Chapter 15: Implementing and Integrating Decision Support Systems Decision Support Systems in the 21st Century, 2nd Edition by George M. Marakas Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall 15-1: DSS Implementation By now the need for a unique approach to the design and construction of a DSS should be evident. Equally important, and also unique, is the process of implementing the DSS. In essence, implementation is the process of deliberately introducing change into the organization. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Introducing Change into the Organization Although numerous models of change have been advanced, two elegant ones are: The Lewin-Schein theory – the process occurs in three stages: unfreezing, moving, and then refreezing. The Kolb-Frohman model – this model is more elaborate and contains seven steps. It is considered more normative. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

The Kolb-Frohman Normative Model of Change Scouting – user and designer assess each other to see if there is a match. Entry – user and designer develop a statement of goals and commit to the project. Diagnosis – user and designer gather data to refine the problem definition. Planning – user and designer define specific objectives and examine ways to meet them. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

The Kolb-Frohman Normative Model of Change Action – the “best” alternative is put into practice. Evaluation – user and designer assess how well goals and objectives have been met. Termination – user and designer ensure that ownership of the system rests in the hands of users. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Patterns of Implementation The initial impetus behind the development of a DSS can come from a user, management, or an entrepreneur. The third source comes when someone makes an effort to “sell” the organization on the idea of developing a DSS. Building on these, Alter identified six generic DSS implementation patterns. These are portrayed in the following chart. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Six Generic DSS Implementation Patterns Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall 15-2: System Evaluation Measures of success remain less than clear. How do the designer and user know success when they see it? Although no generalizable set of standards exist, there are a number of ways of measuring success, each with its own criteria. Several authors focus on the quality of the software in measuring success. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Characteristics of Software Quality Portability – the amount of platform independence Reliability – degree of completeness, accuracy, and consistency Efficiency – degree of efficiency and accessibility Human-engineering – degree of communicativeness Testability – degree of structuredness Understandability – degree of self-descriptiveness, conciseness, and legibility Modifiability – degree of augmentability Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Other Measures of Success Attitudinal Measures – One approach is to focus on the degree to which the system is actually used. Another is to measure user satisfaction. Technical Measures – Often this involves a comparison of the features of the DSS to the original user requirements. Organizational Measures – Focus is on the degree to which organizational needs have been met or exceeded. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Criteria for a Successful DSS Improves the way decision makers think about problems. Fits well with the organization’s planning methods. Fits well with the political approach to decision making within the organization. Results in alternatives and choices that are implemented. Is considered both cost-effective and valuable relative to its development costs. Is expected to be used for a measurable period of time. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall Measuring DSS Success One framework contains four measurement categories: System performance – response time, data entry, output format, usage, and user interface. Task performance – decision quality, measured by time spent in the decision process. Also, trust, confidence, and satisfaction. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Measuring DSS Success (cont.) One framework contains four measurement categories: Business opportunities – costs of development and operation. Increased income and changes in productivity. Evolutionary aspects – degree of flexibility, overall functionality of the DSS. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Risks in DSS Implementation Projects S.L. Alter identified eight basic clusters of risk factors. More details about the typical results of these problems are in Table 15-7: Nonexistent or unwilling users Multiple users or implementers Disappearing users, implementers, maintainers Inability to specify purpose or usage pattern Inability to predict and cushion impact Loss or lack of support Lack of experience with similar systems Technical problems and cost-effectiveness Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

DSS Implementation Strategies A risk analysis conducted using the factors on the previous slide could identify several that may occur, calling for strategies to deal with them. Choice of strategy depends on available resources, likelihood of project completion, and constraints specific to each strategy. The next slide shows four general categories of implementation strategies that S.L. Alter identified. More details are in Table 15-8. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

S.L. Alter’s DSS Implementation Strategies Divide the project into manageable pieces, use prototypes, an evolutionary approach, and develop a set of tools. Keep the solution simple, hide complexity, and avoid change. Develop a satisfactory support base, obtain user participation and commitment, obtain management support. Meet user needs and institutionalize the system, provide training and assistance, insist on mandatory use, and tailor to users’ capabilities. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Issue-Based Management Approach This new perspective on DSS design and implementation takes a process-centric perspective. Designers focus on the issues and objectives associated with each step rather than focusing on decision makers and problems. Another difference is in the favored technologies: multimedia connectivity and object-oriented programming versus expert systems and artificial intelligence. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

15-3: The Importance of Integration Integrating the DSS into the organization means the new application is merged in a seamless fashion. This contributes to user perception that it is easy to use and useful. Two general categories of integration are functional (the DSS functions are linked to existing systems) and physical (the hardware and software of the DSS merge with existing). The next slide portrays one model for global DSS integration. Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Generalized Globally Integrated DSS Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall

Resistance and Other “Normal” Reactions Resistance to change is normal and should be expected. Several factors contribute: Self-interest – the new system may be a threat to current status Fear of unknown – users may be uncertain of their ability to learn new skills Differing perceptions – users may believe the new system will be ineffective. Suspicion – users may not trust the advocates of the project Conservatism – users may feel everything is fine now, and may simply be opposed to change Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall