Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards the Development of a Decision-Making Framework: A Contribution Inform of a Decision Support Aid for Complex Technical Organization

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Evolution in Computational Intelligence (FICTA 2023)

Part of the book series: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ((SIST,volume 370))

  • 110 Accesses

Abstract

Technical organizations with complex engineering activities possess strong methods for conceptualizing, designing and managing complex engineered systems. This type of organization could involve critical resources, and the project could be time critical. Technical managers often rely on their intuitions to make critical decisions in this domain. If this intuition is not mindfully managed, it can result in a single-point failure of the project. To address this, the author proposes the use of an organizational decision-making framework (D’MHAS model) which conceptualizes decision-making as a perceived human activity system. The framework adopts a systems perspective in combination with the concept of requisite variety to guide intuition-led decisions in technical organizations. D’MHAS is made up of concrete systems (processes, behaviours, structures and meaning) and conceptual systems (concepts and ideas) which are in continuous flux through time; it incorporates the idea of requisite variety to allow for effective management of the system. The framework allows for thinking, reflection and learning while taking action. In this paper, Vickers’s idea of appreciation and an appreciative system is revisited as the theoretical basis for the development of D’MHAS model. The discussion of the operational factors of the model and how it was validated are presented. The domain of the Nigerian Space Agency (NASRDA) was used as an example to validate the model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Blunden, M.: Vickers’ contribution to management thinking. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 12, 107–112 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Guo, K.: DECIDE: a decision-making model for more effective decision making by health care managers. Health Prog. 39(3), 133–141 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0000000000000299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mumford, E.: The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Inf. Syst. J. 16(4), 317–342 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ramkhelawan, T., Barry, M.L.: Leading a technical organization through change: a focus on the key drivers affecting communication. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pp. 1386–1390. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Calvo‐Amodio, J.: Using principles as activity drivers in human activity systems. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 36(5), 678–686 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Vaughan: The challenger launch decision: risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press (1996). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsacl&an=edsacl.miu01000000000000003603043&site=eds-live

  7. Hayward, T., Preston, J.: Chaos theory, economics and information: the implications for strategic decision-making. J. Inf. Sci. 5(3), 173–182 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nutt, P.C.: Surprising but true: half the decisions in organizations fail. Acad. Manag. Executive 13(4), 75–89 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., Saint-Macary, J.: Opening up decision making: the view from the black stool. Organ. Sci. 6(3), 260–279 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisenhardt, K.M., Zbaracki, M.J.: Strategic decision making. Strateg. Manag. J. 13(Special Issue), 17–37 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Seyman, B.-U., Mustafa, S., Merve, V.-A.: Multi criteria decision making approaches for evaluation of equipment selection processes in rowing. J. Phys. Educ. Sports Sci. 19(2) (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mahmoudi, M., Pingle, M.: Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and choice. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 75, 141–153 (2018). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ecn&an=1719963&site=eds-live

  13. Ilori, M.O., Irefin, I.A.: Technology decision making in organisations. Technovation 17(3), 153–160 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(96)00086-7

  14. March, K., Weissinger-Baylon, R.: Ambiguity and Command: Organizational Perspectives on Military Decision Making, pp. 11–35. Addison Wesley Longman (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mohsen, R., Javad, S., Hossein, K., & Ali, M.: A new hybrid decision-making framework to rank power supply systems for government organizations: a real case study. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 41 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ashok, S.: Optimised model for community-based hybrid energy system. Renew. Energy 32, 1155–1164 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bartolucci, L., Cordiner, S., Mulone, V., Rossi, J.L.: Hybrid renewable energy systems for household ancillary services. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 107, 282–297 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tina, G., Gagliano, S., Raiti, S.: Hybrid solar/wind power system probabilistic modelling for long-term performance assessment. Sol. Energy 80(5), 578–588 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tezer, T., Yaman, R., Yaman, G.: Evaluation of approaches used for optimization of stand-alone hybrid renewable energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 73, 840–853 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Polanyi, M.: The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press (2009). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat01619a&an=up.1232260&site=eds-live

  21. Spender: Organizational learning and knowledge management: whence and whither? Manag. Learn. 39(2), 159–176 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607087582

  22. Morrison, K.: Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought, vol. 2. Sage Publications, London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Blackburn, S.: The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2 rev. edn. Oxford University Press (2008). https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001

  24. Stowell, F., & Welch, C.: The manager’s guide to systems practice: making sense of complex problems. Wiley, Croydon (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Checkland, P., & Tsouvalis, C.: Reflecting on SSM: the link between root definitions and conceptual models. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. Off. J. Int. Feder. Syst. Res. 14(3), 153–168 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Merriam-Webster dictionary. Retrieved 11th November 2012 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/

  27. Checkland, P.: From framework through experience to learning: the essential nature of action research. Inf. Syst. Res. 397–403 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Checkland, P.: Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Checkland, P.: Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-Year Retrospective. Wiley, Chichester (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vickers: The Art of Judgement. Chapman and Hall (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Smith, S.A.: Modelling the discharge decision-making process in the domain of mental health care. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paisley (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Checkland, P., & Casar, A.: Vickers’ concept of an appreciative system: a systemic account. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 13(3), 3–17 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  33. West, D.: The appreciative inquiry method: a systemic approach to information systems requirements analysis. In: Stowell, F.A. (ed.) Information Systems Provision: The Contribution of Soft Systems Methodology, pp. 140–158. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  34. West, D.: Knowledge elicitation as an inquiring system: towards a ‘subjective’ knowledge elicitation methodology. J. Inf. Syst. 2, 31–44 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Churchman, C.W.: The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Axelrod, R.: Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In: Conte, R., Hegselmann, R., Terna, P. (eds.) Simulating Social Phenomena. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 456. Springer, Berlin (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03366-1_2

  37. Slettebø, T.: Participant validation: exploring a contested tool in qualitative research. Qual. Soc. Work. 20(5), 1223–1238 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020968189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ulrich, W.: Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 54(4), 325–342 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wilson, B.: Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications. Wiley, Chichester (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Harwood, S.A.: The management of change and the Viplan methodology in practice. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 63(6), 748–761 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Troitzsch, K.G.: Validating simulation models. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Simulation Multiconference, pp. 98–106. SCS, Erlagen, Germany (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bharathy, G.K., Silverman, B.: Validating agent based social systems models. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, pp. 441–453 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2010.5679142

  43. Ashby, W.R.: An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall (1961)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Beer, S.: Brain of the Firm, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kila, A., Hart, P.: Towards building an intelligent system based on cybernetics and Viable system model. Science 1(40), 141–163 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.49.1259.170

  46. Beer, S.: Diagnosing the System for Organizations, Wiley, New York (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Fox, B.C., Simsek, Z., Heavey, C.: Top management team experiential variety, competitive repertoires, and firm performance: examining the law of requisite variety in the 3D printing industry (1986–2017). Acad. Manag. J. 65(2), 545–576 (2022). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Connelly, B.L., Tihanyi, L., Ketchen, D.J., Carnes, C.M., Ferrier, W.J.: Competitive repertoire complexity: governance antecedents and performance outcomes. Strateg. Manag. J. 38, 1151–1173 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J., Lukasik, M.A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A.L.: Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta-analysis. J. Manag. 37, 709–743 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Vickers, G.: A classification of systems. General Syst. 15, 3–6 (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood, NJ (1986)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Smith, S.A.: Modelling complex decision-making: contribution towards the development of a decision support aid (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Akinola Kila & Penny Hart

Authors
  1. Akinola Kila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Penny Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akinola Kila .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology (UNSIET), Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Vikrant Bhateja

  2. Middlesex University, London, UK

    Xin-She Yang

  3. Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Marta Campos Ferreira

  4. Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, Warwickshire, UK

    Sandeep Singh Sengar

  5. Institute for Technological Development and Innovation in Communications, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

    Carlos M. Travieso-Gonzalez

Appendix

Appendix

Some participants’ feedback forms

A form denotes a set of feedback questions in two sections. Section 1 denotes the guide to using the mnemonic V F PETER. Section 2 comprises the answers to a set of questions. The bottom part denotes the spaces to input the name of the participant, date, and signature.
A form denotes a set of feedback questions in two sections. Section 1 denotes the guide to using the mnemonic V F PETER. Section 2 comprises the answers to a set of questions. The bottom part denotes the spaces to input the name of the participant, date, and signature.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kila, A., Hart, P. (2023). Towards the Development of a Decision-Making Framework: A Contribution Inform of a Decision Support Aid for Complex Technical Organization. In: Bhateja, V., Yang, XS., Ferreira, M.C., Sengar, S.S., Travieso-Gonzalez, C.M. (eds) Evolution in Computational Intelligence. FICTA 2023. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 370. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6702-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation