Cultural Dependence of Decision Support Systems - Coursework Example

Cultural Dependence of Decision Support Systems Submitted by [Client’s Name] Submitted to [Professor’s Name] [Subject] The scope of the functions and operations of modern day organizations have become so complex that isolation of system is no longer applicable. Organizations have to rely on the ability of their information systems to store, analyze, and synthesize data and information acquired by the system. Because majority of the data and information obtained by organizations are stored electronically, making decisions now depends on the ability of the information system (IS) and information technology (IT) platforms to streamline data and information. More recently, organizations rely on Decision Support Systems for their decision making process knowing that the decisions offered by the DS system is more reliable and more comprehensive compared to decisions made manually. Decision Support Systems (DSS) is a data modeling tool where computer-based system design is implemented to analyze and synthesize data and information as well as integrate the knowledge of communications technology available on the system to make decisions (Power, 1997). It basically employs analytical methods in solving large and (typically) unstructured problems, analyzes the impacts of these problems on the user-defined environment, and provides numerous choices in solving the problem. DSS can be narrow or broad, depending on the type of organization applying it and the scope of operation DSS needs to cover. Essentially, DSS attempts to solve or provide options in solving any problem (Mora et al, 2005). There is no doubt about the ability of DSS to handle, manage, and streamline data and information. However, serious issues arise when organizations using DSS platforms take into account the limitations of the developers assigned to work on specific areas of the platform. Development and implementation of DSS depends highly on the ability of the people involve to streamline the scope of the function and operation of the software (Forgionne et al, 2005). This means that the ability of the DSS to analyze, process, and solve problems is bound to the human limitations involved in its development and implementation phases. In this regard, this paper will identify and determine the effect of the subjectivities involved in the development and implementation phases of DSS, particularly how cultural differences affect the performance of DSS. Decision-Making Understanding the outcomes of decisions requires a thorough understanding of the processes involved in decision-making. Individuals make decisions based on their biases, perceptions, belief systems, and their understanding of the contexts in which decisions are to be made (O’Boyle, 1996). In systems development, the ability of the system to interact with its users depends on the programs, algorithms, and language placed by the developers into it. Developers work on DSS platforms (or any other platforms) using standardized and customized approach. Developers typically do this in order to provide clients with the most objective platform suited for their client’s needs. Developers conform to international standards on system development as well as on logical progression of systems development in order to achieve the desired results. However, the ability of the developers to conform to the standards outlined in developing IT systems is limited to their ability to comprehend the system requirement and on their interpretation of the requirement (Monro et al, 2002). This means that the human factors involved in systems development like the understanding of the system requirement, the translation of the system requirement into algorithms, and defining the boundaries of the system requirement are subject to certain human limitations. One of the most common and most prevalent human limitations is culture. According to Monro et al (2002), there is a need to proactively manage the impact of culture on the development of global decision support systems. This is because cultural impacts in the decision making can affect both technical and managerial decisions that must be met both by organizations and developers. From the management side, businesses and organizations must make sure that the decisions they make are culturally sensitive. This means that the data and information its system enters in the global DSS must be culture-sensitive as well. The technical considerations demand that systems must be able to come up with neutral alternatives to various problems organizations must face. The more complex the scope of the function of the organization is, the more likely it is that decision-making processes involved becomes more difficult. Management Concerns Management is very particular on the subjectivity of the decisions that are to be made. Management decisions typically involve human elements and the subjectivities associated in dealing with humans needs to be broken down into simpler, easier-to-understand pieces so that the management can be able to optimally use the decisions (and their alternative solutions) provided by the DSS platform. This means that DSS platforms needs to be developed in such a way that management concerns will be addressed. For example, DSS platforms must be able to supply decisions that would allow management to efficiently handle cultural differences between sales people and the target market in order to maximize manpower and optimize profitability. This further implies that the DSS developers must have a deep and thorough understanding of the complexities associated with the interaction between and among individuals and cultures. Technical Concerns While management concerns outline the subjectivities involved in any types of decision made in the organization, technical concerns outline the objective requirements that the DSS platform must follow in order to come up with alternative solutions. In Karpain & Myers (2000), the authors have discussed how Oracle is able to succeed in multinational scale considering that the company is a new player in the market that is dominated by various veteran IT and software development companies. Oracle’s success lies in its objective treatment of the various IT and IS related issues of their clients and providing them with the technical requirements their clients need in order to use their IT platforms on an optimal scale. Oracle was able to do this by aligning the cultural biases of their clients with the cultural biases of the developers. This means that Oracle has to invite their clients for the whole duration of the development phase in oder to sync the output information with the input information the client thinks they need (Karpain & Myers, 2000). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions In order to handle the difficulties associated with cultural differences, it is necessary to be familiar with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. This is because Hofstede’s cultural dimensions delineate individual cultures into general categories, making it easier for the management involved to understand the cultural differences of the stakeholders involved. Hofstede suggests five cultural dimensions management leaders can use to understand various cultures. These five dimensions are power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, long-term vs. short-term orientation, and uncertainty avoidance. Business deals and business management scenarios that involves people from various cultural background have reported difficulties in achieving coherent business details compared to doing business or working with people from one’s own culture. Theoretically speaking, all cultures can be checked vis-à-vis the Hofstede dimensions in order to allow common understanding. For example, Hofstede’s power distance refers to the degree by which one social subgroup defers to the other like how blue collar workers differ to corporate workers where such distinction does not matter in United States and does in India with their caste system. Masculinity vs. femininity refers to which the preference of a certain culture over social dominance against the communal feelings and quality of life. Opening an office in Japan would be successful if a male person is to be placed as the head. The male-female preference does not exist in Sweden. Individualism vs. collectivism is the term used to refer to how society relates to each other. A society with high individualism index means that individuals in the society are more attuned on their own whereas a society with high collectivism index means that people belonging to the society generally build stronger relationships with each other. Countries like Panama and Guatemala are known as cultures inclined to collectivism and so advertising must exploit on socio-cultural collectivism in order to gain positive response. Uncertainty avoidance index measures the tendency of the culture to stick to rules and seek order.  Some cultures do not want to be confronted by risks and so they would pry every detail from every business proposals. Germans demand more options and alternatives from a business plan than do Thais as Thais are more fatalistic of their view in life. Long-term orientation means that cultures with high LTO index are more likely to value traditions and cultural practices. Most of the Asian countries adhere to the cultural practices and traditions whereas Americans and people from Great Britain do not. Thus said, British and American businessmen are expected to come up with novel concepts and ideas whereas Japanese and Singaporeans may be rigid and formal when it comes to workplace strictures.   Conclusion A thorough understanding of the cultural identities of the individuals involved in the development and implementation of DSS will allow all the stakeholders involved of the limitations of the DSS platforms. Understanding the major and minor limitations of DSS platforms are necessary in order to address the areas where particular actions need to be implemented in order to provide comprehensive solutions characterized by DSS. Designing, developing, and implementing a DSS platform subject to cultural biases, particularly if the biases affect the performance of the system, defeats its very purpose. This is the reason why understanding the cultural contexts involved in the development of the DSS through understanding the cultural dimensions where the people involved in the development of the DSS platform belong to is very important. References Bose, R. & Sugumaran, V. (Winter 1999).“Application of intelligent agent technology for managerial data analysis and mining,” DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 30, No. 1, Forgionne, G., Mora, M., Gupta, J. & Gelman, O. (2005). Decision-Making Support Systems. In: M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed). Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 759-765. Karpain, G. and Myers, L.(2000). Keep It Simple: How Oracle Consolidated Its Global Infrastructure, Corporation Kersten, G., Mikolajuk, Z. Gar-On Yeh, E. (eds). (1999). Decision Support Systems for Sustainable Development: A Resource Book of Methods and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Monro, D.,Basu, C., Kumar, A. & Sargent G. (2002). Managing the Impact of Cultural Factors in the Development of Global Decision Support Systems. Retrieved online from  http://www.iacis.org/iis/2002_iis/pdf%20files/munrobasukumarsargent.pdf Mora, M., Forgionne, G., Cervantes, F., Garrido, L., Gupta. J.N.D., & Gelman, O. (2005). Toward a Comprehensive Framework for the Design and Evaluation of Intelligent Decision-making Support Systems (i-DMSS). Journal of Decision Systems, 14(3), 321-344. O’ Boyle,J.(1996). The Culture of Decision Making. R&D Innovator. 5(12). 251 Power DJ. 1997. Decision support systems glossary. DSS Resources, World Wide Web. http:// DSSResources.COM/glossary/ . 1999. Zaman, A., Raman, S. & Khan, M. (2009). Development of a DSS for Integrated Water Resource Management in Bangladesh. 18th World IMAC Congress. Caims, Australia. Retrieved online http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/G4/zaman_G4.pdf Read More