Management's Role in the Approval and Administration of ......all noteworthy examples (Scott Morton [19], Hamilton and Moses [7], and Little [14]). Important conceptual work soon followed

Management’s Role in DSS

Management’s Rolein the Approval andAdministration ofDecision SupportSystems

By: Jack T, HogueHugh J. Watson

A bstractDecision support systems (DSS) have become increasingly important type of computer-based informa-tion system. However, there has been limited researchon management’s role, in DSS approval and administra-tion. Because of this, the authors recently investigatedeighteen decision support systems and report thefindings here. The specific areas explored includemotivations for developing a DSS, methods forevaluating the desirability of creating a DSS, planningand organizing for building, a DSS, techniques forreviewing and controlling DSS projects, and managing aDSS as an organizational entity.

Keywords:Decision support systems (DSS), systemplanning and management, administrativepolicies, operating procedures

ACM Categories: H.4.2, K.6.1

IntroductionThe last fifteen years have witnessed tremendousdecision support systems (DSS) advances. Theworth of the DSS concept has been shown by thenumber of decision support systems which havebeen successfully developed and used byorganizations. Vendors have flocked to themarketplace with hardware and software pro-ducts which are useful in building and operatingdecision support systems. There is now an annualsummer conference dedicated to decision sup-port systems.

There have also been significant advances in DSSresearch. The earliest research efforts focusedon creating systems which we now call DSS. Amarketing and production planning system, acorporate planning system, and a system forsupporting brand marketing decision making areall noteworthy examples (Scott Morton [19],Hamilton and Moses [7], and Little [14]).Important conceptual work soon followed whichaided in clarifying the goals and characteristics ofDSS (Scott Morton [19], Sprague and Watson[22, 23], and Keen and Scott Morton [11]).Other authors helped identify the uniquedevelopmental methodology required by DSS(Gerrity [4] and Ness [18]). Currently, DSSresearch has progressed to the point wherelaboratory experiments are being conducted[13]. There are now enough decision supportsystems in operation that large scale field studiesare possible [28].

A relatively unexplored DSS area ismanagement’s role in their approval andadministration. For example, what are the motiva-tions for creating a DSS? How is a proposed DSSproject evaluated? How do firms plan andorganize for building a DSS? What techniques areused to review and control DSS projects? How isa DSS managed as an organizational entity?These topics are increasing in importance as agrowing number of organizations are consideringbuilding decision support systems.

Answers to questions such as these have beensuggested in part by insightful observers of theDSS scene and by individuals with first-handexperience in building decision support systems.However, to the authors’ knowledge, no largescale field study research has been conducted onthe approval and administration of DSS. Because

MIS Quarterly~June 1983 15


of this, the authors recently completed a detailedinvestigation of eighteen decision supportsystems and report here how they wereapproved and are administered. It is believed thatthis information should be of interest and value toother DSS researchers and to practitioners whocurrently have or are considering the creation ofdecision support systems.

Previous ResearchThe general topic of DSS approval and administra-tion has received limited attention in the literature.Certain areas of the general topic have beenexplored, but most discussions have beenspeculative in nature.

While many authors explain the initial desire toacquire a DSS as being motivated by a desire toimprove decision making effectivenss [1, 6, 9,14, 15, 18, 19], only a few have speculatedabout or determined specific factors leading tothe development of a DSS. Some suggest thehard times and unpredictability of the 1970s asfactors (Wagner [26] and Naylor [17]). Ginzberg[3] has posed the DSS as a mechanism forintroducing change into organizations which are ina state of equilibrium. By far, the most commonlysuggested factor is the active support of thoseindividuals who will benefit from the existence ofthe DSS. It is frequently suggested that theeventual user of the DSS (primarily upper-levelmanagement) will initiate its consideration(Sprague [20], Keen and Wagner [12], ScottMorton [19], and McCosh [16]). In addition toinitiating the idea of creating a DSS, the ultimateuser often becomes an "organizational champion"for it, and uses influence to gain needed organiza-tional acceptance (Hayes and Nolan [8] andSprague and Olson [21 ]).

Considerable attention in the literature has beengiven to the method of evaluating the financialattractiveness of a DSS. It is in this area thatperhaps the greatest consensus exists. Mostagree for the need to evaluate the financialdesirability of the DSS, despite the difficulty ofmeasuring the often intangible benefits ofimproved decision making (Keen [11], McCoshand Scott Morton [16], Wagner [26], and Green[5]). Alter [1] in a study of 56 decision support

systems found that monetary assessments wereperformed infrequently. In several other studiesof DSS development, it was found that only rarelywas a formal cost benefit analysis performed, andseldom was any attempt made to quantifybenefits (Keen [10] and Wagner [25, 27]). Keen[10] has suggested an approach for evaluatingthe financial attractiveness of a DSS which is con-sistent with the above observations. He calls thisapproach "value analysis." It suggests that formalcost benefit calculations are not necessary if theanticipated benefits exceed the expected costsand the expected costs are relatively low.

The most comprehensive discussion of planningand organizing for DSS is provided by Spragueand Carlson [24]. They identify threedevelopmental approaches: the quick-hit, thestaged development approach, and the completeDSS. They suggest that while any of the threeapproaches might be appropriate, the stageddevelopment approach is recommended in mostcircumstances. With this approach, DSS hard-ware and software are obtained with a specificDSS in mind and with plans to use the hardwareand software with additional, specific applicationsat a later date. They also discuss the organiza-tional location of contributors to the creation of aDSS. The group or individuals can come fromseveral places: a special purpose team ofsystems analysts, a reoriented tools group, anMS/OR group, a planning department, or a staffanalysis group from a functional area. Wagner[27] in a study of Interactive Financial PlanningSystem (IFPS) users found that most of the deci-sion support systems were built by planninganalysts. Locandier, Napier, and Scamell [15]state that computer, based information system(CBIS) professionals are required during thedevelopment of a DSS. By contrast, Blumenthal[2] states that the DSS and CBIS functions"simply do not mix," in terms of resources andorganizational location.

One of the ongoing activities which all managersmust perform is the review and evaluation of pro-jects under their control. The development of aDSS is typically begun and directed toward thespecific needs of a manager or select group ofmanagers. Consequently, managers must play anactive role in controlling DSS projects. Since thedevelopment of a DSS requires frequent changeand restructuring, researchers agree that

16 MIS Quarterly~June 1983


management review of the DSS should be heavythroughout the development process (Locandier,Napier, and Scamell [15], Keen and Wagner [12],and Scott Morton [19]). The suggestion ofspecific review techniques such as checkpointsor milestones has been made by only a fewresearchers (Sprague [20] and Keen [10]).

Perhaps the most neglected aspect of DSSresearch is managing DSS as an organizationalentity. The greatest attention had been devotedto the management of a specific DSS [10, 16,19, 20, 24], as opposed to the administration ofall DSS activities.

Description of the Study

Study purposeThe authors conducted an intensive investigationof eighteen decision support systems in order tosupport or refute existing speculations as to therole of management in DSS approval and adminis-tration. The authors sought to add to existingknowledge and to fill in some of the gaps whichcurrently exist in the DSS literature.

Study method

The research methodology selected for this studywas that of the field study with in-person inter-views. This approach was taken for severalreasons. First, the DSS concept is relatively newand some of the terminology is not well definedand understood. Therefore, it was expected thatit would be necessary to conduct personal inter-views in order to explain possibly confusing termsor concepts. Second, much indepth informationwas required in several poorly structured areas.Many questions involved issues requiring open-ended responses not conducive to structuredquestionnaires. Further, this study was viewed asbeing exploratory in several of the areas of DSSapproval and administration, and field studies areoften appropriate when dealing with exploratoryresearch.

Sample selection

Since the personal interview was selected as themethod for acquiring data, a sampling locationwas desired which afforded a high probability oflocating organizations with a DSS. The cost ofconducting personal interviews across thecountry was prohibitive and thus necessitatedselecting a limited geographic area. The Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, metropolitan area wasselected as an area containing a large, diversebusiness community including many state,regional, national, and international businessheadquarters.

The selection of companies was performed byexamining large, policy-level (headquarters) cor-porations where upper-level decision makingwould likely be concentrated. The companiescontacted were located from published lists ofDallas-Fort Worth based corporations and fromreferrals of colleagues and other companyofficials.

The companies were selected based upontelephone interviews with the highest rankingcompany official likely to be knowledgeable as tothe existence of a DSS in the organization (e.g.,Vice President for Information Services). Indeciding whether or not an organization had aDSS, the criteria presented below were used.The criteria correspond closely with thecharacteristics of a DSS which are typically given[10, 19]. Every firm included in the study had aDSS which met the essential criteria and most ofthe decision support systems also satisfied all ofthe additional criteria.

Essential Criteria for a DSS

¯ Supports but does not replace decisionmaking.

¯ Directed toward semistructured and/orunstructured decision making tasks.

¯ Data and models organized around thedecision(s).

¯ Easy to use software interface.

Additional Criteria for a DSS

¯ Interactive processing.

MIS Quarterly/June 1983 17


¯ DSS use and control is determined bythe user.

¯ Flexible and adaptable to changes inthe environment and decision maker’sstyle.

¯ Quick ad hoc DSS building capability.

A total of eighteen companies were selected forinclusion in the study from a total of 109 initialcontacts. Of these eighteen companies, one wasused initially to pretest the interview process andwas, after repeat interviews, included in the totalsample. Table 1 lists each of the eighteen corn-

panies and the purpose or use of the DSS in theirorganization.

Conduct of the interview

For each of the eighteen companies in the sam-ple, a two to three hour interview was conductedwith the highest ranking individual in the companyhaving a significant level of interaction with theDSS. In all cases the interviewee was either ahigh ranking decision maker (president or vicepresident) or a high ranking assistant to the deci-sion maker (senior financial analyst or middlemanager).

Table 1. Sample Companies and DSS Use

Company

American Airlines

American Petrofina

Central and Southwest Corporation

Champlin Petroleum

First United Bankcorporation

Frito-Lay, Inc.

General Dynamics

Gifford-Hill and Company

Lear Petroleum

Mercantile Texas Corporation

Nationat Gypsum

Southern Railway

Texas-New Mexico Power

Texas Oil and Gas Corporation

Texas Utilities Company

The LTV Corporation

The Western Company

Zale Corporation

DSS Use

Price and Route Selection

Corporate Planning and Forecasting



Investment Evaluation

Price, Advertising, and Promotion Selection

Price Evaluation


Evaluation of Potential Drilling Sites



Train Dispatching and Routing


Evaluation of Potential Drilling Sites


Terms of Sale of Downtown Office Tower


Evaluation of Potential Store Sites



In order to facilitate an open but controlled inter-view process, a questionnaire was followed toprovide structure (the questionnaire is available in[9]). Some responses were recorded during theinterview for categorical or scaled questions, butmost of the responses were recorded in thequestionnaire after the interview was completedusing tape recordings made during the interview.This approach allowed for an open, fluid discus-sion with the respondent and permitted the inter-viewers to probe into many areas of interest.

Documentation of the interviews

Findings from the interviews were documented intwo basic formats: individual company minicasestudies and summary tables across companies.The case studies allowed the researchers anopportunity to capture the true flavor and com-plete picture of an individual DSS. The summarytables provided a basis of comparison across allof the eighteen decision support systemsexamined. The summary tables serve as the basisfor generalizations discussed here.

Study FindingsMotivations for DSS development

The company official was asked what factor(s)motivated the development of the DSS. The

responses are categorized in Table 2. The mostfrequently cited factor was a need for accurateinformation. This factor was mentioned in 67 per-cent of the cases.

There was no specific evidence to support thecontention of Wagner and Naylor that DSSdevelopment grew out of the hard times of the1970s [26, 17], or Ginzberg’s notion of introduc-ing change in organizations at equilibrium [3].However, these might be the motivations of theorganizational champion who was mentioned in44 percent of the cases as being a factor in thedevelopment of the DSS. The data tend to sup-port the observations of Hayes, Nolan, Sprague,Olson and others about the importance of anorganizational champion [8, 21]. In another 22percent of the cases, development of the DSSwas mandated by management. The two takentogether reveal that 66 percent of the companieshad management advocating or requiring thedevelopment of the DSS.

Substantiation was provided for statements bySprague, Keen, Wagner, Scott Morton, andothers regarding who advocates the creationof a DSS [20, 12]. As suggested by theseresearchers, the eventual users of the DSS arethose who most actively support its develop-ment. This study found that the individualspushing for the creation of the DSS were the end

Table 2. Motivating Factor(s) Which Ledto the Development of the DSS

Factor

Accurate Information

Organizational Champion

New Information

Managerial Mandate

Timely Information

Cost Reduction

Percentage of Companies

67%

44

33

22

17

6



users in 94 percent of the decision supportsystems investigated.

Methods of evaluatingDSS desirability

The decision to develop a DSS appears to bebased primarily on an intuitive feeling about theimpact the DSS will have on decision making. AsTable 3 shows, only 23 percent of the companiesspecifically considered both the costs andbenefits of the DSS. In the other 77 percent,management relied totally upon intuition or valueanalysis.

The company official was asked what specificcosts and benefits were considered whenevaluating the DSS. Tables 4 and 5 categorizethe responses and reveal that in fifty percent ofthe companies none of the costs were explicitlyconsidered and that in only seventeen percent ofthe companies were the benefits quantified.These benefits were in the form of cost savings.An additional six percent of the companiesmeasured costs, but did not consider these asbenefits to be derived. The additional six percentin benefits came from an intuitive belief in thesystem by management.

These findings support all major statements in theliterature. Keen found only thirteen percent of hissample had performed any cost benefit analysisas compared with 23 percent in this study. Fur-ther, Keen found only thirty percent had "hard"measures of benefits as compared with onlyseventeen percent in this study. Keen advocatesvalue analysis for the evaluation of a DSS [10].This study found this approach used in 33 per-cent of the cases investigated.

Another aspect of the evaluation of a DSS is toinvestigate its impact after it has been in use for aperiod of time. The literature provides no insightor suggestions as to the extent that this type ofevaluation is performed in actual practice. Thesurvey results leave little room for speculation inthis area. Ninety-four percent of companiessurveyed made no formal attempt to measure thefinancial impact of the DSS after it becameoperational.

Planning and organizing for DSS

Planning for the development of decision supportsystems is more an ad hoc than an integratedprocess. One third of the firms in the surveyemployed a quick-hit approach with their firstDSS. The DSS was developed with little thoughtgiven to the development of additional decisionsupport systems. Another one third of the com-panies followed an approach which lies betweena quick-hit and a staged developmental approach.Typical of this case is a firm which obtains a DSSgenerator for a particular application, but with abelief that the DSS generator will be used foradditional DSS applications. The final one third ofthe organizations used a staged developmentalapproach. Here, the effort expended in creatingthe first system is reused in developing thesecond. No firms were found to be using thecomplete DSS approach. With this approach,before building any specific DSS, a complete setof DSS tools and generators is developed orobtained, and organizational issues relating toDSS are decided. The findings support theexistence of the ad hoc end of Sprague andCarlson’s continuum of planning approaches[24]. The findings also suggest the importance ofa position which falls between the quick-hit andstaged developmental approaches.

Several interesting findings emerged from ques-tions regarding the organizational location of per-sonnel who contribute to the creation of a DSS.One clear finding is the tendency of decision sup-port systems to be developed by user groupsrather than by CBIS or OR/MS personnel. As canbe seen in Table 6, in 83 percent of the firmsstudied, planning departments or staff analysisgroups in functional areas were responsible forthe creation of the DSS. These findings are similarto those reported by Wagner [27].

Even though user groups are primarily respon-sible for DSS development, other organizationalgroups are important contributors of resources. Inparticular, the CBIS group is frequently thesource of hardware, systems software, and com-munications capabilities. This pattern is seen inTable 7. The table also points out once again theimportant role of the DSS user department, thistime broken down into responsibilities for datainput, logical software, and developmentalpersonnel. These findings support Locandier,

21) MIS Quarterly~June 1983


Table 3. Methods of Evaluating the DSS Expenditure

Evaluation Method Percentage of Companies

Intuition 44%

Value Analysis 33

Costs and "Hard" Benefits 17

Costs and Intuitive Benefits 6

100%

Table 4. Components Considered in the Evaluation of DSS Costs

Cost Component Percentage of Companies

None 50%

Hardware and Software 21

Software Only 17

Hardware Only 6

All-Vendor Supplied 6

100%

Table 5. Components Considered in the Evaluation of DSS Benefits

Benefits

Intuitive Feelings aboutImproved Decision Making

None

Cost Savings

Percentage of Companies

44%

39

17

100%

MIS Quarterly/June 1983 21


Table 6. The Origin of the DSS Developmental Group

Source Percentage

A Special Purpose Team of Applications Systems Analysts 0%

A Reoriented Tools Group 11

A Management Sciences or Operations Research Group 6

A Planning Department 38

A Staff Analysis Group from One of the Functional Areas 45

100%

Table 7. The Source of ResourcesUtilized to Support the DSS

Resources

Hardware

SystemsSoftware

CommunicationsCapabilities

Data Input

LogicalSoftware

DevelopmentalPersonnel

Percentage of Companies Where Resources Are Supplied by*

DSS User Operations NoneDepartment Research Vendor CBIS Utilized

17% 6 11 67 0

22 6 11 61 0

6 6 11 67 11

100 0 0 6 0

100 0 0 11 0

94 6 22 39 0

* Percentages may not total 100% across the rows because of rounding and multiple sources of resources,



Napier, and Scamell’s belief that CBIS profes-sionals are typically required during the develop-ment of a DSS [15]. They also support Spragueand Carlson’s statement that DSS developmentalpersonnel may be decentralized while the DSStools and generators are centralized [24].

Review and controlof DSS development

This portion of the study was concerned with anissue basic to the development of a DSS -- themanagement of the developmental process. Twomethods of exercising control over thedevelopmental process were explored. The firstwas the use of milestones or checkpoints forperiodic review. The second was the use ofdocumentation. Sprague and Keen haveadvocated the use of both [20, 10]; however,Keen in a study of the use of DSS generatorsfound little use of either.

In this study, milestones were found to be usedfrequently by companies in managing the

developmental process. Some form of review atone or more points was conducted in 83 percentof the cases. Management review was found in72 percent, and written management review~exi_sted in 61 percent of the companies. Pointswhich appear to regularly receive review are theinitial idea, design specifications, and the com-pleted system or completed components of thesystem. Table 8 summarizes these findings.

In addition to the use of specific review pointsduring the developmental process, it should bepointed out that an additional, ongoing form ofreview was present in the form of direct manage-ment involvement during DSS development. In 83percent of the cases, middle and/or uppermanagement was directly involved in developingthe DSS. This serves as an additional source ofcontrol over DSS development.

As for the use of documentation, this study’sfindings differ from Keen’s [10]. In 89 percent ofthe decision support systems studied there wassome type of documentation. The most commonsource of documentation was from the DSS user.

Table 8. Points in DSS Development Receiving Review

Pe~’cent of Companies Conducting

Management WrittenMilestone Review Review Management Review

None 17% 28 39

Initial Idea 39 39 39

Design 33 28 22Specifications

Testing 11 0 0

Completed System 44 39 28

Specific 22 17 11Components

Each Cycle/ 11 11 0Iteration

Weekly 6 6 0

Bi-Monthly 6 0 0



This is not a surprising finding given by typicallyheavy involvement of the user in DSS develop-ment. It was found that documentation for theDSS often begins with the start of a project (forexample, selecting a DSS generator) and carriesthrough to its completion. Both hard copy andcomputer-stored documentation are common.

Managing the DSS asan organizational entity

The management of a DSS as an organizationalentity has received relatively little attention in theliterature. This survey indicates several specifictendencies in this area. First, administration iscontrolled almost exclusively by middle and/orupper management. In only eleven percent of thecompanies is lower management involved in DSSadministration, and then, only in conjunction withmiddle management. The organizational scope ofthe unit administering the DSS appears to belimited to the departmental level. Only 28 percentof companies in the sample had administrativerepresentation from more than one department. Inall departmentally administered decision supportsystems, the department administering the DSSwas also the user of the DSS.

While administration is primarily dealt with withinthe user department, most companies (62 per-cent) have more than one person involved.Finally, formalized procedures for the creationand use of decision support systems do notgenerally exist. Seventy-three percent of com-panies was found to have no formalized pro-cedures. In many cases this may be attributed tothe relative infancy of decision support systems inthe organization.

Finally a comparison of DSS policy with generalorganizational policy was made. In the majority ofcases (61 percent), there were no specific dif-ferences. Rather, DSS policies were found to bean extension of existing organizational policies. Inthe other 39 percent of the cases, DSS policieswere either absent, less formalized, or controlledby the user department rather than throughorganization-wide committees.

In none of the cases were there any specificpolicies for the extension of use of the DSS toothers in the company or for the development of

new decision support systems. There wereseveral means of informally encouraging thedevelopment or use of decision support systems,but no formalization has taken place. Theliterature does not address this issue.

SummaryEighteen decision support systems wereinvestigated to determine how they wereapproved and how they are administered. Thefollowing statements summarize the study’sfindings.

The development of a DSS was usually precededby a realization of its potential value in decisionmaking. This value may result from the impact ofmore accurate, timely, and/or new information. Anorganizational champion was often an importantfactor in the decision to create a DSS. Typically,this person is a middle or upper level manager inthe department where the DSS will be used. "

The evaluation of the desirability of creating aDSS was found to be based largely upon intuition.This was due primarily to the difficulty of quantify-ing the potential benefits. In general, a DSS wascreated if the potential benefits exceed expectedcosts of an acceptable, low level.

In planning for DSS, attention was focused onbuilding the current DSS, but with some thoughtgiven to the creation of future decision supportsystems. In nearly all cases, the ultimate userswere primarily responsible for the development ofthe DSS. Frequently, however, the CBIS groupprovides hardware, systems software, and com-munications support.

Management control of DSS projects wasaccomplished through involvement, review, anddocumentation. Multiple review points wereestablished for the decision makers’ approval.Documentation for the DSS was created as theproject goes through the entire developmentalprocess. Much of this documentation wasprovided by the DSS users. Both hard copy andcomputer-stored documentation can be used.

Management of the DSS was found to be primarilyat the departmental level, because utilization ofthe DSS tends to be limited to individuals within a



single department. Upper and/or middle manage-ment from the departmental unit for which theDSS is created has accepted the responsibility fordeveloping guidelines for access, use, andevaluation of the DSS. Assuming the DSS remainslimited to the departmental level, informal policiesare considered satisfactory.

References

[1] Alter, S.L. A Study of Computer AidedDecision Making in Organizations,unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.,Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975.

[2] Blumenthal, M. "Rift Cited Between MIS,Decision Support," Computerworld,February 9, 1981, p. 28.

[3] Ginzberg, M.J. "Redesign of ManagerialTasks: A Requisite for Successful DecisionSupport Systems," MIS Quarterly,Volume 2, Number 1, March 1978,pp. 39-52.

[4] Gerrity, T.P., Jr. "The Design ofMan-Machine Systems: An Application toPortfolio Management," Sloan Manage-ment Review, Volume 12, Number 2,Winter 1971, pp. 59-75.

[5] Greer, W.R. "Value Added Criterion forDecision Support System Development,"Journal of Systems Management,Volume 31, May 1980, pp. 15-19.

[6] Hackathorn, R.D. and Keen, P.G.W."Organizational Strategies for PersonalComputing in Decision Support Systems,"MIS Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3,September 1981, pp. 21-26.

[7] Hamilton, W.F. and Moses, M.A. "AComputer-Based Corporate PlanningSystem," Management Science,Volume 21, Number 2, October 1974,pp. 1 48-159.

[8] Hayes, R.H. and Nolan, R.L "What Kind ofCorporate Modeling Functions Best,"Harvard Business Review, Volume 52,Number 3, May 1974, pp. 102-112.

[9] Hogue, J.T. A Field Study of the Role ofManagement in Decision Support Systems,unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Univer-sity of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 1982.

[10] Keen, P.G.W. "Value Analysis: JustifyingDecision Support Systems," MIS Quarterly,

Volume 5, Number 1, March 1981, pp. 1-16.[11] Keen, P.G.W. and Scott Morton, M.S.

Decision Support Systems: An Organiza-tional Perspective, Addison-Wesley,Reading, Massachusetts, 1978.

[12] Keen, P.G.W. and Wagner, G.R. "DSS: AnExecutive Mind-Support System," Data-mation, Volume 25, November 1979,pp. 117-122.

[13] King, W.R. and Rodriguez, J.l. "Par-ticipative Design of Strategic DecisionSupport Systems: An Empirical Assess-ment," Management Science, Volume 27,Number 6, June 1981, pp. 717-726.

[14] Little, J.D.C. "BRANDAID," OperationsResearch, Volume 23, Number 4,May 1975, pp. 628-673.

[15] Locander, W.B., Napier, A., and Scamell,R. "A Team Approach to Managing theDevelopment of a Decision SupportSystem," MIS Quarterly, Volume 3,Number 1, March 1979, pp. 53-63.

[16] McCosh, A. and Scott Morton, M.S.Management Decision Support Systems,Wiley, New York, New York, 1978.

[17] Naylor, T.S. "Why Corporate PlanningModels," Interfaces, Volume 8, Number 1,Part 1, November 1977.

[18] Ness, D.N. "Decision Support Systems:Theories of Design," Paper presented atthe Wharton Office of Naval Research Con-ference on Decision Support Systems,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, November 4-7, 1975.

[19] Scott Morton, M.S. Management DecisionSystems: Computer Based Support forDecision Making, Graduate School ofBusiness, Cambridge, Massachusetts,1971.

[20] Sprague, R.H., Jr. "A Framework for theDevelopment of Decision SupportSystems," MIS Quarterly, Volume 4,Number 4, December 1980, pp. 1-26.

[21] Sprague, R.H., Jr. and Olson, R.L. "TheFinancial Planning System at LouisianaNational Bank," MIS Quarterly, Volume 3,Number 3, September 1979, pp. 35-46.

[22] Sprague, R.H., Jr. and Watson, H.J. "MISConcepts: Part I," Journal of SystemsManagement, Volume 26, January 1975,pp. 34-37.

[23] Sprague, R.H., Jr. and Watson, H.J. "MIS

MIS Quarter/y/June 1983 25


Concepts: Part I1," Journal of SystemsManagement, Volume 26, February 1975,pp. 35-40.

[24] Sprague, R.H., Jr. and Carlson, E.D.Building Effective Decision SupportSystems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey, 1982.

[25] Wagner, G.R. "Enhancing Creativity inStrategic Planning Through ComputerSystems," Managerial Planning,Volume 27, July 1979, pp. 10-17.

[26] Wagner, G.R. "Optimizing Decision Sup-port Systems," Datamation, Volume 26,May 1980, pp. 209-214.

[27] Wagner, G.R. "Decision Support Systems:The Real Substance," Interfaces,Volume 11, Number 2, April 1981,pp. 77-86.

[28] Welsch, G.M. Successful Implementationof Decision Support Systems: Pre-Installation Factors, ServiceCharacteristics, and the Role of the Infor-mation Transfer Specialist, unpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Northwestern Univer-sity, Evanston, Illinois, 1980.

About the Authors

Br. ,lack ~’. Hogue is an Assistant Professor ofMIS in the Department of Systems Analysis at theUniversity of Texas at Arlington. His teaching andresearch interests include a variety of topics withregard to the development and management ofMIS. Specific emphasis is on the integration ofquantitative analysis and computer technology,and its application to upper level decision making.Dr. Hogue has professional affiliations with theSociety for Information Management, Academy ofManagement, and American Institute for DecisionSciences.

Hugh J. Watson is Professor of Management andDirector of MIS Programs at the University ofGeorgia. He has written, lectured, and consultedon DSS since the early 1970s when DSS firstappeared on the CBIS scene. Hugh is the authorof several books, including a co-author of theforthcoming book, Computer Based InformationSystems: A Management Approach, withMcmillan. He has served as an officer of severalprofessional societies and has been on theeditorial board of several journals.


Documents

Management's Role in the Approval and Administration of ......all noteworthy examples (Scott Morton [19], Hamilton and Moses [7], and Little [14]). Important conceptual work soon followed