How Modeling Language Shapes Decisions: Problem-Theoretical Arguments and Illustration of an Example Case

  • Alexander BockEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 248)


To facilitate decision making and problem solving in organizations, numerous modeling approaches have been advanced in various research fields. Many of them are grounded on the idea that problem situations can be structured by means of designated sets of modeling concepts. A critical, yet often implicit, assumption in parts of the literature concerns the view that a given set of modeling concepts can capture the problem situation “as it is”. Considering arguments about the constructive nature of problems, the paper illustrates a practical example case in which different modeling approaches are used to describe a single decision situation, to the effect that the formative role of decision modeling languages becomes apparent. Theoretical and practical implications for the field of conceptual modeling are outlined, and directions for future research are drawn.


Conceptual modeling Decision making Problem solving Problem construction Decision models Modeling concepts 


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Raiffa, H.: Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1970)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    French, S. (ed.): Readings in Decision Analysis. Chapman and Hall, London (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pidd, M.: Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bryson, J.M., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Finn, C.B.: Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Wiley, Chichester (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Object Management Group: Decision Model and Notation: Beta 1. OMG Document dtc/2014-02-01Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bock, A.: 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.: EA anamnesis: an approach for decision making analysis in enterprise architecture. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 5(3), 75–95 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horkoff, J., Yu, E.: Analyzing Goal Models - Different Approaches and How to Choose Among Them. In: Chu, W. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2011), pp. 675–682. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Birrer, F.A.J.: Problem drift. eliciting the hidden role of models and other scientific tools in the construction of societal reality. In: DeTombe, D.J. (ed.) Analyzing Complex Societal Problems, pp. 43–55. Hampp, München (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W.: Defining a decision analytic structure. In: Edwards, W., Miles Jr, R.F., von Winterfeldt, D. (eds.) Advances in Decision Analysis, pp. 81–103. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eden, C., Ackermann, F.: SODA-the principles. In: Rosenhead, J., Mingers, J. (eds.) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, pp. 21–41. Wiley, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bock, A.: The concepts of decision making: an analysis of classical approaches and avenues for the field of enterprise modeling. In: Ralyté, J., España, S., Pastor, Ó. (eds.) PoEM 2015. LNBIP, vol. 235, pp. 306–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25897-3_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Linden, D., van Zee, M.: Insights from a study on decision making in enterprise architecture. In: Short Paper Proceedings from the 8th IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on the Practice of Enterprise Modelling. pp. 21–30 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hastie, R.: Problems for judgment and decision making. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 52, 653–683 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Simon, H.A.: The New Science of Management Decision. Harper & Row, New York (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dery, D.: Decision-making, problem-solving and organizational learning. Omega 11(4), 321–328 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lang, J.R., Dittrich, J.E., White, S.E.: Managerial problem solving models: a review and proposal. Acad. Manag. Rev. 3(4), 854–866 (1978)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, G.F.: Towards a heuristic theory of problem structuring. Manag. Sci. 34(12), 1489–1506 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jonassen, D.H., Hung, W.: Problem Solving. In: Seel, N.M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, pp. 2680–2683. Springer, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frensch, P.A., Funke, J.: Definitions, traditions, and a general framework for understanding complex problem solving. In: Frensch, P.A., Funke, J. (eds.) Complex Problem Solving, pp. 3–25. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1995)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bassok, M., Novick, L.R.: Problem solving. In: Holyoak, K.J., Morrison, R.G. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Oxford Library of Psychology, pp. 413–432. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Landry, M.: A note on the concept of ‘problem’. Org. Stud. 16(2), 315–343 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eden, C., Sims, D.: On the nature of problems in consulting practice. Omega 7(2), 119–127 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Willcocks, L., Fitzgerald, G.: Market as opportunity? case studies in outsourcing information technology and services. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2(3), 223–242 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Howard, R.A., Matheson, J.E.: Influence diagrams. Decis. Anal. 2(3), 127–143 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Overbeek, S.J., Frank, U., Köhling, C.: A language for multi-perspective goal modelling: challenges, requirements and solutions. CS&I 38, 1–16 (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Keeney, R.L.: Decision analysis: an overview. Oper. Res. 30(5), 803–838 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Axelrod, R.: The analysis of cognitive maps. In: Axelrod, R. (ed.) Structure of Decision, pp. 55–73. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Köhling, C.A.: Entwurf einer konzeptuellen Modellierungsmethode zurUnterstü-tzung rationaler Zielplanungsprozesse in Unternehmen. Cuvillier, Göttingen (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simon, H.A.: Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization, 3rd edn. Free Press, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Howard, R.A.: From influence to relevance to knowledge. In: Oliver, R. (ed.) Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis, pp. 3–23. Wiley, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Frank, U.: Multi-Perspective Enterprise Modelling: Background and Terminological Foundation. ICB Research Report 46, University of Duisburg-Essen, EssenGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maier, N.R.F., Solem, A.R.: Improving solutions by turning choice situations into problems. Pers. Psychol. 15(2), 151–157 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Group Information Systems and Enterprise ModelingUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations