Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Information Systems

DSS theory: A model of constructs and relationships

Profile image of Michael EiermanMichael Eierman

1995, Decision Support Systems

Abstract

A theoretical framework for DSS research is developed in terms of the key elements of theory: domain boundaries, constructs, and relationships among constructs. Eight broad DSS constructs (environment, task, implementation strategy, DSS capability, DSS configuration, user, user behaviour, and performance) are identified. Based on a review of the literature, 17 relationships among these constructs are examined. The most frequently studied relationships in the model are the influences of: (1) DSS capabilities on user behaviour; (2) user behaviour on performance; and (3) DSS capabilities on performance. Studies regarding these relationships use a wide variety of measures and present generally divergent results. Although studied less frequently, fairly consistent relationships were observed, suggesting: (1) the strategy used for DSS implementation influences both user behaviour and DSS performance; and (2) environmental factors such as top management support and user training influence DSS performance. Conclusions include: (1) there has been some progress toward understanding DSS based on the accumulation of research to date; (2) past research has examined less than half of the possible relationships among constructs, creating opportunities for new insights; and (3) divergent results on key pairs of constructs may result from interaction with other constructs, necessitating the simultaneous examination of fuller DSS research models to understand the contingencies influencing these relationships. 2

Related papers

Aligning DSS development with organization development
Hannu Salmela, Mikko Ruohonen

European Journal of Operational Research, 1992

One of the fundamental assumptions underpinning the strategic school of management is that the most appropriate structure for an organization is dependent on its strategy; strategy drives the structure and a change in strategy requires a change in administrative structure and also in formal information systems. Rockart and Scott Morton have proposed that information technology (IT) may have an essential role in organizational change. However, only a few researchers have studied MIS/DSS in the context of organizational development. Most of the research has been based on technological imperative. If an organizational imperative is adopted this leads to the consideration of the use of IT in the context of organization development. At present organizations are developing their strategies for the 1990's which demand structural changes or at least development of the organization's control and decision-making processes. The essential point is that the changes also effect the information needs of organizational actors. Thus, organizational change quite often requires the existing information systems to be reconstructed or even replaced. For MIS/DSS development the establishment of new information channels offers a challenging task. In this study a process approach to the analysis of the relationship of OD and MIS/DSS development is applied. The change process in a Finnish public-sector organization is observed in a longitudinal manner. In the first phase of this study the author's role was to assist in aligning the planning of a single information system -Workplace Information System (WIS) -with other organizational change processes. Empirical data was gathered through action research. One of the most important findings of this study was that new WlS options were created through organizational learning. Both researchers and organizational actors learned to focus on WIS as an opportunity for organizational change.

View PDFchevron_right
Critical success factors for the implementation of DSS at a selection of organisations in Kwazulu/Natal, South Africa
Udo Averweg

1999

Decision Support Systems (DSS) are specially developed for supporting the solution of a non-structured management ,p,vblemfor improved decision-making. DSS utilise data, provide easy user interfaces and allow for the decision maker's own insights. In this paper the authors explore published findings of identified critical success factors (CSFs) for the implementation of DSS. The authors identified from the available literature nine CSFs for DSS implementation; namely, user involvement, top management support, user training, information source, level of managerial activity being supported, user information satisfaction, relative use, perceived utility and goal realisation. As no previously published literature ,xists in South Africa, the authors sought to establish whether these same CSFs exist in organisations in KwaZulu/Natal that have implemented DSS. A questionnaire was developed and administered. A survey of twenty seven organisations in KwaZulu/Natal was undertaken. Of these, some were more successful than others. Evidence for the existence of five of the nine identified CSFs namely, user involvement, top management support, user training, relative use and perceived utility was found. This paper reports several major findings: (1) critical success factors may be absent and yet an organisation's DSS may be successful; and (2) the existence of an additional critical success factor namely, appropriate DSS tools. Some of the issues which need to be addressed by organisations embarking on a DSS implementation program are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
International Association of Scientific Innovation and Research (IASIR) Strategies for Improving DSS Research
Iasir Journals
View PDFchevron_right
A comparative analysis of DSS user-friendliness and effectiveness
Godwin Udo

International Journal of Information Management, 1992

Both researchers and practitioners consider usability of decision support systems (DSS) to be the most important feature that an effective DSS should possess. The buzzword 'user-friendly' is so overused by vendors and system designers that it has almost lost its meaning. In this era when DSSs are deployed by organizations towards strategic ends, it makes sense to determine at what price userfriendliness should be obtained. The main purpose of this study was to determine empirically whether user-friendliness is indeed associated with DSS effectiveness. Results from a mail survey of 201 DSS users indicated that user-friendliness has a positive association with decision quality and overall satisfaction, but has no significant relationship with time savings and cost effectiveness. The results also indicate that user-friendliness may hinder productivity. This finding has some implications for DSS designers/developers and researchers. Overall, the findings suggest that while user-friendliness is highly desirable of a DSS, it does not contribute to DSS effectiveness in terms of some of the major measures-time savings, productivity, and overall cost effectiveness. Must provide a friendly, easy-to-understand dialogue between the user and the system itself. Must be flexible, comprehensive, and provide display alternatives. Must be adaptable and responsive for unstructured problem solving. Must allow for the efficient management of large volumes of data. Must provide the ease to create and validate data prior to the primary use in the DSS. Must be able to interface with other subsystems.

View PDFchevron_right
The Impact of User Awareness on Successful Adoption of Decision Support System DSS in Developing Countries: The Context of Libyan Higher Education Ministry
osama kashadah

2016

This research study aims to discuss and evaluate the effect of user awareness and other factors relating to the awareness to the successful adoption of the technology in the developing countries. The researcher employed the use of questionnaire for the collection of data from numerous users in an attempt to understand how the main factors of user awareness affects the successful adoption of DSS systems in the developing countries. This paper analyzes the data that was obtained from the research work. The paper will begin with a brief introduction and background of the study topic, continue with a section of analyzing and discussion, provide numerous recommendations based on the information obtained and conclude the paper. The researcher employed the deductive method to generalize the responses of the sample participants. Being a quantitative research, the researcher will use the statistical method to analyze the data. The questionnaire was distributed to a sample of 180 respondents ...

View PDFchevron_right
The impact of Information Systems on User Performance: A critical review and theoretical model
L. Sanzogni

2009

With the recent growth of applied information systems (IS) in business organizations, investigating IS impact on user's performance and productivity is essential for both practitioners and researchers. Early efforts concentrated on the identification of factors that facilitated IS use. This produced a long list of items that proved to be of little practical value. It became obvious that, for practical reasons, the factors identified had to be formalized into a model in such a way as to facilitate analysis of IS use. Thus, in this study we are exploring the similarities and differences among various IS models with a goal of developing a combined model with more explanatory power to better understand IS impacts on end user performance. A proposed model is presented linking information quality, system quality, user characteristics and task technology fit to evaluate the impacts of IS through ease of system use and usefulness on user's performance. The current study consolidates three models that have previously been validated separately in IS. Evaluated together, these models can provide a better understanding of the way in which IS influences user performance in a broader variety of circumstances.

View PDFchevron_right
Successful System Development: the Effect of Situational Factors on Alternative User Roles
Stephen Hawk

Engineering Management, IEEE …, 2002

View PDFchevron_right
Defining a Fit-based Strategic DSS Evaluation Method
avimanyu datta

2013

This research used academic and practitioner literature to inductively derive a strategic DSS evaluation framework considering how fit between environment, decision, and user results in strategic outcomes. Once derived, this framework was used to derive a number of high-velocity strategic DSS attributes that may be used to evaluate candidate systems.

View PDFchevron_right
A Review and Critique of DSS
Benn Konsynski

1992

Center for Digital Economy Research Stern School of Business Working Paper IS-92-17 2. OVERVIEW O F RESEARCH IN DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS 2 . 1 o r i g i n s of DSS The concept of Decision Support Systems, DSS, was born in the early 1970s and prospered through the 1970s and 1980s. It developed at the intersection of two trends. First was a growing belief that existing information systems, despite their success in automating operating tasks in organizations, had failed to assist management in many higher level tasks. Second was a continuing improvement in computing hardware and software that made it possible to place h he ISDP Project involved a concentrated effort to discover fruitful new directions for DSS research. Approximately 40 DSS researchers worked on this project over a period of several years. The ISDP process culminated in a workshop held at the University of Arizona, Tucson in October, 1989, and the subsequent publication of a book (Stohr and Konsynski [I9921 . ) This paper is a slightly modified version of Chapter 1 of that book.

View PDFchevron_right
Management developed DSS and organizational transformation
Sven A Carlsson

Decision Support in Organizational Transformation, 1997

Management developed Decision Support Systems (DSS) are a major factor in business computing. Most of these DSS are developed using evolutionary approaches. These approaches stress continuous development of decision tasks. One drawback of continuous development of decision tasks is that it can lead to exploitation of old tasks instead of exploration of new possibilities. In an organization that experienced this problem, an intervention was made, using two approaches presented in this paper. As management developed DSS are becoming more important to organisations, it is critical to assess their value. For such an assessment we propose that the resource-based view of the firm might be useful.

View PDFchevron_right

References (89)

  1. Appendix A. Table references M. Aiavi and J.C. Henderson, An Evolutionary Strategy for Implementing a Decision Support System, Management Science, 27, 11 (November 1981), 1309-1323.
  2. R.J. Aldag and D.J. Power, An Empirical Assess- ment of Computer-Assisted Decision Analysis, Decision Sciences, 17 (1986) 572-589.
  3. I. Benbasat and A.S. Dexter, An Experimental Evaluation of Graphical and Colour-Enhanced Information Presentation, Management Science, 31, 11 (1985), 1348-1364.
  4. I. Benbasat, A.S. Dexter and P.S. Masulis, An Experimental Study of the Human/Computer Interface, Communications of the ACM, 24 (November 1981), 752-762.
  5. W.L. Cats-Baril and G.P. Huber, Decision Sup- port Systems for Ill-Structured Problems: An Em- pirical Study, Decision Sciences, 18 (1987), 350- 372. R.W. Chorba and J.L. New, Information Support for Decision-Maker Learning in a Competitive Environment: An Experimental Study, Decision Sciences 11 (1980), 603-615.
  6. T. Connolly, L.M. Jessup and J.S. Valacich, Ef- fects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups, Management Science, 36, 6 (1990), 689-703.
  7. G. DeSanctis, M. D'Onofrio, V. Sambamurthy and M.S. Poole, Comprehensiveness and Restric- tiveness in Group Decision Heuristics: Effects of Computer Support on Consensus Decision Mak- ing, in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Interna- tional Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA (December 4-6, 1989), 131-140.
  8. B.L. Dos Santos and M.L. Bariff, A Study of User Interface Aids for Model-Oriented Decision Support Systems, Management Science, 34, 4 (April 1988), 461-468.
  9. F. Edelman, Managers, Computer Systems, and Productivity. MIS Quarterly, 5 (September 1981), 1-19.
  10. O.A. El Sawy, Personal Information Systems for Strategic Scanning in Turbulent Environments: Can the CEO Go On-Line? MIS Quarterly, 9 (March 1985), 53-60.
  11. H. E1 Sherif and O.A. El Sawy, Issue-Based Deci- sion Support Systems for the Egyptian Cabinet, MIS Quarterly, 13 (December 1988), 550-569.
  12. W.L. Fuerst P.H. and Cheney, Factors Affecting the Perceived Utilization of Computer-Based De- cision Support Systems in the Oil Industry, Deci- sion Sciences, 13 (1982), 554-569.
  13. R.B. Gallupe, G. DeSanctis and G.W. Dickson, Computer-Based Support for Group Problem- Finding: An Experimental Investigation, MIS Quarterly, 12 (June 1988), 276-296.
  14. M.D. Goslar, G.I. Green and T.H. Hughes, Deci- sion Support Systems: An Empirical Assessment for Decision Making, Decision Sciences, 17 (1986), 79-91.
  15. S.R. Hiltz, M. Turoff and K. Johnson, Experi- ments in Group Decision Making, 3: Disinhibi- tion, Deindividuation, and Group Process in Pen Name and Real Name Computer Conferences, Decision Support Systems, 5 (1989), 217-232.
  16. G. Houdeshel and H.J. Watson, The Manage- ment Information and Decision Support (MIDS) System at Lockheed-Georgia, MIS Quarterly, 12 (March 1987), 127-140.
  17. S.L. Jarvenpaa, V.S. Rao and G.P. Huber, Com- puter Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment, MIS Quarterly, 13 (December 1988), 645-665.
  18. W.R. King and J.I. Rodriguez, Participative De- sign of Strategic Decision Support Systems: An Empirical Assessment, Management Science, 27, 6 (1981), 717-726.
  19. J.E. Kottemann and W.E. Remus, A Study of the Relationship Between Decision Model Natural- ness and Performance, MIS Quarterly, 13 (June 1989), 170-181.
  20. T.P. Liang, Critical Success Factors of Decision Support Systems: An Experimental Study, DATABASE (Winter 1986), 3-16.
  21. H.C. Lucas, Jr., An Experimental Investigation of the Use of Computer-Based Graphics in Decision Making, Management Science, 27, 7 (July 1981), 757-768.
  22. H.C. Lucas, Jr. and N.R. Nielson, The Impact of the Mode of Information Presentation on Learn- ing and Performance, Management Science, 26, 10 (October 1980), 982-993.
  23. C.L. Meador, M.J. Guyote and W.L. Rosenfeld, Decision Support Planning and Analysis: The Problems of Getting large-Scale DSS Started, MIS Quarterly, 11 (June 1986), 159-177.
  24. J. Nunamaker, D. Vogel, A. Heminger, B. Martz, R. Grohowski and C. McGoff, Experiences at IBM with Group Support Systems: A Field Study, Decision Support Systems, 5 (1989), 183-196.
  25. O'Keefe, J.B. and Wade, P.F. A Powerful MIS/ DSS Developed For A Remove Sawmill Opera- tion, MIS Quarterly, 11 (September 1987), 279- 289.
  26. W.E. Pracht, and J.F. Courtney, The Effects of an Interactive Graphics-Based DSS to Support Problem Structuring, Decision Sciences, 19 (1988), 598-621.
  27. W. Remus, An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Graphical and Tabular Data Presenta- tions on Decision Making, Management Science, 30, 5 (May 1984), 533-542.
  28. G.L. Sanders and J.F. Courtney, A Field Study of Organizational Factors Influencing DSS Success, MIS Quarterly, 10 (March 1985), 77-91.
  29. R.G. Schroeder and I. Benbasat, An Experimen- tal Evaluation of the Relationship of Uncertainty in the Environment to Information Used by Deci- sion Makers, Decision Sciences, 6 (1975), 556- 567.
  30. C.R. Schwenk and H. Thomas, Effects of Con- flicting Analyses on Managerial Decision Making: A Laboratory Experiment, Decision Sciences, 14 (1983), 467-482.
  31. R. Sharda, S.H. Barr and J.C. McDonnell, Deci- sion Support System Effectiveness: A Review and an Empirical Test, Management Science, 34 (February 1988), 139-159.
  32. M.S. Silver, User Perceptions of DSS Restrictive- ness: An Experiment, Journal of Management Information Systems, 5, 1 (Summer 1988), 51-65.
  33. R.H. Sprague and R.L. Olson, The Financial Planning System at Louisiana National Bank, MIS Quarterly, 3 (September 1979), 35-45.
  34. D. Te'eni, Determinants and Consequences of Perceived Complexity in Human-Computer Inter- action, Decision Sciences, 20 (1989), 166-181.
  35. G.J. Tillman and H.J. Watson, The Impact of Planning Languages on the Development of Cor- porate Models, DATA BASE, (Fall/Winter 1988), 24-32.
  36. N.S. Umanath, R.W. Scamell and S.R. Das, An Examination of Two Screen/Report Design Variables in an Information Recall Context, De- cision Sciences, 21 (1990), 216-240.
  37. P.R. Watkins, Preference Mapping of Perceived Information Structure: Implications for Decision Support Systems Design, Decision Sciences, 15 (1984), 92-106.
  38. R.T. Watson, G. DeSanctis and M.S. Poole, Us- ing a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences, MIS Quarterly, (September 1988), 462-478.
  39. G.M. Welsch, The Information Transfer Special- ist in Successful Implementation of Decision Sup- port Systems, DATABASE (Fall 1986), 32-40.
  40. I. Zigurs, M.S. Poole and G.L. DeSanctis, A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making, MIS Quarterly, 13 (December 1988), 625-644.
  41. M. Alavi, An Assessment of the Concept of Decision Support Systems as Viewed by Senior-Level Executives, MIS Quarterly, 6, 4 (December 1982), 1-9.
  42. M. Alavi and J.C. Henderson, An Evolutionary Strategy for Implementing a Decision Support System, Manage- ment Science, 27, 11 (November 1981), 1309-1323.
  43. G. Ariav and M.J. Ginzberg, DSS Design: A Systemic View of Decision Support, Communications of the ACM, 28, 10 (October 1985), 1045-1052.
  44. D. Baldwin and G.M. Kasper, Toward Representing Management-Domain Knowledge, Decision Support Sys- tems, 2 (1986), 159-172.
  45. I. Benbasat and A.S. Dexter, An Experimental Evalua- tion of Graphical and Colour-Enhanced Information Pre- sentation, Management Science, 31, 11 (1985), 1348-1364.
  46. I. Benbasat and B.R. Nault, An Evaluation of Empirical Research in Managerial Support Systems, Decision Sup- port Systems, 6, 1990, 203-226.
  47. R.H, Bonczek, C.W. Holsapple and A.B. Whinston, Computer-Based Support of Organizational Decision Making, Decision Sciences, 10 (1979), 268-291.
  48. S. De, Providing Effective Decision Support: Modelling Users and Their Requirements, Decision Support Sys- tems, 2 (1986), 309-319.
  49. G. DeSanctis, Computer Graphics as Decision Aids: Di- rections for Research, Decision Sciences, 15 (1984), 463- 487.
  50. G. DeSanctis and R.B. Gallupe, A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems, Management Science, 33, 5 (May 1987), 589-609.
  51. G.W. Dickson, J.A. Senn and N.L. Chervany, Research in Management Information Systems: The Minnesota Experiments, Management Science, 23, 9 (May 1977), 913-923.
  52. R. Dubin, Theory Building, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1969.
  53. J.J. Elam, G.P. Huber and M.E. Hurt, An Examination of the DSS Literature (1975-1985), in Decision Support Systems: A Decade in Perspective, E.R. McLean and H.G. Sol (Editors), Elsevier Science Publishers, B.B, 1986, 1-17.
  54. H. El Sherif and O.A. El Sawy, Issue-Based Decision Support Systems for the Egyptian Cabinet, MIS Quar- terly, 13 (December 1988), 550-569.
  55. R.H. Fazio and M.P. Zanna, Attitudinal Qualities Relat- ing to the Strength of the Attitude-Behaviour Relation- ship, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14 (1978), 398-408.
  56. S.T. Fiske and S.E. Taylor, Social Cognition, Random House, New York, 1984.
  57. W.L. Fuerst and P.H. Cheney, Factors Affecting the Perceived Utilization of Computer-Based Decision Sup- port Systems in the Oil Industry, Decision Sciences, 13 (1982), 554-569.
  58. D.A. Gulley and D.M. Mei, The Impact of Decision Models on Federal Coal Leasing, Management Science, 31, 12 (December 1985), 1547-1568.
  59. C.W. Holsapple, Adapting Demons to Knowledge Man- agement Environments, Decision Support Systems, 3 (1987), 289-298.
  60. G. Houdeshel and H.J. Watson, The Management Infor- mation and Decision Support (MIDS) System at Lock- heed-Georgia, MIS Quarterly, 12 (March 1987), 127-140.
  61. S.L. Jarvenpaa, V.S. Rao and G.P. Huber, Computer Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Unstruc- tured Problems: A Field Experiment, MIS Quarterly, 13 (December 1988), 645-665.
  62. D. Kahnemann, P. Slovic and A. Tversky, Judgment under Uncertainly: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1982.
  63. A. Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science, Chandler Publishing Company, San Francisco, CA, 1964.
  64. P.G.W. Keen, MIS Research: Reference Disciplines and a Cumulative Tradition, in Proceedings of the First Inter- national Conference on Information Systems, Philadel- phia, PA, (December 8-10, 1980), 9-18.
  65. T.P. Liang, Critical Success Factors of Decision Support Systems: An Experimental Study, DATABASE, (Winter 1986), 3-16.
  66. J.E. McGrath, Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
  67. D. Miller and L.A. Gordon, Conceptual Levels and the Design of Accounting Information Systems, Decision Sci- ences, 6 (1975), 259-269.
  68. H. Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper and Row, New York, NY, 1973.
  69. A. Ramaprasad, Cognitive Process as a Basis for M1S and DSS Design, Management Science, 33, 2 (February 1987), 139-148.
  70. R.J. Roland, A Model of Organizational Variables for DSS, DATABASE, (Winter 1980), 63-72.
  71. G.S. Saffold, Culture Traits, Strength, and Organiza- tional Performance: Moving Beyond 'Strong' Culture, Academy of Management Review, 13, 4 (1988), 546-558.
  72. R.G. Schroeder and I. Benbasat, An Experimental Eval- uation of the Relationship of Uncertainty in the Environ- ment to Information Used by Decision Makers, Decision Sciences, 6 (1975), 556-567.
  73. R. Sharda, S.H. Barr and J.C. McDonnell, Decision Support System Effectiveness: A Review and an Empiri- cal Test, Management Science, 34 (February 1988), 139- 159.
  74. H.A. Simon, The New Science of Management Decision, Chapter 2, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977. 39-81.
  75. R,H, Sprague and R,L, Olson, The Financial Planning System at Louisiana National Bank, MIS Quarterly, 3 (September 1979), 35-45.
  76. C.B. Stabell, Towards a Theory of Decision Support, in DSS-88 Transactions, Eighth International Conference on DSS, F. Sue Weber, (Editor), Boston, MA, (June 6-9, 1988), 160-170,
  77. R.N. Taylor, Psychological Determinants of Bounded Rationality: Implications for Decision-Making Strategies, Decision Sciences, 6 (1975), 409-429.
  78. D. Te'eni, Determinants and Consequences of Perceived Complexity in Human-Computer Interaction, Decision Sciences, 20 (1989), 166-181.
  79. G.J. Tillman and H.J. Watson, The Impact of Planning Languages on the Development of Corporate Models, DATABASE, (Fa!l/Winter 1988), 24-32.
  80. D. Ulrich and B. McKelvey, General Organizational Classification: An Empirical Test Using the United States and Japanese Electronics Industries, Organization Sci- ence, 1, 1 (1990), 99-118.
  81. J.W. Ulvila, R.V. Brown and K.S. Packard, A Case in On-Line Decision Analysis for Product Planning, Deci- sion Sciences, 8 (1977), 598-614.
  82. N.S. Umanath, R.W. Scamell and S.R. Das, An Examina- tion of Two Screen/Report Design Variables in an In- formation Recall Context, Decision Sciences, 2l (1990), 216-240.
  83. P.R. Watkins, Preference Mapping of Perceived Informa- tion Structure: Implications for Decision Support Sys- tems Design, Decision Sciences, 15 (1984), 92-106.
  84. K.E. Weick, Theoretical Assumptions and Research Methodology Selection, IS Technology and Organization, (1984), 111-132.
  85. D.A. Whetten, What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribu- tion? The Academy of Management Review, 14, 4 (Oc- tober 1989), 490-495.
  86. I. Zigurs, M.S. Poole and G.L. DeSanctis, A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Mak- ing, MIS Quarterly, 13 (December 1988), 625-644.
  87. Michael A. Eierman is an Assistant Professor of Management Informa- tion Systems at the University of Wis- consin-Oshkosh. He received his Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from the University of Min- nesota. Eierman also holds a B.B.A. and M.S. from the University of Wis- consin-Madison. His research inter- ests include problem formulation, de- cission support systems, creativity en- hancement through information tech- nology, and the global use of informa- tion technology.
  88. Carl R. Adams is Professor and Chairman of the Information and De- cision Sciences Department of the Curtis L. Carlson School of Manage- ment, University of Minnesota. His current research interests are fo- cussed on managerial problem solving and decision support. Both his M.S. (Industrial Administration) and his Ph.D. (Management Science) degrees are from the Krannert School of Pur- due University.
  89. Fred Niederman is an Assistant Pro- fessor in the Department of Informa- tion and Quantitative Sciences at the University of Baltimore. He has a Ph.D. in MIS from the University of Minnesota. His current research in- terests include: decision support sys- tems, facilitation of group decision support systems, problem formula- tion, international MIS, and MIS per- sonnel.

Related papers

The Determinants of DSS Success: An Integrated Model
Inggar Sanjaya

Decision Sciences, 1992

The results of a field study investigating the determinants of decision support systems (DSS) success are presented. A multivariate model was developed and tested using multiple regression hierarchical analysis on responses from 118 DSS users. Several specific hypotheses are also proposed and tested. Data analyses indicate that DSS success, as measured by DSS satisfaction and perceived benefits, depends on several factors: previous user experience with DSS, user involvement, user training, top management support, information sources, the level of managerial activity, and task structure, difficulty and interdependence. Based on the research results, several suggestions are made to improve the likelihood of successful DSS implementation.

View PDFchevron_right
Revisiting DSS Implementation Research: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature and Suggestions for Researchers
Erich Joachimsthaler

MIS Quarterly, 1992

Information systems are becoming increasingly critical to the daily operations and success of many firms. This, combined with the rising investments in design and development of these system.s, make implementation a high priority research topic. Although information systems implementation has been a topic of interest to researchers over the past two decades, the extent to which the existing body of research reflects substantial and cumulative development is not entirely clear.

View PDFchevron_right
Empirically testing the outcomes of user involvement in DSS development
Tor Guimaraes

Omega, 1994

The widespread use of decision support systems (DSS) for decisions critical to company survival and growth, and the sizeable investments most companies are increasingly making in the related technologies, motivate a better understanding of the factors contributing to DSS success. User involvement in the DSS development process has been proposed by many as an important determinant of success. This paper reports an empirical test of existing theory and the results from previous studies regarding the relationships between user involvement and three of the more widely used measures of system success: user overall satisfaction with the DSS, user perceived system benefits, and DSS usage. Two previously proposed intervening variables, systems friendliness and user satisfaction with DSS specific characteristics, are also included in the proposed path analytic model. A sample of 185 business managers and professionals provided the basis for statistical analysis using the partial least squares (PLS) method which tests both the measurement model and the structural model simultaneously. The results strongly confirm the importance of user involvement and DSS friendliness as determinants to the different measures of DSS success.

View PDFchevron_right
A Contingency Model for User Involvement in DSS Development
Hugh J Watson

MIS Quarterly, 1984

Many authors have stressed that DSS development requires a high level of user involvement. Three DSS case studies are presented which illustrate that the level of user involvement can vary considerably. Based upon the existing literature, a tentative model of the dimensions affecting user involvement in the creation of a DSS is hypothesized. This model is then refined in light of the three case studies presented.

View PDFchevron_right
Analytical framework for studying the effects of user participation in DSS development
Asif Sheir Malik

2010

Decision Support Systems (DSS) are mainly used for assisting users in analysis and decision-making. User participation is considered to be critical during the process of system development that typically consists of planning, analysis, design and implementation. Success or failure of implementation depends upon the activities carried-out in development phases. The activeness of user's participation during development phases is a contributing factor towards the success of DSS. We have studied participation ...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Group Decision Support System
  • Group Decision Support Systems
  • User Behaviour
  • Decision Support Systems (DSS)
  • Executive Information Systems
  • Executive Information System
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved