Critiques
...rticle are dedicated to the evolution of DSS and a classification of the types of information systems. The discussion is followed by figure 1-4 (pp.10), which presents DSS as being at one end of the continuum and the other types of information systems (IS) following it. The figure, however, somehow creates a confusion: when describing the different types of the IS the author states that each is part of DSS (pp.7, 8). The figure shows, however, that these IS are independent of each other. Further, the author presents a number of definitions for DSS (pp. 10) and then chooses to give his own. It is not clear as to why that was necessary and further no explanation is presented as to what made the writer’s definition better. To the contrary, the author states that: “this is, in other words, a broad definition” (pp. 13). The definition, furthermore, defines the domain of the variables in terms of relationship, rather than in condition. The difficulty of this tautological error is that the variable is defined in terms of results and thus is impossible to measure independently. To illustrate, the author states in his definition: “information system whose primary purpose is to provide knowledge workers with information on which to base informed decisions” (pp.12). The latter is clearly the result of the IS. The reader is the one that has the burden to determine the degree of the relationship, not the writer. And how does one present a measure of informed decisions that come out of IS? In addition, the author defines the “DSS” with “computer-based information system” that provides “information” to “knowledge workers” to make “informed decisions”. The writer defines the independent and dependent variables so that their logically separate dimensions are not clear. That constitutes another aspect of tautology. Moreover, one of the main points of theory building is to enable one to measure the validity of the definitions. For that one should have adequate definition of properties that can be assessed. In this particular case, how can one measure the attitudes of the knowledge workers (when they obtained the necessary information), which are solely cognitive? In other words, how does one put in measurable terms the “feelings of the knowledgeable workers that got an information that let them made an informed decision”? In addition, some of the terms in the definition can actually vary on the continuum: Providing (knowledge workers) Minimal-------------------------Extensive Information Minimal-------------------------Extensive Knowledge (of the workers) Minimal-------------------------Extensive When the author talks about the outcomes of utilizing DSS (pp. 13-15), he puts these outcomes in terms like effectiveness and efficiency. He defines efficiency as “doing the same things as before, with the same results, but more quickly, but less expensively “(pp. 15). That puts this definition in a rather uncle...