1、- 1 -西安科技大学毕业设计(论文)文献翻译题 目 管理信息系统的决策模型 院、系(部) 计算机科学与技术学院 专业及班级 计科 0804 班 姓 名 齐 乐 指 导 教 师 朱 宇 日 期 2012 年 3 月 - 2 -管理信息系统的决策模型Kweku-Muata Osei -rysonOjelanki Ngwenyama网上发表：2008 年 5 月 1 日施普林格科学+商业媒体公司 2008 1 介绍在过去的二十年，管理信息系统(MIS）作为重要决策已变得十分复杂。每天,信息系统的管理者在组织的世界各地的数十亿美元的资产管理,必须采取复杂的决定,涉及信息安全、外包、灾难恢复、软件、硬
2、件和供应商选择、投资策略、定时执行复杂的软件系统(如企业资源规划(ERP)。这些对决策问题的认识不足,差劲的决策分析,失误的判断可能对公司产生灾难性的影响。然而,由于已经受到研究决策模型和构架的研究限制,这有助于信息技术(IT)管理者面对这些复杂的决策问题。虽然有研究人员工作在这些领域,越来越多的出现在外界关于IS的学术领域。这个特殊问题的第二个目标是发展带动一个系列的研究，管理者将继续关注的问题提供解决方案，同时许多新兴复杂问题也将会是管理人员需要面对的。2 信息系统决策背景管理信息系统的决策问题,如信息安全、外包、灾难恢复、软件、硬件和供应商选择、投资策略、定时执行复杂的软件系统(如ERP
3、)都是十分复杂的，它可以对公司产生负面影响。这些决策问题的复杂性来自组织和环境条件,包括具有不同的目标和风险偏好的多股份持有者；多种目标和价值权衡取舍；竞争环境与风险和不确定性；以及各个元素之间的依赖关系，不确定的时间范围和战略决策的影响。在这些条件下决策者经常有困难识别决策的替代者,必须富有创造性、小心翼翼地他们的分析,否则错误的IS决策将会在文献中体现出来（1999年Lyttinen和罗比杨荣文2002年。Ngwenyama等人2007 ） 。当管理者面临复杂的IS问题时,决策分析框架和方法能当他们帮助是非常有用的。(1) 询问问的领域;(2)构建决策问题以及产生可选择性；(3) 分析和评
4、估他们选择的影响；（4）确定的决策者的偏好；（5）决策方案评估和比较,以及分析的影响。然而,当一般理论和框架存在作为决策分析时，IS自身问题的复杂性和多样性,需要研究与发展的具体作品和模型框架,这类决策问题的管理人员需要面对的。3 论文关于这个特殊的问题我提出八份论文，这包括了一系列的方法和广泛的决策解决问题。论文总体上可以分为两大类，决策分析框架和决策模型。其中之一时论文提出的一个概念性的框架;其中五个文件呈现结构化的决策分析框架，另外三个目前- 3 -基于决策理论模型。 当所有的论文遵循设计科学范式的研究,决定现在实证案例论文框架,决策理论进行分析目前示范模型。Samoilenko论文(
5、信息系统健康和风险在IS中的发展：混乱和复杂系统理论中的洞察力和影响力）概述了一个框架和原则是基于混沌和复杂性理论的健康和风险分析的IS。Samoilenko方法是更具有欣赏性的传统决策,那里的焦点是在思维方式来帮助决策者欣赏问题的状况。Aydin和Bakker(从知识管理的角度分析IT外包维护决策 )也遵循这一传统 ,但从经验论的角度概括 知识管理问题的决定分析框架IS外包。 他们主要集中在讯问问题域和构建决策问题的战略。Alaranta和Henningsson(一种分析和规划合并后IS集成:了解两个领域研究)合并后的信息系统整合规划勾勒出的框架和方法。合并后的整合是一个复杂的多方面的问题，
6、是具有挑战性的许多IS管理者。Alaranta和Henningsson讨论的规划过程中的重要决定和建议接近他们的战略。他们的做法的一个重要特征是他们通晓从经验论案例研究的有利和不利的策略。Scheepers和Scheepers(一个分析潜在的商业价值IT投资的过程聚焦的决策框架)框架,着重分析了投资的视角出发,创造商业价值）着重分析了投资的视角出发,创造商业价值。这些作者在IT商务进程的潜在价值中探索并发展出了一种模型；一个具有挑战性的事业所需的成本效益分析。最后的这一范畴是由Barclay提出的（迈向集成的IS项目性能的测量:项目绩效计分卡),那个评估项目绩效而提供框架和方法是根据现有的IS
7、成功的和平衡的计分卡的理论模型的人。她着重于起决定性作用的规模的项目利益是与其他利益相关者和赞美的偏好所不同的。这三个决策理论的论文所涵盖的主题也各不相同。像Barclay, Plaza(团队绩效和系统信息实现不同曲线过程中的挣值法在系统信息项目中的应用)涉及到工程性能而来这个问题从不同的角度看问题。Plaza 对大型规模的IS项目的预测完成时间（和花费）很感兴趣，同时他还提出了一种基于挣值法和学习曲线的模型。Rao 和Osei-Bryson（在数据库设计中纳入了以质量为基础的成本效益分析方法）专注与数据仓库的一个方面，其中主要关注的是决心要生产和存储在数据仓库中的数据。他们提出一种成本效益模
8、式，结合数据仓库中设计中的质量问题。最后Turetken(您备份的IT基础设施在安全的地方吗?) 提出了一种多目标决策模型的业务连续性规划的IT 基础设施。4 贡献问题这个 ISF 的论题从以下几点对管理信息系统的理论和实践作出了贡献：(1)论文提出的框架和模式已经立即应用于各阶级的 IS 决策问题。 （2）论文作者为进一步研究论文到决策模型问题的可能性，已经解决了的问题。然而这项研究却可以沿着不同的路线发展：(一)为解决问题的决策支持系统的发展;(二)其他方法或技术可能适用于目前方法扩展的广度和深度；(三)替代方法可以被提出一系列问题，同时比较分析也可以被引导。我们对所有提交论文的作者表示感
9、谢。我们同样向那些认真审阅论文以保证论文应有的质量的人表示感谢。- 4 -Decision models for information systems managementKweku-Muata Osei -rysonOjelanki NgwenyamaPublished online: 1 May 2008#Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 20081 IntroductionIn the last two decades, information systems management(MIS) decision making has becom
10、e more complex. Everyday, IS managers in organizations of all over the world manage billions dollars of assets and must make complex decisions that involve information security, outsourcing, disaster recovery, software, hardware and vendor selection, investment strategies, timing the implementation
11、of complex software systems (such as enterprise resource planning(ERP) ). Inadequate understanding of these decision problems, poor decision analysis, and bad judgment can result in catastrophic outcomes for companies. However, there has been limited research on decision models and frameworks that c
12、ould assist in formation technology (IT) managers with these complex decision problems. While there are researchers working in these areas, much of their work appears in journals outside the field of IS . The primary objective of this special issue of Information Systems Frontiers is to focus on pro
13、viding solutions to significant IS management problems and to provide strategic knowledge for practicing managers. A second objective of this special issue to give impetus to the development of a line of research that would continue to focus attention on providing solutions for the many emerging com
14、plex problems that IS managers may face.2 Information systems decision contextInformation systems management decision problems such as in formation security, outsourcing, disaster recovery, software, hardware and vendor selection, investment strategies, timing the implementation of complex software
15、systems (such as ERP) are extremely complex and can adversely impact the performance of the firm. The complexity of these decision problems derive from organization and environmental conditions that include (a) multiple stake holders with different goals and risk preferences (b) multiple objectives
16、and value tradeoffs; (c) competitive environments with risk and uncertainty; and (d) inter dependencies, indefinite time horizons and strategic impacts of decision . Under these conditions decision makers often have difficulties identifying decision alternatives and must be creative and careful in t
17、heir analysis, as the consequences of poor IS decision making found in the literature show (Lyttinen and Robey - 5 -1999;Yeo 2002; Ngwenyama et al. 2007).When managers face complex IS problems, decision analysis frameworks and methods can be extremely useful when they assist: (1) interrogating the p
18、roblem domain; (2) structuring decision problems and generating alternatives; (3) analyzing alternatives and assessing their impacts; (4) determining the preferences of decision makers; (5) evaluating and comparing decision alternatives, and, analysis of implications. However, while general theories
19、 and frameworks exists for decision analysis, the complexity and diversity of IS problems necessitate research and development of frame works and models specific to the class of decision problems that IS managers face.3 The papersIn this special issue we present eight papers that present a range of
20、approaches and address a wide range of IS decision problems. In general the papers can be classified into two categories, frameworks for decision analysis and decision models. One of the papers presents a conceptual framework; five of the papers present structured decision analysis frameworks, and t
21、hree present decision-theoretic based models. While all the papers follow the design science paradigm of research, the decision framework papers present empirical cases, and the decision-theoretic papers present demonstrations of analysis using the models. The Samoilenko paper (Information Systems F
22、itness and Risk in IS Development: Insights and Implications from Chaos and Complex Systems Theories) outlines a framework and principles for analyzing IS fitness and risk based on chaos and complexity theory. Samoilenko approach is more in the tradition of appreciative decision making, where the fo
23、cus is on ways of thinking to help the decision maker appreciate the problem situation. Aydin and Bakker (Analyzing IT Maintenance Outsourcing Decision from a Knowledge Management Perspective) also follow this tradition but from an empirically grounded perspective outlining a framework for decision
24、analysis of knowledge management issues in IS outsourcing. They focus mainly on strategies for interrogating the problem domain and structuring the decision problem. Alaranta and Henningsson (An Approach to Analyzing and Planning Post-Merger IS Integration: Insights from Two Field Studies) outline a
25、 framework and approach for post-merger information systems integration planning. Post-merger IS integration is a complex multidimensional problem that is challenging many IS managers. Alaranta and Henningsson discuss the key decisions of the planning process and suggest strategies for approaching t
26、hem. An important feature of their approach is its grounding in empirical case studies of favorable and unfavorable strategies. The Scheepers and Scheepers (A Process-focused Decision Framework for Analyzing the Business Value Potential of IT Investments) framework focuses on analyzing IT investment
27、s from the perspective of business value creation. These authors develop a model for exploring the business value potential of IT at the business process level; a challenging undertaking necessary for cost-benefit analysis. The last of this category is that of Barclay (Towards An Integrated Measurem
28、ent of IS Project Performance: The Project Performance Scorecard), who presents a framework and approach for evaluating project performance based on existing theoretical models of IS success and the Balanced Scorecard. She focuses on defining dimensions of project measurement that are of interest to
29、 different stakeholders and a process for eliciting preferences. The three decision-theoretic papers also vary in topics that they cover. Like Barclay, Plaza (Team Performance and Information System Implementation Application of the Progress Curve to - 6 -the Earned Value Method in an Information Sy
30、stem Project) is concerned with IS project performance but comes to the issue from a different perspective. Plaza is interested in predicting implementation times (and cost) for large scale IS projects and proposes a decision model based on the earned value method and the learning curve. Rao and Ose
31、i-Bryson (An Approach for Incorporating Quality-Based CostBenefit Analysis in Data Warehouse Design) focus on an aspect of data warehouse design where the major concern is the determination of the data that are to be produced and stored in the data warehouse. They present a cost-benefit model that i
32、ncorporates quality issues in data warehouse design. Finally Turetken (Is Your Back-Up IT Infrastructure in a Safe Location?) presents a multi-criteria decision model for location of the IT infrastructure for business continuity planning.4 Contribution of this issueThis issue of ISF makes a contribu
33、tion to theory and practice of IS management from the following perspectives: (1) The papers present frameworks and models that have immediate application to various classes of IS decision problems. (2) The papers present possibilities for further research into decision models for the problems that
34、the authors have addressed. However, this research can evolve along different lines: (a) the development of decision support systems for the addressed problems; (b) other approaches or techniques that might be applicable for extending the breadth and depth of the current approaches; (c) alternative
35、approaches can be proposed for the set of problems and comparative analysis can be conducted. We wish to express our appreciation to all the authors who submitted papers. We also wish to express our gratitude to all the reviewers who diligently reviewed the papers in order to ensure that that there was appropriate quality and fit.
