Sunteți pe pagina 1din 32

UDK 005.

53 Biljana MATEVSKA 1 , Ljubica KANEVCE 2 , Konstantin PETKOVSKI 3 DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS


Abstract Decision support systems are a specific class of information systems that help business people to make decisions. These systems work under the scheme of modeling information, facilitating the decision making process. Decision support systems allow for one to obtain relevant information from an unorganized set of data, which can be found in documents, spreadsheets, and even in the knowledge of people, which becomes the input to solve decision-making problems, as well as generating strategies in companies. This paper critically analyses the nature and state of decision support systems (DSS) research. To provide context for the review and analysis, a history of DSS is presented which focuses on the evolution of a number of sub-groupings of research and practice: personal decision support systems, group support systems, negotiation support systems, intelligent decision support systems, knowledge management based DSS, executive information systems/business intelligence, and data warehousing. To understand the state of DSS research an empirical investigation of published DSS research is presented.

Msc. Biljana Matevska - author of this paper is a doctoral student at the Faculty of Technical science, department of Industrial Management, Bitola, Republic of Macedonia, cell phone + 389 72 252 443, + 389 76 406 301, e-mail: bile_mario@hotmail.com, bile_mario@yahoo.com ;
2

PhD. Ljubica Kanevce - Faculty of Technical science, department of Industrial Management, Bitola, Republic of Macedonia, e-mail: kanevce@sonet.com.mk ; PhD. Konstantin Petkovski - Faculty of Technical science, department of Industrial Management, Bitola, Republic of Macedonia, e-mail: ninopet@t-home.mk . 1

Key words: DSS Decision Support Systems, group support systems, executive information systems, data warehousing, business intelligence, information systems, research.


() . . , , , , . . , - . , .
1. INTRODUCTION

Decision support systems (DSS) are computer tools that help managers to make decisions, and are responsible for obtaining, analyzing, reporting, and even making decisions for themselves. DSS includes personal decision support systems, group support systems, executive information systems, online analytical processing systems, data warehousing, and business intelligence. Over the three decades of its history, DSS has moved from a radical movement that changed the way information systems were perceived in business, to a mainstream commercial IT movement that all organizations engage. IS (Information systems), as an academic discipline, is currently at an important stage of its development. It faces a significant downturn in IT activity in commerce and government, which has led to serious decline in student numbers in IS degree programs. At the same time there is a groundswell of concern about the nature and direction of IS research. DSS has been an important area of IS scholarship since it emerged in the 1970s.The current DSS industry movement of business intelligence (BI) is
2

one of the most buoyant areas of investment despite the IT downturn of the early to mid 2000s. The market in new BI software licenses grew 12% from 2003 to 2004 and is expected to have compound growth of 7.4% to 2009. DSS is not a homogenous field and over its 35-year history a number of distinct sub-fields have emerged. The history of DSS reveals the evolution of a number of sub-groupings of research and practice. The major DSS subfields are: Personal Decision Support Systems (PDSS): usually Small-scale systems that are developed for one manager, or a small number of independent managers, to support a decision task; Group Support Systems (GSS): the use of a combination of communication and DSS technologies to facilitate the effective working of groups; Negotiation Support Systems (NSS): DSS where the primary focus of the group work is negotiation between opposing parties; Intelligent Decision Support Systems (IDSS): the application of artificial intelligence techniques to decision support; Knowledge Management-Based DSS (KMDSS): systems that support decision making by aiding knowledge storage, retrieval, transfer and application by supporting individual and organizational memory and inter-group knowledge access; Data Warehousing (DW): systems that provide the large-scale data infrastructure for decision support; Enterprise Reporting and Analysis Systems: enterprise focused DSS including executive information systems (EIS), business intelligence (BI), and more recently, corporate performance management systems (CPM). BI tools access and analyze data warehouse information using predefined reporting software, query tools, and analysis tools.
2. SOME HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

In the early 1960s, organizations were beginning to computerize many of the operational aspects of their business. Information systems were developed to perform such applications as order processing, billing, inventory control, payroll, and accounts payable. The goal of the first management information systems (MIS) was to make information in transaction processing systems
3

available to management for decision-making purposes. Unfortunately, few MIS were successful (Ackoff, 1967; Tolliver, 1971).

Figure 1: DSS Time Line (under construction) The term decision support systems first appeared in a paper by Gorry and Scott Morton (1971), although Andrew McCosh attributes the birth date of the field to 1965, when Michael Scott Mortons PhD topic, Using a computer to support the decision-making of a manager was accepted by the Harvard Business School (McCosh, 2004). Gorry and Scott Morton (1971) constructed a framework for improving management information systems using Anthonys categories of managerial activity (Anthony, 1965) and Simons taxonomy of decision types (Simon, 1960/1977). Much of the early work on DSS was highly experimental, even radical (Alter, 1980; Keen and Gambino, 1983). The aim of early DSS developers was to create an environment in which the human decision maker and the IT-based system worked together in an interactive fashion to solve problems; the human dealing with the complex unstructured parts of the problem, the information system providing assistance by automating the structured elements of the decision situation. The emphasis of this process was not to provide the user with a polished application program that efficiently solved the target problem. In fact, the problems addressed are by definition impossible, or inappropriate, for an IT-based system to solve completely. Rather, the purpose of the development of a decision support system is an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the decision maker. In a real sense, DSS is a philosophy of information systems development and use and not a technology. The decades indicated on the left hand side of the diagram refer only to the DSS types and not to the reference disciplines. Another dimension to the evolution of DSS is improvement in technology, as the emergence of each of the DSS types has usually been associated with the deployment of new information technologies. The nature and development of each DSS type is discussed in detail below. DSS is not a homogenous field. There are a number of fundamentally different approaches to DSS and each
4

has had a period of popularity in both research and practice. Each of these DSS types represents a different philosophy of support, system scale, level of investment, and potential organizational impact. They can use quite different technologies and may support different managerial constituencies.

Figure 2: The Evolution of the Decision Support Systems Field


3. WHAT IS ACTUALLY DSS

Class of computer programs whose purpose is to serve as consultants during the process of decision making. These programs use a collection of facts, rules and other knowledge for a limited field of action for the adoption of effective conclusions for goal. Essential difference between expert systems and conventional computer program that targets expert systems may not have an algorithmic solution, so you are forced make conclusions based on incomplete and assumed, but not proven information. The name expert system comes from that require human expert in making the final decision. The passive decision support systems are responsible only for collecting and organizing information for its use by the people responsible for the decision; therefore, these systems do not suggest any specific response. The active systems are responsible for collecting information, upon which they
5

base an explicit presentation of one or more solutions to the decision problem. A cooperative DSS is responsible for gathering the information, analyzing it, and then delivering it to the people responsible for decision making, and is also tasked to revise or refine the information. The name "cooperative" is derived from the cooperative work between software and people, with the intention of making the best possible decision. Figure 2 shows the classification of DSSs in the three families mentioned in the previous paragraph, as well as their scope. A communication-based model is based on the communication of several people for making the decisions. The data-driven DSS is responsible for collecting the information, which is then manipulated to meet the need of the person responsible for the decision. The document-based DSS system uses various types of documents (pages of text, spreadsheets, database reports, etc.) to solve decision problems, as well as to manipulate the information in an attempt to refine strategies. Knowledge-based systems analyze specific rules stored in a computer or rules used by a group of humans, which allows one to establish whether a decision should be made. Finally, systems based on models use statistic simulations and financial models to solve decision problems. The classification in Figure 2 is based on the interaction of the support system with users. A classification based on the functioning of such tools shows a separation into 3 types of families:

Figure 3: DSS classification and scope in decision making It is important to note that although these are very good computer tools for analyzing information, and even though they give options to be selected as the best alternative, the final decision of the decision-making process must belong to people and not to software tools, which are inanimate machines that are incapable of considering many external factors in the analysis and
6

cannot contextualize the information they present, information which could modify the final decision. Personal DSS (PDSS) are small-scale systems that are normally developed for one manager, or a small number of independent managers, for one decision task. PDSS are the oldest form of decision support system and for around a decade they were the only form of DSS in practice. They effectively replaced MIS (Management Information systems) as the management support approach of choice. The world of MIS was that of the Cold War and the rise of the Multi-National Corporation. The major contribution of PDSS to IS theory is evolutionary systems development (Arnott, 2004). The notion that a DSS evolves through an iterative process of systems design and use has been central to the theory of decision support systems since the inception of the field. Evolutionary development in decision support was first hinted at by Meador and Ness (1974) and Ness (1975) as part of their description of middle-out design. This was a response to the top-down versus bottom-up methodology debate of the time concerning the development of transaction processing systems. The importance of this work was to give the concept a larger audience; Keen (1980) remains the most cited and thereby the most influential description of the evolutionary approach to DSS development. Amongst other contributors to DSS development theory, Sprague and Carlson (1982) defined an evolutionary DSS development methodology, and Silver (1991) extended Keens approach by considering how DSS restrict or limit decision-making processes.

PDSS remains an important aspect of IT-based management support in contemporary practice. Group Support Systems A GSS consists of a set of software, hardware, and language components and procedures that support a group of people engaged in a decision-related meeting (Huber, 1984). This definition can be expanded to include communication and information processing (Kraemer and King, 1988). A number of frameworks have guided GSS research. Figure 5 below shows that the group decision making environment consists of a combination of characteristics of the group (including group history, member proximity, group size, national culture, leadership behavior, and group cohesiveness), the task (including type of task, level of decision making, phases of decision making, degree of task structure, difficulty, and time synchronization), the group and organizational context (including corporate culture and behavior norms, maturity of the organization, organizational size, time frame of decision making, management style, recognition and reward systems), and the system (EMS, GDS, CSCW). These influence the group process which finally leads to a group outcome (including measures of efficiency, decision quality, group consensus, and satisfaction) (Nunamaker et al., 1991). Negotiation Support Systems (NSS) also operate in a group context but as the name suggests they involve the application of computer technologies to facilitate negotiations (Rangaswamy and Shell, 1997). As GSS were developed, the need to provide electronic support for groups involved in negotiation problems and processes evolved as a focused sub-branch of GSS with different conceptual foundations to support those needs. Intelligent Decision Support Systems Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have been applied to decision support and these systems are normally called intelligent DSS or IDSS (Bidgoli, 1998) although the term knowledge-based DSS has also been used (Doukidis, Land, and Miller, 1989). Intelligent DSS can be classed into two generations: the first involves the use of rule-based expert systems and the second generation uses neural networks, genetic algorithms and fuzzy logic (Turban et al., 2005). A fundamental tension exists between the aims of AI and DSS. AI has long had the objective of replacing human decision makers in important decisions, whereas DSS has the aim of supporting rather than replacing humans in the decision task. As a result the greatest impact of AI techniques in DSS has been embedded in the PDSS, GSS or EIS, and largely unknown to managerial users. This is particularly the case in data mining and customer relationship management. Knowledge Management-based Decision Support Systems Organizational knowledge management (KM) has received a large amount of attention by
8

executives and academics since the early 1990s. The action taken by organizations to manage what they deem as knowledge is vital in its ability to increase innovation and competitive advantage and support decisionmaking. KM affects the entire organization and involves the management of several areas including IT, organizational behavior, organizational structure, economics and organizational strategy. It can support decision processes and decision makers. Knowledge management as an information systems movement has also had an impact on DSS research with a major conference on the topic being held in 2000 (Carlsson et al., 2000). Questions addressed in this research include (Carlsson and Lundberg, 2000). Executive Information System (EIS) An application program specifically designed for use by the corporate executive. Presentation of material is often structured after the board briefing book concept. Detailed information on the summarized charts is often made available by using a concept known as drilling. The EIS acts as a usable interface to a database of company information. It automates high-level analysis and reporting, and typically has a user-friendly graphical interface. Business intelligence Its a classic question that has a classic answer companies need to translate data into information in order to make strategic business decisions. Companies continuously create data whether they store it in flat files, spreadsheets or databases. These data are extremely valuable to your company. Its more than just a record of what was sold yesterday, last week or last month. It should be used to look at sales trends in order to plan marketing campaigns or to decide what resources to allocate to specific sales teams. It should be used to analyze market trends to ensure that your products are viable in todays marketplace. It should be used to plan for future expansion of your business. It should be used to analyze customer behavior. The bottom line is that your data should be used to maximize revenue and increase profit. IT are the first for begin the process of creating a report. They need to extract the required data and pass it to the person creating the report. That person then has to spend time manipulating the data to create the required report. This process can take many hours, even days, of effort. And this process needs to be carried out for each and every report that the company requires. Business Intelligence solutions automate the process of extracting data and producing reports thereby eliminating all of the manual effort of IT and the people creating the reports from raw data. A Business Intelligence solution produces reports using data that has been automatically extracted from a cleansed data source (typically a database or data mart) to produce accurate reports. In order to make important business decisions, for example, as to what new products to carry or what products to drop, it is vital that managers have accurate data in the reports on which they base these decisions.
9

Data security is a very real problem. As soon as data is extracted to spreadsheets the potential for abuse is greatly increased. Spreadsheets can be lost, private corporate and sensitive data can be copied onto a number of portable devices, and laptops can be stolen or misplaced. Cases where private data is made public through negligence occur daily. Think Wiki. Business Intelligence solutions take advantage of existing security infrastructures to keep private data secure and within the company. Data within reports is typically presented to employees via the companys intranet and employees are given access to only the data they require to carry out their specific job functions. Without a Business Intelligence solution companies may have to resort to dumping vast amounts of data into spreadsheets from their databases. This in itself is a manual and, in most cases, an extremely time- consuming task. The spreadsheets then have to be delivered to the person creating the report. Spreadsheets then have to be consolidated and the data manipulated manually to produce the desired reports. All this takes time and the data within the reports may be days or weeks old by the time the reports are complete and delivered to the manager. Data warehousing In computing, a data warehouse or enterprise data warehouse (DW, DWH, or EDW) is a database used for reporting and data analysis. It is a central repository of data which is created by integrating data from multiple disparate sources. Data warehouses store current as well as historical data and are used for creating trending reports for senior management reporting such as annual and quarterly comparisons. The data stored in the warehouse are uploaded from the operational systems (such as marketing, sales etc., shown in the figure to the right). The data may pass through an operational data store for additional operations before they are used in the DW for reporting. The typical ETL-based data warehouse uses staging, data integration, and access layers to house its key functions. The staging layer or staging database stores raw data extracted from each of the disparate source data systems. The integration layer integrates the disparate data sets by transforming the data from the staging layer often storing this transformed data in an operational data store (ODS) database. The integrated data are then moved to yet another database, often called the data warehouse database, where the data is arranged into hierarchical groups often called dimensions and into facts and aggregate facts. The combination of facts and dimensions is sometimes called a star schema. The access layer helps users retrieve data. A data warehouse constructed from an integrated data source system does not require ETL, staging databases, or operational data store
10

databases. The integrated data source systems may be considered to be a part of a distributed operational data store layer. Data federation methods or data virtualization methods may be used to access the distributed integrated source data systems to consolidate and aggregate data directly into the data warehouse database tables. Unlike the ETL-based data warehouse, the integrated source data systems and the data warehouse are all integrated since there is no transformation of dimensional or reference data. This integrated data warehouse architecture supports the drill down from the aggregate data of the data warehouse to the transactional data of the integrated source data systems. Data warehouses can be subdivided into data marts. Data marts store subsets of data from a warehouse. This definition of the data warehouse focuses on data storage. The main source of the data is cleaned, transformed, cataloged and made available for use by managers and other business professionals for data mining, online analytical processing, market research and decision support (Marakas & O'Brien 2009). However, the means to retrieve and analyze data, to extract, transform and load data, and to manage the data dictionary are also considered essential components of a data warehousing system. Many references to data warehousing use this broader context. Thus, an expanded definition for data warehousing includes business intelligence tools, tools to extract, transform and load data into the repository, and tools to manage and retrieve metadata.

Figure 6: Data Warehouse


Benefits of a data warehouse

A data warehouse maintains a copy of information from the source transaction systems. This architectural complexity provides the opportunity to:
11

Maintain data history, even if the source transaction systems do not. Integrate data from multiple source systems, enabling a central view across the enterprise. This benefit is always valuable, but particularly so when the organization has grown by merger. Improve data quality, by providing consistent codes and descriptions, flagging or even fixing bad data. Present the organization's information consistently. Provide a single common data model for all data of interest regardless of the data's source.
Data warehouses versus operational systems

Operational systems are optimized for preservation of data integrity and speed of recording of business transactions through use of database normalization and an entity-relationship model. Operational system designers generally follow the Codd rules of database normalization in order to ensure data integrity. Codd defined five increasingly stringent rules of normalization. Fully normalized database designs (that is, those satisfying all five Codd rules) often result in information from a business transaction being stored in dozens to hundreds of tables. Relational databases are efficient at managing the relationships between these tables. The databases have very fast insert/update performance because only a small amount of data in those tables is affected each time a transaction is processed. Finally, in order to improve performance, older data are usually periodically purged from operational systems.
4. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS OFFER

On the international market, it is easy to find software suppliers who provide DSSs, due to their importance in helping companies. Table 1 shows a list of DSS manufacturers reported by DSSResources.com, which is comprised of more than 80 manufacturers. This demonstrates the broad offer available for such software tools.

12

Table 1. DSS design companies These systems use analytical models to analyze information and to guide those responsible for decision making. In addition, some of these models can use both quantitative and qualitative variables simultaneously. Table 2 presents some of the analytical methods for supporting the DSS processes which are most used. One of the most widely used software for decision making in the industry is Expert choice, of the U.S. House of Expert Choice software. This software is based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for selecting the best alternative in a process of decision analysis that can be multi-attribute, multi-objective, and that also may involve several people in the analysis process.

13

Table 2. Decision making analysis methods classification The Current State of Decision Support Systems Arguably, the premier specialist academic conference on DSS is the biannual IFIP Working Group 8.3 Conference. This conference has been held continuously since 1983 and virtually all leading DSS scholars have presented their ideas in this forum at some time. In 2004 the conference (branded as DSS 2004) was held in Prato, Italy (Meredith et al., 2004). DSS 2004 comprised 86 research papers; Table 3 shows their breakdown according to the DSS types discussed above. Seven articles were classified as not DSS according to the definition adopted by this paper.

Table 3. DSS 2004 Papers by DSS Type There are no academically rigorous market statistics for EIS/BI/DW but conversations with senior chief information officers indicate that almost all
14

major commercial expenditure in decision support involves these DSS types. The industry research firm, Meta Group, estimates that the data warehouse market is currently worth US $ 25 billion (Mills, 2004). IDC, another commercial research firm, believes that data warehousing and business intelligence are central to contemporary IT investment and will remain so for some time (Morris et al., 2003). Even allowing for serious overestimation by the CIOs and the commercial researchers, the distribution of papers at DSS 2004 shows a marked disconnect between the agendas of DSS researchers and senior IT professionals.
5. LITERATURE ANALYSYS

Previous analyses of information systems research have used a similar sampling approach (Benbasat and Nault, 1990; Alavi and Carlson, 1992; Pervan, 1998). Alavi and Carlson (1992) used eight North American journals for their sample. However, Webster and Watson (2002) have criticized the over emphasis on North American journals in review papers. In response we included four European information systems journals (ISJ, EJIS, JIT, JSIS) in our sample. An alternative approach is to focus on a small number of influential papers (Alavi and Joachimsthaler, 1992) or to aim for a comprehensive sample of all published research in the area including journal papers, book chapters, and quality conference papers (Webster and Watson, 2002). Alternatively, if the journals Management Science and Decision Sciences are removed (as both are generalist journals covering a much wider field of which IS is a relatively small part), the proportion of DSS papers rises to 21.2%. Each of these different measures indicate that DSS is an important part of the IS discipline. The sample of articles analyzed is DSS research published between 1990 and 2003 in 14 journals: Decision Sciences (DS); Decision Support Systems (DSS); European Journal of Information Systems (EJIS); Information and Management (I&M); Information and Organization (I&O), formerly Accounting, Management and Information Technologies; Information Systems Journal (ISJ); Information Systems Research (ISR); Journal of Information Technology (JIT); Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS); Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce (JOC&EC); Journal of Strategic Information Systems (JSIS); Group Decision and Negotiation (GD&N); Management Science (MS); and MIS Quarterly (MISQ).

15

6. RESEARCH ANALYSYS

Table 5 shows that around one-third (33.6%) of DSS research is nonempirical, with two-thirds (66.4%) empirical. Chen and Hirschheims (2004) analysis of overall IS research reported a significantly different split between non-empirical (40%) and empirical (60%). This means that DSS research has significantly more empirical research than general IS.

Table 5. Sample by Article Type In addition, there are two major roles that managers can play in a DSS: client and user. User is an obvious role. The client is the manager who pays for the system and acts as a champion of the development with other managers. For
16

small systems the client and user is often the same person. In papers where the clients and users were identified, DSS clients were most likely to be executives and users were most likely to be professionals followed by nonexecutive managers and executives. This means that professionals are often intermediaries between the IT-based applications and the ultimate decision makers. The decision support focus of the sample shows a well-balanced mix of development, technology, process and outcome studies. Importantly, DSS researchers have maintained a strong recognition of the importance of the IT artifact in IS research. Studies that test theory are around one quarter of the sample; theory building dominates DSS research, while theory refinement is almost non-existent.
7. KEY ISSUE

A number of information systems researchers are concerned that there is a widening gap between research and practice, particularly in the systems development area Hirschheim and Klein, in a critical assessment of the IS discipline, identified major disconnects between IS researchers and executives, and between IS researchers and IS practitioners. Fundamental to these disconnects is the perception that much IS research is of little relevance to the practice of these two vital constituencies. Benbasat and Zmud identified five reasons why information systems research lacks relevance. The first is an emphasis of rigor over relevance in order to gain the respect of other academic disciplines; the second is the lack of a cumulative tradition that yields strong theoretical models that act as a foundation for practical prescription; the third is the dynamism of information technology, which means that practice inevitably leads theory; the fourth is a lack of exposure of IS academics to professional practice; and the fifth is the institutional and political structure of universities which limits the scope of action of IS academics. An assessment of the practical relevance of DSS articles is shown in Table 6. The assessment of the practical relevance of a journal paper is a subjective judgment. In judging relevance we were informed by the aims and objectives of the paper, the nature of the discussion, and in particular, the content of the concluding comments of each paper. The researchers spent considerable time in discussing and reviewing their coding of this factor to assist in calibrating the independent coding processes. Both authors have many years of DSS research experience and both have been DSS practitioners; both maintain close links with industry and organizations and the judgment of relevance is based on this academic and professional experience. Table 6 shows that overall, only 10.1% of
17

research is regarded as having high or very high practical relevance. On the other hand, 49.2% of research was regarded as either having low practical relevance or none at all. Over time the relevance of DSS research has been improving. A one-way ANOVA of mean relevance scores over the three analysis eras shows significant improvement (pb0.01). Similar ANOVAs at the DSS type level shows that only two types have had significant improvement in relevance: PDSS (pb0.05) and IDSS (pb0.01). The improvement of relevance is driven by the large proportion of the sample that is PDSS.

Table 6. The practical relevance of DSS types Because DSS research has the mission of improving managerial decisionmaking, DSS articles should be grounded in quality judgment and decisionmaking research. In analyzing DSS papers, special care was taken to distinguish between merely citing reference theory in introductory passages or focusing discussion and explicitly using reference theory in the design of the research and interpretation of results. Only the second, integral, use of reference theory was coded in this paper. Surprisingly, 47.8% of papers did not cite any reference research in judgment and decision-making in this fashion. Further, the percentage of papers that explicitly used judgment and decision-making reference research is relatively stable over time. Table 6 shows the mean number of citations to judgment and decision-making reference research per paper for each type of DSS. Group and Negotiation Support, and Personal DSS have the most reference citations, with the current professional mainstream of Data Warehousing having the poorest grounding. One reason for this could be that GSS, NSS,
18

and PDSS largely involve the application of technology to tasks that have been researched by other disciplines. As such it is relatively easy to select a foundation theory lens for DSS research. DW and BI are less mature DSS types and current research is largely focused on technology and getting the data right. It may be more difficult to find models of behavior to inform research in these DSS types. An important issue or tension in an applied field like DSS is the extent to which the academic field leads or follows industry practice. One way of identifying where DSS lies on this continuum is to examine the publishing of different DSS types over time. Despite the lags in journal publishing, this analysis gives an indication of the level of conservatism of research agendas. At the start of our analysis period PDSS and GSS were the most important DSS types; by the end of the period DW and Enterprise Reporting and Analysis Systems were overwhelming dominant in practice. PDSS research has evolved significantly over this time, driven by sustained improvement in information technologies and greater managerial knowledge and experience. It has however, waned considerably in perceived importance to industry.

Table 7. Number of cited judgment and decision-making references by DSS type


8. CONCLUSION

Decision makers relying on the internet to gather information face a difficult task given the amount of irrelevant information that they must sort through in order to find any relevant information. Unfortunately, some of this information turns out to be inaccurate. Perceptions about deer and Lyme disease seem to have propagated through the internet based on public
19

comments, but not based on scientific evidence. Certainly no academic researchers will be surprised that the web contains much information that is inaccurate, but what may come as a surprise is the extent to which this information is being used in making decisions. Presented an overview and the analysis can be carried out the following conclusions: DSS have a very quick and success historical development which indicates that they have more practical application to support decision making at all levels necessary for proper decision making. Classification of DSS shown manner and conditions of their application: Personal DSS, Group Support Systems, Negotiation Support Systems, Intelligent Decision Support Systems, Knowledge Management-based Decision Support Systems, Executive Information System, Business intelligence, Data warehousing, which Indicating varying degrees of complexity and different capabilities of these classes of DSS. Analysis of the manner of functioning of the DSS show that these decision makers allow access properly organized and prepared data and give recommendations for making final decisions. They today, in complex decision-making conditions are necessary for a proper decision. A number of DSS that are offered to the international market from about 80 different manufacturers used approaches also points to the fact that managers have a great benefit from their use. According to the analysis, papers that treat this problem it can be concluded that there is about 14 magazines who published papers in this area. The analysis of the research shows that they have predominantly empirical character and that are extremely important for decision-making theory. In conclusion, DSS, as an important field of information systems research and practice, is at the crossroads; its future is both bright and troubled. Its share of IS research is declining but in industry it is growing significantly despite the IT downturn. . , . , . , , . :
20

. , . , . 80 , , . , , 14 . . , , . , .
9. APPENDIX

This annex contains the full list of references found in our survey from year 1970s to 2007. Ackoff, R.L. (1967) Management misinformation systems. Management Science, 14(4), 147-156. Alavi, M. and Carlson, P. (1992) A review of MIS research and disciplinary development. Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 8(4),45-62. Alavi, M. and Joachimsthaler, E.A. (1992) Revisiting DSS Implementation research: A meta-analysis of the literature and suggestions for researchers. MIS Quarterly, 16(1), 95-116. Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001) Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. Alter, S.L. (1980) Decision Support Systems: Current Practice and Continuing Challenges (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA). Anthony, R.N. (1965) Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis (Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Cambridge, MA). Arnott, D. (2004) Decision support systems evolution: Framework, case study and research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 13(4), 247-259.
21

Arrow, K.J. (1951) Social Choice and Individual Values (Wiley, New York). Basu, A. and Blanning, R.W. (1994) Metagraphs: A tool for modelling decision support systems. Management Science, 40(12), 15791600. Benbasat, I. and Nault, B. (1990) An evaluation of empirical research in managerial support systems. Decision Support Systems, 6, 203-226. Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (1999) Empirical research in information systems: The question of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 3-16. Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S.R. and Turoff, M. (2002) A comparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. asynchronous group decision making. Decision Support Systems, 34, 457-469. Bidgoli, H. (1998) Intelligent Management Support Systems (Greenwood, Westport CT). Bottom, W.P. and Paese, P.W. (1999) Judgement accuracy and the asymmetric cost of errors in distributive bargaining. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 349-364. Bui, T. and Jarke, M. (1986) Communication design for Co-op: A group decision support system. ACM Transaction on Office Information Systems, 4(2), 81-103. Carlsson, S., Brezillon, P., Humphreys, P., Lunberg, B.G. McCosh, A. and Rajkovic, V. (Eds.) (2000) Proceedings of IFIP TC8/WG8.3 International Conference on Decision Support Through Knowledge Management. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. Carlsson, S.A. and Lundberg, B.G. (2000) Preface and introduction. Proceedings of IFIP TC8/WG8.3 International Conference on Decision Support Through Knowledge Management. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. Cavaye, A.L.M. (1996) Case study research: A multi-faceted research approach for IS. Information Systems Journal, 6, 227-242. Chaudhury, A. (1995) A process perspective to designing individual negotiation support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 4(6), 525548. Chen, M. (1995) A model-driven approach to accessing managerial information: The development of a repository-based executive information system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(4), 33-63. Chen, W.S. and Hirschheim, R. (2004) A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal, 14, 197-235.41 Codd, E.F., Codd, S.B. and Salley, C.T. (1993) Providing on-line analytical processing (OLAP) to user-analysts: An IT mandate (Unpublished Manuscript). E.F. Codd and Associates. Cooper, B.L., Watson, H.J.,
22

Wixom, B.H. and Goodhue, D.L. (2000) Data warehousing supports corporate strategy at First American Corporation. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 547-567. Craig, R.S., Vivona, J.A. and Bercovitch, D. (1999) Microsoft Data Warehousing (Wiley, New York). Datta, A. and Thomas, H. (1999) The cube data model: A conceptual model and algebra for on-line analytical processing in data warehouses. Decision Support Systems, 27, 289-301. Davison, R. (1999) An instrument for measuring meeting success Revalidation and modification. Information and Management, 36, 321-328. Dearden, J. (1972) MIS is a mirage. Harvard Business Review, 50(1), 9099. Dennis, A.R., George, J.F., Jessup, L.M., Nunamaker, J.F. Jr. and Vogel, D.R. (1988) Information technology to support group meetings. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 591-624. DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R.B. (1985) Group decision support systems: A new frontier. Data Base, 16(2), 3-10. DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R.B. (1987) A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589-609. Dennis, A.R. and Gallupe, R.B. (1993) A history of group support systems empirical research: Lessons learned and future directions. In L.M. Jessup and J.S. Valacich (Eds.) Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. (New York, Macmillan), Chapter 3. Devlin, B.A. and Murphy, P.T. (1988) An architecture for a business and information system. IBM Systems Journal, 27(1), 60-81. Doukidis, G.I., Land, F. and Miller, G. (1989) Knowledge Based Management Support Systems (Ellis Horwood, Chichester). Dubin, R. (1978) Theory Building (The Free Press, New York). Eisenhart. K.M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550. Eom, H.B. and Lee, S.M. (1990) A survey of decision support system applications (1971-1988). Interfaces, 20, 65-79. Eom, S.B. (1995) Decision Support Systems Research: Reference Disciplines and a Cumulative Tradition. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, 23(5), 511-523. Eom, S.B. (1996) Mapping the intellectual structure of research in decision support systems through author cocitation analysis (1971-1993). Decision Support Systems, 16(4), 315-338 Eom, S.B. (1999) Decision Support Systems Research: Current State and Trends. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 99(5), 213-220. Eom, S.B. and Lee, S.M. (1993) Leading Universities and Most Influential Contributors in DSS Research: A Citation Analysis. Decision Support Systems, 9(3), 237-244.
23

Fitzgerald, B. (2000) System development methodologies: The problem of tenses. Information Technology and People, 13(3), 13-22. Fitzgerald, G. (1992) Executive information systems and their development in the U.K.: A research study. International Information Systems, 1(2), 1-35. Fraser, N.M. and Hippel, K.W. (1984) Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolution (North Holland, Amsterdam). Galliers, R.D. (1992) Choosing information systems research approaches. In R.D. Galliers (Ed.), Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines (Blackwell Scientific, London), 144-162. Galliers, R.D. (1994) Relevance and rigour in information systems research: Some personal reflections on issues facing the information systems research community. In B.C Glasson, I.T. Hawryszkiewycz, B.A. Underwood and R. Weber (Eds.). Business process re-engineering: Information systems opportunities and challenges (Elsevier North-Holland, Amsterdam), 93-101. Gillenson, M. L. and Stutz, J. D. (1991) Academic issues in MIS: Journals and books. MIS Quarterly, 15(4), 447-452. Gorry, G.A. and Scott Morton, M.S. (1971) A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Review, 13(1), 1-22. Gray, P., Aronofsky, J.S., Helmer, O., Kane, G.R. and Perkins, T.E. (1981) The SMU decision room project. Proceedings of DSS-81: The First International Conference on Decision Support Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, June 8-10. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA), 105-117. Hardgrave, B. C. and Walstrom, K. A. (1997) Forums for MIS scholars. Communications of the ACM, 40(11), 119-124. Hevner, A.R., March, S. T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-106. Hirschheim, R. (1992) Information systems epistemology: An historical perspective. In R. Galliers (Ed.), Information systems research: Issues, methods and practical guidelines (Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford), 28-60. Holsapple, C., Johnson, L., Manakyan, H. and Tanner, J. (1994) Business computing research journals: A normalized citation analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(1), 131-140. Huber, G.P. (1984) Issues in the design of group decision support systems. MIS Quarterly, 8(3), 195- 204. Iivari, J. (1991) A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development. European Journal of Information Systems, 1(4), 249-272.
24

Inmon, W. and Hackathorn, R. (1994) Using the Data Warehouse. (John Wiley and Sons, New York). Jarke, M., Jelassi, M.T. and Shakun, M.F. (1987) MEDIATOR: Toward a negotiation support system. European Journal of Operations Research, 31(3), 314-334. Jelassi, M.T., Kersten, G. and Zionts, S. (1990) An introduction to group decision and negotiation support. In M.T.Jelassi, G. Kersten, and S. Zionts (Eds.) Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Making. (Springer-Verlag: Berlin). Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA). Karim, A.S., Hershauer, J.C. and Perkins, W.C. (1998) A simulation of partial information use in decision making: Implications for DSS design. Decision Sciences, 29(1), 53-85. Keen, P.G.W. and Gambino, A.J. (1983) In J.L. Bennett (Ed.) Readings in Decision Support Systems (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA). Keen, P.G.W. and Scott Morton, M.S. (1978) Decision Support Systems: An Organisational Perspective. (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA). Keen, P.G.W. (1997) Lets focus on action not information: Information is a misleading and damaging IS term. Computerworld, 31(46), November 17, 100. Kendall, K.E. (1997) The significance of information systems research on emerging technologies: seven information technologies that promise to improve managerial effectiveness. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 775-792. Kersten, G.E. (1987) On two roles decision support can play in negotiation. Information Processing and Management, 23(5), 605-614. Kersten, G.E. and Shapiro, T. (1986) Generalized approach to modelling negotiation. European Journal of Operations Research, 26(1), 142-149. Kimball, R. (1996) The Data Warehousing Toolkit. (John Wiley and Sons, New York). Kimball, R., Reeves, L., Ross, M. and Thornwaite, W. (1998) The Data Warehousing Lifecycle Toolkit. (John Wiley and Sons, New York). King, J.L. and Lyytinen, K. (2004) Reach and grasp. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 539-551. Kock, N. (1998) Can communication medium limitations foster better group outcomes? An action research study. Information and Management, 34, 295-305. Konsynski, B.R., Kottemann, J.E., Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. and Stott, J.W. (1985) PLEXSYS-84: An integrated development environment for information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1(3), 64104.
25

Kraemer, K.L. and King, J.L. (1988) Computer-based systems for cooperative work and group decision making. ACM Computing Surveys, 20(2), 115-146. Kuhn, H.W. and Tucker, A.W. (Eds.) (1950) Contributions to the Theory of Games (Annals of Mathematics Study No. 24). (Princeton University Press, Princeton). Lewis, L.F., Keleman, K.S. and Garcia, J.E. (1996) Possible barriers and challenges to the adoption of group support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 6(2), 189-194. Linton, J.D. and Johnston, D.A. (2000) A decision support system for planning remanufacturing at Nortel Networks. Interfaces, 30(6), 17-31. Lowry, P.B., Romans, D. and Curtis, A. (2004) Global journal prestige and supporting disciplines: A scientometic study of information systems journals. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(2), 29-77. Malone, T.W. and Crowston, K. (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87-119. McCosh, A.M. (2004) Keynote Address. The 2004 IFIP International Conference on Decision Support Systems. (IFIP, Prato, Italy). McCosh, A.M. and Scott Morton, M.S. (1978) Management Decision Support Systems (Macmillan, London). McGrath, J.E. and Hollingshead, A.B. (1993) Putting the group back in group support systems Some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In L.M. Jessup and J.S. Valacich (Eds.) Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. (Macmillan: New York), Chapter 4. Meador, C.L. and Ness, D.N. (1974) Decision support systems: An approach to corporate planning. Sloan Management Review, 15(2), 51-68. Meredith, R., Shanks, G., Arnott, D. and Carlsson, S (Eds.) Decision Support in a Complex and Uncertain World: Proceedings of the 2004 IFIP International Conference on Decision Support Systems. (IFIP, Prato, Italy). Mills, K. (2004) Raiding the data bank. The Australian IT Business, October 16, 1-4. Mintzberg, H. (1977) Impediments to the use of managerial information (National Association of Accountants, New York and the Society of Management Accountants of Canada, Ontario, Canada). Morris, H.D., Graham, S., Andersen, P., Moser, K.D., Carr, M., Blumstein, R., Vesset, D. and Martinez, N. (2003) Financial Impact of Business Analytics: The Key Findings. IDC White Paper, January, 23. Mylonopoulos, N.A. and Theoharakis, V. (2001) On-Site: Global perceptions of IS journals. Communications of the ACM, 44(9), 29-33.

26

Nandhakumar, J. (1996) Executive information system development: A case study of a manufacturing company. Journal of Information Technology, 11, 199-209. Nash, J. (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18(2), 155-162. Nash, J. (1953) Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica, 21(1), 128140. NCR (1998) How to Build a Data Warehouse, Data Warehousing Workshop: Module 4. [Course notes] NCR Corporation. Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R. and George, J.F. (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40-61. Nurmi, H. (2001) Resolving group choice paradoxes using probabilistic and fuzzy concepts. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10, 177-198. Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2, 1-28. Pearson, J.M. and Shim, J.P. (1994) An empirical investigation into decision support systems capabilities: A proposed taxonomy. Information and Management, 27(1), 45-57. Pervan, G.P. (1998) A review of research in group support systems: Leaders, approaches and directions. Decision Support Systems, 23(2), 149159. Shim, J.P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J.F., Power, D.J., Sharda, R. and Carlson, C. (2002) Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decision Support Systems, 33, 111-126. Silver, M.S. (1991) Systems that Support Decision Makers: Description and Analysis. (John Wiley and Sons, New York). Simon, H.A. (1977) The new science of management decision (rev. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (Original work published 1960). Sprague, R.H. Jr, and Carlson, E.D. (1982) Building Effective Decision Support Systems. (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Stanek, S, and Sroka, H. (2001) Building creativity into OSS design framework. Journal of Decision Systems, 10(3-4), 339-378. Stohr, E.A. and Konsynski, B.R. (Eds.). (1992) Information Systems and Decision Processes. (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA). Todd, P. and Benbasat, I. (1991) An experimental investigation of the impact of computer based decision aids on decision making strategies. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 87-115. Walsham, G. (1995a) Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74-81. Walsham, G. (1995b) The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376-394.
27

Walstrom, K. A., Hardgrave, B. C. and Wilson, R. L. (1995) Forums for Management Information Systems scholars. Communications of the ACM, 38(3), 93-107. Weber, R. (1987) Towards a theory of artifacts: A paradigmatic base for information systems research. Journal of Information Systems, 1, 3-20. Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii. Whitman, M.E., Hendrickson, A.R., Townsend, A.M. (1999) Research Commentary. Academic rewards for teaching, research and service: Data and discourse. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 99-109. Wixom, B.H. and Watson, H.J. (2001) An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 17-41. Wood, J.R.G. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (1993) Information technology in support of individual decision-making. Journal of Information Systems, 3, 85-101. M. Alavi, P. Carlson, A review of MIS research and disciplinary development, Journal Management Information Systems 8 (4) (1992) 4562. M. Alavi, E.A. Joachimsthaler, Revisiting DSS Implementation research: a meta-analysis of the literature and suggestions for researchers, MIS Quarterly 16 (1) (1992) 95116. L.M. Applegate, J.L. King, Rigor and relevance: careers on line, MIS Quarterly 23 (1) (1999) 1718. R. Argarwal, H.C. Lucas Jr., The information systems identity crisis: Focussing on high-visibility and high-impact research, MIS Quarterly 29 (3) (2005) 381398. D. Arnott, Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: a design science approach, Information Systems Journal 16 (1) (2006) 5578. D. Arnott, G. Pervan, A critical analysis of decision support systems research, Journal of Information Technology 20 (2) (2005) 6787. D. Arnott, G. Pervan, G. Dodson, Who pays for decision support systems research? Review, directions and issues, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 16 (2005) 356380. D. Arnott, G. Pervan, G. Dodson, A descriptive analysis of decision support systems research from 1990 to 2003, Australian Journal of Information Systems 12 (2) (2005) 178191. I. Benbasat, B. Nault, An evaluation of empirical research in managerial support systems, Decision Support Systems 6 (1990) 203226. I.Benbasat,R.W.Zmud, Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance, MIS Quarterly 23 (1) (1999) 316. I. Benbasat, R.W. Zmud, The identity crisis within the IS discipline: defining and communicating the discipline's core properties, MIS Quarterly 27 (2) (2003) 183194.
28

R. Benbuman-Filch, S.R. Hiltz, M. Turoff, A comparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. asynchronous decision making, Decision Support Systems 34 (4) (2002) 457469. S.A. Carlsson, Towards and information systems design research framework: a critical realist perspective, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology (DERIST 2006), Claremont CA, 2006. A.L.M. Cavaye, Case study research: a multi-faceted research approach for IS, Information Systems Journal 6 (1996) 227242. W.S. Chen, R. Hirschheim, A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001, Information Systems Journal 14 (2004) 197235. R.M. Cyert, J.G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, PrenticeHall, New York, 1963. R.L. Daft, R.H. Lengel, Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design, Management Science 32 (5) (1986) 554571. A. Datta, H. Thomas, The cube data model: a conceptual model and algebra for on-line analytical processing in data warehouses, Decision Support Systems 27 (3) (1999) 289301. A.R. Dennis, T.A. Carte, G.G. Kelly, Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware-supported business process reengineering, Decision Support Systems 36 (1) (2003) 3147. G. DeSanctis, R.B. Gallupe, A foundation for the study of group decision support systems, Management Science 33 (5) (1987) 589609. B.A. Devlin, P.T. Murphy, An architecture for a business and information system, IBM Systems Journal 27 (1) (1988) 6081. G. Dodson, D. Arnott, G. Pervan, The client and user in decision support systems: review and research agenda, Proceedings of CIDMDS2006 (IFIP WG 8.3 Working Conference), IFIP/ London School of Economics, 2006. K.M. Eisenhart, Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review 14 (1989) 532550. S.B. Eom, Decision support systems research: reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition, omega, International Journal of Management Science 23 (5) (1995) 511523. S.B. Eom, Mapping the intellectual structure of research in decision support systems through author cocitation analysis (19711993), Decision Support Systems 16 (4) (1996) 315338. S.B. Eom, Decision support systems research: current state and trends, Industrial Management and Data Systems 99 (5) (1999) 213220. S.B. Eom, S.M. Lee, A survey of decision support system applications (19711988), Interfaces 20 (1990) 6579.
29

S.B. Eom, S.M. Lee, Leading universities and most influential contributors in DSS research: a citation analysis, Decision Support Systems 9 (3) (1993) 237244. R.D. Galliers, Relevance and rigour in information systems research: some personal reflections on issues facing the information systems research community, in: B.C. Glasson, I.T. Hawryszkiewycz, B.A. Underwood, R. Weber (Eds.), Business Process Re-Engineering: Information Systems Opportunities and Challenges, Elsevier North-Holland,Amsterdam, 1994, pp. 93101. R.D. Galliers, M. Meadows, A discipline divided: globalization and parochialism in information systems researcht, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 11 (2003) 108117. G. Gigerenzer, R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001. J.P. Shim, M.Warkentin, J.F. Courtney, D.J. Power, R. Sharda, C. Carlsson, Past, present, and future of decision support technology, Decision Support Systems 33 (2) (2002) 111126. H. Simon, Models of Man, Wiley, New York, 1957. H.A. Simon, The New Science ofManagement Decision (rev. ed.), PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977 (Original work published 1960). I.D. Steiner, Group Process and Productivity, Academic Press, New York, 1972. E.A. Stohr, B.R. Konsynski (Eds.), Information Systems and Decision Processes, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1992. A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science 185 (September 1974) 11241131. A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science 211 (January (1981) 453458. J.G. Walls, G.R. Widmeyer, O.A. El Sawy, Building an information systems design theory for vigilant EIS, Information Systems Research 3 (1) (1992) 3659. K.A. Walstrom, B.C. Hardgrave, R.L. Wilson, Forums for Management Information Systems scholars, Communications of the ACM 38 (3) (1995) 93107. J. Webster, R.T. Watson, Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review, MIS Quarterly 26 (2) (2002) xiiixxiii. M.E. Whitman, A.R. Hendrickson, A.M. Townsend, Research commentary. Academic rewards for teaching, research and service: data and discourse, Information Systems Research 10 (2) (1999) Arnott, D.and Pervan, G. A critical analysis of Decision Support Systems research, Journal of Information Technology, 20, 2, June, 2005, pp67-87.
30

Patil, Preeti S.; Srikantha Rao; Suryakant B. Patil (2011). "Optimization of Data Warehousing System: Simplification in Reporting and Analysis". IJCA Proceedings on International Conference and workshop on Emerging Trends in Technology (ICWET) (Foundation of Computer Science) 9 (6): 33 37. Abdullah, Ahsan (2009). "Analysis of mealybug incidence on the cotton crop using ADSS-OLAP (Online Analytical Processing) tool, Volume 69, Issue 1". Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 69: 5972. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2009.07.003 Gronlund, A (2003). e-Democracy: in search for tools and methods for effective participation, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 12, 1-8. Hayen, R. L., Holmes, M. C., and Scott, J. P., (2004). Decision support systems in information technology assimilation. Issues in Information Systems V(2), 481-486 Lourenco, R., Costa J.P., (2007). Incorporating citizens views in local policy decision making, Decision Support Systems, 43, 1499-1511 Macintosh, A., Davenport, E., Maliina, A., and Whyte, A. (2001). Technology to support participatory democracy, in Ake Gronlund (ed.) Electronic Government Design, Application, and Management. Idea Group Publishiing. Matthies, M., Giupponi, C., and Ostendorf, B., (2007). Environmental decision support systems: Current issues, methods and tools. Environmental Modelling & Software 22(2), 123-127 Mullins, T. J. (2002). Issues in online public decision support system design Eastern Michigan University Thesis Wilhelm, A.G. (2000). Democracy in the digital age. Challenges to political life in cyberspace. Routledge. 20. Yaniv, I., and Milyavsky, M. (2005). Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 103(1). 104-120. Power, D.J. (1998). Web-based decision support systems, On-Line Executive Journal for Data-Intensive Decision Support 2(34)(Aug.) www.tgc.com/dsstar Shim, J.P, Warkentin, M., Courtney,J.F., Power, D.J., Sharda, R., Carlsson, C. (2002). Past, present, and future of decision support systems. Decision Support Systems, 33, 111-126 Sullivan, Michael; Medfield Town Administrator (2011). Medfield to cull the herd with archers to combat the spread of Lyme Medfield Press, Online, February 22, 2011

31

Turoff, M., Hiltz. S.R., Cho, H.K., Li, Z., and Wang, Y., (2002). Social decision support systems, presented at 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Hawaii. EXPERTCHOICE DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION FOR VEHICLE SELECTION IN A COLOMBIANSHIPYARD http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S001273532012 000300021&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt http://www.spatial.redlands.edu/sds/downloads/Rethinking%20DSS%20The %20Case%20for%20Ecosystem%20Management%20Decision%20Support. pdf

32

S-ar putea să vă placă și