ABSTRACT This paper suggests a new normative model that attempts to analyze why improvement of versions of existing decision support systems do not necessarily increase the effectiveness and the productivity of decision making processes. Moreover, the paper suggests some constructive ideas, formulated through a normative analytic model, how to select a strategy for the design and switching to a new version of a decision support system, without having to immediately run through a mega conversion and training process while temporarily losing productivity. The analysis employs the information structure model prevailing in Information Economics. The study analytically defines and examines a systematic informativeness ratio between two information structures. The analysis leads to a better understanding of the performances of decision support information systems during their life-cycle. Moreover, this approach explains normatively the phenomenon of “leaks of productivity”, namely, the decrease in productivity of information systems, after they have been upgraded or replaced with new ones. Such an explanation may partially illuminate findings regarding the phenomenon known as the Productivity Paradox. It can be assumed that the usage of the methodology that is presented in this paper to improve or replace information structure with systematically more informative versions of information structures over time may facilitate the achievement of the following major targets: increase the expected payoffs over time, reduce the risk of failure of new versions of information systems, and reduce the need to cope with complicated and expensive training processes.
Cite this paper
nullN. Ahituv and G. Greenstein, "Evolution or Revolution of Organizational Information Technology – Modeling," Journal of Service Science and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, 2010, pp. 51-66. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2010.31006.
 C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, “The mathematical theory of communication,” University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 1949.
 H. Raiffa, “Decision analysis,” Reading, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1968.
 G. A. Feltham, “The value of information,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 684–696, 1968.
 J. Marschak, “Economic of information systems,” Journal of the American Statistician Association, Vol. 66, pp. 192–219, 1971.
 C. B. McGuire and R. Radner, (editors), “Decision and organization (ch. 5),” University of Minnesota Press, 2nd edition, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1986.
 H. A. Simon, “The new science of management decisions,” Harper and Row, New-York, 1960.
 A. Rubinstein, “Modeling bounded rationality,” MIT. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998.
 N. Ahituv and Y. Wand, “Comparative evaluation of information under two business objectives,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 31–51, 1984.
 N. Ahituv, “A comparison of information structure for a ‘Rigid Decision Rule’ case,” Decision Science, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 399–416, 1981.
 N. Ahituv, “Describing the information system life cycle as an adjustment process between information and decisions,” International Journal of Policy Analysis and Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 133–145, 1982.
 G. Ariav and M. J. Ginzberg, “DSS design: A systemic view of decision support,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 28, No. 10, pp. 1045–1052, 1985.
 E. Brynjolfsson, “The productivity paradox of information technology,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 67–77, 1993.
 E. Brynjolfsson, “Paradox lost,” CIO, Vol. 7, No. 14, pp. 26–28, 1994.
 E. Brynjolfsson and L. M. Hitt, “Beyond the productivity paradox,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. 49–55, 1998.
 N. Ahituv and G. Greenstein, “Systems inaccessibility and the productivity paradox,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 161, pp. 505–524, 2005.
 M. C. Anderson, R. D. Banker, and S. Ravindran, “The new productivity paradox,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 91–94, 2003.
 N. Ahituv and Y. Elovici, “Evaluating the performance of an application running on a distributed system,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 52, pp. 916-927, 2001.
 Y. Elovici, B. Shapira, and P. B. Kantor, “Using the information structure model to compare profile-based information filtering,” Information Retrieval, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 75–97, 2003.
 L. Aronovich and I. Spiegler, “CM-tree: A dynamic clus- tered index for similarity search in metric databases,” Data & Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 3, pp. 919–946, 2007.
 N. Ahituv and B. Ronen, “Orthogonal information structure—a model to evaluate the information provided by a second opinion,” Decision Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 255–268, 1988.
 Z. Safra and E. Sulganik, “On the nonexistence of blackwell’s theorem-type, results with general preference relations,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 10, pp. 187–201, 1995.
 E. Sulganik and I. Zilcha, “The value of information the case of signal dependent opportunity sets,” Journal of Ec- onomic Dynamics and Control, Vol. 21, pp. 1615–1625, 1997.
 B. Ronen and Y. Spector, “Theory and methodology evaluating sampling strategy under two criteria,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 80, pp. 59–67, 1995.
 N. Carmi and B. Ronen, “An empirical application of the information-structures model: The postal authority case,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 92, pp. 615–627, 1996.
 N. Margaliot, “Selecting a quality control attribute sample: An information-economics method,” Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 91, pp. 83–104, 1999.
 B. Ronen, “An information-economics approach to quality control attribute sampling,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 73, pp. 430–442, 1994.
 E. Sulganik, “The value of information under diverse economic environments,” Ph. D. Dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Faculty of Management (Hebrew), Tel Aviv, 1993.