Planning for MIS

Planning for MIS:A Decision-OrientedApproach

By: John C. HendersonJohn M. West, Jr.

AbstractThe concept of using critical decisions as a basisfor defining Information needs has been sug-gested by several authors. This article reports onresults of a decision.oriented approach to plan-ning for MIS. A structured group process Is usedto generate both critical decisions and Informa-tion needs for a manufacturing firm. Results in-dicate that the decision approach is effective,particularly for organizational units that are lineoriented.

Keywords: MIS planning, Information requirementsanalysis, nominal group technique.

Categories: 2.4, 3.5

IntroductionPlanning for Management Information Sys-tems (MIS) is an Important task for organiza-tions in both the public and private sectors.The complexity, Interdependence, and longdevelopment time of many new systems,combined with increased pressures to con-trol resources allocated for formal Informa-tion processing are motivating factors. Giventhe significant resources Involved, manage-ment needs to Insure that efforts spent Indeveloping new or enhancing old systemsnot only provide short-term benefits, but areconsistent with the objectives and futureplans of the organization.

The multitude of definitions for MIS [4] havea common theme that provides a basis forapproaching the MIS planning problem. Thatis, management Information systems pro-vide the Information necessary to supportthe purposeful behavior of managers. Pur-poseful behavior Implies that managersengage In activities to achieve particulargoals. In order to carry out these activities ef-fectively, managers often seek Information.Thus, It Is not surprising that many authorssuggest that MIS planning efforts be linkeddirectly to the goals of the organization [3,14]. A significant issue is how to achieve thislinkage.

The approach taken In this study focuses oncritical decisions made In the organization. Adecision-oriented approach to MIS planningIs appealing for several reasons.

Decision making Is a critical actlvloty of managers. This approachhelps to Insure the relevance offuture systems by focusing on thiscritical activity.

A declslon approach provides afoundation for communication be-tween the analyst and the mana-ger. Managers articulate their in-formation needs In terms ofsupporting .particular decisions;analysts translate these needstatements Into potential Informa-tion systems.

MIS Quarterly l June 1979 45

Planning for

3. The need to support particulardecisions Is linked to the goalsand objectives of the organization.Relating MIS development to thesupport of particular decisionshelps to Insure that the MIS plan Isconsistent with the overall plan ofthe organization.

The decision orlentatlon for designing Infor-mation systems has been proposed byseveral authors. Ackoff [1] suggests that apreferred approach to the design of any par-ticular Information system should begin withIdentifying the decision(s) that the system Intended to support. Having Identified thedecision(s), Information needs can assessed, often with the help of formalmodels, and the MIS designed. King andCleland [9] contend that a decision.orientedapproach for Information requirementsanalysis helps the manager to understandthe potential of the system to enhance theirdecision making. Hence, the managers caneffectively participate and the system Ismuch more likely to be used. IBM’s BusinessSystems Planning [7] focuses on decisionsthrough the definition of business pro-cesses. Establishing these basic businessprocesses provides a stable base on whichto Identify needs and plan for system deve-Iopment. At a more general level, this orlen.tation Is the basis for a growing body ofliterature relating to the declslon supportsystems [8, 9]. Keen and Scott Morton [8], forexample, focus on analysis of the decisionprocess In their predeslgn stage.

This article discusses the results of a studyincorporating a decision approach In anactual planning effort by a medium sizemanufacturing firm. The discussion does notcover all aspects of the planning effort.Rather, It focuses on the efforts to define In-formation needs at the organizational level.The primary objectives of the study were todetermine If:

1. adeclslon-orlented approach to In-formation requirements analysis Ispractical at an organizational level;

2. a structured group process ls aneffective means of operational-

Izing the decision-oriented ap-proach; and

3. there are systematic differencesin the success of the approach be-tween user groups based upontheir organizational mlsslon.

One potential limitation of this approachstands out. Managers engage In other Impor.tant activities In their efforts to achieveorganizational goals, e.g., conflict resolu-tion. The MIS designer should guard againstthe possibility of focusing on decisionswhich mayresult in systems that cannot ade.quately support all or a wide range ofmanagerial activities.

A Process for DeterminingInformation NeedsThe task confronting many MIS planners isto find a common basis on which to assessorganizational Information needs. The ap-proach presented here utilizes critical deci-sions for such a basis. Information needs forthe organization are generated and assignedpriorities in the context of the particularbehavior (decision making) that they support.A decision orientation has been advocatedfor the design of individual systems [1, 11].This study Investigates the feasibility of us-ing such an approach at the organizationallevel.

Operating at an organizational level createsmany difficult challenges. Among these, thesystems analyst must generate a set of deci-sions that encompasses the Informationneeds of all the organizational subunlts. Heor she must then map a potentially largenumber of needs onto a manageable set ofcritical decisions. These critical dec!slonsserve to focus attention on associatedcritical Information needs.

Consistent with the thrust of Implementa-tlon research [9, 11], the analyst must striveto maximize Involvement of decl.~lon makers.Maximizing Involvement not only reducesrisk of omission, but Increases the likelihoodthat the final plan will be acceptable.

46 MIS Quarterly I June 1979

Planning for MIS

The methodology used In this study Isdesigned to deal with these problem areas.The approach calls for a sequence of strut-tured group processes In which:

1. critical decisions are defined,

2. critical Information necessary tosupport these decisions Is de-fined, and

3. Information Is characterized Interms of importance, frequency ofuse, and source.

The Nominal Group TechniqueTo operationallze the methodology, an adap-tation of the Nominal Group Technique(NG’I’) [5, 6] is used. This group processtechnique involves two basic phases: item orIdea generation and item or idea assignmentof priorities or validation. To generate ideas,participants are asked to respond individual-ly in writing to a general task statement orquestion. For example, an initial task tn thisstudy was to "list those decisions you makein order to fulfill your responsibilities." Thesilent generation of Ideas Insures that eachperson has a chance to respond before beinginfluenced by other group members.

The second Idea generation step Is theround-robin recording of Items. In this step,Ideas are presented one at a time by eachmember. The item is recorded on a flip chartvisible to the entire group. The recording pro-cess cycles around the group until no moreItems are generated. The round-robin pro-cess has two purposes. First, the serialnature reduces the ability for any one in-dividual to dominate the group. Further, thefact that each person must take a turn in-sures meaningful Involvement. Finally, theserial recording provides the opportunity toreact to the ideas of others, perhapsgenerating new Ideas. This process calledhitchhiking increases the creative output ofthe group [5i 6].

The third step In the Idea generation phase Isto clarify the meaning of each Item. It Is Im-portant to emphasize that this Is a c/ariflca-t/on step, not evaluation. The intent is to in-

sure mutual understanding among groupmembers.

The second phase involves priority setting orvalidation of items. Normally, this phase con-sists of a vote-discuss-vote sequence. Eachparticipant Is asked to select and rank apredetermined number of Items, usually 10to 12. Ranklngs are tabulated and fed back tothe group. This procedure provides a basisfor discussion and validation of items. Afterdiscussion Is finished, a second and finalranking is completed. Research shows thevote-discuss-vote process to be an effectivemeans of achieving group consensus [5, 6].The NGT used in this study includes only thegeneration phases (steps 1-3) and a singlevote step in the priority setting phase.Because all managers within a subunlt werenot present at any particular meeting, it wasfelt an attempt to reach a "final" priorityorder would have been dysfunctional. Steps5 and 6 were held at a later time when allmanagers within a functional area were pre-sent.

A sequence of Nominal Group Processeswas used to articulate critical decisions andinformation needs. As shown in Figure 1,two variations on the basic approach wereused. The first, labeled decision treatment(Figure 1A), began with the task generating and assigning priorities based onsingle vote decision. The Nominal Grouptask statement was "list those decisions youmake in order to fulfill your responsibilities."The ten highest priority decisions were usedas a foundation for the second group pro-cess. In this session, conducted within twodays of the initial meeting, the nominal taskwas "list those things you need to know (in-formation) in order to support this set ofcritical decisions." The third and fourthsteps required each individual to associateinformation needs with decisions andcharacterize the information needs in termsof the relative priority for that decision, theprimary source for that information, and thefrequency of use and any critical timing con-straints. The final two steps involved an in-dividual evaluation of the process and asenior systems analyst evaluation of theresults. As noted earlier, after all groups

MIS Quarterly I June 1979 47

GenerateDecisions Information

NeedsInformation Information ParticipantNeeds with Needs ValueDecisions

AssessExpe~Value

Steps 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 1A. Decision Treatment

GenerateInteractions’HCluster

InteractionsGenerate Information CharacterizeGenerate Information Needs with InformationDecisions Needs Decisions Needs

AssessParticipant

Value

AssessExpertValue

Steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure lB. Interaction Treatment

Plannlng for

within a functional area had completed theprocess, the final results, Le., critical deci-sions and associated Information needs,were distributed for comment and revision.This normally occurred within a month ofcompleting the process.

Reserach by Boland [2] Indicates Involvingthe user in a learning process increases thequality of results from an Information re-qulrements analysis. The second processused In this study, termed Interaction treat-ment as shown In Figure 1R, uses Initial in-trospection by the participants as a learningprocess. To accomplish this, the initialgroup process is used to Identify the set ofinteractions that occur as part of the normalworking day. Interaction Is defined as a pur-poseful meeting involving one or more in-dividuals. Phone conversations are includedin the interaction set. The Nominal Grouptask for the first session was "list those In-teractions in which you participate in orderto fulfill your responsibilities."

The second session required the par-ticipants to evaluate pairwise combinationsof the Interactions indicating their perceivedsimilarity. This data was analyzed usingmultidimensional scaling to cluster Interac-tions into homogeneous groups. Theseclusters were presented to the group andevaluated to insure they were appropriate.

The third and fourth sessions were NominalGroup processes In which decisions as-sociated with each cluster and Informa.tion needs for each cluster were generated.The Nominal Group tasks were "list thosedecisions which are necessary to supportthis group of Interactions" and "list thosethings you need to know (information) In or-der to support this group of Interactions," re-spectively. As shown in Figure 1B, the re-maining steps In the process were identica~to those in the decision treatment (steps 3-5in Decision Treatment are Identical to steps5-8 in the Interaction Treatment).

The decision procedure required a total ofeight hours while the Interaction procedurerequired a total of twelve hours. Each pro-cess was completed within one week. A totalof twelve analyses were run representing

seven organizational areas: accounting(ACCT), personnel (PER), finance (FIN),materials management (MM), and threedistinct business marketing groups (BM1,BM2, BM3). Because of time constraints andthe size of the organizational units, the In-teraction sequence was not conducted forBM2 and BM3. Group members wereselected by senior management based uponbelief that they had sufficient knowledgeand experlence to contribute. Memberswithin an organizational unit were randomlyassigned to a treatment process.

Results of the StudyA primary Issue addressed In this study Isthe practicality of the decision-oriented ap-proach at an organizational level. Withrespect to this issue, we studied oneorganization and, from this offer a "casestudy" as empirical evidence. However, awide variety of organizational units were In-volved. A more traditional statistical analysiscan be used to determine if the effectivenessof the approach varied across organizationalunits. Finally, the data can be used to deter.mine if generating Interactions was bene-ficial.

The decision-oriented approachThe groups generated between 30-45 deci-sions. For those high priority decisions Iden-tiffed using preliminary vote procedures, In-formation needs were generated, associatedwith decisions, and characterized. Table 1presents the priority declstons for twomarketing business groups, BM1 and BM3.Table 2 presents information needs generoated for two common decisions. These de-cisions and information needs are represen-tative of the level of detail emerging from theprocess.

The results of the Information analysis pro-vided valuable support to efforts to developstrategic MIS plans. The approach did In-troduce a common base for communication.Senior management was able to relate topriorities in terms of critical decisions. MoreImportantly, the plant~lng efforts did not

MIS Quarterly I June 1979 49

Planning for MIS

Table 1

Table 1A. Critical Decisions for BM1 Decision Group

Priority Decisions on

123456789

10

How to allocate the budgetProduction requirements by stock numberHow to increase market sharePromotional strategyWhat Is needed In management databaseLevels of sales force allocationWhich new markets to explore for future sales potentialProject prioritiesWhat demand is reasonableThe ROI on new programs, product forms, plant, and packagedesign

Table lB. Critical Decisions for BM3 Decision Group

Priority Decisions on

6789

1011

Product attributes and specificationsNew product prioritiesWhich market or submarkets to enterSales estimates for a period of time, Le., week, month, or year;decide on production needsThe prlorit!es of field account sales calls and people withinthe accountsPricing strategyMarketing Research prioritiesPromotional activities -- direct mail, etc.How to use sales and education materialTheme and objectives for sales promotionsHow to spend A, P, & G expense

50 MIS Quarterly I June 1979

Planning for MIS

Table 2. An Example of Decisions and AssociatedInformation Needs Identified In this Study

Decide on product attributes and specification

- Needs of customer- Why present formulation doesn’t meet customer needs- What decision-maker wants- Which product features can be substantial- Attributes of competitor and how we compare- What we can deliver with certain degree of regularity- What government guidelines are- What acceptable standards are- Trends

Decide production requirement by stock number

- Past sales historyo Trend in mixo Demand for projected year¯ Previous year’s production by stock number- Planned promotions- Market increase- Year’s length of feeding- Competition activity and share- Production capability (min & max)- Historic mix

focus on the "how to" technological issues,but rather on the requirements of decisionmaking. Focusing upon the decision re-vealed several insights that became a criti-cal part of the strategic MIS plan.

Perhaps the most interesting finding relatesto marketing information. Within the mar-ketlng area, there were three product groups.Th.e decisions in priority order from BM1and BM3 are shown in Table 1. Note thatnot only did the types of decisions differ,but so did priorities for common decisions.The first priority decision for BM1 wasplaced 11th by BM3. Subsequent lnvestiga-tlon traced this result to the product life cy-cle concept. BM1 markets products that areestablished in a mature market. On the otherhand, the vast proportion of BM3 respon-sibilities Involve products that are just beingIntroduced. While BM1 Is concerned with ef-

ficient allocation of resources, BM3’s pri-mary focus is on the identification of mar-ket opportunities. The kind of informationsystem required to support these twogroups are characteristically different. Thus,the strategic MIS plan could be relateddirectly to management’s future plans toenter new markets. In this case, a decision tosupport BM3 implied major new effort by theinformation systems area.

Senior analyst evalua tionThe generated Information Items also aidedthe assessment of the current level of sup-port for a particular declslon. Although theInformation items were global, they provideda framework to evaluate existing databases.Senior analysts used a 5 point scale (where0.0 Indicates information of this type was notavailable and 1.0 Indlctes It was available) to

MIS Quarterly / June 1979 51

Planning for MIS

assess the existing capability to produce, inusable form, the critical information. Senioranalysts also indicated the existing data-bases that were Involved. This provided anestimate of the Impact of supporting a par-tlcular decision in terms of creating new orintegrating existing databases.

The senior analyst In each functional areawas also asked to Indicate how useful theresults of the process were for developing In.formation needs, (see Table 4A). Theresponses, shown in Table 3, are generallyquite positive. It is interesting to notethat for the organizational units involved, theinteraction process received higher evalua-tions, with the single exception of materialsmanagement. This data, combined with newInsights such as that relating to the producecycle, indicate the ,decision-oriented ap-proach can be both practical and effective.However, as is discussed in the next section,the results also reveal some potential limita-tions.

Managerial evaluationEach manager participant was asked toevaluate the results of the process in terms

of (1) how satisfied he/she was given thetime spent, and (2) whether he/she identifiedsignificantly new Information needs. Table4B presents the actual wording of the ques-tions. A total of 52 managers engaged insome stage of the process. However, only39 managers participated in the entire pro-cess. Debriefing of those individuals not at-tending all sessions indicated that previouscommitments rather than dissatisfactionwith the process led to their being absent.Only those managers who engaged in the en-tire process are included in this evaluation.The evaluations by functional area are shownin Table 5.

The overall means indicate that the mana-gers felt only a few significant new insightswere generated and were only somewhatsatisfied (averages of .21 a.nd .31 respec-tively). However, analysis was conducted todetermine if evaluations varied significantlybetween organizational units or betweenthose involved In the two processes.

A general linear model was used to test forpotential differences. The unbalanced natureof the experimental design imparts non-

Table 3. Responses for Senior Analysis Indicating the Extentto Which Results Were Useful*

DecisionTreatment

InteractionTreatment

ACCT

.82

.49

Organization

Staff

PER

.12

.01

FIN

.50

.12

MM

.25

.5O

BM1

.75

.25

Line

BM2

.75

BM3

.75

"Response to question shown in Table 4B

52 MIS Quarterly I June 1979

Planning for MIS

Table 4A. Senior Analyst Evaluation

To what extent would you say the "need to know"information needs of the area in question?

is useful for developing

0.0 .25 .50 .75 1.0

Table 4B. Manager Evaluation

Q1 Considering the "quality" of the decisions and information items identifed byyour group to what extent do you believe your time has been well Spent?

0.0 .25 .50 .75 1.0

Q2 To what extent do you believe "significantly new" information needs were identified?New in the sense they’ve not been previously focused on. Significant in the sensethey may be important.

0.0 .25 .50 .75 1.0

MIS Quarterly I June 1979 53

Planning for MIS

Table 5. Average Responses for Managers*

StaffOrganizations

ACCT PER FIN MMSample

4 3 3 3SizeTimewell .28 ,36 ,25 .27

spent

NewInfor- .06 .42 .25 .20

mation

Sample Size 4 3 2 3Timewell .12 .14 .12 .46spent

NewInfor- .125 ,21 .25 .21

mation

Timewell x .20 x = ,24 x = .20 ~’= .37spentNew

inforo x .09 "~" = .31 x = ,25 "~" = .21marionTimewell

spent~ =.212 ~ = .31

NewInfor- x = .205 x = .20

marion

LineOrganizations

BM1

4

°38

.31

5

.24

.10

,30

.19

BM3 BM3

-- -- 17

-- -- ~’= .31

-- -- ~" -- .24

2 3 22

.35 .91 ~" = .31 "*

.31 .21

~" .35 "~" = .91

"~" = .31 "~" = .21

x = .18

*Response to questions shown tn Table 4B.**This average Includes BM2 and BM3. Excluding these unlts,’~ = .21

54 MIS Quarterly I June 1979

Planning for MIS

orthogonality to the main effects and therelatively small sample size results in a lowstatistical power. Nevertheless, the data hashigh external validity, Le., an actual planningeffort and the results offer interesting in-sights.

Because the cells for the Interaction processfor BM2 and BM3 are empty, the analysis In-volves two parts. First, a two-way analysis ofvariance excluding BM2 and BM3 was per-formed to test the effect of process, or-ganizational orientation (line versus staff),and the possible interaction between thesetwo variables. Results relating to the genera-tion of new ideas indicate no difference be-tween process of organizational orientationas shown in Table 6A. Results for satisfac-tion with the process showed a weak signifi-cant effect due to organization mission <x =

.07, Table 6B). As indicated by the means, theline-oriented units were more satisfied withthe process. There was no significant effectdue to process nor was the interaction termsignificant.

It is Interesting to note the effect of processwas not statistically significant. The trend indata supports Boland’s [2] finding concern-ing the positive impact of a learning stage inthe requirements analysis. Four out of fiveunits, with the notable exception In ma-terials management, evaluated the Inter.action process more favorably. The trendin these evaluations Is also consistent withthat of the senior analysis in Table 3.

A one-way analysis of variance involving allorganization units for the decision or directprocess was conducted. Results in Table 7A

Table 6A. Results of Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Numberof Significant New Information Items*

Source Degrees of Mean F SignificanceFreedom Square Value Level

Treatment processOrganizational missionTreatment organizationError

111

30

.060.0006.014.033

1.56.01.36

.22.99.55

Table 6B. Results of Two Way Analysis of Variance for Managerial Satisfaction*

Source Degrees of Mean F SignificanceFreedom Square Value Level

Treatment processOrganizational missionTreatment organizationError

111

30

.066

.110

.050

.033

1.963.301.54

.17

.07

.22

¯ BM2 and BM 3 are not Included in this analysis

MIS Quarterly / June 1979 55

Planning for MIS

Table 7A. Analysis of Variance for Decision Treatment for the Numberof Significantly New Items

Source Degrees of Mean F Significance,Freedom Square Value Level

Functional Area 6 .016 .57 .75

Error 15 .027

show a significant difference in managerialsatisfaction with the process (<z = .0002), butno significant difference relative to thegeneration of significant new ideas (Table7B). Examining the means indicate the inclu-sion of BM2 and BM3 serve to Increase theoverall average satisfaction and further dif.ferentlate between the average satisfactionfor staff units versus line units.

The results of the two analyses are consis-tent and may stem from several relatedsources. First, the group task was togenerate decisions made in order to meetnormal responsibilities. Discussions re-vealed that staff units in Accounting, Per-sonnel, and Finance did not perceive them-selves as having a proactive part in organi-zation decision making processes. Rather,they Indicated they were reactive Informa-tlon providers. That Is, these staff unitscould be viewed as intermediate Informationprocessors forming a human link betweenhigher levels of management and the largetransactional databases In the organization.Thus, they did not feel comfortable with thedecision orientation.

Secondly, the staff units tended to be moreheterogeneous in terms of performance

measures and goals and objectives..For ex-ample, the accounting group included bothmanagerial accountants and Individualsprimarily responsible for payroll, two essenotlally unrelated activities. In contrast, theline groups had common objectives, usual-ly relating to the production or sales of par-ticular products. The heterogeneity of thestaff units seems to diffuse creativity of thegroup process.

Finally, discussion with participants re-vealed a third Issue. Individuals that wereprimarily Involved In routine tasks were lesssatisfied with the process. For example,BM1 Is responsible for a mature product. In-dividual tasks and responsibilities are welldefined. The critical decisions shown InTable 2 tend to focus on selection ratherthan problem iclentlficatlon. In contrast, BM3is responsible for Introducing major new pro-ducts. Tasks are Ill-defined as are respon-sibllitles. Problem Identification and for-mulatlon are critical as shown In Table 2.Results showed that BM1 was much les~satisfied with the process than BM3. Giventhat the Nominal Group Technique em-phasizes creativity, this result Is not incon-sistent. The Individuals Involved In a wellstructured environment were more con°

Table 7B. Analysis of Variance for Decision Treatmentfor Managerial Satisfaction

Degrees of Mean F SignificanceSource Freedom Square Value Level

Functional Area 6 7.24 9.76 .0002

Error 15 .025

56 MIS Quarterly I June 1979

Planning for MIS

cerned with efficiency than creativity, andviewed the process as too time consuming.For BM3, the opportunity to generate groupcreativity, and add structure to their environ-ment, i.e., identify and assign priorities togenerated decisions, was viewed as verybeneficial.

A negative aspect of this approach should benoted. The process generates a tremendousamount of Information. The analyst canquickly become overloaded. This slowsdown the ability to feed back results quicklyto the participants. As can be seen from theaverage satisfaction, m. any managers weresomewhat pessimistic about the value of theresults. In such circumstances, quick feed-back becomes all the more important.

ConclusionThis study, while representing experiencesin only one organization, indicates that adecision-oriented approach is both a prac-tical and effective basis for generatingorganizational information needs. The ap-proach is more effective for line-orientedunits~ particularly if they are confronted withill-defined problems.

The Nominal Group Technique is an efficientand effective means with which to opera-tionalize the approach. The inclusion of aninitial step focusing on interactions general-ly produced marginal increases in the partici-pant’s satisfaction and the analysts’ evalua-tion. This positive trend is consistent withresearch Indicating that an explicit learningstage In the design process Is beneficial.However, while the trend is positive, thisspecific learning process involved a highcost; a 50% increase In time. The authorsfeel that such a cost may not be justified bythe marginal gains.

MIS planning efforts at the organizationallevel require substantial time commitmentsby a large number of managers. Our ex-perience Indicates that these managers arereluctant to make such a commitment. Giventhis reluctance, the need is to develop pro-cesses that both generate the information re-

quirements and help establish a basis forcontinued communication. The decision-oriented approach may offer one method tomeet this need.

References[1] Ackoff, R. L. "Management Misinformation

Systems," Management Science, Volume 14,Number 4, December 1967, pp. B147.B156.

[2] Boland, R. J., Jr. "The Process and Product oiSystem Design," Management Science, Volume 24.Number 9, May 1978, pp. 887-898.

[3] Coleman, R. J. and Riley, M. J. M/S: ManagementDimensions, Holden.Day, San Francisco, California,1973.

[4] Davis, G. B. Management Information Systems:Conceptual Foundations, Structure, and Develop.merit, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, 1974.

[5] Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., and Gustafson, D.H. Group Techniques for Program Planning, ScottForesman, Glenview, Illinois, 1975.

[6] Delbecq, A. L. and Van de Ven, A. H. "A Group Pro-ces Model for Problem Identification and ProgramPlanning," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,Volume 7, Number 4, 1971, pp. 466-491.

[7] International Business Machines, BusinessSystems Planning: Information Systems PlanningGuide, White Plains, New York, August 1975.

[8] Keen, P. G. W. and Scott Morton, M. S. DecisionSupport Systems: An Organizational Perspective,Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1978.

[9] King, W. R. and Cleland, D. I. "The Design ofManagement Information: An Information AnalysisApproach," Management Science, Volume 22,Number 3, November 1975, pp. 286-297.

[10} Lucas, H. C., Jr. Information SyStems: Concepts forManagement, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York,1978.

[11] Lucas, H. C., Jr. "An Empirical Study of aFramework for Information Systems," DecisionSciences, Volume 5, Number 1, January 1974, pp.102-113.

[12] Mason, R. and Mltroff, I. "A Program for Research inManagement Information Systems," ManagementScience, Volume 19, Number 5, January 1973, pp.475-487.

[13] Mintzberg, H. The Nature of Managerial Work,Harper and Row, New York, New York, 1973.

[14] McLean, E. R. and Soden, J. V. Strategic Planningfor MIS, John Wiley, New York, New York, 1977.

About the AuthorsJohn C. Henderson is an Assistant Professorof Management Science at The Ohio StateUniversity, Columbus. He received his B.S.and M.S. in Chemical Engineering and Ph.D.in. Operations Researqh from The University

MIS Quarterly / June 1979 57

Planning for MIS

of Texas, Austin. His primary research in-terests are In Information RequirementsAnalysis, MIS Planning, and the design ofdecision support systems.

John M. West, Jr. is a Systems Analyst forWhirlpool Corporation, Benton Harbor,

Michigan. He received a B.S. In Business Ad-ministration and an M.A. In MIS from TheOhio State University, Columbus. His currentInterests focus on the development andtesting of alternative approaches to systemsanalysis and systems planning.

58 MIS Quarterly I June 1979