DSS theory: A model of constructs and relationships

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.

[1]  J. Mackie,et al.  The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioural Science , 1965 .

[2]  James A. Senn,et al.  Research in Management Information Systems: The Minnesota Experiments , 1977 .

[3]  Peter G. W. Keen,et al.  Mis Research: Reference disciplines and a Cumulative Tradition , 1980, ICIS.

[4]  Paul H. Cheney,et al.  Concepts, Theory, and Techniques: FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF COMPUTER-BASED DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS IN THE OIL INDUSTRY , 1982 .

[5]  B. E. Partridge,et al.  The Nature of Managerial Work , 1974 .

[6]  M.S. Silver,et al.  User perceptions of DSS restrictiveness: an experiment , 1988, [1988] Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume III: Decision Support and Knowledge Based Systems Track.

[7]  Michael J. Ginzberg,et al.  DSS design: a systemic view of decision support , 1984, CACM.

[8]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  An experimental study of the human/computer interface , 1981, CACM.

[9]  A El SawyOmar,et al.  Issue-based decision support systems for the Egyptian cabinet , 1988 .

[10]  Hugh J. Watson,et al.  The management information and decision support (MIDS) system at Lockheed-Georgia , 1993 .

[11]  C. Lawrence Meador,et al.  Decision Support Planning and Analysis: The Problems of Getting Large-Scale DSS Started , 1986, MIS Q..

[12]  Ronald N. Taylor PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF BOUNDED RATIONALITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR DECISION‐MAKING STRATEGIES , 1975 .

[13]  E. W. Martin,et al.  Critical Success Factors of Chief MIS/DP Executives , 1982, MIS Q..

[14]  D. Gulley,et al.  The Impact of Decision Models on Federal Coal Leasing , 1985 .

[15]  Charles R. Schwenk,et al.  EFFECTS OF CONFLICTING ANALYSES ON MANAGERIAL DECISION MAKING: A LABORATORY EXPERIMENT , 1983 .

[16]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  AN EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE ENVIRONMENT TO INFORMATION USED BY DECISION MAKERS , 1975 .

[17]  Omar El Sawy,et al.  SIM Competition Paper: Issue-Based Decision Support Systems for the Egyptian Cabinet , 1988, MIS Q..

[18]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation , 1988, MIS Q..

[19]  Maryam Alavi,et al.  An Assessment of the Concept of Decision Support Systems as Viewed by Senior-Level Executives , 1982, MIS Q..

[20]  Israel Borovits,et al.  SIM Competition Paper: Airline Management Information System at Arkia Israeli Airlines , 1988, MIS Q..

[21]  J. Valacich,et al.  Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups , 1990 .

[22]  Hugh J. Watson,et al.  The impact of planning languages on the development of corporate models , 1988, DATB.

[23]  Arkalgud Ramaprasad,et al.  Cognitive process as a basis for MIS and DSS design , 1987 .

[24]  Richard W. Scamell,et al.  An Examination of Two Screen/Report Design Variables in an Information Recall Context* , 1990 .

[25]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Experience at IBM with group support systems: A field study , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[26]  Starr Roxanne Hiltz,et al.  Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[27]  G. S. Saffold Culture Traits, Strength, and Organizational Performance: Moving Beyond “Strong” Culture , 1988 .

[28]  Clyde W. Holsapple Adapting demons to knowledge management environments , 1987, Decis. Support Syst..

[29]  Brian L. Dos Santos,et al.  A Study of User Interface Aids for Model-Oriented Decision Support Systems , 1988 .

[30]  Ting-Peng Liang,et al.  Critical success factors of decision support systems: An experimental study , 1986, DATB.

[31]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  An Experimental Investigation of the Use of Computer-Based Graphics in Decision Making , 1981 .

[32]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  COMPUTER GRAPHICS AS DECISION AIDS: DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH* , 1984 .

[33]  Omar El Sawy,et al.  ICIS Paper: Personal Information Systems for Strategic Scanning in Turbulent Environments: Can the CEO Go On-Line? , 1985, MIS Q..

[34]  Jacob W. Ulvila,et al.  A CASE IN ON-LINE DECISION ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT PLANNING1 , 1977 .

[35]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The new science of management decision , 1960 .

[36]  Daniel J. Power,et al.  AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF COMPUTER‐ASSISTED DECISION ANALYSIS* , 1986 .

[37]  John C. Henderson,et al.  An Evolutionary Strategy for Implementing a Decision Support System , 1981 .

[38]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[39]  W. E. Pracht,et al.  The Effects of an Interactive Graphics‐Based DSS to Support Problem Structuring , 1988 .

[40]  Suranjan De,et al.  Providing effective decision support: Modeling users and their requirements , 1986, Decision Support Systems.

[41]  John F. Rockart,et al.  Future Role of the Information Systems Executive , 1982, MIS Q..

[42]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  COMPUTER-BASED SUPPORT OF ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING* , 1979 .

[43]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[44]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Graphical and Color-Enhanced Information Presentation , 1985 .

[45]  James F. Courtney,et al.  A Field Study of Organizational Factors Influencing DSS Success , 1985, MIS Q..

[46]  Dave Ulrich,et al.  General Organizational Classification: An Empirical Test Using the United States and Japanese Electronics Industries , 1990 .

[47]  Paul R. Watkins PREFERENCE MAPPING OF PERCEIVED INFORMATION STRUCTURE: IMPLICATIONS FOR DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS DESIGN , 1984 .

[48]  William R. King,et al.  Note-Participative Design of Strategic Decision Support Systems: An Empirical Assessment , 1981 .

[49]  George P. Huber,et al.  DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR ILL‐STRUCTURED PROBLEMS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY , 1987 .

[50]  Lawrence A. Gordon,et al.  CONCEPTUAL LEVELS AND THE DESIGN OF ACCOUNTING INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 1975 .

[51]  George M. Kasper,et al.  Toward representing management-domain knowledge , 1986, Decis. Support Syst..

[52]  Ronald W. Chorba,et al.  INFORMATION SUPPORT FOR DECISION‐MAKER LEARNING IN A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY , 1980 .

[53]  Dov Te'eni Determinants and Consequences of Perceived Complexity in Human-Computer Interaction* , 1989 .

[54]  Ramesh Sharda,et al.  Decision support system effectiveness: a review and an empirical test , 1988 .

[55]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Computer Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment , 1988, MIS Q..

[56]  Ralph H. Sprague,et al.  SIM Competition Paper: The Financial Planning System at Louisiana National Bank , 1979, MIS Q..

[57]  Ma. de la Natividad Jiménez Salas,et al.  The Conduct of Inquiry , 1967 .

[58]  M. Zanna,et al.  Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship☆ , 1978 .

[59]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  The Impact of the Mode of Information Presentation on Learning and Performance , 1980 .

[60]  D. Whetten What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution , 1989 .

[61]  Henk G. Sol,et al.  Decision support systems: A decade in perspective , 1987, Decis. Support Syst..

[62]  Jeffrey E. Kottemann,et al.  A Study of the Relationship Between Decision Model Naturalness and Performance , 1989, MIS Q..

[63]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences , 1988, MIS Q..

[64]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision Making , 1988, MIS Q..

[65]  William Remus,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Graphical and Tabular Data Presentations on Decision Making , 1984 .

[66]  Hugh J. Watson,et al.  SIM Competition Paper: The Management Information and Decisin Support (MIDS) System at Lockheed-Georgia , 1987, MIS Q..

[67]  Gemma M. Welsch,et al.  The information transfer specialist in successful implementation of decision support systems , 1986, DATB.

[68]  Ronald J. Roland,et al.  A model of organizational variables for DSS , 1980, DATB.

[69]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  An evaluation of empirical research in managerial support systems , 1990, Decis. Support Syst..

[70]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Comprehensiveness and restrictiveness in group decision heuristics: effects of computer support on consensus decision making , 1989, ICIS '89.