Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structure and analysis of IS decision-making processes

  • Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Decisions to invest in information systems (IS) are made by many organisations on a very regular basis. Such decisions can vary from quickly identifying the problem, screening options and choosing a solution in a very straightforward way, to very extensive and repeated search, screen, design and negotiation activities that can take many years. There has been little explicit research into the process by which managers and organisations decide to develop IS applications. This research addresses this by analysing 20 IS decision-making processes, using a phase-based as well as an attribute-based approach. Mintzberg's typology is used to characterise seven types of IS decisions from a phase-based or process-based perspective. For the attribute approach, the decisions have been analysed on the basis of subjective/objective and offensive/defensive contrasts and placed in one of the four following categories: innovative, rational, necessary or political. The paper concludes by identifying five factors that result in major differences in IS decision-making processes. These issues are: (1) whether there is scope to design a solution; (2) whether distinct alternatives have to be searched for; (3) the degree of urgency and necessity from the perspective of the decision-makers; (4) whether the decision can be subdivided in order to follow a gradual process path (planned vs incremental) and (5) the number and power of stakeholders involved in the process and the extent that their interests vary and contrast. The paper suggests that managers deciding on IS applications should be aware of these factors in order to design a process that fits best with the specific circumstances: no single process should be considered universally applicable. This conclusion is in contrast with many decision-making models rooted in the MIS-field, which suggest to use prescriptive and rational approaches to organise IS decision-making processes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison GT (1971) Essence of Decision. Little Brown, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon CJ (1992) The use of decision criteria in selecting information systems technology investments. MIS Quarterly 16(3), 335–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua A, Konana P, Whinston AB and Yin F (2001) E-business operations – driving E-business excellence. Sloan Management Review 43(1), 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bate P (1984) The impact of organizational culture on approaches to organisational problem solving. Organisation Studies 5(1), 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois LJ and Eisenhardt KM (1988) Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: four cases in microcomputer industry. Management Science 34(7), 816–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boynton AC and Zmud RW (1987) Information technology planning in the 1990s: directions for practice and research. MIS Quarterly 11(1), 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson N (1982) The irrationality of action and action rationality: decisions, ideologies and organizational actions. Journal of Management Studies 19(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell G and Morgan G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Heinemann, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler (1991) Designing Organization: A Decision Making Perspective. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou TC (1998) An empirical study of the impact of information technology strategic investment decisions. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10(3), 338–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemons EK (1991), Evaluation of strategic investments in information technology. Communications of the ACM 34(1), 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MD, March JP and Olsen JP (1972) A garbage-can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper R (1994) The inertial impact of culture on IT implementation. Information and Management 27(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cray D, Mallory GR, Butler RJ and Wilson DC (1991) Explaining decision processes. Journal of Management Studies 28(6), 227–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert R and March J (1963) A Behavioural Theory Of The Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dce (1999) IT Investments, Optimising the Decision-Making Process. DCE, Schiphol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean JW and Sharfman MP (1996) Does the decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal 39(2), 368–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delquie P (2003) Optimal conflict in preference assessment. Management Science 49(1), 102–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1999) Strategy as strategic decision-making. Sloan Management Review 40(3), 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM and Tabrizi BN (1995) Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(1), 84–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM and Zbaracki MJ (1992) Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal 13(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD (1991) Strategic information systems planning: myths, reality and guidelines for successful implementation. European Journal of Information Systems 1(1), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galliers RD and Baets WRJ (1998) Information Technology and Organizational Transformation: Innovation for the 21st Century Organization. Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goll I and Rasheed AMA (1997) Rational decision-making and firm performance: the moderating role of environment. Strategic Management Journal 18(7), 583–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickson DJ, Butler RJ, Cray D, Mallory GR and Wilson DC (1986) Top Decisions. Strategic Decision-Making in Organizations. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirokawa RY and Rost KM (1992) Effective group decision-making in organizations. Field test of the vigilant interaction theory. Management Communication Quarterly 5(3), 267–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt MA and Tyler BB (1991) Strategic decision models: integrating different perspectives. Strategic Management Journal 12(4), 327–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogbin G and Thomas DV (1994) Investing in Information Technology, Managing the Decision-making Process. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL (1989) Crucial Decisions: Leadership in Policy Making and Crisis Management. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil T, Eloranta E, Holmström J, Järvenpää E, Autio E, Hawk D (2001) Information and communication technology driven business transformation – a call for research. Computers in Industry 44(3), 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley A (1989) In search of rationality: the purposes behind the use of formal analysis in organization. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(4), 598–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer AL and Sethi V (1996) Prescriptions for strategic information systems planning. Journal of Management Information Systems 13(19), 35–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee R (1998) An enterprise decision framework for information system selection. Information Systems Management 15(4), 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom CE (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19(1), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1994) A Primer on Decision-making. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (1983) Power, politics and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM 26(6), 430–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mccalla-Chen D (2000) Towards and understanding of the concept of non-decision making and its manifestation in the school sector. British Educational Management and Administration Society 28(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcloughlin I (1999) Creative Technological Change. Routledge, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D and Théoreêt A (1976) The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(2), 246–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray RJ and Trefts DE (2000) The IT imperative in business transformation. Information Systems Management 17(1), 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble F and Newman M (1993) Integrated system, autonomous departments: organizational invalidity and system change in a university. Journal of Management Studies 30(2), 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker MM, Trainor HE and Benson RJ (1990) Information Strategy and Economics: Linking Information Systems Strategy to Business Performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (1973) The Politics of Organizational Decision-making. Tavistock, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (2001) Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review 79(2), 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaddus MA (1997) Multiple criteria decision support for the strategic analysis of information system projects. International Journal of Management 14(2), 302–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JB (1985) Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism. Irwin, Homewood, Ill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopalan N, Rasheed AMA and Datta DK (1993) Strategic decision processes: an integrative framework and future direction. In Implementing Strategic Processes: Change, Learning and Cooperation. (Lorange P, Chakravarthy B, Roos J and Van de ven A, Eds), pp 274–312, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranganathan C and Sethi V (2000) Assessing the impact of decision process on the effectiveness of strategic IS decisions: a triangulation approach combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems (Orlikowski W, Ang S, Weill P, and Krcmar HC, Eds), p 455, ACM Publications, Brisbane, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranganathan C and Sethi V (2002) Rationality in strategic information technology decisions: the impact of shared domain knowledge and IT unit structure. Decision Sciences 33(1), 59–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal R and King WR (1995) An empirical taxonomy of the decision-making processes concerning strategic applications of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 11(4), 177–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santhanam R (1995) A multiple criteria decision model for information system project selection. Computers & Operations Research 22(8), 807–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz ES and Zozaya-Corostiza C (2003) Investment under uncertainty in information technology: acquisition and development projects. Management Science 49(1), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer C and Yetton PW (1997) Steps to the Future: Fresh Thinking on the Management of IT-based Organizational Transformation. Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebus GMW (1991) Information Economics. Kluwer, Deventer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1960) The New Science of Management Decision. Harper & Row, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith GF (1995) Classifying managerial problems: an empirical study of definitional content. Journal of Management Studies 32(5), 679–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman N (1994) IT-enabled business transformation: from automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Management Review 35(2), 73–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waema T and Walsham G (1990) Information systems strategy formulation. Information and Management 18(1), 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemain TR (1995) Model formulation: what experts think about and when. Operations Research 43(6), 916–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates J (2001) Information Technology and Organizational Transformation: History, Rhetoric and Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (1991) Case Study Research, Design and Methods. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank the editors and reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management and Organization, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Albert Boonstra

Authors
  1. Albert Boonstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Albert Boonstra.

Appendix A Research and interview questions

Appendix A Research and interview questions

Stimulus

Can you describe the IS-related problem that led to a decision?

What was the initial stimulus?

Were the stimuli frequent or intense?

Alternatives

Were there one, few or many alternatives available?

Were the alternatives: (1) ready-made, (2) was modification needed or (3) was design needed?

Did the participants explicitly define alternatives before making the decision?

Process

Can you describe the chain of events that led to the final decision?

What was the duration of the decision-making process from formal identification to authorized decision?

Politics

Which individuals, parties and stakeholders were involved in this decision?

Were there differences in insight and opinion?

Did the participants have conflicting interests?

Was one party dominant due to expertise or power?

How diverse and intense were these conflicting interests and how were they expressed?

Can the process be characterised by negotiations and use of power among various participants?

Was the process of arriving at the decision delayed due to differences of interests among participants?

Rationality

Was the decision process consciously planned by management?

Did management use formal planning methods?

How extensively did the participants look for information in making this decision?

How was the correctness of the decision judged? For example, on hard criteria such as cost–benefit analyses and sales figures or on subjective and soft criteria such as image and reputation?

Was it necessary to make this decision?

Did external forces influence decision-making?

Will the decision affect the competitive position of the company?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boonstra, A. Structure and analysis of IS decision-making processes. Eur J Inf Syst 12, 195–209 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000461

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000461

Keywords

Search

Navigation