1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Responsibility Analysis: a basis for understanding complex managerial
situations
Gurpreet Dhillon and James Backhouse
Computer Security Research Centre
Information Systems Department, London School of Economics
and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK
Tel: 071-955-7641; Fax: 071-955-7385; E-mail: csrc @Ise.ac.uk
Abstract
Management practitioners have always felt the need to understand organisational contexts and
processes. Consequently many different theoretical bases have been used to facilitate this evaluation.
However the focus of existing approaches has primarily been on the ‘formal’ aspects of the
organisation. This has often resulted in inadequate and poor analysis of various complex managerial
situations. In viewing organisations as communication systems, this paper introduces the
ponsibility analysis h which helps in presenting a comprehensive picture of an
organisational environment. At a very generic level organisations are viewed in terms of three
sub-systems: technical, formal and informal. When conducting a responsibility analysis, the
endeavour is to identify the responsible agents and capture the norms associated with each action. In
doing so we seek to understand the underlying Tepertoires of behaviour. This produces a high level
specification of the organi and its sponsibilities, thus allowing a comparison to be
made with the implicit and explicit structures of responsibility. The paper demonstrates these
concepts with examples drawn from a National Health Service case study.
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 70
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Responsibility Analysis: a basis for understanding complex managerial
situations
Introduction
M and practiti alike have always felt the need to represent organisational
boundaries in models. C ly or and issues need explicit understanding.
Since isations are ly infl d by culture, power and politics, it has not been easy to
model these isatil R have regarded ion and attribution of
responsibility as a first step in this direction. However, they have been unable to find a means to do
so. This is because their focus has been on the formal aspects of the organisation. As researchers we
must iate that organi are d by an informal environment. The boundaries of
which are either fuzzy or so encompassing as hardly to exclude anyone. To analyse any managerial
situation is thus problematic.
Any attempt to analyse complex managerial situations or perhaps model them, requires some
understanding of the very nature of an organisation. Over the years various models or metaphors have
emerged. Some of these are overlapping in character, while others present conflicting viewpoints. In
fact, many differences of opinion in understanding complex situations originate from the differences
over these models. Traditional work in organisations was either focused on the study of bureaucracy
(e.g. Merton et al, 1952; Blau, 1955) or decision making (e.g. Cyert and March, 1963; March and
Simon, 1993). Increasingly researchers have explored the manner in which organisations relate to
their environment (Pfeffer and Salanick, 1978; Aldrich, 1979). This reorientation has been because of
the diffusion of general systems theory concepts into social sciences.
Central to the various debates on the nature of organisations has been the relative focus of these
approaches on the formal and the informal environments. System theory influences have resulted in a
narrow focus in studying organisations as machines. Beam (1983), for example, proposes an
organisational model with three logically irreducible elements. First is a detector that acquires and
processes information about a system environment. Second is a selector that chooses responses. Third
is an effector that determines overt behavioural responses. He regards these to be the core elements of
the formal systems. Viewing organisations on this basis results in inter— and intra—organisational
social i being idered as This becomes apparent from the work of Kuhn
and Beam (1982) who give “substantial attention to the importance and inevitability of informal
organisation within the formal and of making the informal work with, or at least not against, the
formal”.
Understanding the informal aspects of an organisation is of even greater significance today. This is
because of the informatisation of most activities (Zuboff, 1988). In this changed environment, where
hnology has ly been used, it is imp that a multi
of organisations is developed Morgan’ s (1986) work on Images of Organisation is one ‘such
example. In recent years Walsham (1991, 1993) has used Morgan’s metaphors in studying
information technology usage in organisations. This has resulted in developing a good understanding
of the complex managerial situations arising with an increased use of information technology.
Taking note of earlier work (e.g. Doubleday and Walsham, 1986; King and McAulay, 1989;
Clemons, 1991: Zuurbier, 1992: Baugh and Walters, 1992; Alters, 1992; Konsynski, 1993), this
research recognises the evolving nature of organisations. These days managers are faced with
complex issues which range from the co-ordination and control of the activities to the effective
management of information. There is also an increased awareness of the need to understand and
respond to various environmental changes. These changes affect an agent’s ability to communicate,
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 71
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
command, persuade, or even to induce a icular behavi Cc 1 isations pose
situations which are difficult to comprehend.
In addressing the issue of und ding complex this paper views
organisations in terms of deep and surface structures. It introduces the concept of ‘Responsibility
Analysis’, which is a deep structural analysis, to evaluate complex managerial situations.
Subsequently the analysis is applied to understand a complex “managerial situation. It is envisaged
that this will facilitate the ion of i daries in models.
The conceptual framework
Nature of the organisation
We begin with the premise that there is no single framework, encompassing all domains of
knowledge, which helps in the study of organisations and hence of the nature of complex managerial
situations. In recent years contributions to the study | of organisations have come from different
domains. Natural science, th ics and points are largely being criticised
because they lead to inconclusive and inapplicable results. This has led researchers to consider ideas
afforded by theories such as contingency theory, resource dependency theory and more recently the
structuration theory. Others have used concepts drawn from semiotics, the theory of signs, to
understand administrative and business systems and the use of information in the society at large (e.g.
Kitiyadisai, 1991; Backhouse, 1991; Liebenau and Backhouse, 1990; Stamper, 1973).
The emergent belief of most studies is to view organisations as evolving social forms of sense
making. Consequently, they allow different groups to relate to each other and the environment.
Walsham (1993) views this to be a dynamic process of action/context interweaving, which is
fundamental to the understanding 7 the process of organisational change. Liebenau and Backhouse
(1990) have viewed as ituted of the informal, formal and the
technical parts which are in a state of continuous interaction. Many authors have attempted to explain
the nature of organisations and information usage on basis of a similar categorisation (e.g. Land
1992; Galliers and Land, 1987; Klein and Hirschheim, 1987).
Traditionally organisations have been viewed as formal systems characterised by bureaucracy, where
concern for rule and form replace that of meaning and intention. These formal systems were
ial: d with the int ional (between the organisation and its customers,
financial instituti etc.) and int i (between different departments)
information. In present times many computer based information systems have been used to automate
the administrative tasks of the formal systems.
An analysis of an organisation on this basis ignores the b-culture where i lished.
d d, beliefs, ponsibilities, are made, altered and discharged. This
is ially the informal ip With the i of an ion, a system of fairly
cohesive groups with overlapping memberships is created (Fig. 1). These social groupings of the
informal system have a significant bearing on the well being of an organisation. The groups or even
the individuals may have significant power and may be in a position to influence other informal
groups or even the formal structures.
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 72
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Legend:
some social and working
—) groups with overlapping memberships
y ‘nication loops
Fig. 1, Organisational environment
The levels of analysis
At this stage we are faced with a major question: what sort of conceptual basis do we need to move on
in analysing complex situations? What is needed is a theory which binds together the multiple images of
a problem and at the same time brings in i y. Ri h in the study of isations has been
dominated by two divergent schools of thought. There are those who concentrate their analysis on the
objective structures of organisations. This kind of an analysis gives little consideration to the
environmental influences. At most it helps in determining the actions and interpretations of human
beings. Then there are others who are d with the subj and i of
actors. Analysis of this nature does not consider the historical and structural context. This dichotomy has
been recognised by many researchers (e.g. Coombs et al, 1992; Morgan, 1986; Pfeffer, 1982; Burrell
and Morgan, 1979).
Alternatively organisations can be viewed as communication systems with formal, informal and
This /p gives Pp to the ion aspects of
different individuals and groups. The concept of communication incorporates in itself the notion of
intentions of agents and there ability to interpret ‘Signals. C ly complex
ions can be und d in terms of the ion system. These situations can be analysed
at two levels:
The level of deep structures: At this level we address issues related to the content and
purpose of the communications.
The level of surface structures: At this level we address the issues related to the form
and means of communication.
The surface have been i d by many in organisati analysis, and are
herefc from our di ion here. These broadly correspond to the formal and technical
systems in an organisation. The main focus is on constructing formal rules and in understanding the
means by which they inter-relate.
The deep structures of an organisation
With the foregoing in mind, we can regard isatii as bodi: of of
sponsibility, ch
ised by groups of responsible agents charged with specific responsibilities
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 73
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
over the substantive actions and tasks of the business. By modelling the underlying patterns of
behaviour which characterise the domain of action, it is possible to highlight the actions that must be
accomplished. From unearthing the patterns the focus moves to identifying the persons responsible
for instantiation, and examines the norms they use when, for example giving approval to requests.
These norms can be cross-checked against company policies and statutory requirements. The
interdependency of the decision making by one responsible agent on the decisions of others is
highlighted so as to be able to specify improvements to the management system.
In order to understand complex situations, it is essential to evaluate these within the context of
organisations. Ermann and Lundman (1992) view organisations as made up of a collection of people.
These people occupy certain roles. These roles are generally fixed, whereas the people holding them
may change over a period of time. The roles have certain obligations and expectations of the people
who occupy them. Thus organisations can be viewed in terms of their stable underlying Patterns of
behaviour (see Backhouse and Dhillon, 1993). This it the deep of the
Analysis at this level has largely been neglected.
In analysing organisations as patterns of behaviour, one very important aspect of social causality
becomes evident: ibility. In lit it has been fioned several times in relation to
organisations in general and information usage in particular (e.g. Lane 1985; Buchanan and Linowes
1980; Withington 1980; Shaver 1985; Liebenau and Backhouse 1990). It is also our endeavour with the
present framework to analyse the various aspects of the attribution and identification of structures of
responsibility. These structures provide a means of understanding the manner in which responsible
agents are identified; the formal and informal environments in which they exist; the influences to which
they are subjected; the range of conduct open to them; the manner in which they signify the occurrence
of events; the communications they enter into and above all the underlying patterns of behaviour.
Since the thrust of the deep structural analysis is on the identification of responsible agents and the
of i with those agents, the whole process in itself is termed as
‘Responsibility Analysis’. The basic principles of conducting Responsibility Analysis are described
elsewhere (see Backhouse and Dhillon, 1993). The analysis makes extensive use of drawing semantic
schemas. These schemas take the form of ontology charts, where agents and behaviour patterns are
arranged in an existence dependency manner. Principles for drawing semantic schemas and ontology
charts can be found in Backhouse (1991).
In the following section Responsibility Analysis is used to evaluate and understand a particular issue.
This issue is derived from a NHS case study. Though this paper picks up just one element, the
usefulness of the approach can very well be appreciated from the depth of the analysis.
Application in an 1 context
The setting
The recent changes in the organisation of NHS prompted by the Griffiths report of 1983 and the more
recent Community Care Act (1990), have inspired the NHS Management Executive and the
individual hospital trusts to reassess their information needs. The most obvious problem was the
timely availability of information. This was particularly the case in the NHS Trust which is the focus
of this study. A computer-based information system was seen as a means to fill this information gap.
It was envisaged that such a system would not only help the Trust to adapt to the macro environment
(where there was an increased pressure on the Trusts to provide precise information on its activities),
but also to add value to the health care deliver process. With respect to the recent changes in the
health services, the traditional health care management system had certain shortcomings. For instance
it was not possible to give due i ion to isolated ‘ ” which could subsequently be
consolidate into health plans. It was also not possible to perform audits and assess the effectiveness
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 74
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
of resources used. In response to such criticisms an integrated information system at this NHS Trust
incorporated care planning functionality in itself. It also allows for case mix management and has
clinical audit functionality. Thus the system helps the Trust to adapt better to the existing
This is facilitated by meeting the d ds of the purck inp to
assess the quality and effectiveness of services delivered. Such information is drawn through a
process of constant monitoring of care delivery, ding of details and of
outcomes.
In i ing the i di ion system, the NHS Trust has _ Tegarded information
technology as the main catalyst for change. It has relied on for
implementation of the concepts which add value to the health care delivery process and consequently
to change the culture of the organisation. Thus there has been an over-reliance on the functionality of
the system to reap information technology benefits. As a result the Trust has seen a massive
reorganisation of its ways of working. The adoption of new management, new structures and new
styles of teamwork have come to the fore-front. In ig its obj the of the
Trust is moving towards adopting principles of systematic monitoring and a single line of command
and developing hybrid staff members who know something of everyone's job.
The problem and a deep structural analysis
The issues related to the viability of the changes will be left for the students of politics and
government. Our immediate concer here is to see, at a micro level, the factors considered in
implementing an information system in the NHS Trust. To do this we have taken the issue of
controlling a staff member session schedule. Controlling such a schedule poses a complex managerial
situation, especially when a computer-| ~based system is used to carry out the task. The staff scheduling
module is not just another duty ism. It gives a ical display of the ‘free’ and
‘busy’ times of each staff member. This allows the service point manager to plan the use of staff
effectively. However the system analysts and the designers have not related the procedures and
structures so created in the technical system to the meanings and intentions of the users and the staff
who are being controlled. Thus the syntactic domain so created in the computer system does not
the ic domain (activities of the real world). An understanding of these issues is of
significant importance for the success of the information system. In this context, our focus should be
to analyse the usefulness of ‘Responsibility Analysis’ to understand such complex situations. This
will help us to decide the boundary between the formalisable and the lisable aspects of the
management systems. It would also be possible to prioritise the system development tasks, especially
when the scale of the project is of significance.
Figure 2 shows the logical exi and d of the two roles in question. A service
point manager, a role which is part of a particular hospital in the Trust, is responsible for allocating
work to another role, a nurse. Thus, for all necessary activities, the role of the nurse draws authority
from the service point manager. The particular activity in question is to provide therapy to a specific
patient. In the normal situation, a nurse would allocate (book) time for the therapy sessions and
would be held responsible for the activity. With the impl ion of the 1) bi
information system the situation has changed. Not only would the nurse be held responsible for the
activities, but the time allocations, free times, number of sessions per day/week etc., would all be
monitored. The computer has indeed emerged as a new supervisor.
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 75
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
incumbency incurmbency
Person # Role #
Service Point Mgr
a
a
NHS #Trust __*
resident
Patient # ~ /
therapy
provides
seeks
Fig. 2, Ontological representation of the normal situation
The development of a module ing a staff bers session schedule is a typical example of a
poor system specification. It should be the endeavour of the system analyst to relate the syntactic
domain (i.e. the formalisable aspects of the problem) to the semantic domain (ie. to ask the question:
what would it mean in the real world?). In other words, consideration has just been given to the form
of the problem and not to the content. Such a design, which concentrates on the surface structures
only, not only leads to the development of systems that cause problems (e.g. staff morale) but also
lack vigour. Consequently such projects are seldom abandoned.
The technique of ‘responsibility analysis’ not only allows us to comment on the form and content of
the problem but also helps in analysing the underlying repertoires of behaviour. This gives us a better
insight into complex ial situati R ibility analysis can be extended to do a
communication analysis as well. Thus allowing us to assess the attitudes of different roles. Such an
analysis is of great significance since the basic objective of the Service Point Manager is to get things
done through the Nurse. In figure 3, the solid line represents the transmission of the actual signal
from Role ‘A’ to Role ‘B’, allocating a specific task to the nurse. The transmission of the signal is an
indication of a communication having taken place between the two roles. With the computer-based
information system in place, the communication takes place through the computer. Thus in net effect
Role ‘A’ gets things done through the computer.
Consequently the transmission of the signal from Role ‘A’ to ‘B’ influences the attitude of Role ‘B’.
The complex situation posed by controlling a staff member session schedule through the use of a
computer can only be understood in terms of differences between the formal communication used by
machines and the natural language used by people. At this point it is interesting to consider the
different modes in which people Ordinary between people (written or
spoken) operates in any of the four modes: ‘affective’, ‘denotative’, ‘ritual’ and ‘formal’ (Morris,
1964), The affecti ication conveys jud; of value and thus plays upon a recipients’
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 76
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Attitude 3
Role #'A'
Attitude 2
Attitude 4. -”
i~ . ‘
Allocates Task 'A': ‘, Attitude 1
an individual therapy
session
for
Patient 'X’ €---°
Fig. 3, Communication analysis of the two roles
feelings while the denotative communication is based on facts and evidence. The ritual
communication is used in our everyday discourse and uses words without reference. The formal
communication employs signs as objects and is not intended to trigger any behavioural responses. All
modes of ication operate simul! 1
ly.
A distinction between the modes of communication is useful to evaluate the attitudes of Role ‘B’
towards ‘A’. These attitudes can be classified as follows:
Attitude 1: By allocating a particular task, Role ‘A’ can influence Role ‘B’s attitude towards the
subject being referred. Since in this context we are not considering mechanical tasks, the
implication of this influence could be serious. The situation becomes far more complex when the
incumbent of Role ‘B’ knows that the time spent with the patient would be closely monitored.
This could adversely affect the very content of the therapy session. Thus in providing an
‘effective’ and an ‘efficient’ service, the management would in fact be sacrificing the quality.
Attitude 2: The attitude of Role ‘B’ towards Role ‘A’ would also be influenced. Role ‘B’ will
have to adjust his attitude towards Role ‘A’. This is especially so when a machine is used to
control and co-ordinate the work and performance of Role ‘B’. Such a situation is typical of
superior-subordinate relationships.
Attitude 3: Less consciously, the whole context would influence the attitude of the persons
themselves holding Role “B’. Again the consequences could be serious. There would be problems
with the self-confidence and morale of the individual. Rather than providing therapy to the patient,
the Role ‘B’ incumbent would require some kind of help to cope with the situation.
Attitude 4: The attitude of Role ‘B’ towards the message itself is very interesting in the context of
organisational change. Role ‘A’ perhaps unintentionally, but often deliberately may convey some
measure of confidence that should be placed in what is said. This communication act becomes far
more complex when Role ‘B’ sees a computer as performing a supervisory task.
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 77
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
It becomes apparent that with the use of a based i ion system, the affective and the
ritual modes of communication are marginalised. This has serious implications. A service point
manager who does not achieve an emotional rapport with the nurse will be left with neat time
allocations but may fail in motivating the nurse. On the contrary a manager who establishes a rapport,
will promote enthusiastic activity, however this is significantly curtailed because of the structure
imposed by the computer system.
The usefulness of responsibility analysis for analysing complex situations can not be under estimated.
An understanding of various attitudes, both at the individual and the group level, is equally important.
This is of significance if collective co-ordinated action is to be achieved. It is often very difficult to
have a formal representation of such actions. However, the schemas created while conducting a
responsibility analysis are a first step in that direction.
Conclusion
In this paper organisations have been viewed as communication systems. They are considered to be
d of three sub-systems: technical, formal and informal. In conducting a responsibility
analysis, the endeavour is to identify the responsible agents and capture the norms associated with
each action. In doing so we seek to und d the underlying repertoires of t iour. By looking at
the informal environment, it should be possible to capture the structures in their cultural context. This
would enable the analyst to understand the object system better. The analysis also helps in the
interpretation of sign functions which play an important role in the decision making process. Finally
we are able to develop an und ding of an including its informal, underlying cultural
infrastructure. This deep structural analysis should form the basis for modelling organisations.
References
Aldrich, H. (1979). Organisations and Envi . Engl Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Alter, S. (1992). Why Persist With DSS When the Real Issue is Improving Decision Making? In T. Jelassi, M.
R. Klein, and W. M. Mayon-White (Eds.), Decision Support Systems: Experiences and Expectations (Pp.
1-11). Elsevier (North-Holland).
Backhouse, J. (1991) The Use of Semantic Analysis in the Development of Information Systems. PhD
dissertation, London School of Economics, University of London.
Backhouse, J., and Dhillon, G. (1993). A C for Secure ion Systems. In The Tenth
World Conference on Computer Security, Audit and Control, COMPSEC, (Pp. 158-168). London, UK:
Elsevier Advanced Technology.
Baugh, P. J., and Walters, D. M. (1992). Impact of DSS Within the Context of Organisation Change. An
Application of the Socio-Technical Approach to the NHS. In T. Jelassi, M. R. Klein, and W. M. Mayon-
White (Eds.), Decision Support Systems: Experiences and Expectations (Pp. 241-250). Elsevier (North-
Holland).
Beam, R. D. (1983). Towards a System Based Unified Social Science. In F. Machlup and U. Mansfield (Eds.),
The Study of Information New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Blau, P. M. (1955). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago, Il: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Buchanan, J., and Linowes, R. (1980). l ling Distril Data P ing. Harvard Business Review
(July/August), 143-153,
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 78
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heinemann.
Clemons, E. K. (1991). Corporate Strategies for i AR Based A ach.
Computer (November).
Coombs, R., Knights, D., and Willmott, H. c. (1992). Culture, Control and Competition; Towards a Conceptual
Framework for the Study of in O ion Studies, 13(1), 51-
72.
Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. (1963). Behavioural Theory of the Form. Prentice-Hall.
Doubleday, C. F., and Walsham, G. (1986). A Model of ion Activity in Organisati ional
Journal of Management Science, 14(3), 207-212.
Ermann, M. D., and Lundman, R. J. (1992). Corporate and Governmental Deviance: Problems of
Organisational in Ce ry Society. Oxford Univ. Press.
Galliers, R. D., and Land, F. F. (1987). Choosing Appropriate Information Systems Research Methodologies.
Communications of the ACM, 30(11), 900-902.
King, M., and McAulay, L. (1989). and the A A Case Study. iour And
Information Technology, 8(2), 109-123.
Kitiyadisai, K. (1991) Relevance and Information Systems. PhD dissertation, London School of Economics,
University of London.
Klein, H. K., and Hirschheim, R. (1987). Social Change and the Future of Information Systems Development. In
R. J. Boland Jr. and R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Konsynski, B. R. (1993). Strategic Control in the Extended Enterprise. JBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 111-142.
Kuhn, A., and Beam, R. (1983). The Logic of Organisation. San Francisco: J Bi
y
Land, F. F. (1992). The Information Systems Domain. In R. Galliers (Ed.), Information Systems Research.
Issues Methods and Practical Guidelines. Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Lane, V. P. (1985). Security of Computer Based Information Systems. London: Macmillan.
Liebenau, J. and Backh J. (1990). U di ion. London:
if
March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1993). Organisations (Second Ed.). Publi
Merton, R. K., Gray, A. P., Hockey, B., and Selvin, H. P. (1952). Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe, Il: Free
Press.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organisations. Sage Publications.
Morris, C. (1964). Signification and Significance - A Study of the Relation of Signs and Values. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organisations and Organisation Theory. London: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J., and Salanick, G. R. (1978). The External Control of O1 isatic A Resource Depende
Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The Attribution of Blame: Causality, Responsibility and Blameworthiness. New York:
Spinger-Verlag.
Problem - Solving Methodologies, page 79
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Stamper, R. (1973). ion in Business and Admini: ive Systems. John Wiley.
Walsham, G. (1991). of ion. European Journal of ion Systems, 1(2).
Walsham, G. (1993). rpreti) ion Systems in Organisations, John Wiley.
Withington, F. (1980). Coping with Computer Proliferation. Harvard Business Review (May/June), 152-164.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books.
Zuurbier, J. J. (1992). On the Design of Group Decision Support Systems. In T. Jelassi, M. R. Klein, and W. M.
Mayon-White (Eds.), Decision Support Systems: Experiences and Expectations (Pp. 59-69). Elsevier
Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland).
Problem - Solving Methodologies. page 80
