Abstract
Technical organizations with complex engineering activities possess strong methods for conceptualizing, designing and managing complex engineered systems. This type of organization could involve critical resources, and the project could be time critical. Technical managers often rely on their intuitions to make critical decisions in this domain. If this intuition is not mindfully managed, it can result in a single-point failure of the project. To address this, the author proposes the use of an organizational decision-making framework (D’MHAS model) which conceptualizes decision-making as a perceived human activity system. The framework adopts a systems perspective in combination with the concept of requisite variety to guide intuition-led decisions in technical organizations. D’MHAS is made up of concrete systems (processes, behaviours, structures and meaning) and conceptual systems (concepts and ideas) which are in continuous flux through time; it incorporates the idea of requisite variety to allow for effective management of the system. The framework allows for thinking, reflection and learning while taking action. In this paper, Vickers’s idea of appreciation and an appreciative system is revisited as the theoretical basis for the development of D’MHAS model. The discussion of the operational factors of the model and how it was validated are presented. The domain of the Nigerian Space Agency (NASRDA) was used as an example to validate the model.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blunden, M.: Vickers’ contribution to management thinking. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 12, 107–112 (1985)
Guo, K.: DECIDE: a decision-making model for more effective decision making by health care managers. Health Prog. 39(3), 133–141 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0000000000000299
Mumford, E.: The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Inf. Syst. J. 16(4), 317–342 (2006)
Ramkhelawan, T., Barry, M.L.: Leading a technical organization through change: a focus on the key drivers affecting communication. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pp. 1386–1390. IEEE (2010)
Calvo‐Amodio, J.: Using principles as activity drivers in human activity systems. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 36(5), 678–686 (2019)
Vaughan: The challenger launch decision: risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press (1996). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsacl&an=edsacl.miu01000000000000003603043&site=eds-live
Hayward, T., Preston, J.: Chaos theory, economics and information: the implications for strategic decision-making. J. Inf. Sci. 5(3), 173–182 (1998)
Nutt, P.C.: Surprising but true: half the decisions in organizations fail. Acad. Manag. Executive 13(4), 75–89 (1999)
Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., Saint-Macary, J.: Opening up decision making: the view from the black stool. Organ. Sci. 6(3), 260–279 (1995)
Eisenhardt, K.M., Zbaracki, M.J.: Strategic decision making. Strateg. Manag. J. 13(Special Issue), 17–37 (1992)
Seyman, B.-U., Mustafa, S., Merve, V.-A.: Multi criteria decision making approaches for evaluation of equipment selection processes in rowing. J. Phys. Educ. Sports Sci. 19(2) (2021)
Mahmoudi, M., Pingle, M.: Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and choice. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 75, 141–153 (2018). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ecn&an=1719963&site=eds-live
Ilori, M.O., Irefin, I.A.: Technology decision making in organisations. Technovation 17(3), 153–160 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(96)00086-7
March, K., Weissinger-Baylon, R.: Ambiguity and Command: Organizational Perspectives on Military Decision Making, pp. 11–35. Addison Wesley Longman (1986)
Mohsen, R., Javad, S., Hossein, K., & Ali, M.: A new hybrid decision-making framework to rank power supply systems for government organizations: a real case study. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 41 (2020)
Ashok, S.: Optimised model for community-based hybrid energy system. Renew. Energy 32, 1155–1164 (2007)
Bartolucci, L., Cordiner, S., Mulone, V., Rossi, J.L.: Hybrid renewable energy systems for household ancillary services. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 107, 282–297 (2019)
Tina, G., Gagliano, S., Raiti, S.: Hybrid solar/wind power system probabilistic modelling for long-term performance assessment. Sol. Energy 80(5), 578–588 (2006)
Tezer, T., Yaman, R., Yaman, G.: Evaluation of approaches used for optimization of stand-alone hybrid renewable energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 73, 840–853 (2017)
Polanyi, M.: The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press (2009). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat01619a&an=up.1232260&site=eds-live
Spender: Organizational learning and knowledge management: whence and whither? Manag. Learn. 39(2), 159–176 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607087582
Morrison, K.: Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought, vol. 2. Sage Publications, London (2006)
Blackburn, S.: The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2 rev. edn. Oxford University Press (2008). https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001
Stowell, F., & Welch, C.: The manager’s guide to systems practice: making sense of complex problems. Wiley, Croydon (2012)
Checkland, P., & Tsouvalis, C.: Reflecting on SSM: the link between root definitions and conceptual models. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. Off. J. Int. Feder. Syst. Res. 14(3), 153–168 (1997)
Merriam-Webster dictionary. Retrieved 11th November 2012 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Checkland, P.: From framework through experience to learning: the essential nature of action research. Inf. Syst. Res. 397–403 (1991)
Checkland, P.: Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester (1981)
Checkland, P.: Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-Year Retrospective. Wiley, Chichester (1999)
Vickers: The Art of Judgement. Chapman and Hall (1965)
Smith, S.A.: Modelling the discharge decision-making process in the domain of mental health care. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paisley (2001)
Checkland, P., & Casar, A.: Vickers’ concept of an appreciative system: a systemic account. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 13(3), 3–17 (1986)
West, D.: The appreciative inquiry method: a systemic approach to information systems requirements analysis. In: Stowell, F.A. (ed.) Information Systems Provision: The Contribution of Soft Systems Methodology, pp. 140–158. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead (1995)
West, D.: Knowledge elicitation as an inquiring system: towards a ‘subjective’ knowledge elicitation methodology. J. Inf. Syst. 2, 31–44 (1992)
Churchman, C.W.: The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books, New York (1971)
Axelrod, R.: Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. In: Conte, R., Hegselmann, R., Terna, P. (eds.) Simulating Social Phenomena. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 456. Springer, Berlin (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03366-1_2
Slettebø, T.: Participant validation: exploring a contested tool in qualitative research. Qual. Soc. Work. 20(5), 1223–1238 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020968189
Ulrich, W.: Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 54(4), 325–342 (2003)
Wilson, B.: Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications. Wiley, Chichester (1984)
Harwood, S.A.: The management of change and the Viplan methodology in practice. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 63(6), 748–761 (2012)
Troitzsch, K.G.: Validating simulation models. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Simulation Multiconference, pp. 98–106. SCS, Erlagen, Germany (2004)
Bharathy, G.K., Silverman, B.: Validating agent based social systems models. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference, Baltimore, MD, USA, pp. 441–453 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2010.5679142
Ashby, W.R.: An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall (1961)
Beer, S.: Brain of the Firm, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (1981)
Kila, A., Hart, P.: Towards building an intelligent system based on cybernetics and Viable system model. Science 1(40), 141–163 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.49.1259.170
Beer, S.: Diagnosing the System for Organizations, Wiley, New York (1985)
Fox, B.C., Simsek, Z., Heavey, C.: Top management team experiential variety, competitive repertoires, and firm performance: examining the law of requisite variety in the 3D printing industry (1986–2017). Acad. Manag. J. 65(2), 545–576 (2022). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0734
Connelly, B.L., Tihanyi, L., Ketchen, D.J., Carnes, C.M., Ferrier, W.J.: Competitive repertoire complexity: governance antecedents and performance outcomes. Strateg. Manag. J. 38, 1151–1173 (2017)
Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J., Lukasik, M.A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A.L.: Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta-analysis. J. Manag. 37, 709–743 (2011)
Vickers, G.: A classification of systems. General Syst. 15, 3–6 (1970)
Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood, NJ (1986)
Smith, S.A.: Modelling complex decision-making: contribution towards the development of a decision support aid (2001)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Some participants’ feedback forms
![A form denotes a set of feedback questions in two sections. Section 1 denotes the guide to using the mnemonic V F PETER. Section 2 comprises the answers to a set of questions. The bottom part denotes the spaces to input the name of the participant, date, and signature.](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-981-99-6702-5_1/MediaObjects/600555_1_En_1_Figa_HTML.png)
![A form denotes a set of feedback questions in two sections. Section 1 denotes the guide to using the mnemonic V F PETER. Section 2 comprises the answers to a set of questions. The bottom part denotes the spaces to input the name of the participant, date, and signature.](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-981-99-6702-5_1/MediaObjects/600555_1_En_1_Figb_HTML.png)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kila, A., Hart, P. (2023). Towards the Development of a Decision-Making Framework: A Contribution Inform of a Decision Support Aid for Complex Technical Organization. In: Bhateja, V., Yang, XS., Ferreira, M.C., Sengar, S.S., Travieso-Gonzalez, C.M. (eds) Evolution in Computational Intelligence. FICTA 2023. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 370. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6702-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6702-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-6701-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-6702-5
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)