023 and March 2026, the volume of monthly deliveries from the department experienced a 370% increase, rising from 107 to 572 demands. This expressive growth, without the proper development of prioritization criteria and well-defined roles, resulted in a reactive work environment, with constant urgencies and rework, compromising the effectiveness of operations and the strategic capacity of the area.

The diagnosis, conducted in July 2025 with the support of an external consultancy, identified a lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities as one of the central problems, hindering the balanced distribution of demands and the utilization of the team’s competencies. The urgent need to structure and map marketing processes was also observed, especially in light of new product introductions, to define workflows, responsibilities, and standard operating procedures. The area operated in an excessively operational manner, with little room for critical analysis and strategic participation, as pointed out by Kotler and Keller (2016), who emphasize the importance of a well-defined organizational structure for marketing effectiveness.

The absence of effective collaboration between the marketing work fronts, combined with the accumulation of multiple roles and the lack of a clear tracking system, generated integration failures and compromised the cohesive execution of strategies. This disorganization resulted in team overload, prioritization difficulties, and an organizational climate of low trust and collaboration, directly impacting the execution of marketing strategies and the Institution’s image in the educational market. Porter (1996) emphasizes that marketing strategy must be articulated with the organization’s competitive strategy to sustain a differentiated position, which was compromised by the diagnosed situation.

Table 1. Diagnostic situation x Desired situation

Dimension	Diagnosed situation	Desired situation
Organizational structure	Diffuse roles and overlap of responsibilities	Clearly defined roles and greater accountability
Governance	Reactive performance and without clear prioritization criteria	Structured governance aligned with institutional strategy
Processes	Informal and poorly documented processes	Standardized and predictable processes
Integration	Low articulation between areas	Cross-functional and collaborative action
Sector focus	Operational predominance	Strategic performance

Source: Original research results.

The application of the 5 Whys methodology (Larson and Larson, 2011) revealed that the sector’s difficulty in achieving its strategic objectives stemmed from disorganization in the registration, prioritization, and management of demands, generating rework and delays. The root of the problem was identified in the absence of a standardized process for entering and tracking requests, and in the sector’s historical orientation towards immediate operational execution, without focus on governance or planning. This operational predominance, with diffuse roles and absence of indicators, reduced marketing’s ability to generate strategic positioning and strengthen the institutional brand.

The data from the Demand Management System (SGD) corroborated the urgency of the reorganization, showing that 30% of requests had a lead time equal to or greater than sixteen days, while only 21% were met within five business days. This slowness and unpredictability in meeting demands, added to low predictability and frequent interruptions, directly impacted deadline compliance and workflow organization. Maintaining this scenario implied significant costs in terms of time, operational efficiency, delivery quality, and institutional positioning, constituting a strategic risk to the Institution’s competitive advantage.

The comparison between the diagnosed situation and the desired organizational model for the marketing sector, according to the performed analysis, revealed a significant misalignment in several dimensions. In terms of organizational structure, the need to transition from diffuse roles and overlapping responsibilities to clearly defined roles and greater accountability was observed. Regarding governance, the sector needed to evolve from reactive action without clear prioritization criteria to structured governance aligned with institutional strategy, ensuring greater predictability and control over demands.

Regarding processes, the transition from informal and poorly documented processes to standardized and predictable processes was fundamental to optimizing the workflow. The integration between areas, which showed itself to be low and fragmented, needed to be transformed into a transversal and collaborative approach, promoting greater alignment and communication. Finally, the sector’s focus, predominantly operational, needed to be repositioned towards strategic action, aligning marketing activities with broader organizational objectives and contributing to the generation of institutional value.

Benchmarking with best practices in the educational sector, as per studies by Moogan (2011) and Uncles (2018), reinforced that marketing in higher education institutions has evolved from a purely operational function to a strategic role in building institutional value. The literature (Workman et al., 1998; Moorman and Day, 2016) indicates that the performance of the marketing function is directly related to clarity of roles, functional specialization, integration between areas, and systematic use of metrics, characteristics absent in the Institution’s initial scenario. This contrast highlighted that the proposed reorganization was not limited to operational improvement but represented an essential strategic move to sustain competitive advantage, according to Porter’s perspective (1985).

The reorganization of the Marketing sector, therefore, aimed not only to enhance operational efficiency but also to broaden the area’s predictability and strategic capacity. With the implementation of a structured demand management flow and well-defined approval roles, a significant reduction in rework and variability in service time was projected in the medium and long term. This change was expected to increase delivery predictability and strengthen the sector’s reliability, allowing the team’s time to be directed towards higher value-added activities, such as campaign planning and results analysis, repositioning marketing as a strategic partner in achieving institutional objectives.

The reorganization proposal was structured around five main drivers: (i) implementation of the RACI matrix for clear definition of roles and responsibilities; (ii) creation of a single demand entry channel to centralize requests; (iii) training of leadership for screening and prioritizing demands with objective criteria; (iv) establishment of a Prioritization Committee for collective decisions on resources and deadlines; and (v) establishment of quarterly planning with fixed review rites. These drivers aim to eliminate ambiguities, reduce inter-area conflicts, and replace reactive logic with proactive and strategic action, providing governance to the marketing process.

Based on these drivers, three reorganization alternatives were structured, which vary according to the level of incorporation of these practices:

– Alternative 1 – Minimal reorganization: quick and low-cost implementation, with the creation of a single demand channel and basic flow organization. It has limited impact as it does not structure governance and responsibilities.

– Alternative 2 – Intermediate reorganization (recommended): formalization of roles through the RACI matrix, single demand channel, Prioritization Committee, and quarterly planning. It offers the best balance between organizational impact and implementation feasibility.

– Alternative 3 – Complete strategic restructuring: organizational redesign, adoption of new technologies, and possible team expansion. It has greater potential for impact, but requires more investment, time, and change management.

Decision matrix

The decision matrix is a decision support tool that allows for a structured comparison of alternatives, considering criteria relevant to the organizational context, such as implementation cost, time required, strategic impact, internal acceptance, and complexity. By enabling an objective and comparative analysis of the available options, it reduces the subjectivity of the choice and contributes to identifying the alternative that best balances feasibility, risk, and value generation for the Institution, in alignment with the principles of multicriteria analysis (Keeney, 1994). Table 2 presents the decision matrix for the proposed alternatives.

Table 2. Decision matrix

Criterion	Alternative 1	Alternative 2	Alternative 3
Implementation cost	Low	Average	High
Implementation time	Short	Average	Long
Strategic impact	Low	High	Very high
Internal acceptance	High	High	Mean
Complexity	Low	Mean	High

Source: Original research results.

The analysis shows that alternative 2 presents the best balance between viability and strategic impact for the current needs of the Educational Institution. The implementation of Alternative 2 occurred in four articulated phases, with initiatives already underway. In the first phase, from January to March 2026, the marketing coordinator mapped the current processes and reviewed the workflows, implementing the RACI matrix to define roles and responsibilities. In the second phase, from April to June 2026, the demand management system was improved and consolidated as a single channel, incorporating prioritization and approval criteria defined in the RACI matrix, which standardized and made predictable the previously informal processes. These initial phases were crucial to address the gaps identified in the organizational structure and processes.

The third phase, underway from July to December 2026, involves training leadership in data-driven decision-making, conducted by the Human Resources area. In parallel, the Prioritization Committee was formalized as a permanent governance body, replacing reactive action with structured and shared decisions among areas. Since January 2026, quarterly planning with fixed rituals has been in progress, under the leadership of the marketing coordinator and product managers, establishing predictable planning and review cycles, which supports the transition from an operational focus to strategic action.

The evaluation of the proposed reorganization is carried out through operational demand management indicators and marketing actions performance indicators. The monthly volume of deliveries, which varied from 374 to 572 between January and April 2026, and the accumulated growth of 370% between December 2023 and March 2026, reflect the area’s capacity to absorb the increase in requests. The goal is to maintain this absorption sustainably, with a reduction in urgencies, evidencing the effectiveness of the RACI matrix and the single demand channel in structuring roles and centralized registration. Table 3 presents the operational indicators, with the situation identified in the diagnosis and the goals established for the next 12 months.

Table 3. Operational indicators for demand management: current situation and goals

Indicator	Metric / Diagnosed situation	Target (12 months)	Source / Collection method
Monthly volume of deliveries	374–572 deliveries/month (Jan–Apr 2026)	Maintenance with reduction of urgencies	Demand management system
Accumulated growth of demands (Dec/2023–Mar/2026)	+370% (107 → 572 deliveries/month)	Sustainable absorption with a structured team	Historical comparative of the system
% of demands delivered within 5 business days	21% (current)	≥ 40%	Monthly report of the demand system
% of demands with lead time ≥ 16 days	30% (current)	≤ 15%	Monthly report of the demand system
Occurrences of out-of-deadline approval in the editorial calendar	15 occurrences in May/2026	≤ 3/month	Content Calendar Health Check
Demands decided on the same day of delivery	Recurring (multiple monthly records)	≤ 2/month	Editorial calendar log
Demands with incomplete briefing or late scope change	High frequency in all brands	50% reduction	Demand system registration

Source: Original research results.

Operational indicators also showed that, currently, 21% of demands are delivered within five business days, with a goal of reaching 40% in twelve months, and 30% of demands have a lead time equal to or greater than sixteen days, with a goal of reducing it to 15%. In May 2026, fifteen occurrences of out-of-deadline approval were registered in the editorial calendar, with a goal of reducing it to three per month. Demands decided on the same day of delivery are recurrent, with multiple monthly records, and the goal is to reduce it to two per month, while demands with incomplete briefing or late scope changes, which show high frequency, aim for a 50% reduction. Table 3 presents the operational indicators, with the situation identified in the diagnosis and the goals established for the next 12 months.

These operational indicators are directly connected to the five structuring drivers. The increase in the percentage of demands delivered within five business days and the reduction of demands with a lead time exceeding sixteen days result from the elimination of role ambiguities by the RACI matrix and the centralization of requests. The reduction in out-of-deadline approval occurrences and demands decided on the same day of delivery relates to leadership training and the performance of the Prioritization Committee. The fifty percent decrease in demands with incomplete briefings is supported by quarterly planning with fixed rites, which anticipates needs and inserts requests into predictable planning and review cycles.

The organic media performance results of an Institution’s (MBA) product, extracted from the 2026 Organic Media Reports, also signal the impact of the initiatives. Between January and April 2026, Instagram followers increased by 18.9%, from 178,445 to 212,095, and reach grew by 35.9%, from 90,911 to 123,572. On LinkedIn, followers increased by 2.3%, from 275,619 to 281,961, and reach saw a notable growth of 134.1%, from 19,383 to 45,375. On YouTube, followers grew by 20.2%, from 34,700 to 41,700, and reach increased by 529.8%, from 413 to 2,601. On TikTok, followers increased by 13.5%, from 16,697 to 18,958, and reach, which was zero, reached 1,922.

Despite consistent growth in audience and reach on most networks, engagement rate on Instagram fell from 3.5% to 1.7% between January and April 2026, indicating the need for strategic content adjustments. This correction is planned for the quarterly planning cycle, which will incorporate a review of formats and editorial lines per social network, with training for content leaders. Engagement on LinkedIn increased from 1.0% to 2.0%, on YouTube from 1.5% to 7.7%, and on TikTok from 0.0% to 2.0%, evidencing improved audience interaction on other platforms. These indicators are monitored monthly by the Prioritization Committee, integrating product, content, social media, email marketing, and paid traffic fronts. Table 4 synthesizes this data:

Table 4. Organic media performance indicators of an Institution’s product (MBA), extracted from the Organic Media Reports (2026)

Network / Indicator	Jan 2026	Apr 2026	Variation	Goal
Instagram: followers	178.445	212.095	+18,9%	≥ 30% p.a.
Instagram: reach	90.911	123.572	+35,9%	+15% over 2025
Instagram: engagement	3,5%	1,7%	−1.8 p.p.	≥ 2,5%
LinkedIn: followers	275.619	281.961	+2,3%	≥ 15% p.a.
LinkedIn: reach	19.383	45.375	+134,1%	≥ 117,000/month
LinkedIn: engagement	1,0%	2,0%	+1.0 p.p.	≥ 2,6%
YouTube: followers	34.700	41.700	+20,2%	≥ 40.550
YouTube: reach	413	2.601	+529,8%	≥ BRL 8,900/month
YouTube: engagement	1,5%	7,7%	+6.2 p.p.	≥ 4,5%
TikTok: followers	16.697	18.958	+13,5%	≥ 17.700
TikTok: reach	0	1.922	resumption	≥ 6,300/month
TikTok: engagement	0,0%	2,0%	resumption	≥ 4,0%

Source: Original research results.

In summary, the initial results of the reorganization demonstrate a promising transition of the Marketing sector from a predominantly operational role to a strategic one. Process mapping, the implementation of the RACI matrix, and the improvement of the demand management system have already reduced rework and defined responsibilities, while the growth of organic media indicators validates the strategic potential of the area.

It is important to emphasize that the operational indicators are directly connected to the problem identified in the marketing sector (lead time, overdue demands, out-of-deadline approvals, predictability) and the organic media data signal potential for strategic contribution, but the main evaluation of the reorganization lies in the indicators of flow, governance, deadlines, rework, and satisfaction of the demanding areas. The coherence between the diagnosis, the reorganization proposal, and the established performance goals indicates that the Institution is on the path to strengthening its governance, predictability, and integration, responding directly to the objective of sustaining its competitive advantage in the educational market.

4. Conclusion

This study analyzed the challenges arising from the accelerated growth of demands in the Marketing sector of an educational institution and evaluated alternatives for structural reorganization to enhance governance, predictability, prioritization, and integration between areas. An increase of 370% in the volume of monthly demands was observed between December 2023 and March 2026, rising from 107 to 572, without the proper development of governance and processes. This scenario generated urgencies, rework, and inter-area conflicts, with 30% of demands presenting a lead time exceeding sixteen days and systemic occurrences of out-of-deadline approvals. The root of the problem lay in the disorganization of demand registration, prioritization, and management, and in the sector’s historical orientation towards immediate operational execution. Given this, Alternative 2 of intermediate reorganization was recommended, incorporating five drivers: implementation of a RACI matrix, creation of a single demand channel, leadership training, institution of a Prioritization Committee, and quarterly planning with fixed rituals. The initial implementation phases, which included process mapping and improvement of the demand management system, have already reduced rework and defined responsibilities. Consistent growth was also observed in organic media audience and reach indicators across various platforms between January and April 2026, signaling the area’s strategic potential.

The proposed reorganization contributes to aligning marketing actions with organizational objectives, strengthening the institution’s positioning and competitiveness in the educational market. It represents a transition for the sector from a predominantly operational role to a strategic partner in generating institutional value. For the medium and long term, systematic monitoring of defined operational and strategic indicators is recommended to verify the evolution of predictability, integration between areas, and quality of deliverables. The evaluation should confirm whether structured workflows, defined roles, and governance rites are producing greater operational efficiency and stability, and whether marketing effectively acts as a strategic area. It is expected that, by the end of the first year of implementation, the sector will operate with clearly defined roles, a single and traceable demand flow, leadership capable of data-driven decisions, and consolidated quarterly planning rites, consolidating its position as a strategic unit in the Institution’s competitiveness.

Bibliographic References

Finoti, L. L; Toaldo, A. M. M.; Schwarzbach, L. C.; Marchetti, R. Z. 2019. Processo de estratégia de marketing: analisando as relações sequenciais entre suas atividades estratégicas. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 21(4), 767-787.

Keeney, R. L. 1994. Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making, p. 17-30. Harvard University Press.

Kotler, P.; Keller, K. L. 2016. Marketing Management. Capítulo 1 – Defining Marketing for the 21st Century, p. 27-35. Pearson Education.

Larson, R.; Larson, E. 2011. Creating bulletproof business cases. Disponível em: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/business-cases-project-scope-analysis-6119. Acesso em: 20 ago. 2025.

Lee, J-Y.; Kozlenkova, I. V.; Palmatier, R. 2014. Structural marketing: using organizational structure to achieve marketing objectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 73-85.

Moogan, Y. J. 2011. Can a higher education institution’s marketing strategy improve the student-institution match? International Journal of Educational Management, 25 (6): 570–589. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111159068

Moorman, C.; Day, G. S. 2016. Organizing for Marketing Excellence. Journal of Marketing, 80(6): 6-35. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0423

Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance, p. 33-43. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M. E. 1996. What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 70-77. Disponível em: https://hbr.org/1996/11/what-is-strategy. Acesso em: 10 dez. 2025.

Uncles, M. D. 2018. Directions in higher education: A marketing perspective. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 26 (2): 187-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.05.009

Workman, J. P.; Homburg, C.; Gruner, K. 1998. Marketing Organization: An Integrative Framework of Dimensions and Determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200302

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Executive Leadership and Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform