Towards a situation-awareness-driven design of operational business intelligence & analytics systems

With the swamping and timeliness of data in the organizational context, the decision maker’s choice of an appropriate decision alternative in a given situation is defied. In particular, operational actors are facing the challenge to meet business-critical decisions in a short time and at high frequency. The construct of Situation Awareness (SA) has been established in cognitive psychology as a valid basis for understanding the behavior and decision making of human beings in complex and dynamic systems. SA gives decision makers the possibility to make informed, time-critical decisions and thereby improve the performance of the respective business process. This research paper leverages SA as starting point for a design science project for Operational Business Intelligence and Analytics systems and suggests a first version of design principles.

Design principles for an enterprise systems chartering method

Our research follows a design science approach to develop a method that supports the initialization of ES implementation projects – the chartering phase. This project phase is highly relevant for implementation success, but is understudied in IS research. In this paper, we derive design principles for a chartering method based on a systematic review of ES implementation literature and semi-structured expert interviews. Our analysis identifies differences in the importance of certain success factors depending on the system type. The proposed design principles are built on these factors and are linked to chartering key activities. We specifically consider system-type-specific chartering aspects for process-centric Business Intelligence & Analytics (BI&A) systems, which are an emerging class of systems at the intersection of BI&A and business process management. In summary, this paper proposes design principles for a chartering method – considering specifics of process-centric BI&A.

Towards a model for exploring the relationship between managerial decision problems and decision support opportunities

The organisational decision making environment is complex, and decision makers must deal with uncertainty and ambiguity on a continuous basis. Managing and handling decision problems and implementing a solution, requires an understanding of the complexity of the decision domain to the point where the problem and its complexity, as well as the requirements for supporting decision makers, can be described. Research in the Decision Support Systems domain has been extensive over the last thirty years with an emphasis on the development of further technology and better applications on the one hand, and on the other hand, a social approach focusing on understanding what decision making is about and how developers and users should interact. This research project considers a combined approach that endeavours to understand the thinking behind managers’ decision making, as well as their informational and decisional guidance and decision support requirements. This research utilises a cognitive framework, developed in 1985 by Humphreys and Berkeley that juxtaposes the mental processes and ideas of decision problem definition and problem solution that are developed in tandem through cognitive refinement of the problem, based on the analysis and judgement of the decision maker. The framework facilitates the separation of what is essentially a continuous process, into five distinct levels of abstraction of manager’s thinking, and suggests a structure for the underlying cognitive activities. Alter (2004) argues that decision support provides a richer basis than decision support systems, in both practice and research. The constituent literature on decision support, especially in regard to modern high profile systems, including Business Intelligence and Business analytics, can give the impression that all ‘smart’ organisations utilise decision support and data analytics capabilities for all of their key decision making activities. However this empirical investigation indicates a very different reality.