Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Decision Support Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dss

Reconciling business intelligence, analytics and decision support systems:

More data, deeper insight
Gloria Phillips-Wren a, *, Mary Daly b, Frada Burstein c
a
Sellinger School of Business & Management, Loyola University Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA
b
Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
c
Department of Human Centred Computing, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Business Intelligence and Analytics (BI&A) systems have demonstrated their potential to enhance decision
Business intelligence making; however, the linkage between BI&A and decision support systems (DSS) has been contested by some, if
Analytics not completely denied by others. In this research, we investigate the foundations of BI&A by using foundational
Big data
literature on DSS to open the ‘black box’ of BI&A systems. We argue that BI&A is fundamentally a subfield of DSS
Decision support
Decision process
that is seeking to convert more data into deeper insight, but it has lost its connection to DSS literature and,
thereby, missed research opportunities. In this paper, we first define DSS and BI&A and then present a systematic
review of foundational DSS literature to assess their leveraging in BI&A research. By classifying cited DSS articles
and citing BI&A articles into four areas: conceptual framework, design & implementation, business value &
organizational use, and cognition & decision making, potential research for BI&A is uncovered. We reconcile
these two research streams by mapping BI&A frameworks to classical DSS components through interviews with
practitioners. The result is formulated as a comparative, process-level architecture for converting data into
insight. New research opportunities for BI&A are suggested motivated by foundational DSS literature.

1. Introduction field … [while] the analytical techniques are grounded mainly in sta­
tistical methods developed in the 1970s and data mining techniques
Decision support systems (DSS) are well-established types of infor­ developed in the 1980s” ( [25], p. 1166). In contrast, Alter [7] catego­
mation systems with the primary purpose of improving decision making rized DSS in terms of their generic functional capabilities: retrieving
based on data and analysis [7,127]. However, some authors claim that items of information; providing a mechanism for ‘ad-hoc’ data analysis;
the research field of DSS is no longer current or of interest and has been providing pre-specified aggregation of data in the form of reports; and
replaced by the newer fields of Business Intelligence and Analytics estimating the consequences of proposed decisions. As can be seen from
(BI&A) and Big Data to enhance decision making [52]. Others suggest this early description, DSS functionality is consistent with the expecta­
that BI&A is a new kind of information system that originated from tions of modern BI&A capabilities in terms of data aggregation, ad-hoc
operations research and has been adopted mainly due to the more data analytics, and support for decision making based on pre-
recent, ready access to large amounts of ‘big data’ for analysis and determined needs of business users.
modeling [1]. Following these competing observations of the connections between
In the early 1990s, the terms ‘Business Intelligence’, ‘Business Ana­ DSS and BI&A, in this paper we seek to explore the relationship between
lytics’, ‘Big Data’, and their variations, were coined to describe a these two seemingly different, but related, types of information systems.
developing information technology that could take advantage of the In doing so we seek to augment and deepen the Chen et al. [25] study by
growing amount of data, extensive interconnectedness, and significant probing the research question: What is the relationship between founda­
advances in computing [42]. In a widely cited study, Chen et al. [25] tional DSS research and BI&A research?
discerned BI&A research trends from a comprehensive literature search In addition, we seek to explore the related questions: (1) Can these
from the past decade (2000− 2011). They argued that “as a data-centric two research streams be reconciled in one framework? (2) What
approach, BI&A has its roots in the long-standing database management research opportunities can be uncovered for BI&A based on the rich

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Phillips-Wren), [email protected] (M. Daly), [email protected] (F. Burstein).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113560
Received 7 September 2020; Received in revised form 16 March 2021; Accepted 19 March 2021
Available online 23 March 2021
0167-9236/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

history of DSS research? 2.2. Defining BI&A

We address these research questions by first examining published
definitions of BI&A, systematically analyzing DSS publications from its In comparison, there is no agreed upon definition of BI&A. Instead,
roots in the 1970s to 1991 in leading information systems and man­ BI&A is often categorized in terms of its capabilities to handle data types
agement journals, and then exploring the linkage between citations of and convert them into knowledge and insight for decision making
early DSS literature by BI&A researchers. Our premise is that the pur­ [25,137,104]. Modern BI&A systems extend DSS by handling traditional
pose of BI&A is to inform and enhance human decision making using structured data such as in structured database management systems
computing resources, and, as such, we expected its earliest roots to be in (DBMS), and also unstructured data such as images, semi-structured
the DSS literature. In fact, some authors define BI&A in these terms, for sensor data such as Internet of Things (IoT), and combinations of
example, Arnott et al. [11] state that, “Business intelligence (BI) is often these data types. In general, the more complex the data types that can be
used as the umbrella term for large-scale decision support systems (DSS) analyzed, the more advanced the BI&A system.
in organizations” ( [11], p. 58). We first approached the question of whether BI&A should be
To address the related research question one, we adopted the Big regarded as one area or two. To this end, we traced definitions of BI and
Data Analytics framework proposed by Phillips-Wren et al. [104] as a of BA. Definitions of BI were surveyed by Chee et al. [24] through 2007,
starting point for our exploration. That framework contains compre­ and they traced the first use of the term BI to a 1958 article by Luhn
hensive structural components that facilitate BI&A functionality. We entitled “A Business Intelligence System” [83]. They pointed out that
found that we could fully explain the extensions made by BI&A by Howard Dresner from Gartner Research is better known as “the father of
mapping them to the classical DSS components of database, model base, BI” and regularized the term in 1989. They classified the definitions into
user interface, and decision maker. In addition, a process perspective on three main categories with some overlap: management/process, tech­
BI&A has been identified as a need for further research [78]. Thus, to nological, and product/solution. We supplemented their definitions
address this call to develop a process view on BI&A systems, we con­ with those from recent publications shown in the Appendix, and, for the
ducted consultations with senior BI&A practitioners. Our consultations purposes of our study, with a focus on management/process. We thus
with managers, data scientists, vendors and leading developers of BI&A accept the distinct definitions given by Davenport [31]: BI encompasses
software confirmed the BI&A structural components and, in addition, “tools to support data-driven decisions, with emphasis on reporting” while
produced a process-level architecture for BI&A. One of our contribu­ BA has a “focus on statistical and mathematical analysis for decisions.”
tions, thus, is in ‘opening the black box’ of BI&A systems and high­ Although many authors do not discriminate between the two areas and
lighting the evolution that these systems have undergone from have adopted BI&A as one field, the distinction is useful in parsing out
traditional DSS to the complex systems that require special skills to differences and similarities with DSS.
convert the vast amount of relevant data into insight to address ‘wicked Consistent with Davenport’s [31] definition, our survey showed that
problems’ [26]. The outcome is an updated comprehensive process-level there is a clear emphasis on the decision-making support role of BI
architecture for BI&A that reconciles it with DSS together with an [30,45,100] and Analytics [19,32,33,80,117] with most definitions
agenda for future research in BI&A based on the rich history of DSS. specifying ‘supporting better decision making’ or ‘insight generation’ as
In the following sections we provide theoretical background on BI&A the objective of these systems. Following this discovery, we were
systems and DSS including comparative definitions, the typical archi­ interested in ascertaining the foundations of DSS and BI&A from the
tectures for both systems, their functionalities, the types of tasks they literature to determine if these fields are actually distinct.
support, and descriptions of user roles. Then the details of the research
methodology are provided, followed by the results of a systematic 2.3. DSS foundations
citation analysis and an empirical study of a BI&A integrated process
model framework. We conclude with opportunities for future research in We reviewed foundational DSS publications to ascertain their rela­
BI&A based on DSS research and contributions. tionship with BI&A. In a seminal article on DSS, Sprague [127]
emphasized that DSS is not introduced as “an evolutionary advancement
2. Theory and motivation of electronic data processing (EDP) system” or simply for “getting the
right information to the right people at the right time” ( [127], p.4). DSS
2.1. Defining DSS would thereafter be targeted to semi-structured and unstructured deci­
sion and management tasks. Arnott and Pervan [12] in their review
In 1980 Sprague [127] published a seminal paper laying out the argue that the managerial nature of DSS was axiomatic or self-evident as
framework of a DSS and arguing that it was fundamentally different than stated by Gorry and Scott Morton [49].
a Management Information System (MIS). In his view, while a MIS was Sprague [127] and his followers identified a DSS framework as
focused on information, a DSS was an interactive system focused on a consisting of a decision maker, a database management system, a model
decision at a higher level in the organization. He refers to Simon [124] in base management system, and a user interface that includes “a complex
defining a DSS as “a class of information system that draws on transaction software system for linking the user” to the database and model base (
processing systems and interacts with the other parts of the overall infor­ [127], p. 14). Extracting data to support decision making requires
mation system to support the decision-making activities of managers and flexibility to respond to varied requests, sometimes logically separate
other knowledge workers in organizations” ( [127], p. 6]. Sprague com­ databases, and internal as well as external data sources. These re­
pares a DSS to Simon’s adaptive system that searches for answers in the quirements propelled research in the Database and the Database Man­
short run, learns and modifies its behavior in the intermediate time­ agement System (DBMS) (e.g., [25]). The Model Base supported rapid
frame, and evolves to accommodate different behavior styles and ca­ model creation to enhance decision-making for all types of users while
pabilities in the long run. the Model Management System was used to store, catalog, link and
For the purposes of this paper we subscribe to the above Sprague facilitate access to models. The User Interface provided access to, and
[127] definition of DSS since it is still relevant to the current vision for dialogue with, the system. There is also a suggestion that the ‘database’
computerized DSS and emphasizes the role of this system as an interface includes internal and external data access and management facilities,
between various information sources for the purpose of providing rele­ and that the model base should contain special models for three types of
vant information to decision makers at all organizational levels. decisions (i.e., tactical, operational, strategic) as well as building blocks
for new models as required.

2
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

2.4. BI&A foundations among others, who suggest that business users may need assistance of
data scientists when it comes to exploration of external data and
BI&A technology has been driven by industry needs and popularized generating unsolicited insights.
in vendor/practitioner literature. The argument has been put forward Watson [137] proposed nine categories of users involved in a ‘BI/
that BI&A capabilities outstrip DSS, and some researchers propose that analytics environment’ that he argues to be a current equivalent of the
the fields have diverged [12]. Many authors acknowledge that BI&A is a DSS development environment. The roles and policies that define the
product of the evolution of big data analytics technology and infra­ boundaries of their operation are generally recognized and referred to as
structure [25,60] needed to handle the data explosion. ‘Big data’ are part of BI Governance [42]. Tamm et al. [128] classified BI&A users into
generally characterized by the 3 V’s of volume, velocity and variety: two types who approach the task of data analytics from different per­
volume for the massive amount of data, velocity for the rapid speed at spectives: skills to develop new algorithms and models suitable for
which data are generated, and variety for the many types of data [104], producing insights from a variety of data sources, and those who use the
although some authors add other V’s such as veracity or value. Cloud BI&A system interface to access the suite of models and algorithms
computing consisting of remote servers provides scalability and flexi­ needed for their semi-structured tasks.
bility for many organizations so that data quantity is no longer an issue From the above definitions and comparative analysis, we posit the
and enables organizations to collect and store data at speed until ready need for a deeper study of the relationship between these two technol­
for processing [112,48]. The opportunity to generate insights from ogies which we explore in the following sections.
heterogeneous sources of big data to inform future decisions has been
one of the major factors driving organizations to invest in BI&A projects. 3. Methodology
Chen et al. [25] categorized BI&A evolution as generations of BI&A
1.0, BI&A 2.0, and BI&A 3.0. BI&A 1.0 encompasses DBMS-based The methodology for this study is informed by an inductive process
structured data, BI&A 2.0 includes web and unstructured data, and that is based on deriving conclusions from the evidence drawn from data
BI&A 3.0 brings in mobile and sensor data. Thus, this categorization [73]. To collect the data, we searched for the first instance of DSS
primarily revolves around the broad types of data variety accessible for literature and found initial publications in the early 1970s. We then
intelligence and analytics. It can be noted that since DBMS were performed a systematic review of DSS literature published in 14 major
developed alongside DSS and enabled DSS that relied on data, there MIS journals during two time periods: 1970–1985 and 1986–1991.
appears to be a general consensus that some BI&A systems were based During 1970–1985, the MIS field investigated the role of MIS in orga­
on data-driven DSS [99,138]. Dinis et al. [34] present a recent example nizations and debated whether DSS should be recognized as a separate
of incorporating BI&A functionality within a DSS. research stream. The second time period traces the development of the
field after the establishment of the journal Decision Support Systems in
2.5. Users and roles in DSS, BI and analytics 1985, which laid claim to DSS as a specialty research field differentiated
from the more general MIS, through 1991 when textbooks were pub­
Many functionalities afforded by BI&A and associated decision- lished that clearly suggested the field as mature [102,132].
making user groups are the same as, or similar to, those described by We identified DSS articles by searching for the keywords of ‘decision
early DSS literature, particularly for operational and tactical decisions, support systems’, ‘decision support’ or ‘DSS’ in the article’s title as
albeit extended with wider access to heterogeneous data sources, so­ representative of the author’s self-designation as DSS and the tacit
phisticated reporting, and visualization. Notably, at the strategic approval of the journal editor-in-chief. The DSS field is mature, so we
decision-making level that addresses wicked problems, BI&A offers a expected the best research from that time period (1970–1991) to be
new functionality that requires the involvement of data scientists to published in journals; thus, we did not investigate conference pro­
produce new methods and models to deal with the massive amounts of ceedings in this timeframe. This type of bibliographic search using titles
structured and unstructured data. This development was predicted in has known limitations and could be relaxed in future studies, although it
early DSS literature for systems that required a ‘chauffeur decision- is consistent with previous studies of this sort (e.g., [25]). We identified
maker’ to massage the data and interface with the DSS to produce al­ IS journals within the first 300 pages of Google Scholar results that
ternatives for management decision makers [87]. would be considered part of the MIS research stream, implying that we
Sprague and Watson [126] assigned various roles associated with eliminated psychology journals and journals specific to another business
DSS development and use. Depending on the level of specificity of the discipline such as marketing. We compared our list of journals with a
system to the application context, the users varied from managers contemporaneous study of leading MIS journals published in 1984 [134]
themselves to the increased need for more technical support when it and found consistency. We then performed a manual search of each
comes to customization and for creation of new models and software. journal’s archives to identify relevant DSS articles, together with BI&A
More recent researchers have also identified various roles and skill sets articles that cited them.
for those involved in DSS projects. In general, these roles vary in terms of After identifying DSS-specific articles, we investigated BI&A articles
their immediate involvement in the production of the decision recom­ that cited them. To do so, we performed a Google Scholar search for
mendations, the application to a decision scenario producing alterna­ citations of each DSS article and reviewed the citing article’s title for the
tives, and the evaluation of the implications of a decision [28]. terms ‘business intelligence’, ‘analytics’ or ‘big data’ (or their acronyms)
On the other hand, the roles involved in BI&A processes from the as consistent with our self-identification schema used to identify DSS
decision support perspective have been identified as an under- articles. Any BI&A article that met these criteria was downloaded for
researched issue [78]. As a starting point Kowalczyk et al. [78] and detailed analysis, including conference proceedings. We included pro­
other BI researchers (e.g., [137]) recognize a strong link between BI ceedings since BI&A research is still an emerging area, and research may
specialists and decision makers. Similarly, early DSS researchers not have yet been published in mainstream journals. We eliminated
recognized multiple user roles depending on the level of technical other research outputs such as dissertations or course notes on the basis
competency in either operating custom-built DSS or being involved in that they are not peer-reviewed research outputs at the same level as
adapting DSS tools for their context [127,126]. Maynard et al. [87] journal or mainstream conference papers. We identified the way that the
identified five major groups of people that are involved at various stages DSS citation was utilized in the BI&A article along with other informa­
of DSS development and exploitation varying in organizational hierar­ tion such as how BI&A was defined. On the basis of this research, we
chy and the types of decisions they make (e.g., tactical, operational or identified gaps in BI&A literature where the connection between DSS
strategic). These suggested roles echo the differentiated use of big data and BI&A research appears to have been lost.
analytics as identified by Phillips-Wren et al. [104] and Watson [137], To consider whether the two fields, BI&A and DSS, should indeed be

3
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

considered as separate research streams, we identified the Big Data 4.2. Classification of cited DSS literature
Analytics framework proposed by Phillips-Wren et al. [104] as a
candidate generic architecture of a BI&A system. That architecture is We first describe DSS literature that has been cited by BI&A. To do
consistent with others published more recently (e.g., [137]). It appeared so, we classified the literature into one of four research categories with
that we could establish a clear mapping of this architecture to the definitions shown in Table 3: conceptual framework, design & imple­
components of classical DSS of User/Decision Maker, a Database Man­ mentation, business value & organizational use, and cognition & deci­
agement System, a Model Base Management System, and a User Inter­ sion making. The classification conceptual framework generally
face. To validate this mapping and update the BI&A framework, we presents the new concepts, algorithms and major components of a sys­
presented the initial concept to the practitioner community through tem and their relationships to each other. Design & implementation
semi-structured interviews. attempts to identify characteristics to meet objectives and to develop a
The purpose of this empirical study was to seek feedback from senior coherent project plan to instantiate the technology. Business value &
practitioners on their BI&A system in terms of both overall structural organizational use literature focuses on technology within the organi­
components and their process of converting data into actionable in­ zation including its connections to the outside ecosystem. Finally,
sights, and to identify the decision-making roles required to operation­ cognition & decision making describes human behavior and is often
alize the system. Seven interviews were conducted with senior-level based on psychological and economic literature that has been applied to
BI&A practitioners and leaders from a variety of industries and company technology-assisted systems such as DSS.
sizes as shown in Table 1. As can be seen in Tables 4, 29 unique DSS articles were identified
All of these companies have data science teams and personnel with using the categories discussed in Table 3. Many of these have multiple
job titles under the general BI&A umbrella, and they utilize these citations.
technologies for decision making and innovation. We intentionally
selected a range of companies from large to small, established to newer, 4.3. Description of BI&A articles that cite DSS literature
consulting to specialized, service to innovators, and multinational to
localized. We showed the proposed architecture to each practitioner and As can be seen in Tables 5, 44 unique BI&A articles were found that
refined it until agreement was reached. We then cross-checked the final cited DSS articles, citing them a total of 59 times as seen in Fig. 1. Ar­
architecture with previous interviewees. We also discussed what future ticles were published in scholarly journals or conference proceedings,
research directions are needed to advance the BI&A field. We stopped and they were identified according to our criteria explained previously.
interviewing practitioners at the point of saturation and consensus with Of the 44 BI&A articles, 33 are BI articles, and the remaining 11 articles
the architecture. have either ‘analytics’ or ‘big data’ in the title. In Table 5 each article is
Finally, with an integrated BI&A and DSS process-level architecture, classified into one of four general research classifications using the
and following the practitioners’ suggestions, we explored a future schema that was developed for DSS articles shown in Table 4.
research agenda for BI&A that can be envisioned by leveraging DSS We note that the overall trends show the focus of BI&A research on
seminal literature. To do so, we examined the identified DSS literature business value & organizational use at 48% while only 18% is on con­
that has not been cited by BI&A research, classified each article in terms ceptual framework, the reverse of DSS research. The other two BI&A
of topic, and suggested associated research questions for BI&A research. categories show 25% on design & implementation and 9% on cognition
& decision making, similar to DSS articles. In terms of publication fo­
4. Results rums, of the 44 articles, 20 were published in journals, and 24 were
published in the proceedings of mainstream conferences.
4.1. Identification of DSS literature and citing BI&A literature However, the most recent BI&A articles (2016–2020) predominantly
cite design & implementation and conceptual framework articles as seen
As previously stated, DSS journal articles were identified by the in Fig. 1. The citing of cognition & decision making and business value &
keywords of ‘decision support systems’, ‘decision support’ or ‘DSS’ in the organizational use categories has declined. If BI&A is closely connected
article’s title. BI&A articles, including proceedings, were identified by to DSS, these observations are useful in determining opportunities for
‘business intelligence’, ‘analytics’ or ‘big data’ (or their acronyms) in the BI&A research by leveraging DSS foundational research. Thus, we
title. As Table 2 indicates, a total of 271 DSS articles were published examine whether BI&A and DSS can be integrated under one framework
during the period 1970 to 1991. Of these, 29 seminal DSS papers (10.7% to explore their affiliation.
of total) are cited 59 times in 44 distinct BI&A articles. During the
research period, 1970 to 1991, a solid conceptual foundation and tax­
onomy of decision support systems was identified [122].

Table 1
Demographics of empirical study participants.
Position Use of BI&A Company sector Company description Company size

Software developer Using Big Data to innovate and develop new Internet analytics. Cloud and cluster computing, Multinational, publicly traded Fortune 500
products artificial intelligence
Chief technology Using BI&A for consulting to solve difficult Consulting - systems technology, data analytics and Privately held 51–200
officer applied problems visualization, user experience employees
Managing director Using BI&A to manage energy markets Energy provider Publicly traded Fortune 100
of analytics
President and Using BI&A to develop new cyber security tools Engineering services for National Intelligence Privately held 2–10
founder Community employees
Vice president Using BI&A to develop cyber security solutions Consulting - management and technology, Multinational, publicly traded, Fortune 500
analytics, cyber solutions holding company
Chief product officer Using BI&A to identify potential personnel for Technology workforce development using AI and Privately held 501–1000
specialized BI&A positions data science, digital transformation employees
Vice president Using BI&A to innovate and provide Advanced telecommunication, media, and Multinational, publicly traded Fortune 100
telecommunications support for defense technology services worldwide

4
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

Table 2
Number of DSS articles and BI&A citations.
1970–1985 1986–1991

Journal Initial Number of Number of DSS Number of Number of Number of DSS Number of
publication DSS Papers papers cited in BI&A citations in BI&A DSS Papers Papers cited in BI&A citations in BI&A
date papers papers papers Papers

Journal of Operational 1950 2 0 0 7 0 0

Research Society (JORS)
Operations Research (OR) 1952 1 1 1 7 0 0
Management Science (MS) 1954 5 1 1 2 2 3
Sloan Management Review 1959 4 1 1 0 0 0
(SMR)
The DATA BASE for Advances 1969 20 2 11 2 0 0
in Information Systems
(DB)
Decision Sciences (DS) 1970 7 2 3 11 0 0
Interfaces (I) 1970 20 0 0 6 0 0
European Journal of 1977 11 0 0 25 2 2
Operational Research
(EJOR)
Information and Management 1977 16 1 1 18 0 0
(IM)
MIS Quarterly (MIS Q) 1977 18 8 21 12 4 7
Journal of Management 1984 8 0 0 21 3 5
Information Systems
(JMIS)
Decision Support Systems 1985 1 0 0 44 1 2
(DSS)
Information Systems 1990 0 0 0 1 1 1
Research (ISR)
Journal of Information 1986 0 0 0 2 0 0
Technology (JIT)
TOTALS 113 16 39 158 13 20

Table 3 Table 5
Definitions of terms for classifications of DSS articles. Classification of BI&A articles that cite DSS articles.
Classification Definition of classification Classification of BI&A Total number of BI&A Number of BI&A articles as
article articles % of total
Conceptual framework “Comprehensive view … using the systemic
framework as an organizing concept” ( [9], p. Conceptual framework 8 18%
1045) Design & implementation 11 25%
Design & implementation Implementation “is commonly viewed as a Business value & 21 48%
series of related activities [such as] initiation, organizational use
strategic design, technical design, Cognition & decision 4 9%
development, conversion, and evaluation” ( making
[141], p. 35]) TOTAL unique BI&A articles 44 100%
Business value & organizational “The IT resource [is] associated with improved
use (includes case studies) operational efficiencies or competitive
advantage” ( [92], p. 299) and diagrammed by Sprague and Watson [126] and Sprague [127].
Cognition & decision making “Concerns with the ways in which decisions are
These consist of a decision maker, a user interface (UI), a database
made, and not just with decision outcomes” (
[123], p. 498)
management system (DBMS), a model base management system
(MBMS), a database, and a model base. These components are shown in
Fig. 2 by the darker shading. We then compared the BI&A and Big Data
framework from Phillips-Wren et al. [104] that was developed inde­
Table 4
pendently from a consideration of DSS, identified overlaps between
Classification of cited DSS articles from 1970 to 1991.
BI&A and DSS, and integrated the two architectures as an initial pro­
Classification Total number of DSS Number of DSS articles as
posed BI&A framework. The initial architecture was empirically tested
articles % of total
with practitioners without identifying DSS components, as described
Conceptual framework 13 45% previously in the Methodology section, and modified according to their
Design & implementation 9 31%
Business value & 4 14%
input.
organizational use Major changes to the initial architecture were suggested by practi­
Cognition & decision making 3 10% tioners and implemented in the final diagram. Practitioners discuss
TOTAL unique DSS articles 29 100% BI&A as a process of converting data into insight for decision makers,
and the depiction of process flow thus became a primary consideration.
As can be seen near the bottom of Fig. 2, the process flow entails data
5. Reconciling BI&A and DSS
sourcing, data preparation, data storage & processing, data analysis, and
data access & usage. Practitioners also identified the primary groups of
5.1. Structure and process-level architecture of BI&A and big data
decision makers and the organizational context in which BI&A and DSS
systems
exist as essential to the BI&A process. These concepts are subsequently
discussed in more detail.
To ascertain whether BI&A and DSS could be reconciled within one
We examined the culminating BI&A diagram and found that the
architecture, we reviewed the components of classical DSS as described

5
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

Fig. 1. Connections between DSS cited articles and BI&A research. (Note: BI articles are not annotated; * indicates that the article appeared previously; ** indicates
BA articles.) References [14–18,20,21,23,35–41,43,44,46,47,50,53,57,61–63,68,74,77,79,81,82,84,85,88–91,93–96,98,105,109–111,114–116,118,119,121,
125,131,133,135,139,140,142] are utilized only in the figure.

major DSS components remained visible, but they had been extended to group. Technologies such as a lambda architecture are designed for big
include new capabilities. We next discuss the extensions of classical DSS data to take advantage of both batch processing and near real-time
components to incorporate the BI&A architecture. stream processing with a hybrid approach [86].
Data are collected in a holding area sometimes called a ‘data lake’
5.2. Extension of the data management system and database [112,48] and retrieved for processing through Data Wrangling, the
process of identifying, collecting, merging, and preprocessing one or
New enabling technologies extend the capabilities envisioned by a more data sets to make data useful for analytics or to train a machine
traditional DSS framework. Multiple types of data are now available to learning model [69]. Data Cleansing is needed to fix messy data such as
the analyst as shown on the left-hand side of Fig. 2, and the more varied handling missing values and inconsistencies, removing outliers for
the data types considered, the more complex the BI&A system. Tradi­ consistency and accuracy, converting data types, or normalizing data.
tional structured, transactional data were available to Sprague [127] Data can then be loaded for processing through a traditional ETL
and were supplemented with external, non-transactional, non-account­ (extract, transform, load) process or using a newer practice called data
ing data. However, the advent of accessible cloud computing and rapid prep as an agile process [112].
transference technologies such as 5G extend traditional DBMS to include Data can be loaded into a consolidated or distributed enterprise data
unstructured and semi-structured data and to reach further beyond warehouse and accessed for analysis with a DBMS. Specialized databases
organizational boundaries. called data marts for users with specific needs are often created. In
To handle big data at speed and high velocity, stream processing is a addition, new technologies allow massive amounts of data to be
technology often implemented with Artificial Intelligence (AI) to distributed across multiple processors using a computing cluster and
continuously query the data stream and detect prescribed conditions processed using systems such as Hadoop or Spark [69 ] in timeframes
within a small timeframe of receiving data. On the other hand, batch that are reasonable for decision makers.
processing allows data to build to a point and then treats them as a

6
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

Fig. 2. Architecture for BI&A and Big Data Systems compared to classical DSS. Note: Classical DSS components are indicated by darker shading.

5.3. Extension of the model management system and model base knowledge base. The user interface of today has grown in sophistication
and support for multi-criteria decision making through features such as
Sprague [127] envisioned a Model Management System that dashboards, and it expands the essential features discussed by Sprague
accessed a model base consisting of strategic, tactical and operational [127]. Fig. 2 suggests that users interact with the BI&A user interface
models along with model building blocks that were embedded in the with a purpose of descriptive, predictive or prescriptive analytics, or ad-
DSS with a robust modeling language and a management system. As hoc exploration of data. Descriptive analytics provides statistical infor­
intelligent methods such as AI became available in the 1980s, DSS mation about the data and uses techniques such as clustering or asso­
exploited these advances to better model human problem-solving ca­ ciation to find linkages between data elements. Predictive analytics uses
pabilities [51]. DSS applications in domains such as healthcare have techniques such as regression or neural networks to predict a future state
been successfully developed and continue to demonstrate the feasibility based on historical patterns in data. Prescriptive analytics attempts to
and usefulness of these approaches [55]. These intelligent-DSS (IDSS) find optimal outcomes using methods such as optimization or genetic
incorporate methods such as rule-based techniques, probabilistic and algorithms. Finally, ad-hoc exploration, as the name suggests, is a non-
decision-theoretic models, machine learning (ML), and uncertainty directed search for interesting patterns that may assist the decision
representation to impact both the process of, and outcomes from, deci­ maker.
sion making [104].
Current ML and AI techniques continue this vision but revolutionize
the types of models that can be developed. Today the modeler can create 5.5. Extension of the decision maker role
exploration models using ML in a sandbox environment and generally
use one of three approaches: supervised learning driven by the modeler The classical view of the user or manager is a person faced with a
to produce a specific result; unsupervised learning to identify hidden problem requiring a decision, taking action, and being held accountable
structure in data; and reinforcement learning that provides a reward in a for the consequences. In Fig. 2, that person is shown as the Decision
semi-supervised learning algorithm [69]. Maker. Sprague [127], among others, recognized that other roles,
Big data challenge the decision maker with their size and scope to though not necessarily distinct people, are needed in the development
find patterns that are not observable with earlier graphical representa­ and operation of a DSS. For example, an intermediary or staff assistant
tions. Data visualization technologies have evolved to provide flexible was suggested as a possible aide to the decision maker. Fig. 2 indicates
and accessible renderings of very large datasets to support interpretation that there could be intermediaries between the decision maker and the
by interactively pairing the representation to the type of data. For DSS, or they may be the same person. In addition, Sprague suggested a
example, high cardinality, or many unique values, can be handled by DSS builder to configure the DSS, a technical supporter to add compo­
allowing the user to zoom into specific regions of the data representation nents, and a ‘toolsmith’ to develop new technology. We have not
or to filter data easily. In addition, location analytics can combine delineated these engineering-type roles in Fig. 2 and focus instead on the
geographical information with data of interest, and forecasting can be decision maker.
incorporated. Fig. 2 shows three distinct, but sometimes overlapping, types of
system users and a decision maker who may be a separate person or one
of the three users [104,138]. The Business User is generally interested in
5.4. Extension of the user interface specific information to address tailored questions. For example, dash­
boards can be created to deliver specific information from a data mart,
As previously mentioned, the User Interface for a DSS was envisioned or pre-developed queries can be accessed by the business user. In gen­
as handling a variety of dialogue styles with the user, accommodating eral, the business user is a consumer of descriptive and predictive ana­
user actions with different media types, presenting data in a variety of lytics targeted to their business decision. The second type of user is
formats, and providing flexible support for the user’s personal referred to as an Analytics Expert, and this person is able to perform

7
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

analysis using sophisticated analytics software and data preparation 6. Opportunities for BI&A research based on DSS
techniques. The analytics expert has computer coding skills applicable
to some applications and the ability to employ visualization technolo­ The review of early DSS literature and citation patterns in BI&A
gies to aid analysis. papers along with our reconciled architecture led us to identify research
The Data Scientist is an adaptable, highly technically adept person gaps in BI&A literature than could be advanced with a DSS-informed
who has the capability to move freely throughout the process-flow from agenda for future research. In this section we present these gaps and a
back-end data sourcing to front-end decision making. This person has research agenda leveraging the proposed classification and relevant
advanced computer coding and statistical analysis skills that allow them foundational DSS papers that have not been utilized in BI&A research.
to move data into and bring data from the data lake, utilize cluster
computing, interact with data wherever they reside, create new models 6.1. Conceptual frameworks for BI&A
and visualizations, interpret results, develop innovations usingaudits
data, and guide decision making for wicked problems. In many organi­ More research is needed to reconcile various definitions of what
zations, the data scientist role is fulfilled by several people with deep constitutes BI&A in a similar way to DSS. DSS research has a solid
expertise in one or more of these skillsets. We suggest the fluidity of the conceptual foundation including taxonomies of decision support sys­
role in the various organizations represented in our practitioner in­ tems that have been commonly accepted (e.g. [8,122,107]). Analyzing
terviews by indicating in Fig. 2 that the Data Scientist can directly access recent BI&A publications, we conclude that there is no clear taxonomy
any component. for BI&A systems, and, moreover, there is confusion about how to define
Based on our interviews with practitioners and managers shown in such a system to differentiate it from a traditional Business Information
Table 1, the data scientist role may depend on the company and in­ System (BIS). Holsapple et al. [60] proposed a classification of business
dustry. In consulting companies, data scientists may support multiple analytics (BA) from six different definitional perspectives and proposed
projects in a data architect role. However, in a single-industry company, a framework that classifies the relationship between these perspectives.
data scientists provide insight directly to a decision maker who may be a The factors underlining these perspectives include: (1) a movement or
manager. In technology-focused companies, the data scientist may be a culture of fact-based decision making; (2) a collection of BA practices
decision maker. We use the term ‘decision maker’ to indicate someone and technologies; (3) an organizational transformation process changing
who provides an answer or a recommendation to a decision problem; the the enterprise system; (4) a set of capabilities; (5) specific activities to
decision maker is not necessarily an implementor, and there may be drive business actions; and (6) a decisional paradigm to improve deci­
additional managerial oversight. Thus, we envision the data scientist as sion making. They put forward these perspectives as well justified within
adaptable to their role depending on the industry. However, in all cases, the BA paradigm and definitions, with a clear link to the purpose of the
the data scientist is highly technical with advanced computer science BA systems as supporting organizational decision making. Arnott et al.
and statistical skills that give them the ability to move throughout the [11] similarly identified BI use for decision making and linked it to
computing environment. classical DSS frameworks proposed by Gorry and Scott Morton [49].
They looked at classes of systems and task types as major factors for
5.6. Extension of the organizational context defining the unique role of BI in organizations. Both of these groups of
authors cite some DSS literature, in particular seminal books. However,
Sprague [127] expressed the difference between a Management In­ there is an untapped opportunity to correlate these and similar attempts
formation System (MIS) and a DSS in terms of organizational use. At the with the foundational DSS research papers, particularly those we have
lowest level was Electronic Data Processing (EDP) with a focus on data, identified as discussing new models and approaches in decision support
storage, processing, flows and reporting at the operational level. Moving (e.g., [66]). We call for a comprehensive study of the primary di­
up a level, an MIS had an information focus aimed at middle level mensions of BI&A that can be utilized to define different classes of BI&A.
managers, structured information flow, integration of business func­
tionalities, and inquiry and report generation. A DSS was viewed as 6.2. Design & implementation of BI&A systems
decision-focused aimed at executive decision makers, an emphasis on
flexibility and response time, user initiation and control, and support for 6.2.1. BI&A stakeholders, users and roles
individual differences. It was recognized early in the development of In the papers reviewed in this study and from the empirical data
DSS that providing decision support within an organizational context collected from the BI&A practitioners, we conclude that during the BI&A
leads to management control issues [54]. process cycle there are many roles and stakeholders who are involved in
Thus, Fig. 2 shows an extended organizational context for BI&A the system design, development and operation. DSS researchers identi­
systems that includes data management and governance, audits, secu­ fied five such roles. BI&A literature suggests a number from three pri­
rity, legal and regulatory considerations that reach outside of the mary users [104] to nine [137]. Our empirical study with BI&A
organizational boundary [104,138]. Governments have passed laws practitioners confirmed the generic roles of decision makers and linked
regulating data storage and use, and the value of data as an asset has led them to organizational needs. More studies are required to determine
to the need to secure data. Internally, data require management and who are and should be involved at various stages of systems develop­
clear governance to ascribe access, modification, and usage rules. ment, and the optimal, necessary and sufficient constitution of the BI&A
This study demonstrates that the BI&A and big data systems archi­ team to make such system implementation and deployment process
tecture has expanded Sprague’s original DSS architecture. The features viable. Such studies could also inform universities on the types of
and components of a DSS are clearly visible. However, one might argue courses to be offered to train future BI&A specialists.
that the data lake, sandbox, and data scientist create a complementary
data architecture to the DSS that could not be envisioned by Sprague due 6.2.2. Process model for BI&A
to the significant advances in enabling technologies required for their In this paper we proposed a process model to operationalize the
implementation and use. Fig. 2 supports this view as well. Thus, we generic BI&A architectural components. The process model was devel­
suggest that BI&A can be considered a special category of DSS that could oped and validated through discussion with senior practitioners. Further
be associated with ‘data-driven DSS’ [106]. Consequently, we turn to empirical studies are required to substantiate the results and complete
BI&A research opportunities arising from DSS literature. the loop of design theory development for BI&A.
This leads to the next research gap related to the need for more
theoretical/conceptual BI&A frameworks to be proposed, tested and
evaluated [2,103]. The methodologies for DSS development have been

8
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

studied by Keen [72] and reviewed by Alavi and Joachimsthaler [4]. research bias should be considered. If the evidence is derived from the
Alavi and Joachimsthaler conducted a comprehensive study of the roots vendors’ case studies, alternative data sources should be sought to
of design & implementation for DSS that provides a useful conceptual ensure a balanced answer to the research questions. Although case study
research framework as a starting point. research is a suitable research method to study implementations of BI&A
From these early studies the overall assumption of the evolutionary systems in organizational contexts, a critical realist [97] methodology
nature of DSS development has been formalized as successive proto­ can be a more suitable epistemological position than an interpretive one.
typing driven by internal and environmental causal factors [13]. There If interpretive perspective is chosen still, a carefully selected data source
are some attempts to propose a similar set of development methods for should be selected and well justified as part of the research design. For
BI&A systems. There are also research studies that have tried to apply example, examination of related documents using protocol analysis and
EIS/DSS development methodologies to BI [113]. However, there is still looking at the BI&A process using, for example, the proposed DSS-
room for further analysis of the similarities and differences in unique grounded process-level architecture, could provide relevant sources
methodological approaches to BI&A systems development, especially for triangulation and critical reference points.
taking into consideration their dependency on vendor-based or open
source basic functionality and their need for adaptation and custom­ 6.6. Summary of DSS-informed research opportunities in BI&A
ization to users and organizational requirements that are typically dy­
namic and subject to change over time. By leveraging uncited DSS foundational literature, we suggest that
there are opportunities to extend BI&A research. In Table 6 we connect
6.3. Business value & organizational use of BI&A BI&A research gaps and associated questions to relevant DSS references
and methods.
The needs and objectives for BI&A implementation and use are
argued mainly from the industry needs and requirements perspective. 7. Conclusions and contributions
Such arguments were defined by Holsapple et al. [60] as “BI move­
ments.” In a recent study, Arnott et al. [10] investigated whether busi­ This paper focused on the underlying roots of BI&A and investigated
ness intelligence systems are different from decision support systems the linkage between foundational DSS research and contemporary topics
and other business information systems. Their conclusion was that all of ‘business intelligence’, ‘analytics’ and ‘big data’. We argue that BI&A
three systems represent IT artefacts that support managerial decision is fundamentally a subfield of DSS that seeks to convert more data into
making, with “traditional” BI being focused on processing structured deeper insight, but it has lost its connection to DSS foundational liter­
data for well-understood process and decisions. We support their ature. To demonstrate, we presented a systematic review of foundational
conclusion that BI&A systems should have a major objective of DSS articles and corresponding BI&A literature that cites them. By
providing timely insight into organizational operational processes. This classifying DSS research into four areas: conceptual frameworks, design
requires further research into the nature of organizational decision- & implementation, business value & organizational use, and cognition &
making processes from BI&A business value perspectives. The seminal decision making, we uncover research opportunities for BI&A. To
studies on the nature of organizational decision making by Huber [65] further investigate the connection between DSS and BI&A, we developed
and Keen [70], as well as studies of MIS [49] provide useful lenses in a BI&A framework collaboratively with practitioners and mapped it to
such research endeavors. classical DSS components. The result is a comparative, process-level
More empirical field studies or analyses of secondary case studies architecture for converting data into insight that reconciles these two
should be undertaken to look at typical BI outcomes in specific devel­ research streams. The overall findings were summarized as a set of new
opment contexts. There is an opportunity to look back at older DSS research opportunities for BI&A by exploiting unexplored DSS founda­
papers about organizational use that propose innovative roles for DSS tional literature, especially in cognition & decision making and con­
within organizational settings to identify relevant lessons learned, ceptual frameworks.
especially those related to specific industrial contexts such as airline Our contributions to the literature are:
management [76] or public sector DSS [59]. Such studies could also help
prevent future BI&A failures by applying lessons from the past. • a structured literature review evaluating the linkage between BI&A
and DSS research;
6.4. Cognition & decision making using BI&A • a classification of DSS research into four categories;
• a comparative, process-level architecture for BI&A mapped to DSS
In our analysis we came across many theoretical frameworks for components that integrates these two research streams;
BI&A that were not informed by seminal DSS literature. There is a lack of • future opportunities for BI&A research by leveraging foundational
research focused on how BI&A affects decision making. On the other DSS literature.
hand, we identified a few DSS papers that could further enhance and
enrich future development for BI&A. DSS history is replete with When viewed in the larger context of DSS, BI&A offers the promise of
knowledge-based and AI-informed models that can provide fodder for converting more data into deeper insight to improve cognition and de­
BI&A systems. For example, Knowledge-based-DSS [27], Intelligent DSS cision making. DSS literature demonstrates the business value that can
[108], Active DSS [67], and Knowledge Management-based DSS [22] be rendered from a data-driven approach. However, as DSS history
could spur new ideas for BI&A. DSS literature can also provide a variety demonstrates, the organizational context, culture, system design, and
of useful architectural frameworks and lessons learned to avoid the implementation strategies all influence how well this goal is achieved.
mistakes that resulted in DSS abandoning the integration of AI for de­ DSS research also shows that clear conceptual frameworks and roles are
cades. This consideration addresses one of the suggestions we obtained needed to coordinate the workforce toward organizational goals. This
from the empirical study participants to include AI features into BI&A paper takes a step toward opening the black box of BI&A in organiza­
functionality. tions and suggesting opportunities to leverage the rich research foun­
dations of the past.
6.5. Methodological guidelines for researching BI&A Our research has limitations. The sample of papers we analyzed
could be expanded. For example, we could have included article ab­
The methodologies for conducting rigorous research on BI&A have stracts in our search criteria or have included articles from other fields
not been a subject to rigorous investigation. Since the short history of such as psychology that are embedded in DSS literature. Although the
BI&A is dominated by a practitioner-oriented literature, a danger of main conclusions of our study are well illustrated based on our sample,

9
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

Table 6
BI&A research gaps and opportunities for future research leveraging DSS.
Research gap Suggested research questions Suggested relevant DSS Research methods and techniques
references

Conceptual framework
BI&A definitions What are the distinct types of BI&A systems? What primary dimensions [6,8,56,66,122] Surveys; Multiple case studies;
should be considered to differentiate BI&A taxonomy? Systematic literature analysis

Design & implementation

BI&A stakeholders, users and roles Who are the stakeholders in BI&A implementation and use? What [5,72,120] Case studies; Surveys; In-depth
impact does the constitution of the team make on the organizational interviews
success of BI&A? What skill sets are needed for an effective BI&A team?
How is team composition related to the problem to be solved?
Process model of BI&A design What are the methods for effective design & implementation of BI&A? [2,3,4,72,75] Multiple case studies; Action
Are agile methods appropriate for BI&A? How to evaluate BI&A? research

Business value & organizational use

Objectives and drivers for BI&A use How can BI&A implementation contribute to improved organizational [65,71,49,101,29,72,136] Case studies; Secondary case
to improve organizational performance? What organizational functions are most positively studies; Action research; Design
performance impacted by BI&A? Science research

Cognition & decision making

Theoretical considerations of How does BI&A affect decision making? Is AI more effective than [27,66,108,67,72,129] Field experiments; Design Science
decision making human decision making in BI&A? How are unusual events treated in research; Action research
BI&A? How does stress affect decision making in BI&A use?

Research Methods
Methodological guidelines How can BI&A research be conducted to ensure rigorous and quality [64,72,130] Critical realism-based case studies;
outcomes and insights? What methods are needed to generalize BI&A Protocol analysis; Process tracing
empirical research?

additional research opportunities for BI&A could have been uncovered Acknowledgements
with a broader literature review.
We thank the data scientists and BI&A practitioners who wish to
Public data remain anonymous for their consultations and discussions about BI&A
architectures. We also sincerely thank the reviewers whose comments
The data and figures used in this article can be found on my public and suggestions improved the quality of the paper.
Google Drive site by following the link: https://drive.google.com/driv
e/folders/11TejkOVP7ouB4rELQXmu2wnQjOI0iPHP?usp=sharing.

Appendix A. Definitions of business intelligence (BI) and business analytics (BA) in literature

Type Year Author Definition

BI 1958 Luhn [83] The ability to apprehend the interrelationships of presented facts in such a way as to guide action toward a desired goal
BI 2004 Negash [100] BI systems combine data gathering, data storage, and knowledge management with analytical tools to present complex
internal and competitive information to planners and decision makers
BI 2006 Davenport [30] The term IT people use for analytics and reporting processes and software. BI… encompasses a wide array of processes and
software used to collect, analyze, and disseminate data, all in the interests of better decision making
BA 2007 Davenport & Harris [32] BA is concerned with the extensive use of data, statistical and quantitative analysis, explanatory and predictive model, and
fact-based management to drive decisions and actions
BI 2008 Hayen [58] BI applications include the activities of DSS, query and reporting, online analytical processing (OLAP), statistical analysis,
forecasting and data mining … a mainstream activity within the broad array of DSS deployments
BA 2012 Boyd [19] Analytics is the scientific process of transforming data into insight for making better decisions
BI 2014 Davenport [31] Tools to support data-driven decisions, with emphasis on reporting
BA 2014 Davenport [31] Focus on statistical and mathematical analysis for decisions
BA 2014 Holsapple, Lee-Post & Pakath [60] Evidence-based problem recognition and solving that happen within the context of business situations
BI 2016 Larson & Chang [80] Gartner (2013) and Halpern (2015) have extended BI to be an umbrella term which includes applications, tools, infrastructure,
and practices to enable access and analysis of information to optimize performance and decision-making
BA 2017 Seddon, Constantinidis, Tamm, & Business analytics (BA) as the use of data to make sounder, more evidence-based business decisions,
Dod [117]
BI 2018 Power & Heavin [107] Umbrella term that describes a set of concepts and methods to improve business decision making by using fact-based decision
support systems; also refers to a set of software tools that can be used to extract and analyze data from corporate databases
BA 2018 Delen & Ram [33] Business analytics is the art and science of discovering insight – by using sophisticated mathematical, statistical, machine
learning, and network science methods along with a variety of data and expert knowledge – to support better and faster/timely
decision making
BI 2019 Arnott, Gao, Lizama, Meredith & BI systems are large-scale systems that combine information technologies, data reporting, and analytic processes in order to
Song [10] support decision making in an organization

10
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

References [36] J.J. Donovan, S.E. Madnick, Institutional and ad hoc DSS and their effective use,
Database Adv. Inf. Syst. 8 (3) (1977) 79–88.
[37] D.A. Döppner, D. Schoder, H. Siejka, Big data and the data value chain:
[1] N.U. Ain, G. Vaia, W.H. DeLone, M. Waheed, Two decades of research on business
Translating insights from business analytics into actionable results-the case of
intelligence system adoption, utilization and success – a systematic literature
unit load device (ULD) management in the air cargo industry, in: Proceedings of
review, Decis. Support. Syst. 125 (2019) 113113.
the European Conference on Information Systems. Munster, GE, 2015, p. 7.
[2] J.A. Akoka, A framework for decision support systems evaluation, Inf. Manag. 4
[38] S. Ebrahimi, K. Hassanein, Empowering users to detect data analytics
(3) (1981) 133–141.
discriminatory recommendations, Proc. Int. Conf. Inform. Syst. 2886 (2019).
[3] M. Alavi, J.C. Henderson, An evolutionary strategy for implementing a decision
[39] H. El Sherif, O.A. El Sawy, Issue-based decision support systems for the Egyptian
support system, Manag. Sci. 27 (11) (1981) 1309–1323.
cabinet, MIS Q. (1988) 551–569.
[4] M. Alavi, E.A. Joachimsthaler, Revisiting DSS implementation research: a meta-
[40] H.B. Eom, S.M. Lee, Decision support systems applications research: a
analysis of the literature and suggestions for researchers, MIS Q. 16 (1) (1992)
bibliography (1971–1988), Eur. J. Oper. Res. 46 (3) (1990) 333–342.
95–116.
[41] S. Eom, DSS, BI, and data analytics research: current state and emerging trends
[5] S. Alter, Why is man-computer interaction important for decision support
(2015–2019), Int. Conf. Decision Support Syst. Technol. (2020) 167–179.
systems? Interfaces 7 (2) (1977) 109–115.
[42] E. Foley, M.G. Guillemette, What is business intelligence? Int. J. Business Intellig.
[6] S. Alter, A taxonomy of decision support systems, Sloan Manag. Rev. 19 (1)
Res. 1 (4) (2010) 1–28.
(1977) 39–56 (pre-1986).
[43] L.S. Franz, W.M. Lee, J.C. Van Horn, An adaptive decision support system for
[7] S. Alter, Development patterns for decision support systems, MIS Q. 2 (3) (1978)
academic resource planning, Decis. Sci. 12 (2) (1981) 276–293.
33–42.
[44] W.L. Fuerst, P.H. Cheney, Concepts, theory, and techniques: factors affecting the
[8] S. Alter, Decision Support Systems: Current Practice and Continuing Challenges,
perceived utilization of computer-based decision support systems in the oil
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1980.
industry, Decis. Sci. 13 (4) (1982) 554–569.
[9] G. Ariav, M.J. Ginzberg, DSS design: a systemic view of decision support,
[45] S. Gbosbal, S.K. Kim, Building effective intelligence systems for competitive
Commun. ACM 28 (10) (1985) 1045–1052.
advantage: the problems with business intelligence systems, Sloan Manag. Rev.
[10] D. Arnott, S. Gao, F. Lizama, R. Meredith, Y. Song, Are business intelligence
28 (1) (1986) 49.
systems different to decision support systems and other business information
[46] J.F. George, The conceptualization and development of organizational decision
systems? Proc. Aust. Conf. Inform. Syst. (2019) 624–634.
support systems, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 8 (3) (1991) 109–125.
[11] D. Arnott, F. Lizama, Y. Song, Patterns of business intelligence systems use in
[47] M. Gibson, D. Arnott, I. Jagielska, Evaluating the intangible benefits of business
organizations, Decis. Support. Syst. 97 (2017) 58–68.
intelligence: Review & research agenda, in: Proceedings of the 2004 IFIP
[12] D. Arnott, G. Pervan, A critical analysis of decision support systems research,
International Conference on Decision Support Systems: Decision Support in an
J. Inf. Technol. 20 (2) (2005) 67–87.
Uncertain and Complex World. Prato, Italy, 2004, pp. 295–305.
[13] D. Arnott, Decision support systems evolution: framework, case study and
[48] A. Gorelik, The Enterprise Big Data Lake: Delivering the Promise of Big Data and
research agenda, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 13 (4) (2004) 247–259.
Data Science. O’Reilly Media, Available from, https://www.oreilly.com/library/
[14] A. Audzeyeva, R. Hudson, How to get the most from a business intelligence
view/the-enterprise-big/9781491931547/ch01.html, 2019.
application during the post implementation phase? Deep structure transformation
[49] G.A. Gorry, M.S. Scott Morton, A framework for management information
at a UK retail bank, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 25 (1) (2016) 29–46.
systems, Sloan Manag. Rev. 30 (3) (1989) 49–61.
[15] E. Baker, L. Chasalow, Factors contributing to business intelligence success: the
[50] M.D. Goslar, Capability criteria for marketing decision support systems, J. Manag.
impact of dynamic capabilities, Am. Conf. Inform. Syst. (2015).
Inf. Syst. 3 (1) (1986) 81–95.
[16] E. Baker, Relational model bases: a technical approach to real-time business
[51] H.W. Gottinger, P. Weimann, Intelligent decision support systems, Decis. Support.
intelligence and decision making, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 33 (1) (2013) 23.
Syst. 8 (4) (1992) 317–332.
[17] H. Barki, S.L. Huff, Change, attitude to change, and decision support system
[52] P. Gray, Business intelligence: A new name or the future of DSS, in: T. Bui,
success, Inf. Manag. 9 (5) (1985) 261–268.
H. Sroka, S. Stanek, J. Gołuchowski (Eds.), DSS in the Uncertainty of the Internet
[18] R.H. Bonczek, C.W. Holsapple, A.B. Whinston, A generalized decision support
age, University of Economics, Katowice, 2003.
system using predicate calculus and network data base management, Oper. Res.
[53] G.I. Green, C.T. Hughes, Effects of decision support systems training and cognitive
29 (2) (1981) 263–281.
style on decision process attributes, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 3 (2) (1986) 83–93.
[19] A.E. Boyd, Profit Centre: Revisiting ‘What is analytics’. Analytics Magazine, July/
[54] R.D. Hackathorn, P.G. Keen, Organizational strategies for personal computing in
August 6, Available from, http://analytics-magazine.org/profit-center-revisiti
decision support systems, MIS Q. (1981) 21–27.
ng-what-is-analytics/.INFORMS, 2012.
[55] P.D. Haghighi, F. Burstein, A. Zaslavsky, P. Arbon, Development and evaluation
[20] M.K. Brohman, M. Parent, M.R. Pearce, M. Wade, The business intelligence value
of ontology for intelligent decision support in medical emergency management
chain: Data-driven decision support in a data warehouse environment: An
for mass gatherings, Decis. Support. Syst. 54 (2) (2013) 1192–1204.
exploratory study, in: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International
[56] J. Hansen, L.E. Heitger, L. McKell, Computer-aided modelling of decision-support
Conference on System Sciences, 2000.
systems, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 29 (8) (1978) 789–802.
[21] D. Bumblauskas, D. Gemmill, A. Igou, J. Anzengruber, Smart maintenance
[57] N.R. Hassan, The origins of business analytics and implications for the
decision support systems (SMDSS) based on corporate big data analytics, Expert
information systems field, J. Business Anal. 2 (2) (2019) 118–133.
Syst. Appl. 90 (2017) 303–317.
[58] R.L. Hayen, Direction in business intelligence: an analysis of applications, Proc.
[22] F. Burstein, S.A. Carlsson, Decision support through knowledge management, in:
Am. Conf. Inform. Syst. 334 (2008).
Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008,
[59] J.C. Henderson, D.A. Schilling, Design and implementation of decision support
pp. 103–120.
systems in the public sector, MIS Q. (1985) 157–169.
[23] G. Cao, Y. Duan, The affordances of business analytics for strategic decision-
[60] C. Holsapple, A. Lee-Post, R. Pakath, A unified foundation for business analytics,
making and their impact on organizational performance, Proc. Pacific Asia Conf.
Decis. Support. Syst. (2014) 130–141.
Inform. Syst. 255 (2015).
[61] C.K. Hou, K.N. Papamichail, The impact of integrating enterprise resource
[24] T. Chee, L.K. Chan, M.H. Chuah, C.S. Tan, S.F. Wong, W. Yeoh, Business
planning systems with business intelligence systems on decision-making
intelligence systems: state-of-the-art review and contemporary applications,
performance: An empirical study of the semiconductor industry, Int. J. Technol.
Symposium Prog. Inform. Commun. Technol. 2 (4) (2009) 16–30.
Pol. Manag. 10 (3) (2010) 201–226.
[25] H. Chen, R.H. Chiang, V.C. Storey, Business intelligence and analytics: from big
[62] W. Hou, S. Gao, Managerial use of mobile business intelligence: an exploratory
data to big impact, MIS Q. (2012) 1165–1188.
study, Proc. Pacific Asia Conf. Inform. Syst. 61 (2017).
[26] C. Churchman, Wicked problems, Manag. Sci. 14 (4) (1967). B-141–B-146.
[63] G. Houdeshel, H.J. Watson, The management information and decision support
[27] J.F. Courtney Jr., D.B. Paradice, N.H. Ata Mohammed, A knowledge-based DSS
(MIDS) system at Lockheed-Georgia, MIS Q. (1987) 127–140.
for managerial problem diagnosis, Decis. Sci. 18 (3) (1987) 373–399.
[64] R.A. Howard, Decision analysis: practice and promise, Manag. Sci. 6 (1988)
[28] C. Csáki, The Mythical Decision Maker: Models of Roles in Decision Making.
679–695.
Encyclopedia of Decision Making and Decision Support Technologies, IGI Global,
[65] G.P. Huber, The nature of organizational decision making and the design of
2008, pp. 653–660.
decision support systems, MIS Q. 5 (2) (1981) 1–10.
[29] K.F. Curley, L.L. Gremillion, The role of the champion in DSS implementation, Inf.
[66] G.P. Huber, Cognitive style as a basis for MIS and DSS designs: much ado about
Manag. 6 (4) (1983) 203–209.
nothing? Manag. Sci. 29 (5) (1983) 567–579.
[30] T.H. Davenport, Competing on analytics, Harv. Bus. Rev. 84 (1) (2006) 98.
[67] M.T. Jelassi, K. Williams, C.S. Fidler, The emerging role of DSS: from passive to
[31] T.H. Davenport, How strategists use “big data” to support internal business
active, Decis. Support. Syst. 3 (4) (1987) 299–307.
decisions, discovery and production, Strateg. Leadersh. 42 (4) (2014) 45–50.
[68] B. Johansson, D. Alkan, R. Carlsson, Self-Service BI does it Change the Rule of the
[32] T.H. Davenport, J.C. Harris, The architecture of business intelligence, in:
Game for BI Systems Designers. Proceedings of the CEUR Workshop 1420, 2015,
Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning, 2007. Available from, htt
pp. 48–61.
ps://whitepapers.em360tech.com/wp-content/files_mf/white_paper/Accenture_
[69] M.T. Jones, Data, structure, and the data science pipeline, IBM Article (2018) 1–9.
BI_analytics_white_paper.pdf.
[70] P.G. Keen, Value analysis: justifying decision support systems, MIS Q. 5 (1)
[33] D. Delen, S. Ram, Research challenges and opportunities in business analytics,
(1981) 1–5.
J. Business Anal. 1 (1) (2018) 2–12.
[71] P.G. Keen, Adaptive design for decision support systems, DATABASE Adv. Inform.
[34] D. Dinis, A.P. Teixeira, A. Barbosa-Póvoa, ForeSim-BI: a predictive analytics
Syst. 1 (4–5) (1980) 15–25.
decision support tool for capacity planning, Decis. Support. Syst. 131 (2020)
[72] P.G. Keen, Decision support systems: translating analytic techniques into useful
113266.
tools, Sloan Manag. Rev. 21 (3) (1980) 33 (pre-1986).
[35] G. Dodson, D. Arnott, G. Pervan, The use of business intelligence systems in
Australia, Proc. Aust. Conf. Inform. Syst. 74 (2008).

11
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

[73] M. Ketokivi, S. Mantere, Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational [104] G. Phillips-Wren, L.S. Iyer, U. Kulkarni, T. Ariyachandra, Business analytics in the
research, Acad. Manag. Rev. 35 (2) (2010) 315–333. context of big data: a roadmap for research, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37 (1)
[74] N.G. Kim, S.K. Kim, How user’s participation in feasibility study enhances use of (2015) 23.
business intelligence systems, J. Inform. Technol. Appl. Manag. 24 (3) (2017) [105] A. Polyakova, M. Loginov, E. Strelnikov, N. Usova, Managerial decision support
1–21. algorithm based on network analysis and big data, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 10 (2)
[75] W.R. King, J.I. Rodriguez, Note—participative design of strategic decision (2019) 291–300.
support systems: an empirical assessment, Manag. Sci. 27 (6) (1981) 717–726. [106] D. Power, A Brief History of Decision Support Systems. DSSResources.COM,
[76] R.L. Klaas, A DSS for airline management, in: ACM SIGMIS Database: The World Wide Web, version 4.0, 4.1, 2007.
DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 8(3), 1977, pp. 3–8. [107] D. Power, C. Heavin, Data-based Decision Making and Digital Transformation,
[77] O. Kohnke, T.R. Wolf, K. Mueller, Managing user acceptance: an empirical Business Expert Press, 2018.
investigation in the context of business intelligence standard software, Int. J. Inf. [108] H.R. Rao, R. Sridhar, S. Narain, An active intelligent decision support
Syst. Chang. Manag. 5 (4) (2011) 269–290. system—architecture and simulation, Decis. Support. Syst. 12 (1) (1994) 79–91.
[78] M. Kowalczyk, P. Buxmann, J. Besier, Investigating business intelligence and [109] A. Riabacke, A. Larsson, M. Danielson, Business intelligence as decision support in
analytics from a decision process perspective: a structured literature review, Eur. business processes: An empirical investigation, in: Proceedings of 2nd
Conf. Inform. Syst. 126 (2013). International Conference on Information Management and Evaluation (ICIME),
[79] U. Kulkarni, J.A. Robles-Flores, Development and validation of a BI success 2011, pp. 384–392.
model, in: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information [110] D. Robey, W. Taggart, Human information processing in information and decision
Systems. Chicago, Illinois, 2013, pp. 15–17. support systems, MIS Q. (1982) 61–73.
[80] D. Larson, V. Chang, A review and future direction of agile, business intelligence, [111] E. Rubin, A. Rubin, The impact of business intelligence systems on stock return
analytics and data science, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36 (5) (2016) 700–710. volatility, Inf. Manag. 50 (2–3) (2013) 67–75.
[81] X. Li, J.P.A. Hsieh, A. Rai, Motivational differences across post-acceptance [112] P. Russom, Data lakes: Purposes, Practices, Patterns, and Platforms. TDWI White
information system usage behaviors: an investigation in the business intelligence Paper, Available: https://www.sas.com/content/dam/SAS/en_us/doc/whitepape
systems context, Inf. Syst. Res. 24 (3) (2013) 659–682. r2/tdwi-data-lakes-108964.pdf, 2017.
[82] N. Ludwig, S. Feuerriegel, D. Neumann, Putting big data analytics to work: [113] E.R. Safwan, R. Meredith, F. Burstein, Towards a business intelligence systems
feature selection for forecasting electricity prices using the LASSO and random development methodology: Drawing on decision support and executive
forests, J. Decis. Syst. 24 (1) (2015) 19–36. information systems, in: Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on
[83] H.P. Luhn, IBM Systems Journal, 1958. Reported in T. Chee, L.K. Chan, M.H. Information Systems, 2016, p. 136.
Chuah, C.S. Tan, S.F. Wong, W. Yeoh, Business intelligence systems: state-of-the- [114] E.R. Safwan, R. Meredith, F. Burstein, Business Intelligence (BI) system evolution:
art review and contemporary applications, in: Symposium on Progress in a case in a healthcare institution, J. Decis. Syst. 25 (sup1) (2016) 463–475.
Information & Communication Technology 2(4), 2009, pp. 16–30. [115] G.L. Sanders, J.F. Courtney, A field study of organizational factors influencing
[84] D. MacKrell, M. Van den Boogaard, Making sense of business intelligence: DSS success, MIS Q. (1985) 77–93.
proposing a socio-technical framework for improved decision making in not-for- [116] B.L. Santos, M.L. Bariff, A study of user interface aids for model-oriented decision
profit organizations, in: Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Conference on support systems, Manag. Sci. 34 (4) (1988) 461–468.
Information Systems, 2012, pp. 1–9. [117] P.B. Seddon, D. Constantinidis, T. Tamm, H. Dod, How does business analytics
[85] S. Maldonado, R.G. González-Ramírez, F. Quijada, A. Ramírez-Nafarrate, contribute to business value? Inf. Syst. J. 27 (3) (2017) 237–269.
Analytics meets port logistics: A decision support system for container stacking [118] R. Sharda, S.H. Barr, J.C. McDonnell, Decision support system effectiveness: a
operations, Decis. Support. Syst. 121 (2019) 84–93. review and an empirical test, Manag. Sci. 34 (2) (1988) 139–159.
[86] N. Marz, J. Warren, Big Data: Principles and Best Practices of Scalable Real-Time [119] R. Sharma, P. Reynolds, R. Scheepers, P.B. Seddon, G. Shanks, G. Business
Data Systems, Manning Publications Co., New York, NY, 2015. analytics and competitive advantage: A review and a research agenda, in:
[87] S. Maynard, F. Burstein, D. Arnott, A multi-faceted decision support system A. Respicio, F. Adam, G. Phillips-Wren, C. Teixeira, J. Telhada (Eds.), Proceedings
evaluation approach, J. Decis. Syst. 10 (3–4) (2001) 395–428. of the IFIP WG8.3 DSS, Bridging the Socio-Technical Gap in Decision Support
[88] W. McHenry, Linking decision artifacts: a means for integrating business Systems Vol 212 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 2010,
intelligence and knowledge management, Electron. J. Knowl. Manag. 14 (2) pp. 187–198.
(2016) 91–102. [120] M.S. Silver, Descriptive analysis for computer-based decision support: special
[89] C.L. Meador, D.N. Ness, Decision support systems: an application to corporate focus article, Oper. Res. 36 (3) (1988) 904–916.
planning, Sloan Manag. Rev. 15 (2) (1974) 51 (pre-1986). [121] M.S. Silver, Decision support systems: directed and nondirected change, Inf. Syst.
[90] C.L. Meador, M.J. Guyote, P.G. Keen, Setting priorities for DSS development, MIS Res. 1 (1) (1990) 47–70.
Q. 8 (2) (1984) 117–129. [122] M.S. Silver, Decisional guidance for computer-based decision support, MIS Q.
[91] N.P. Melville, K. Kraemer, V. Gurbaxani, Information technology and (1991) 105–122.
organizational performance: an integrative model of IT business value, MIS Q. 28 [123] H. Simon, Rational decision making in business organizations, Am. Econ. Rev. 69
(2) (2004) 283–322. (4) (1979) 493–513.
[92] N.P. Melville, O. Zik, Energy Points: A new approach to optimizing strategic [124] H. Simon, The New Science of Management Decision. 3rd Revised Edition (1960),
resources by leveraging big data, in: Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
Conference on System Sciences, 2016, pp. 1030–1039. [125] Y. Song, D. Arnott, S. Gao, A model of business intelligence systems use in Chinese
[93] A.B. Mendes, BI and data warehouse solutions for energy production industry: organizations, in: Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information
Application of the CRISP-DM methodology, in: A. Respicio, F. Adam, G. Phillips- Systems: Data, Knowledge and Decisions, 2017, pp. 1–11.
Wren, C. Teixeira, J. Telhada (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.3 DSS, Bridging [126] R.H. Sprague, H.J. Watson, Bit by bit: toward decision support systems, Calif.
the Socio-Technical Gap in Decision Support Systems. Vol 212 of Frontiers in Manag. Rev. 22 (1) (1979) 60–68.
Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 2010, pp. 211–222. [127] R.H. Sprague, A framework for the development of decision support system, MIS
[94] R. Meredith, P. O’Donnell, A framework for understanding the role of social Q. 4 (4) (1980) 1–26.
media in business intelligence systems, J. Decis. Syst. 20 (3) (2011) 263–282. [128] T. Tamm, P. Seddon, G. Shanks, Pathways to value from business analytics, in:
[95] R. Meredith, P.A. O’Donnell, A functional model of social media and its Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Information Systems. Milan,
application to business intelligence, in: A. Respicio, F. Adam, G. Phillips-Wren, Italy, 2013.
C. Teixeira, J. Telhada (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.3 DSS, Bridging the [129] H. Thomas, D. Samson, Subjective aspects of the art of decision analysis:
Socio-Technical Gap in Decision Support Systems. Vol. 212 of Frontiers in exploring the role of decision analysis in decision structuring, decision support
Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 2010, pp. 129–140. and policy dialogue, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 37 (3) (1986) 249–265.
[96] G.J. Miller, The influence of big data competencies, team structures, and data [130] P. Todd, I. Benbasat, Process tracing methods in decision support systems
scientists on project success, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Technology & research: exploring the black box, MIS Q. (1987) 493–512.
Engineering Management Conference, 2019, pp. 1–8. [131] E. Turban, P.R. Watkins, Integrating expert systems and decision support systems,
[97] J. Mingers, A. Mutch, L. Willcocks, Critical realism in information systems MIS Q. (1986) 121–136.
research, MIS Q. 37 (3) (2013) 795–802. [132] E. Turban, Decision Support and Expert Systems: Management Support Systems,
[98] A. Mourady, A. Elragal, Business intelligence in support of eGov healthcare Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1993. ISBN:978-0-02-421691-5.
decisions, in: Proceedings of the European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern [133] K.M. Van Hee, R.J. Wijbrands, Decision support system for container terminal
Conference on Information Systems. Athens, Greece, 2011, pp. 285–293. planning, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 34 (3) (1988) 262–272.
[99] S. Negash, P. Gray, Business intelligence, in: Handbook on Decision Support [134] D.R. Vogel, J.C. Wetherbe, MIS research: a profile of leading journals and
Systems v2, Springer, 2008, pp. 175–193. universities, Database Adv. Inf. Syst. 16 (1) (1984) 3–14.
[100] S. Negash, Business Intelligence. Communications of the Association for [135] Y. Wang, T.A. Byrd, Business analytics-enabled decision-making effectiveness
Information Systems. Article 15, 2004, p. 13. through knowledge absorptive capacity in health care, J. Knowl. Manag. 21 (3)
[101] D. Ness, C.R. Sprague, An Interactive Media Decision Support System, Sloan (2017) 517–539.
Management Review; Cambridge 14(1), 1972, pp. 51–61. [136] H. Watson, M.M. Hill, Decision support systems or what didn’t happen with MIS,
[102] D. Olson, F. Courtney Jr., Decision Support Models and Expert Systems, Interfaces 13 (5) (1983) 81–88.
Macmillan, New York, 1992. [137] H. Watson, Revisiting Ralph Sprague’s framework for developing decision
[103] G. Phillips-Wren, M. Mora, G. Forgionne, J.N.D. Gupta, An integrative evaluation support systems, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 42 (2018) 1.
framework for intelligent decision support systems, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 195 (3) [138] H. Watson, Update tutorial: big data analytics: concepts, technology, and
(2009) 642–652. applications, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 44 (2019). Article 1.

12
G. Phillips-Wren et al. Decision Support Systems 146 (2021) 113560

[139] B. Wixom, H. Watson, The BI-based organization, Int. J. Business Intellig. Res. 1 undergraduate, postgraduate and executive education modules. She is academic director
(1) (2010) 13–28. for the MSc Business Information and Analytics program. Her research interests are pri­
[140] I. Yermish, V. Miori, J. Yi, R. Malhotra, R. Klimberg, Business plus intelligence marily associated with organizational decision making and the use and role of IS that
plus technology equals business intelligence, Int. J. Business Intelligence Res. 1 support managerial decision making. Prior to joining UCC in 2004, her career spanned
(1) (2010) 48–63. international companies, multinational corporations, and indigenous manufacturing and
[141] R.W. Zmud, J.F. Cox, The implementation process: a change approach, MIS Q. distribution companies where she provided IT management, project management and
(1979) 35–43. process improvement expertise for enterprise systems.
[142] H.M. Zolbanin, D. Delen, D. Crosby, D. Wright, A predictive analytics-based
decision support system for drug courts, Inf. Syst. Front. (2019) 1–20.
Frada Burstein is a Professor at the Faculty of Information Technology, Monash Uni­
versity, Melbourne, Australia. At Monash University, Prof. Burstein initiated and led the
Gloria Phillips-Wren is a Professor in the Department of Information Systems, Law and Knowledge Management Research Program, which comprised a virtual, industry spon­
Operations Management in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola sored Knowledge Management Laboratory. She was awarded over $10m in Australian
University Maryland, USA. She is founder and co-editor-in-chief of Intelligent Decision dollars funding for research projects and scholarships from the Australian Research
Technologies (IDT) and Associate Editor of the Journal of Decision Systems (JDS). Dr. Council and industry, including two projects in emergency management decision support,
Phillips-Wren is a past-chair of the Special Interest Group on Decision Support and Ana­ and most recently on supporting medical reasoning. Her current research interests include
lytics (SIGDSA) under the Association of Information Systems (AIS), Secretary of IFIP business intelligence, mobile and real-time decision support, and health informatics. Her
WG8.3 Decision Support (DS), and leader of a focus group for Knowledge Engineering work appears in journals such as Decision Support Systems, Journal of Organizational
Systems (KES) International in intelligent decision technologies. Her research interests and Computing and Electronic Commerce, Journal of the American Society for Information Science
publications are in decision making and support, analytics, business intelligence, health­ and Technology, Journal of Information Technology, European Journal of Operations Research,
care IT, and strategic uses of technologies such as social media. Her work appears in and Knowledge Management Research and Practice. Prof. Burstein is a Senior Editor for
Omega, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, European Journal of Operational Decision Support Systems and a former Co-Editor for Journal of Decision Systems and VINE:
Research, Communications of the Association of Information Systems, Journal of Organizational The journal of information and knowledge management systems. Prof. Burstein has been a
Computing and Electronic Commerce, Expert Systems with Applications, Big Data, IT & People, guest editor of a few special issues of journals and collections of research papers. The most
among others. She has also published 13 books (including co-edited), along with numerous substantial work was a set of two volumes of Handbook of Decision Support Systems, pub­
book chapters and conference proceedings. lished by Springer. She is a Fellow of the Australian Computer Society and Distinguished
Member of the Association for Information Systems. Full research profile available at: http
s://research.monash.edu/en/persons/frada-burstein
Mary Daly is a lecturer and researcher in Business Information Systems in the Cork Uni­
versity Business School, University College Cork, Ireland. Her teaching covers

13