Tilburg University
A note on types of information systems
van Reeken, A.J.
Publication date:
1986
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal
Citation for published version (APA):
van Reeken, A. J. (1986). A note on types of information systems. (pp. 1-8). (Ter Discussie FEW). Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen.
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
1986
13 ATHOLIEKE HOGESCHOOL TILBURG
REEKS TER DISCUSSIE
No. 86.13
A note on T~pes of Information Systems
C
'~~-yS-Drs. A.J. van Reeken juni 1986
A note on Types of Information Systems
Drs. A.J. van Reeken
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Decomposition of an organization 3. Discussion
4. Conclusion
1. Introduction
In ~SS, Information systems and Management Games" (1) it is stated that "We can distinguish two main types of information systems in organizations: a) Systems that define the rights and obligations of an organization or of
groups or individuals within the organization
b) Systems that provide information for decisions at any level." and
"Information systems of the second type are called management information sys-tems or management accounting syssys-tems. This class of information syssys-tems in-cludes, but is not equivalent to Decision Support Systems." The paper (1) then proceeds discussing DSS mainly with respect to the INFOLAB-project.
It is the purpose of this note to show that it is worthwhile to distinguish more than two types of information systems in organizations. The reasons for
this are:
1) The set of information systems under a and b above, is a subset of what are usually called information systems in organizations. All office work for example, has been excluded in the above definition.
2) It might be that a further classification of information systems reveales properties of those systems relevant within the context of the above men-tioned paper.
2. Decomposition of an organization
2.1.
In his book "Bestuurlijke informatiesystemen en automatisering" (2), Bemelmans decomposes an organization according to three characteristics:
a) decision hierarchy b) functional units
c) type of management decision.
ad a .
2
ad b.
In the organization several functional units (Blumenthal (3)) can be identi-fied: acquisition, production, sales, personnel affaírs, financial affairs, etc.
ad c.
Three types of management decisions can be identified: planning decisions, decisions with respect to execution of tasks and control decisions.
The following figure, taken from Bemelmans' book, illustrates this decomposi-tion.
Figure 1: Decomposition of an organization according to decision hierarchy, functional units and management decisions. (Bemelmans)
concludes that middle management is involved with the logistic
inform-ation system as well as with the management informinform-ation system.
Note 2:The types of management decisions: planning, execution and control decisions, can be compared with the 'trias politica'. This dístinction
is necessary in order to prevent the corruption of management.
2.2.
Also Mantz distinguishes between planning, execution and control, but in his view they are (sub) processes, coordinated by management. He calls them plan-ning, implementation and evaluation (4). In his General Process Model, how-ever, the decision hierarchy is included recursively. Consequently, he postu-lates no theoretical limit to the number of decision hierarchy levels, al-though in practice he limits the number of levels from 4 to 7, depending on the object system he studies: Social systems have more levels than Business systems.
This view will be illustrated in the next figures.
Figure 2 illustrates a simple controlled process, with the subprocesses: plan-ning (P), implementation (I) and evaluation (E) and the coordinating manage-ment function (M) as control subprocess, and the transformation subprocess as operational subprocess.
OECISION POINTS FOR FLOIr-Sk' I TCH I Nc
4
Figure 3 illustrates a more complicated controlled process. As can be seen, each control subprocess can be viewed as an implementation subprocess of a higher hierarchy level.
i i p~ il ~ ~~ m ~- ~ INPUT e i OUTPUT
Figure 3: Environment as process-system (Mantz (5)).
Since the p, i, and e subprocesses are processes, this general model is ap-plicable to these processes as well. So planning e.g. should consist of a p-,
i- and e-subprocess and an m-function. Note, however, that the relation bet-ween p' (of higher level) and p(of lower level) differs from the relation between i' and i. The control hierarchy within the system focusses on i, not on p and e. (That is why e.g. an organizational Quality Assurance System is so difficult to establish.)
Turning again to the simple controlled process model of figure 2, we note four management decision points:
D1) input from a higher hierarchy level initiates a planning subprocess,
D2) the output from the planning subprocess is a) feedback to the planning subprocess or b) input to the implementation subprocess,
D3) the output from the implementation subprocess is judged and possibly input to the evaluation subprocess,
D4) the output from the evaluation subprocess is judged and possibly reported to a higher hierarchy level.
management has to take in its coordinating role between these three activities (or powers) ánd the higher hierarchy level.
These four decisions are very different.
- D1 is translating wishes into orders for a plan.
- D2 is judging whether the plan (a technical entity) is good enough to be implemented.
- D3 is judging whether the implementation (an economic-technical entity) is good enough or should be evaluated.
- D4 is judging whether the evaluation (a socio-economic-technical entity) is good enough and~or should be reported to higher management.
2.3.
Davis and Olson (6) distinguish six types of support systems: a) Transaction processing support system
b) Office support system
c) Operational control support system d) Management control support system e) Decision support system
f) Strategic planning support system.
Can these six types be matched with the views presented? An interpretation of Davis and Olson is the following.
Since Davis and Olson also distinguish four hierarchy levels, called Transac-tion Processing, OperaTransac-tional Control, Management Control and Strategic Plan-ning, the types a, c, d and f can be matched with the four levels of figure 1. Type e will be found at all three top levels, but Davis and Olson recognize an increase in unstructuredness f rom lower to higher levels. Type b will be found at all four levels. Davis and Olson discuss the broader topic of support for knowledge work, whether in transaction processing, office functions, or ma-nagement activities.
2.4.
In order to describe the functional units, Bemelmans (2) lists the various aspect systems of a system according to system theory (7):
a) the technological aspect system b) the economíc-financial aspect system
6
d) the spacial aspect system e) the political aspect system f) the information aspect system.
Also is this respect Bemelmans differs from Blumenthal (3).
In my opinion these aspect systems do only cover the supporting functional uníts. How does one cover acquisition, sales, etc. in this list?
3. Discussion
From the presentation in par. 2 it will be clear that a great number of diffe-rent types of information systems can be distinguished.
If we include the environment as well, there are five hierarchy levels. There are information flows between these five levels via the m-functions. (At least; since we know from practice that not all information flows via the co-ordinators.)
There are four different types of management decisions to be taken. I don't see how there could be less than four different types of management ínforma-tion systems.
There could be an argument why there should be less than five times four dif-ferent types of management information systems:
a) In a number of organization types, the environment doesn't use an organiza-tional information system. But there certainly are organizat~ons that offer a management information system to its clients (Tourist offices, postorder warehouses, libraries). It might even be argued that Value Added Services
could be offered through these type of systems.
b) Apart from a) the four types of decisions are etructurally alike at all four hierarchy levels. However, from lowest to highest hierarchy level the amount of structured information relative to the amount of unstructured information decreases and the fraction of information from outside the o r ganization increases.
Without further argument it would not be wise to i gnore these differences. As
classifies types of decisions along the axis: importance and relative avail-able time. I suggest that this distinction be made within the organizatíonal decomposition instead of autonomously.
There are a number of functional units to be supported with information
sys-tems; eome operational and some managerial. From the operational systems, the
first type of eystems according to Casimir (1) (and mentioned in this intro-duction under a)) are only a fraction. All other registration systems, not necessarily being rights and obligations, have to be recognized. This covers also registration of events and entities.
I am not sure how to classify information systems for office work. From one point of view they are operational, from another point of view they are ma-nagerial. In production-organizations we will find them in the three top le-vels of hierarchy. In service-organizations we will find them in all lele-vels of hierarchy.
4. Conclusion
A(simple) dichotomy of information systems for organizations is not suffi-cient to study Decision Support Systems for organizations.
5. Some further remarks
1. For DSS at some hierarchy level the information system of a lower level ne-ver provides all the information needed at that higher level, since that higher level will want to use information from its environment, outside the scope of that lower level. (See Casimir (1), page 2, line 4~6)
2. I do not see why "importance" of a decision i s a relevant aspect with
re-gard to DSS, and why the definition by Casimir is the right one. (See
Casimir ( 1), page 2, line 14~17 f.b.)
8
4. There is an association of the concept "decision" with the concepts "chal-lenge and response" (Toynbee, Odobleja). According to these authors, what we do is, seeking benefit, balance and harmony. A challenge is a disturb-ance of benefit, baldisturb-ance or harmony. A response is a decision directed to restoring benefit, balance and harmony. A DSS should accordingly support those decisions. Since there is a hierarchy in these concepts, the lower hierarchy levels in the organization are with regard to the final products or services more oriented towards benefit, the higher levels are more oriented towards harmony.
6. Referenced literature
1) Casimir, Robert J.: DSS, Information systems and Management; Reeks "Ter Discussie", nr. 86.07, KHT, Tilburg, mei 1986.
2) Bemelmans, prof. d r. T.M.A.: Bestuurlijke informatiesystemen en sutomatise-ring, Stenfert Kroese, Leiden, 1981.
3) Blumenthal, S.: Informatiesystemen voor ondernemingen, Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1974.
4) Mantz, M.R.: A framework of reference to improve the quality of life; Hilversum (no date).
5) Mantz, M.R.: Development of total systems with the aid of general models; Hilversum (no date).
6) Davis, Gordon B. and Margrethe A. Olson: Management Information Systems -Conceptual Foundations, Structure, and Development; McGraw-Hill, 2nd edi-tion, 1985.
7) Leeuw, A. de: Systeemleer en organisatiekunde; Stenfert Rroese, Leiden,
IN 1985 REEDS VERSCHENEN O1. A. Roes 02. P. Kort 03. G.J.C.Th. van Schijndel 04. J. Kriens J.J.M. Peterse 05. J. Kriens R.H. Veenstra
06. A. van den Elzen D. Talman 07. W. van Eijs W. de Freytas T. Mekel 08. A. van Soest P. Kooreman 09. H. Gremmen
10. F. van der Ploeg
11. J. Moors
12. F. van der Ploeg
13. C.P. van Binnendijk P.A.M. Versteijne 14. R.J. Casimir
Betalingsproblemen van niet olie-exporterende ontwikkelingslanden
en IMF-beleid, 1973-1983 febr. Aanpassingskosten in een dynamisch
model van de onderneming maart Optimale besturing en dynamisch
ondernemingsgedrag maart
Toepassing van de
regressie-schatter in d e accountantscontrole mei Statistical Sampling in Internal Control by Using the A.O.Q.L.-system
(revised version of Ter Discussie
no. 83.02) juni
A new strategy-adjustment process for computing a Nash equilibrium in a
noncooperative more-person game juli Automatisering, Arbeidstijd en
Werkgelegenheid juli
Nederlanders op vakantie
Een micro-economische analyse sept.
Macro-economisch computerspel
Beschrijving van een model okt. Inefficíency of credible strategies
in oligopolistic resource markets
with uncertainty okt.
Some tossing experiments with
biased coins. dec.
The effects of a tax and income policy on government finance,
employment and capital formation dec. Stadsvernieuwing: vernieuwing van
het stadhuis? dec.
Infolab
Een laboratorium voor
IN 1986 REEDS VERSCHENEN
O1. F. van der Ploeg
02. J. van Mier
03. J.J.A. Moors
04. G.J. van den Berg 05. G.J. van den Berg
06. P. Kooreman
07. R.J. Casimir
08. A.J. van Reeken
09. E. Berns
10. Anna Haraficzyk
11. A.J. van Reeken
12. A.J. van Reeken
~i~u~~ii~~~ii~~N~i~~~aWu
Monopoly Unions, Investment and Employment: Benefits of
Contingent Wage Contracts
Gewone differentievergelijkingen met niet-constante coëfficiënten en partiële differentievergelijkingen (vervolg R.T.D. no. 84.32)
jan.
febr.
Het Bayesiaanse Cox-Snell-model
by accountantscontroles. maart Nonstationarity in job search theory april Small-sample properties of estimators
of the autocorrelation coefficient april Huishoudproduktie en de analyse
van tijdsbesteding april
DSS, Information systems and
Management Games mei
De ontwikkeling van de
informatie-systeemontwikkeling mei
Filosofie, economie en macht juni The Comparative Analysis of the
Social Development of Cracow, Bratislava, and Leipzig, in the period 1960-1985
Over de relatie tussen de begrippen: offer, resultaat, efficiëntie, effec-tiviteit, produktíviteit, rendement en kwaliteit
juni
juni Groeiende Index van
