In the business domain, qualitative simulation offers many advantages over quantitative methods. However, the design of qualitative simulation systems (QSS) represents a difficult problem in the organizational context, for which extant design methods are ill-equipped. In this article, Information Systems Design Theory (ISDT) is employed for the design of organizational QSS, and a working prototype is developed. Using a focused example of agent performance in the context of an organizational process, the results demonstrate the use and utility of qualitative simulation for business, in addition to the efficacy of ISDT for QSS design. Additionally, I argue how ISDT will scale well to guide the design of information systems classes other than QSS and identify many elements of the QSS design that are inherently reusable. The article concludes with an outline for future research along these lines.
Davenport, T. H.
(1993). Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology. Boston: Harvard Press.
2.
de Kleer, J.
, & Brown, J. S. (1984). A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 7-83.
3.
Forbus, K. D.
(1984). Qualitative process theory. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 85-168.
4.
Forbus, K. D.
(1986). The qualitative process engine. In D. Weld & J. de Kleer (Eds.), Qualitative reasoning about physical systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
5.
Forbus, K. D.
(1991). The QPE users manual [QPE version 2.1 beta test]. Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
6.
Hammer, M.
, & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper Business Press.
7.
Kuipers, B. J.
(1986). Qualitative simulation. Artificial Intelligence, 29, 289-338.
8.
Kuipers, B. J.
, & Chiu, C. (1987). Taming intractable branching in qualitative simulation. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)-87 (pp. 1079-1085). Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
9.
Malone, T. W.
, & Crowston, K. (1992). The interdisciplinary study of coordination (Working paper, Center for Coordination Science). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
10.
Mi, P.
, & Scacchi, W. (1993). A unified model of software systems, agents, tools, and processes (Working paper, ATRIUM Lab). Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Graduate School of Business.
11.
Mintzberg, H.
(1977). The manager's job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 55, 270-281.
12.
Newell, A.
, & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
Nissen, M. E.
(1994a). Qualitative simulation of organizational microprocesses. In J. Nunamaker, Jr. & R. Sprague, Jr. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Volume IV, pp. 635-644). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
14.
Nissen, M. E.
(1994b). Valuing IT through virtual process measurement. In J. DeGross, S. Huff, & M. Munro (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 309-323). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
15.
Scacchi, W.
(1993). Modeling, enacting, and integrating complex organizational processes (Working paper, ATRIUM Lab). Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Graduate School of Business.
16.
Simmons, R.
(1986). "Commonsense" arithmetic reasoning. Proceedings of American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)-86, 118-124.
17.
Simon, H. A.
(1960). The new science of management decision. New York: Harper & Row.
18.
Stohr, E. A.
, & Konsynski, B. R. (1992). Information systems and decision processes. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
19.
Walls, J. G.
, Widmeyer, G. R, & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3 (1), 36-59.
20.
Weld, D. S.
, & de Kleer, J. (1990). Qualitative reasoning about physical systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
