Lecture 1: Paper 1: A program for research on management information systems.
Richard O. Mason & Ian I. Mitroff.
A management information system (MIS) consists of at least one person of a certain
psychological type who faces a problem within some organizational context for which he
needs evidence to arrive at a solution and that the evidence is made available to him
through some mode of presentation.
In the past, research is done on just one type, just one method etc. The purpose of this
paper is to demonstrate that other methods are available by indicating a research program
that would attempt to explore each of the variables in a systematic fashion.
For this research, a taxonomy of states for each variable was necessary:
1) Psychological type
Thinking – Sensation Sensation
Thinking – Intuition Intuition
Feeling – Sensation Thinking
Feeling – Intuition Feeling
2) Class of Problems
Structured
- Decisions under certainty
- Decisions under risk
- Decisions under uncertainty
Unstructured
3) Method of evidence generation and guarantor of evidence – Inquiring Systems(IS)
Lockean IS (data based)
Leibnitzian IS (model based)
Kantian IS (multiple models)
Hegelian IS (deadly enemy – conflicting models)
Singerian-Churchmanian IS (learning systems)
4) Organizational Context or Organizational Class of Problem
Strategic planning
Management control
Operational control
5) Models of presentation
Personalistic
- Drama – Role plays
- Art – Graphics
- One to one contact group interaction
Impersonalistic
- Company reports
- Abstract models – computerized information systems
,1. Psychological type
The Jungian typology is the most suggestive of research hypothesis in this subject. This
typology is characterized by four major modes or psychological functions. Two of the modes
pertain to the dominant psychological function that an individual use to perceive (sense) the
objects in the world, while the other two modes pertain to the dominant psychological
functions that the individual uses to evaluate (judge) the objects of his perception.
Perceiving (sense) in this case is divided into two different and opposing modes.
‘Sensation’ refers to the type of individual who relies primarily on data received by
his senses in order to perceive the objects of the world. In other words, by sensory
processes, ‘objective, hard facts. Perceives objects as they are. Day-to-day
operation fits best with sensory managers.
o Information will be ‘raw data’, ‘hard facts’.
‘Intuition’ refers to the mode of perceiving objects as possibilities. Intuition
perceives objects as they might be and in totality, as a gestalt. Strategy making is
the strength of intuitive managers. More data-free, makes conclusions based on no
data.
o Information in the form of ‘imaginative stories’.
A management of just sensory runs the risk of being unable to envision future possibilities
and lacks innovation. A management of just intuitive runs the risk of always living in the
future and never paying proper attention to the past.
The alternate modes for evaluation (judge) are:
Thinking refers to types that primarily rely on cognitive processes. Evaluations run
along the lines of abstract true/false judgements and are based on formal systems
of reasoning.
o Information will be entirely symbolic, abstract systems or model.
Feeling implies the type of individual who relies primarily on affective processes.
Evaluations tend to run along personalistic lines of good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant
and like/dislike. Interested and concerned with moral judgements.
o Information takes form of ‘art’, ‘poetry’, storing with morel component’.
Thinking types basic approach is to form rules and model to solve problems and to deal in
certain situations. These models become often the ‘most perfect’ expression. They can
become victims of and slaves to their own categories and suffer from ‘hardening of the
categories’.
The Jungian typology states that these types are only theoretical. A personality is a blending
and contrasting of these pure types. No one mode of perceiving is more basic than others.
What is information for one type will definitely not be information for another. Thus, as
designers of MIS, our job is not to get or force all types of conform to one, but to give each
type the kind of information he is psychologically attuned to and will use most effectively.
,2. Problem Types
Structured: 3 basic
Decision problem under certainty. In which A, V, O and S are all know.
Decision problem under risk. If the relationship between A and B is probabilistic and
know.
Decision problem under uncertainty. If the probabilities are not known but the
possible states of the worlds are known.
Unstructured
Unstructured or wicked decision problem. In which A, U, O and S terms or sets is
totally unknown or not known with any high degree of confidence. These problems
require a form of new appreciation of the situation. The information required for
these problems is different from well-structured problems.
MIS is designed for providing information for well-defined and structured problems.
Coming in next section: some methodologies particularly suited for wicked problems.
3. Types of evidence generators and guarantors
For managers, information is the evidence upon which his decision will be based. He relies
on some methods of generating evidence to the exclusion of other because for him the
guarantees that the evidence produced by these IS is true are much stronger. Important
factors in MIS design are: type of evidence generating systems used and the type of
guarantees behind it. Any IS can be used to model and provide evidence for any problem, it
does not automatically follow that each is equally effective or efficient for representing or
working on all kinds of problems:
A. Lockean IS (Databanks, accounting and statistics)
The archetype of experimental, consensual systems. Start with set of elementary empirical
judgements (raw data, observation, sensations) and build up a network of ever expanding,
increasingly more general sets of facts. Guarantor of such systems has been the function of
human agreement, something is true if there is sufficient widespread agreement on it by a
group of experts for example.
B. Leibnitzian IS
The archetype of formal, symbolic systems. Information comes from models or proved from
axioms. Start from a set of elementary, primitive formal truth and build up a network of
ever-expanding, increasingly more general formal propositional truths. Guarantor of such
systems has traditionally been the precise specification of what shall count as a proof for a
derived theorem or proposition. (build formal, mathematical representation of any problem)
C. Kantian IS
The archetype of multi-model, synthetic systems. Build up at least two alternate
representations or models of it (partly Leibnitzian, partly Lockean). If the representation are
complementary there is a Kantian IS. (if they are anti-thetical they are Hegelian) The IS
makes strong interaction between scientific theory and data. The IS presuppose two
, alternate scientific theories (Leibnitzian), and two alternate Lockean fact nets. Instead of the
first two, this IS gives many explicit views instead of just one.
D. Hegelian IS
The archetype of conflictual, synthetic systems. Starts with either the prior existence of, or
the creation of, two strongly opposing Leibnitzian models of a problems. These
representations are then applied to the same Lockean data set in order to demonstrate the
crucial nature of the underlying theoretical assumptions. This makes the point that the same
dataset can be used to support either theoretical model. (Data are not information,
information results from the interpretation of data). In contrast to Lockean (agreement), the
guarantor is intense conflict, conflict will expose the assumptions underlying an expert’s
point of view. Best suited for wicked, unstructured problems, because of the ill-structure
there will be an debate over the nature of the wicked problem.
E. Singerian-Churchmanian IS
Singerian IS involves continual learning and adaptation through feedback. They convert
wicked problems into structured and structured into wicked. Shows how Leibnitzian and
Lockean IS can be modified to work on wicked problems. All the IS become applicable for all
classes of problems and hence independent of one another. it would thus appear that
Singerian IS are best suited for studying all of the other IS.
Nearly all MIS are been undertaken from the standpoint of Leibnitzian and Lockean inquiry.
This undoubtedly follows from the almost total preoccupation of OR/MS with well-
structured problems to the neglect (negeren) of wicked ones and it point the way for some
new dimensions of research in MIS.
Richard O. Mason & Ian I. Mitroff.
A management information system (MIS) consists of at least one person of a certain
psychological type who faces a problem within some organizational context for which he
needs evidence to arrive at a solution and that the evidence is made available to him
through some mode of presentation.
In the past, research is done on just one type, just one method etc. The purpose of this
paper is to demonstrate that other methods are available by indicating a research program
that would attempt to explore each of the variables in a systematic fashion.
For this research, a taxonomy of states for each variable was necessary:
1) Psychological type
Thinking – Sensation Sensation
Thinking – Intuition Intuition
Feeling – Sensation Thinking
Feeling – Intuition Feeling
2) Class of Problems
Structured
- Decisions under certainty
- Decisions under risk
- Decisions under uncertainty
Unstructured
3) Method of evidence generation and guarantor of evidence – Inquiring Systems(IS)
Lockean IS (data based)
Leibnitzian IS (model based)
Kantian IS (multiple models)
Hegelian IS (deadly enemy – conflicting models)
Singerian-Churchmanian IS (learning systems)
4) Organizational Context or Organizational Class of Problem
Strategic planning
Management control
Operational control
5) Models of presentation
Personalistic
- Drama – Role plays
- Art – Graphics
- One to one contact group interaction
Impersonalistic
- Company reports
- Abstract models – computerized information systems
,1. Psychological type
The Jungian typology is the most suggestive of research hypothesis in this subject. This
typology is characterized by four major modes or psychological functions. Two of the modes
pertain to the dominant psychological function that an individual use to perceive (sense) the
objects in the world, while the other two modes pertain to the dominant psychological
functions that the individual uses to evaluate (judge) the objects of his perception.
Perceiving (sense) in this case is divided into two different and opposing modes.
‘Sensation’ refers to the type of individual who relies primarily on data received by
his senses in order to perceive the objects of the world. In other words, by sensory
processes, ‘objective, hard facts. Perceives objects as they are. Day-to-day
operation fits best with sensory managers.
o Information will be ‘raw data’, ‘hard facts’.
‘Intuition’ refers to the mode of perceiving objects as possibilities. Intuition
perceives objects as they might be and in totality, as a gestalt. Strategy making is
the strength of intuitive managers. More data-free, makes conclusions based on no
data.
o Information in the form of ‘imaginative stories’.
A management of just sensory runs the risk of being unable to envision future possibilities
and lacks innovation. A management of just intuitive runs the risk of always living in the
future and never paying proper attention to the past.
The alternate modes for evaluation (judge) are:
Thinking refers to types that primarily rely on cognitive processes. Evaluations run
along the lines of abstract true/false judgements and are based on formal systems
of reasoning.
o Information will be entirely symbolic, abstract systems or model.
Feeling implies the type of individual who relies primarily on affective processes.
Evaluations tend to run along personalistic lines of good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant
and like/dislike. Interested and concerned with moral judgements.
o Information takes form of ‘art’, ‘poetry’, storing with morel component’.
Thinking types basic approach is to form rules and model to solve problems and to deal in
certain situations. These models become often the ‘most perfect’ expression. They can
become victims of and slaves to their own categories and suffer from ‘hardening of the
categories’.
The Jungian typology states that these types are only theoretical. A personality is a blending
and contrasting of these pure types. No one mode of perceiving is more basic than others.
What is information for one type will definitely not be information for another. Thus, as
designers of MIS, our job is not to get or force all types of conform to one, but to give each
type the kind of information he is psychologically attuned to and will use most effectively.
,2. Problem Types
Structured: 3 basic
Decision problem under certainty. In which A, V, O and S are all know.
Decision problem under risk. If the relationship between A and B is probabilistic and
know.
Decision problem under uncertainty. If the probabilities are not known but the
possible states of the worlds are known.
Unstructured
Unstructured or wicked decision problem. In which A, U, O and S terms or sets is
totally unknown or not known with any high degree of confidence. These problems
require a form of new appreciation of the situation. The information required for
these problems is different from well-structured problems.
MIS is designed for providing information for well-defined and structured problems.
Coming in next section: some methodologies particularly suited for wicked problems.
3. Types of evidence generators and guarantors
For managers, information is the evidence upon which his decision will be based. He relies
on some methods of generating evidence to the exclusion of other because for him the
guarantees that the evidence produced by these IS is true are much stronger. Important
factors in MIS design are: type of evidence generating systems used and the type of
guarantees behind it. Any IS can be used to model and provide evidence for any problem, it
does not automatically follow that each is equally effective or efficient for representing or
working on all kinds of problems:
A. Lockean IS (Databanks, accounting and statistics)
The archetype of experimental, consensual systems. Start with set of elementary empirical
judgements (raw data, observation, sensations) and build up a network of ever expanding,
increasingly more general sets of facts. Guarantor of such systems has been the function of
human agreement, something is true if there is sufficient widespread agreement on it by a
group of experts for example.
B. Leibnitzian IS
The archetype of formal, symbolic systems. Information comes from models or proved from
axioms. Start from a set of elementary, primitive formal truth and build up a network of
ever-expanding, increasingly more general formal propositional truths. Guarantor of such
systems has traditionally been the precise specification of what shall count as a proof for a
derived theorem or proposition. (build formal, mathematical representation of any problem)
C. Kantian IS
The archetype of multi-model, synthetic systems. Build up at least two alternate
representations or models of it (partly Leibnitzian, partly Lockean). If the representation are
complementary there is a Kantian IS. (if they are anti-thetical they are Hegelian) The IS
makes strong interaction between scientific theory and data. The IS presuppose two
, alternate scientific theories (Leibnitzian), and two alternate Lockean fact nets. Instead of the
first two, this IS gives many explicit views instead of just one.
D. Hegelian IS
The archetype of conflictual, synthetic systems. Starts with either the prior existence of, or
the creation of, two strongly opposing Leibnitzian models of a problems. These
representations are then applied to the same Lockean data set in order to demonstrate the
crucial nature of the underlying theoretical assumptions. This makes the point that the same
dataset can be used to support either theoretical model. (Data are not information,
information results from the interpretation of data). In contrast to Lockean (agreement), the
guarantor is intense conflict, conflict will expose the assumptions underlying an expert’s
point of view. Best suited for wicked, unstructured problems, because of the ill-structure
there will be an debate over the nature of the wicked problem.
E. Singerian-Churchmanian IS
Singerian IS involves continual learning and adaptation through feedback. They convert
wicked problems into structured and structured into wicked. Shows how Leibnitzian and
Lockean IS can be modified to work on wicked problems. All the IS become applicable for all
classes of problems and hence independent of one another. it would thus appear that
Singerian IS are best suited for studying all of the other IS.
Nearly all MIS are been undertaken from the standpoint of Leibnitzian and Lockean inquiry.
This undoubtedly follows from the almost total preoccupation of OR/MS with well-
structured problems to the neglect (negeren) of wicked ones and it point the way for some
new dimensions of research in MIS.
