Maurice Landry

Can the field of MIS be disciplined

Preoccupations about the present and future evolution of MIS as a scientific field seem to be gaining popularity among researchers. The authors contend that most models used by the investigators of the MIS field have been based on an inappropriate monistic view of science.

Model validation in operations research

Abstract Numerous articles have appeared in the literature expressing different degrees of concern with the methodology of OR in general and with the validation of OR models in particular. Suggestions have been formulated to remove some of the shortcomings of the methodology as currently practised and to introduce modifications in the approach because of the changing nature of the problems tackled. Advances in modeling capabilities and solution techniques have also had considerable impact on the way validation is perceived. Large scale computer-based mathematical models and especially simulation models have brought new dimensions to the notion of validation. Terms like ‘confidence’, ‘credibility and reliability’, ‘model assessment and evaluation’, ‘usefulness and usability of the model’ have become rather common. This paper is an attempt, through an interpretation of the literature, to put model validation and related issues in a framework that may be of use both to model-builders and to decision-makers.

A stakeholder approach to MCDA

Research into quantitative decision-making has undeniably made considerable progress in recent years, having gone from coping with single decision-maker, single criterion to multiple decision-makers, multiple criteria decisions situations. Suitable mathematical methods and instruments have been perfected and are now quite sophisticated. Moreover, they are often supported by a powerful software. However, most decision situations require that the systemic socio-political aspects of the decision processes be taken into account and the methods and instruments developed so far may not be satisfactory in this regard. This paper presents a proposition that is aimed at improving this situation. It is based on the concept of stakeholder which, in our view, should be more directly incorporated into any multiple criteria decision aid (MCDA) approach.

A disciplined methodological pluralism for mis research

Abstract During the last decade or so, an increasing concern for methodological questions has surfaced in MIS. Contributors to these different forums can roughly be caricatured as falling into three different groups: the mainstream navigators and the unity advocates who favor methodological monism, and the knights of change who advocate pluralism. This methodological controversy is the main concern of this paper, which structures the debate in such a way that stakes become more visible and that propositions can be put into perspective. It is based on the premise that if we want our methods to be rigorous, we should talk rigorously about the choice and design of research methods. The paper first highlights some important factors behind the emergence of methodological pluralism in MIS. The second part is an epistemological examination of the two main lines of arguments generally advanced in support of methodological monism. We make the point that these lines of arguments are weakly supported. We then examine reasons for the low level of acceptance of methodological pluralism in MIS. We suggest that the proponents of methodological pluralism in MIS, the knights of change, have to be more articulate in the presentation of their case. As proponents of a disciplined pluralism, we propose, in the last part of the paper, an approach derived from Laudans reticulated model of scientific rationality and from Toulmins model of arguments. The central thesis of this paper is that methodological monism is untenable, and that a disciplined methodological pluralism for our field is a reasonable position that does not lead to anarchism.

Model legitimisation in operational research

Abstract This paper suggests that model validation and model legitimisation are two overlapping but nevertheless distinct activities, and that it takes more than being valid for an OR model to be organizationally acceptable: it has to be legitimate. The paper forwards the idea that the implementation of a model is necessarily part of a change process and hence has impact on the organization. It discusses how organizational contract and legitimacy are related to one another, and how, in a change process, a model can be used in different modes by different stakeholders. Concrete suggestions for model legitimisation are proposed. The paper concludes by linking model legitimisation and model validation.

Can DSS evolve without changing our view of the concept of ‘problem’?

Abstract DSS have almost exclusively been presented in the context of problem solving. But the term ‘problem’ is never defined. It is unfortunately a fairly ambiguous term whose meaning oscillates from the observation of an unsatisfactory, objective reality which must be corrected, to the subjective representation of one or more actors faced with a reality which he or they perceived as unsatisfactory. The first of these interpretations (i.e., a problem as an unsatisfactory objective reality) implicitly dominates the DSS literature and design methods, which does not avoid the hidden major stumbling block of ‘problem definition’. We believe that the adoption of the second interpretation (i.e., a problem as a subjective representation) is a better guarantee of the effectiveness of DSS and leads to different design methods (we propose one based on a systemic method oriented towards ‘soft problems’) and opens new horizons for potential application to DSS.

Revisiting the issue of model validation in OR: An epistemological view

Abstract Debates about model validation in Operational Research (OR) are both numerous and diversified. They all imply, in one way or another, the more general question of knowledge production. The problem of model validation in OR then unavoidably holds an epistemological dimension, and it is this dimension that will be privileged here. It will be seen that three successive and rival epistemological perspectives on the production of scientific knowledge have dominated the 20th century. They are the philosophical, the historical and the sociological perspectives. Each of them brings forward an image or representation of science which sheds a particular light on the issue of model validation in OR. Moreover, it will be seen that the generally prevalent view of models and of their validation in OR can be traced back to the philosophical perspective, a perspective which has been, for many decades, widely questioned in the field of epistemology. This leads to some conclusions on the process of knowledge production in the field of OR and, more particularly, on model validation. Overall, the paper aims at demonstrating the usefulness of epistemology for understanding how knowledge is produced and validated in the field of OR.

In search of a valid view of model validation for operations research

Abstract We present a general perspective for the purpose of positioning each paper that appears in this Special Issue on ‘Model Validation in Operational Research’. We also raise the question of why the problem of model validation resurfaces from time to time. The pertinent literature suggests that model validation has traditionally been treated from the perspective of efficiency (doing things right). The perspective of effectiveness (doing the right things), on the other hand, has been neglected or completely ignored. This Special Issue is more on the side of effectiveness. The effectiveness perspective addresses itself to the basic question of knowing what a valid model is about and thus necessarily referring to the field of epistemology. Within this general framework, each paper appearing in this special issue is very briefly presented and commented on.

Science et résolution de problème: liens, difficultés et voies de dépassement dans le champ des sciences de l'administration

et de « resolution de probleme » deviennent rapidement centraux et le demeurent encore aujourd’hui. Toutefois, bien que pendant plusieurs ann6es une entente relative a pu r6gner quant a la signification, la place et l’usage de ces concepts, ils font aujourd’hui l’objet de nombreux d6bats d’ordre th6orique et m6thodologique et constituent deux des principaux enjeux que se disputent les producteurs-membres du champ contemporain des sciences de l’administration.2 2

The legitimacy gap between IS professionals and users

The introduction of information technology (IT) in organizations requires several decisions about such subjects as hardware, software, objectives, priorities, choice of participants, of methodology, and the way IT should be used and implemented. IS professionals and users are among the most important categories of actors involved in this decision process and an ideal situat ion would probably be one in which both share the same viewpoint regarding what to do and how to do it. Past research has shown that this situation is unlikely to occur and that too large a discrepancy between the views of these two groups is likely to result in project failures which may bear major costs. Thus, there is an undeniable interest to estimate the extent of this discrepancy and to find out and compare what decisions are acceptable and unacceptable for both parties in the selection of technology, its implementation and actual use. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare IS professionals’ and users’ opinions about the legitimacy of the likely consequences of decisions that have to be taken when introducing a computer-based system. The first part of the paper is devoted to an explanation of this concept and to the presen tation of the tool used to appraise the legitimacy of technological changes. We then introduce the notions of area and score of legitimacy as means to discuss differences between IS professionals and users. In part three, we describe the experimental site and present the general hypothesis that will initiate, in part four, our analysis of the results. We close by relating our resu lts to current debates in IS.