Advertisement

The Concepts of Decision Making: An Analysis of Classical Approaches and Avenues for the Field of Enterprise Modeling

  • Alexander BockEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 235)

Abstract

The field of enterprise modeling seeks to help make organizational decisions that take place under conditions of complexity, ambiguity, and conflicting views. But available concepts to describe decision situations are still in their infancy. A variety of existing model-based approaches to aid decision making have been developed in adjacent research fields. The paper investigates a selection of these approaches and reconstructs central concepts in the form of meta models. Implications and ways of integrating decision concepts with existing enterprise modeling methods are considered, and possible avenues for the field of enterprise modeling are discussed.

Keywords

Organizational decision making Enterprise modeling Decision model Decision analysis Problem construction 

References

  1. 1.
    March, J.G.: Understanding how decisions happen in organizations. In: March, J.G. (ed.) The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence, pp. 13–38. Blackwell, Malden (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keeney, R.L.: Decision analysis: an overview. Op. Res. 30(5), 803–838 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eden, C., Jones, S., Sims, D.: Messing About in Problems: An Informal Structured Approach to their Identification and Management. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yates, J.F.: Decision Management: How to Assure Better Decisions in Your Company. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Soft. Syst. Model. 13(3), 941–962 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 2.0 Specification: Open Group Standard. The Open Group Series. Van Haren, Zaltbommel (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bock, A.C.: Beyond narrow decision models: toward integrative models of organizational decision processes. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2015), pp. 181–190. IEEE Computer Society (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plataniotis, G., de Kinderen, S., Proper, H.A.: Capturing design rationales in enterprise architecture: a case study. In: Frank, U., Loucopoulos, P., Pastor, Ó., Petrounias, I. (eds.) PoEM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 197, pp. 133–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Object Management Group: Decision Model and Notation: Beta 1 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davenport, T.H.: Make better decisions. HBR 87(11), 117–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pidd, M.: Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester and Hoboken (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raiffa, H.: Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1970) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bamberg, G., Coenenberg, A.G., Krapp, M.: Betriebswirtschaftliche Entscheidungslehre, 14th edn. Vahlen, München (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Checkland, P.: Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 17(1), S11–S58 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Checkland, P., Poulter, J.: Soft systems methodology. In: Reynolds, M., Holwell, S. (eds.) Systems Approaches to Managing Change, pp. 191–242. Springer, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Axelrod, R.: The cognitive mapping approach to decision making. In: Axelrod, R. (ed.) Structure of Decision, pp. 3–17. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elbing, A.O.: Behavioral Decisions in Organizations. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview (1970)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hastie, R.: Problems for judgment and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 653–683 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldstein, W.M., Weber, E.U.: Content and discontent: Indications and implications of domain specificity in preferential decision making. In: Goldstein, W.M., Hogarth, R.M. (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making, pp. 566–617. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simon, H.A.: Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization, 3rd edn. Free Press, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simon, H.A.: The New Science of Management Decision. Harper, New York (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., Théorêt, A.: The structure of unstructured decision processes. Adm. Sci. Q. 21(2), 246–275 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosenhead, J., Mingers, J.: A new paradigm of analysis. In: Rosenhead, J., Mingers, J. (eds.) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, pp. 1–19. Wiley, Chichester (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bretzke, W.R.: Der Problembezug von Entscheidungsmodellen. Mohr, Tübingen (1980)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Landry, M.: A note on the concept of ‘Problem’. Organ. Stud. 16(2), 315–343 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bock, A., Kaczmarek, M., Overbeek, S., Heß, M.: A comparative analysis of selected enterprise modeling approaches. In: Frank, U., Loucopoulos, P., Pastor, Ó., Petrounias, I. (eds.) PoEM 2014. LNBIP, vol. 197, pp. 148–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Overbeek, S., Frank, U., Köhling, C.: A language for multi-perspective goal modelling: challenges, requirements and solutions. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 38, 1–16 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frank, U.: MEMO Organisation Modelling Language (2) - Focus on Business Processes. ICB Research Report 49. University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen (2011) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frank, U.: The MEMO Meta Modelling Language (MML) and Language Architecture. ICB Research Report 43. University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen (2011) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Howard, R.A.: From influence to relevance to knowledge. In: Oliver, R.M., Smith, J.Q. (eds.) Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis, pp. 3–23. Wiley, Chichester (1990) Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Howard, R.A., Matheson, J.E.: Influence diagram retrospective. Decis. Anal. 2(3), 144–147 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Howard, R.A., Matheson, J.E.: Influence diagrams. Decis. Anal. 2(3), 127–143 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K., Lyytinen, K.: Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems and Enterprise Modeling Research GroupUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations