I. Concepts of DSS
To date a general theory of decision support systems (DSS) has not yet been established. A number of observations and principles from a wide range of selected writings present some generally accepted notions of DSS.
A DSS is "an information processing system that is embedded within a decision making system." 1 It requires three major components: dialogue management, model management, and data management. 2 A DSS should be designed to perform some or all of the following six tasks: selection of data, aggregation of data, estimation of parameters, simulation of changes and consequences, equalization to calculate decisions satisfying certain conditions, and optimization. 3 Carlson prescribes four functions a DSS should provide: representation; operations for intelligence, design, and choice; automated memory aids; and aids to direct control over the system. 4 Furthermore, decision support systems are usually concerned with semi structured or nonstructural problems in which the solution path and relevant data are difficult and sometimes impossible to define in advance. 5 Some writers indicate the importance of considering the user's decision-making style in designing a DSS, 6 whereas others disagree. 7
Features of Decision Support System (DSS)
Brief Background of John’s order of DSS
The Decision Maker (John) requested a computerized DSS in the expectation that his increasing work burden will be minimized with the used of DSS. On the book public administration and decision aiding software (see references) the author research about DSS and joined a senior official in the government organization to conduct a preliminary analysis (pages 35 – 36).
1. Brief explanation of John’s flowchart analysis
In the figure below we will notice the product at the top as the starting process of the DSS. The decision is clearly split into two categories. The demand and the supply. The price is taking into consideration here and price comparison is used in order to calculate the profit of his sales and make a reasonable decision. In addition to this, the researcher added an additional feature which is the comparison of alternatives. John may input here the prices offered by the supplier and the system may select to which supplier he will order and acquire the best profit. Is that good? Then after the system computed the total profit it will be displayed at the screen to out the final profit result which is the greatest profit that he can acquire.
Flowchart Analysis of John’s DSS (Figure 1)
2. Collins-Williams and Lyn reported on an automated index of the decisions made in the Ontario Ministry of Labor. 8 The system enables retrieval by various parameters, but does not support the process of making a decision or controlling its quality.
On the book Public Administration and Decision Aiding Software it states that “they proposed to structure both the presentation and the storage of the organization's information in order to enable computerized support for the entire decision life cycle, without imposing unwarranted structure on the processes involved in policy analysis. Consequently, a simplified model of the decision process was formulated and served as a point of reference for the design of the DSS”.
Figure 2 The Decision Process and the DSS
This diagram is a simplified model of the decision process that was formulated and served as a reference for the design of the DSS. The model is shown in Figure 1. The major stages of the decision process are decision initiation, decision evaluation and choice, and decision implementation. The DSS consists of an information base and programs that help control the decision process.
This proposed decision diagram may also be used in the case of John’s DSS.
3.
Figure 3 The Uniform Decision Platform's Format
CONSOLIDATED DECISION PLATFORM
Problem description:
Background:
(History, evidence, and global policy
on the issue)
Alternative
solutions:
Positions of all
parties:
(Presented as participant's position
on a specific option and includes
predicted impacts)
Reasoning:
(Includes conceptual assumptions,
predictions about operational context,
constraints, criteria, precedents)
Operational
recommendations:
(Usually a subset of the alternative
solutions; includes conditions when to
review the decision)
The Uniform Decision Platform
The purpose of this consolidated decision platform format is to help Decision Maker (DM) in facilitating his final judgment by presenting the necessary information, aiding him in the assessment of the quality of the decision – making process and providing other search information. The components of this include the background or history of the issue, the alternative solutions that were considered, the recommendations and the reason of choosing the said recommendation.
4. User Scenario
The first computerized stage in DSS is the preparation of the platform for decision, performed by a decision coordinator. The platform is prepared interactively with a word processor that imposes a uniform structure (see figure 3) by providing a user by
In order to achieve maximum benefit of SSM the user is required to master the tools and know there potential. The computer output about various topics often supplements the information advanced by the various parties. The answers to the queries concerns may be concise. The operation mode is also flexible; the mode of control may be menu-guided or, alternatively, use default values for experienced users. The first screen of the query is presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Screen for Control Query
Control Over Decision Implementation (Screen I)
Decision number:
Date:
File:
Secretary code:
Controller code:
General theme:
Decision Type:
Subject:
Decision content:
Keywords:
Control Y/N:
Code name:
Until:
No. of reminders:
Status-Code:
Details:
Last reference date:
Details:
The second screen (the researcher not included the table) is about details on the control of implementation and allows input in free format. The output decision may be further processed--that is, superimposed by logical conditions resulting in a subset of the former answer, sorted, and printed in concise or detailed form. As time passed, the system will have a list of parties that are to be consulted on various topics. These lists are presented in information functionary and serve as checklists for the selection of participants in decision making process.
5. “The evaluation stage is supported indirectly by analyzing the effects of the alternative solutions in the context of previous platforms, decisions, and true outcomes that are found in the information base. This support is accomplished by what-if queries and comparative reports of expected impacts with actual results. This stage relies heavily on the completeness of the structured platform in Figure 3. “ Excerpt from the book “Public Administration and Decision aiding Software”.
6. The control stage is directly supported by the computerized control subsystem. All progress on decision implementation is recorded in a standard form, which is an up-to-date progress report. Using the report generator with predefined formats, one can request reports of late implementations. In addition, the system automatically produces letters to implementers who are behind schedule. These letters incorporate any relevant data besides the original decision to be performed, such as previous communications, new details, and updated deadlines. These letters are presented to the user via the word processor, which enables him or her to add free formatted text, underline certain items, or whatever. Furthermore, the user can obtain concise reports on the time span of implementation. Information regarding the quality of decision implementation (e.g., reports from the organization's comptroller) is also stored, and is later retrieved in connection with specific decisions. Decisions designated as valid for a limited time or under specific conditions are referenced when their validity expires. This is done to alert the user to take appropriate action. “Excerpt from the book “Public Administration and Decision aiding Software”.
7. Extensions
Two broad extensions are considered, further automating the control of reasoning and supporting group decision making. With current technology, a higher level of automation in the support of reasoning would impose even more structure on decision formulation. 9 A higher level of structure seems highly infeasible as does the use of plausibility values. However, some intermediate solutions proposed by Vari and associates may produce acceptable systems in an HLPM environment. 10
The second extension has to do with supporting the simultaneous interaction between the staff members. Currently, prototypes of group decision support systems provide technical features that facilitate a better exchange of information between the group members (Level I in the taxonomy of DeSantics and Gallupe). 11 Higher levels of support can, for instance, include structured techniques that avoid group biases (see review above) and techniques that combine the opinions and preferences of the group members. These advance decision aids still have conceptual problems, 12 as well as implementation difficulties. 13“Excerpt from the book “Public Administration and Decision aiding Software”.
II. How would you characterize John as a Decision Maker? Explain in a paragraph.
Based on the information that was presented, we can state that John is really capable of handling business at managerial level. He is doing that type of job for more than a year and the business has been doing well. Given that John is systematic in the entire task that he managed, it follows that he has a patterned and well organize system that he followed in his daily task. But now, he wants a “Decision Support System” so that he can focus in other aspects of his shop especially in the artistic aspect. So John as a decision maker withdraws on the commitment of managing market research for software stores.
In this situation we may state the characteristics of a good decision maker and compare John to that model. A good decision maker analyzes a particular problem situation and look for all possible alternative solutions before arriving to a particular decision. In the problem, it is impliedly state that John analyzes that situation and predict that the shop will become successful if he focused on artistic aspects. Another interesting characteristic of a DM is that he determine which values are most important, and see that they are maximized without sacrificing or minimizing other positive values and move forward to an intelligent decision. In this case, John weigh which of the 2 jobs will he devote his time and finds out that since he already know how to operates on sales and managerial level, he tried to work on design or artistic aspects. Is that good? But without sacrificing the prior, the best solution that he plans is to order DSS so that he can still manage that part of the work with minimal supervision.
But there are many possible impacts that may arise in the DSS. The first favorable outcome is that DSS has many benefits like improving decision making quality and consistency; it can also provide information to the decision maker (DM); you may also save money because instead of hiring an employee on the shop, the DSS will take care of the job. Conversely, there are also negative effects, especially when the DM (John) becomes dependent to the system. He will become less confident in that aspect because as time passed he will forget how the system operates.
References:
1. R. H. Bonczek C. W. Holsapple, and A. B. Whinston, Foundations of a Decision Support System (New York: Academic Press, 1981).
2. H. J. Einhorn and R. M. Hogarth, "Confidence in Judgement: Persistence of the Illusion of Validity," Psychological Review395-416 (1985).
3. R. W. Blanning, "The Foundations of a Decision Support System," 2 Information and Management87-93 (1979).
4. E. D. Carlson, "An Approach for Designing Decision Support Systems," in J. L. Bennett , ed., Building Decision Support Systems ( Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1983).
5. P. G.W. Keen and M. S. Scott Morton, Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978).
6. See M. Bariff and E. J. Lusk, "Cognitive and Personality Tests for the MIS," 23 Management Science820-829 (1977); I. Banbasat, "Cognitive Style Considerations in DSS Design," 8 Data Base37-38 (Winter 1979); and R. W. Zmud, "Individual Differences and MIS Success: A Review of Empirical Literature," 25 Management Science 966-979 (1979).
7. See G. Huber, "Cognitive Style as a Basis for MIS/DSS: Much Ado About Nothing," 29 Management Science567-579 (1979); and C. B. Stabell, "A DecisionOriented Approach to Building DSS," in Bennett, Building Decision Support Systems
8. J. Collins-Williams and D. Lyn, "Automated Indexing of the Decisions of Administrative Boards and Tribunals: The Ontario Labour Relations Board, Employment Standards Branch and Human Rights Commission," 14 Government Publications Review 525-539 (1987).
9. M. S. Fox "Knowledge Representation for Decision Support," in L. B. Methlie and R. H. Sprague, eds., Knowledge Representation for Decision Support Systems ( New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1985).
10. Vari, Vecsenyi, and Paprika, "Supporting Problem Structuring in High Level Decisions."
11. Federowicz, Transactions of the Sixth International DSS-86 Conference.
12. B. Brehmer and R. Hagafors, "Use of Experts in Complex Decision Making: A Paradigm for the Study of Staff Work," 38 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes181-195 ( 1986).
13. Henderson and Schilling, "Design and Implementation of Decision Support Systems in the Public Sector."
14 Nagel, Stuart “Public administration and Decision Aiding Software: Improving procedure and substance” 1990
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment