A Computational Model of Coordination for the Design of Organizational Decision Support Systems

• Author: Michael Hine,Lorien A. Anderson,K. Michael Goul,Gary V. Howorka
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1099-1174.1995.tb00079.x
• Date: 01 March 1995
• Published date: 01 March 1995

AComputational Model

of

Coordination for the

Design

of

Organizational

Decision Support Systems

Gary

V.

Howorka

University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

Lorien A. Anderson and K. Michael Goul

Arizona State University, USA

Michael Hine

Virginia eommenwealth University, USA

ABSTRACT

The Information Technology (IT) for realizing Organizational Decision Support

Systems (ODSS) is in a nascent stage of development. This is particularly true

in

the

area of coordination, which is a critical element of ODSS,

and

which

distinguishes ODSS research from earlier research in Group DSS

and

individually

oriented DSS. As a first step in ODSS coordination research, alternative

representation schemes need to be examined in terms of

both

their match

with

the prevailing needs of organizations

and

of existing IT approaches that can be

brought to bear. Matching ODSS needs

with

coordination representation

requirements is examined by using several supporting reference disciplines

including foundational DSS

and

recent ODSS research frameworks/architectures.

Existing IT approaches are adapted from

the

reference disciplines of Active

DSS, Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI),

and

MathematicaVComputational

Organization Theory (MCOT) to operationalize acomputational model of

coordination that: (1) embodies the philosophies of Active

DS~including

the

idea that automated intelligent agents can play asignificant role in supporting

decision makers by independently carrying

out

rudimentary tasks to support

the

various phases of a decision making process; (2) adapts DAI and IT

approaches to reflect practical

human

organizational realities including

what

we

refer to as the 'Open-Ended Knowledge World',

and

the evolutionary nature of

organizations-whereby

ODSS coordination representations will be subjected

to almost constant revision

due

to

both

external environment disruptions

and

internal events that require adjustments to a preliminary plan;

and

(3) reflects

the fact that organizational goals are often vague, which implies that a

coordination representation

should

be sufficiently robust to reflect

ad

hoc

analysis accommodating of strategy changes.

INTRODUCTION

The Cost of Coordination

According to

Thompson

(1967),managers

spend

most of

their

time coordinating

the

various

eee

1

055-615X195/01

0043-28

©1995 by John Wiley &

Sons,

Ltd.

tasks

and

teams they

manage

while trying to

maintain

the organizational

equilibrium

in an

environment

of uncertainty,

competing

stake-

holders

and

conflicting goals. This preoccu-

pation

with

coordination places excessive

demands

on rationality. Bounded rationality,

Received September 1993

Revised November 1994

INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS IN ACCOUNTING, FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT

VOL

4:

43-70

(1995)

as defined by Simon (1960/ 1983)/ implies a

limitation on the

amount

of information

humans

can

absorb

and

the

span

of control

they are able to yield. Managers coordinating

large complex tasks involving

many

participants

quickly

begin

to

apply

a

disproportionate

amount

of

energy

on coordinating

the

efforts

of participants versus

contributing

intellectually

to the decision-making process.

Within

the

context of a large decision

problem

involving

many

agents, the more effort

expended

coordin-

ating activities,

the

less

applied

to

the

analysis

of data,

the

review of

assumptions

and

the

identification of alternatives. The consequence

to an organization is a

net

drain

on its

intellectual capital.

Historical Technological Basis

Providing technological

support

for coordi-

nation

has

yet

to become a

primary

research

area in the

development

of decision

support

technologies. The

low

level of

attention

given

to this fundamental

problem

is

not

afunction

of oversight by

previous

researchers.

On

the

contrary,

even

at its onset,

the

decision

support

movement

recognized

the

need

to

support

large

interdependent

tasks representative of

organizational decisions (see Keen

and

Hacka-

thorn/ 1979). The

primary

reason for

the

low

level of attention to

supporting

coordination

arises from a general lack of available techno-

logies capable of

providing

the

levels of con-

nectivity

required

to execute technological

mechanisms capable of

the

task.

From an organizational perspective,

the

last

ten years has

brought

a

rapid

increase

in

wide

area electronic

communication

technologies

within

organizations. Managers are already

experiencing information overload from

the

amount

of electronic communications

with

which they are

being

bombarded

(Campbell,

1990). This active area of

communication

has

spurred

a

new

research

paradigm

studying

the effects of

communication

technologies on

organizations. Overall, research findings have

identified the success of electronic

communi-

cation technologies in

enhancing

task-related

communications

and

reducing

task uncertainty

(Rice

and

Shook, 1990;

Ugbah

and

Dewine,

1989)/

and

in

changing

organizational climates

through

the

development

of

new

communi-

44

cation channels

within

organizations

(Huseman

and

Miles, 1988).

From a research perspective,

development

and

testing of group decision technologies

(Shaw

and

Fox, 1993;

Chen

and

Liou, 1991;

Howorka et al., 1991; Goul, 1990; Goul et al.,

1990; Eck et al., 1989; Richards, 1989;

Dennis

et al., 1988; Gallupe

and

DeSanctis, 1988;

DeSanctis

and

Gallupe, 1987; DeSanctis

and

Dickson, 1987; Bui

and

[arke, 1986; Gray, 1986)

during

the last ten years have

brought

some

enlightenment

to difficulties in

applying

elec-

tronic communication technologies to coordin-

ating

distributed

decision problems. Extensive

experimentation in

both

university

and

organi-

zational settings

demonstrated

success

in

auto-

mating

group

decision-making techniques,

pro-

viding

positive interventions

and

identifying

architectural

requirements

of technologies to

support

multiple agents involved in cooperative

processes.

These recent

contributions

from

the

develop-

ment

of

group-oriented

tools

provide

a

basis

for

determining

the

primitive

needs

of

distributed

decision processes. However, recent literature

recognizes

that

fundamental differences exist

between

providing

support

for

group

versus

organizational processes (King

and

Star, 1990).

Organizational decision

support

systems

rep-

resent an

emerging

research area

that

explores

the

feasibility of developing large-scale systems

to

support

organizational processes.

Only

future

research

contributions

will

demonstrate

whether

this

new

area of research is an

'old

dog

in

disguise'

or truly a

new

approach

to

decision support.

Contributions

from recent

research in organization decision

support

sys-

tems include various typologies of organiza-

tional decision

support

systems (Fedorowicz

and

Konsynski, 1989; Philippakis

and

Green,

1988)/

working

definitions (Swanson, 1990;

King

and

Star, 1990; Watson, 1990)/ conceptual

foundations (King

and

Star, 1990;

Bums

et al.,

1987)/

proposed

architectures (Watson, 1990;

Swanson

and

Zmud,

1989; Philippakis

and

Green, 1988)/

metaphors

for coordination of

participating agents (Ching et al., 1991)/

and

examples of operational systems (Tran, 1990;

Walker, 1990; Pagani

and

Bellucci, 1988; Flores

et al., 1988; Sage, 1987).

Providing

support

for

the coordination of large

interdependent

tasks

has

been

an

important

and

reoccurring

theme

GV

HOWORKA ET AL.