lone1976-ga,
I have worked professionally developing Decision Support Systems (for
the aquaculture industry), working closely with managers to develop a
prototype, as you describe in your Question, so I can understand how
the developers might be frustrated when the people who paid for the
development of the system don't seem to want to use it. This being
said,
a) Just because the DSS recommends a decision doesn't mean the
decision-maker will follow it. It doesn’t necessarily mean the system
isn't good, it just means they chose to take a different route than
what was recommended. Think about it: How many times has a trusted
friend or colleague given you advice that you haven't followed? And
that's from a TRUSTED source. Most people don't implicitly trust new
software systems. The answer here lies in the name: It's a Decision
SUPPORT System, not a Decision Making System. It exists to allow the
user ways to efficiently manipulate data so that they may "see" a
solution for themselves.
b) Yes, the system definitely could still have been beneficial to the
manager, since the rejected advice in itself could have led the
manager to consider factors s/he otherwise wouldn't have. Also, the
use of the system to input information and generate queries in itself
may result in thought processes which shape the overall result of the
manager's decision.
c) The DSS system can still be beneficial to the organization because:
i. Over time, if they continue to use it, they will learn to trust it
more, and perhaps eventually even grow dependent on it, and
ii. The developers can continue to enhance and modify it to meet
changing needs and requirements.
Also, note that different people process information in different
ways. Most companies have more than one manager or decision-maker.
Even though this particular manager didn't act on the output of the
program in this instance, that doesn't mean that others haven't taken
notice, and will begin to turn to it when they are "up against a wall"
with no new ideas of their own.
The flip side of this is that some managers may feel threatened by a
system which may possibly automate mental processes which they have
been fairly or highly compensated to perform themselves. This is
especially true in situations where the DSS is being introduced for
the first time, rather than migrating or switching to a new system.
The following link is to an article entitled, "A Brief History of
Decision Support Systems," by D.J. Power, DSSResources.com:
http://dssresources.com/history/dsshistory.html
Google search strategy:
Keywords "decision support systems"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=decision+support+systems
Good luck in continuing your inquires!
~omniscientbeing-ga |
Clarification of Answer by
omniscientbeing-ga
on
15 Oct 2002 11:36 PDT
To further clarify why the DSS may NOT have been beneficial to both
the manager and the organization as a whole:
For the manager, s/he may not have felt comfortable trusting the
output of the program, perhaps through lack of understanding how it
works, or not being computer savvy in general.
For the organization, it is sometimes deemed that the TCO (Total Cost
of Ownership) of a system is too high. Reasons for this include
training expenses (the more difficult the program is to learn, the
more time it takes, and therefore how expensive it is for the
organization to use).
Also, if the program requires new hardware or IT equipment in general
(i.e. networking gear, more RAM to run a high-throughput application,
etc.), then that is a DSS expense as far as the organization is
concerned.
~omniscientbeing-ga
|
,
0 Comments
)