Human Perception

Human Perception: A Challenge to Organizational Process Optimization
Human Perception: A
Challenge to
Organizational
Process Optimization
by
Brian D. Janz
The University of Memphis
Mark N. Frolick
The University of Memphis
James C. Wetherbe
Texas Tech University
To accurately collect data related to
organizational process requirements, we
need to understand the nature of human
perception and its impact on the
requirements determination process. By
understanding the pitfalls associated with
the traditional methods for determining
information requirements, organizations
are better able to improve information
gathering in such a way that better
enables them to redesign business
processes. The authors conducted just
such an information requirements
determination session using multiple
techniques to ensure that a complete set
of requirements were elicited.
Iperformance,
n an effort to improve organizational process
whether through cycle time
reduction efforts, supply chain optimization, or
reengineering of key business processes, it is
important to measure and collect objective,
accurate data relating to process requirements

(e.g., customer-related, system-related, etc.) as
well as process measurements. In many cases,
these objective data do not exist and the
organization is left to collect information from
the stakeholders that are most intimate with
current organizational processes employees,
customers, and supply chain partners.
Furthermore, these individuals must also be called
upon to analyze existing processes in identifying
bottlenecks or dysfunctional practices that may
have the potential for process improvements, and
then determine the requirements that must be met
to realize the improvements.
Two potential problems exist with the information
requirements determination and analysis process.
The first potential problem centers around the fact
that these information gathering and analytic
processes in turn rely heavily on the skills and
abilities of humans their judgment and
reasoning skills, as well as their perceptions of
the processes under study. Since individuals will
by nature perceive their environment in ways that
are unique, it is often unclear how accurate and
objective the analyses being conducted during
process optimization efforts actually are. Second,
traditional
information
requirements
determination processes are often inadequate and
result in the definition of incomplete and/or
erroneous process requirements. Ultimately,
these potential problems result in sub-optimal
process analyses and incomplete or faulty process
improvement implementations.
We submit that if organizations engaged in
process optimization efforts had an understanding
of and appreciation for the nature of human
perception and its impact on the analytic tasks,
they could alter the manner in which they seek to
determine requirements and would in turn treat
the information in a more judicious manner.
Furthermore, by understanding the shortcomings
of traditional requirements determination
processes, project managers could look to
compensate for the shortcomings, or better, look
for improved information gathering techniques.
These steps would put organizations in a position
35
to be more effective in redesigning business

processes and supply chains for improved cycle
times.
The focus of this paper is to briefly outline the
genesis of these potential problems as well as
methods that can be undertaken to minimize their
impact. Central to the paper is a discussion of an
information requirements determination
methodology that takes into account the varied
nature of human perception. An illustration of
since this simplification process includes putting

artificial boundaries around the task thereby
discounting potentially important information.
Thus, the problem space or mental model is never
a completely accurate representation of the true
task environment.
Once defined as a mental model or problem space,

individuals set out to solve their unique version
of the task, which may or may not be the true
task at hand. This, however, illustrates only part
of the problem of relying on humans
Rather than contemplate the task as it exists to provide analyses and insights into
in reality ... people will construct their own organizational requirements. Another
set of issues exists when people
simplified ... representation of the task.
actually set out to solve their unique
its application is presented that shows how the version of the task environment. It is here that
methodology can be used to cross-validate many more problems arise heuristics (or rules
multiple perceptions both within and between of thumb) and biases used by people in reasoning
individuals to arrive at a more objective view of through the analysis as well as a lack of
the actual processes and practices operative in appreciation for complexity and second-order
the organization.
system effects related to the task environment all
serve to hamper a persons ability to solve a given
problem or task.
36
The Pitfalls of Using Humans

as Process Analysts
Of Mental Models and Problem Spaces
The ability of an individual to analyze or respond

to information, complexity, and uncertainty of
organizational processes is dependent on the
individual him or herself. However, what can be
said with some certainty is that all individuals
suffer from significant limitations in their analytic
skills. The overarching issue is what Simon
(1957) and March and Simon (1958) refer to as
bounded rationality. That is, humans are
limited in their comprehension of the entirety of
tasks and decisions they are faced with. Rather
than contemplate the task as it exists in reality
(the task environment according to Simon),
people will construct their own simplified (and
hopefully more manageable) representation of the
task. This representation is referred to by Simon
as the problem space (alternatively referred to
as the mental model by Norman (1988), or the
reality model by Dorner (1996)). The process
of formulating the mental model is problematic
The variety inherent in peoples mental models

of an organizational system or process their
perceptions of reality stem from several
factors. First, the complexity of an organizational
process colors how a mental model is developed.
As the number of variables that exist within a
process as well as the number of
interdependencies between them increases,
bounded rationality dictates that information will
be ignored or incorrectly considered. Moreover,
second order effects how one set of
interdependencies (i.e., A depends on B, and B
depends on A, etc.) affects other sets of
interdependencies (i.e., C depends on A and/or
B as well as D, and D depends on C, etc.) are
typically poorly understood or not understood at
all. Finally, an individuals level of education,
training with the organizational system, and
cognitive style (i.e., how they learn) also affect
the model development process. Once formed,
these mental models not only affect how current
processes are understood, but also how

individuals think about what improvements are
necessary as well as how the improvements may
affect the process.
Human Judgment and Biases

Just as mental models serve to limit an
individuals appreciation for organizational
processes, the judgments made by individuals can
also be less than optimal. The primary reason
for this is that biases exist in the way people
approach problems and make decisions.
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) outlined several
heuristics or rules of thumb that people
typically use when making decisions under
uncertain conditions. These heuristics also
embody several biases that are inherent to human
decision-making. A few of the heuristics and
related biases that tend to arise when analyzing
organizational processes are explained below
(Bazerman, 1998):
The representativeness heuristic. People

will analyze and categorize current
organizational systems or processes based on
stereotypical systems or processes they have
dealt with in the past. In other words, new
processes or systems are discriminated
against. Consequently, all processes tend to
be biased by being thought of and treated
the same when in fact they may actually be
(and typically are) completely independent
and quite different.
The availability heuristic. People will tend
to come to conclusions that are closely
related to other events that are readily
available in their memory. Examples include
primacy effects in which people tend to
remember the first in a series of events,
recency effects in which people tend to
remember the most recent events, and
retrievability effects in which people tend
to recall events due to their vivid and specific
nature. For example, when looking for an
organizational solution, people will tend to

come up with the solution that worked on
either the first or last project they worked
on, or perhaps the most memorable project
they worked on.
Anchoring and adjustment. This bias

pertains to the phenomena whereby people
tend to rely on their first hunch or impression
and then if they sense that they should alter
their position, they choose to make minor
adjustments from their first anchored
position rather than coming to completely
new, out of the box conclusions.
All of these heuristics and biases tend to

qualitatively and quantitatively alter the
perceptions of individuals as they participate in
process analyses and information requirements
determination processes. From a prescriptive
standpoint, merely an awareness and
acknowledgement of the existence of the bias
tendencies helps to counteract their potentially
harmful effects.
The Importance of the Information

Requirements Determination Process
to Organizational Process Analysis
Properly
determining
process-related
information requirements is one of the most
challenging, yet important tasks that an
organization can undertake when trying to
improve existing organizational processes. While
there are many reasons for this, one reason is the
nature of the work involved. This work tends to
be unstructured, demanding, non-routine, and
long-range in nature (Carlson 1951, Moore 1986).
In addition, contrary to popular belief, people do
not often suffer from insufficient information to
make decisions. Rather, they suffer from a
condition known as information overload
(Ackoff, 1967), or having too much information
to deal with. This overload problem is further
37
compounded by the fact that managers often do

not know what information they need to make a
decision in the first place.
People also prefer information that displays what
is known as high information content or
richness. Richness is the potential informationcarrying capacity of data and is based on the
ability to tailor information to personal
circumstances (Jones and McLeod, 1986). It is
this richness that helps refine a persons mental
model thereby helping them to make better
decisions. How does an organization ensure the
capture of this rich data, thereby enhancing
decision-making and process optimization? The
answer is by properly determining the
information requirements of the process
stakeholders both within and outside the
organization.
given faulty mental models, their espoused

needs may not be correct. Other key
problems with this method are the perceptual
biases mentioned earlier that are inherently
associated with humans memory and recall
abilities, e.g., recency, primacy, availability,
etc. Consequently, process stakeholders may
not be able to accurately describe their
information and/or process needs simply by
responding to direct questions like, What
do you think needs to be improved in the
process?
Deriving from an Existing System. With

this method, an analyst or process specialist
derives information requirements by
analyzing how the current existing system
or process works. This process does address
to some degree the recommendation that
existing behaviors and systems usage be
observed and can help to ensure
completeness. However, it is limited in value
as it assumes that the current system correctly
meets the organizations needs and does not
highlight any changes to the system that may
be required. Furthermore, the analysis may
be hampered by the biases possessed by the
analyst.
Synthesis from Object Systems. By object

system we mean that information
requirements are determined not so much by
all of the information that the organization
has but by distinguishing between
information that should be included and
information that should not be included in
the system. This synthesis is an attempt to
overcome the problem of information
overload. The result is the development of
information systems that meet the proper
information requirements while eliminating
extraneous information. The literature
identifies several methods for the synthesis
of requirements, some more useful than
others.
Evolution of Existing Systems. This

strategy captures an initial set of
Traditional Information Requirement

Determination
When considering how an organization should
gather information requirements for process
improvement initiatives, it is useful to consider
the structured approaches offered by the
information systems field. Here, the literature
identifies four traditional strategies for
determining information requirements: asking,
deriving from an existing system, synthesizing
from object systems and evolving from existing
systems (Colter, 1984; Davis, 1982). These
strategies, however, are not without
shortcomings:
38
Asking. The classical approach to

determining information requirements is to
ask people about their own process/systemrelated needs. This assumes that users are
able to express their information needs in a
way that will allow the process analyst to
design an appropriately new process or
system. This assumption may not be a safe
one to make, since people may not know
exactly what they need (Ackoff, 1967), or,
requirements and implements a pilot system

to satisfy them. As the system is utilized,
the information requirements become better
understood and newer versions of the system
are developed to satisfy the newly discovered
requirements (Berrisford and Wetherbe,
1979). This method is often referred to as an
iterative or evolutionary approach.
All of the above have their own advantages, yet
none of them fully considers the problems
associated with faulty mental models,
inappropriate rules of thumb, or existing biases.
In addition, other problems are often associated
with traditional information requirement
determination methods. For example,
stakeholders, if they are willing to spend time with
process analysts, may find it difficult to identify
and communicate their information needs.
Conversely, process analysts, unless they have
considerable business experience in the particular
process area, may find it difficult to understand
and anticipate the stakeholders information
requirements. Thus, rather than eliminating these
methods altogether, we suggest an approach that
builds on to these traditional approaches by
incorporating new methods that account for the
cognitive limitations possessed by people.
A New Approach to Gathering

Information Requirements
One way to address problems associated with
bounded rationality, biases, and the shortcomings
of traditional methods is to simplify the
conceptualization of the organizational process
and to make the information requirements
determination process as straightforward as
possible. One useful approach has been
developed (Wetherbe, 1988; 1991; 1997). This
technique is based upon three different
requirement determination methodologies:
IBMs business systems planning methodology
(BSP), critical success factors (CSFs), and ends/
means analysis (EMA). The main characteristic
common to all three methods is that rather than
asking process stakeholders directly what their

information requirements are, process analysts
help stakeholders develop a structure in workfamiliar terms that process-related questions are
then posed within. While these methods will be
covered briefly below, a more detailed coverage
of the methods can be found in Wetherbe (1991).
Business Systems Planning (BSP)

BSP, developed by IBM (1981), is a structured
interview technique that first focuses the process
stakeholder on the problems that organizations
face as well as the major decisions that
organizations need to make in order to succeed.
Once this dialogue is established, the process
analyst then seeks to work with the stakeholder
to determine what information is needed to
address the problems or make the decisions. The
result of BSP is a set of tables that list the
problems and decisions that must be addressed
and the information needed to address them.
Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

CSFs (Rockhart, 1979) focus on the few major
things that must go right in order for the
organization (or process) to be successful. To
manage complexity, an exhaustive list of CSFs
is not sought; rather just the most salient CSFs
are desired from each process stakeholder. Once
the CSFs are agreed upon, the stakeholder and
analyst seek to determine what information is
needed to monitor the status of the CSF or achieve
the CSF. Much like BSP, the result of this process
is a set of tables with CSFs and their related
information needs.
Ends/Means Analysis (EMA)

EMA examines an organizations effectiveness
and efficiency issues as well as the information
needed to support them. EMA has two phases.
The first phase identifies the ends that an
organization considers to be important (the end
is typically the product or service delivered by
39
the organization), and then seeks to determine

effectiveness issues associated with these ends
(e.g., what makes a product and/or service
acceptable or unacceptable to our customers?).
EMA analysis then considers the information or
process requirements needed to support the
delivery of acceptable products/services. The
second phase identifies important organization
means, associated efficiency issues (e.g., how can
we make our acceptable products/services
exceptional ?). Again, the information or
processes needed to support them are considered.
Much like the two previous methods, the result
is a set of tables.
to ensure that all of the bases have been covered.

In the next section, we illustrate how the new
techniques were applied in a real organization,
and discuss how the new methods helped to elicit
requirements that may have been overlooked
when using just traditional means.
Process Requirements Determination:

An Example
The setting for this case study was an

internationally known high technology firm in
the Silicon Valley that designs and develops
The resulting tables of requirements from each hardware (workstations, servers, etc.) and
of these structured information requirement software for the information systems industry.
determination techniques identify the issues that One of the problems the firm was experiencing
the organization deems to be important and the related to difficulty in their ability to predict the
information and processes needed to support amount of time it would take to fulfill a
customers order at the time the order
... by using multiple methods we in effect was placed by the customer (known
inside the organization as product
employ a safety net approach.
lead-time). This was not only
these issues. The techniques are similar in that unsettling to customers, who wanted to be able
rather than asking directly what needs to be to plan when ordered products would arrive, but
improved in a process or what kind of information also to the organizations further up the supply
is needed, the process analyst provides a work- chain as well (the firm and its parts and material
related context first (in effect helping the suppliers) that wanted to be able to better forecast
stakeholder to build his/her mental model), and material requirements, pricing, as well as
then goes on to discuss in work-related terms inventory and warehousing needs. For example,
problems, decisions that need to be made, critical parts orders are placed with suppliers based on
performance objectives, and products and/or both sales and forecasts. If the forecasts happen
services what is needed to make the process to be wrong and parts are not ordered and do not
better.
show up on time, orders are delayed and
customers, growing tired of waiting on their
As one might imagine, there is some redundancy orders, may cancel the order and buy from a
in the information requirements identified when competitor. To help avoid this, the sales force
using multiple techniques. This should be viewed would often seek ways to expedite the order to
as a benefit, not a problem. This approach serves avoid losing the sale, thus putting more pressure
as a safety net to make sure that nothing is on the entire supply chain (whether the customer
overlooked. Requirements that are heard again needed the expedited order or not). This scenario
and again can be considered priority issues in has been difficult for the organization to solve
the process. In addition, these techniques are best and is frustrating for all parties involved.
used as supplements to the traditional methods Increasingly, order processing cycle time is
mentioned earlier. Taken together, both the becoming the deciding factor in the purchase of
traditional approaches and new approaches help high technology equipment.
40
To help solve this issue related to product leadtimes, an information and process requirements
determination session was held with managers
from all of the areas affected in the organization
(e.g., sales, manufacturing, sales support,
inventory, etc.). Before beginning the session, the
group agreed that the overall objective of the
session was to better understand the product build,
store, and ship processes such that improved leadtimes could be achieved. Once this was
established, questions were asked using the three
information requirement determination
techniques discussed earlier. Again recall that it
is important to utilize more than one method as
different individuals perceive things in different
ways, and by using multiple methods we in effect
employ a safety net approach.
Results from the Business Systems Planning
(BSP) Approach
As discussed earlier, this method for eliciting
information requirements has two parts. The first
part deals with a problem/solution/information
format. The participants were first asked what
major problems they were encountering in
ensuring a short predictable lead-time (See Table

1a). Once these problems were defined, the
participants were asked for solutions to the
problems. They were then asked what
information was needed to address these
solutions. Table 1a provides the results of the
problem-solution-information format of the BSP
model.
What can be seen from this technique is that
problems are surfaced from all areas of the
business information systems (with reliable
information), finance (with revenue issues),
operations (the bull-whip problem), and sales (too
much expediting or abuse of the process) and
are not immediately put in information or process
terms. In the next step of the technique, solutions
are sought prior to a discussion of information or
process changes. As a result, options that would
otherwise not typically be discussed come out.
For example, the notion of matinee pricing or
giving customers a discount if they are willing to
accept order dates that are beneficial to the
company came out as a means to balance the
demand for products and reduce abuse of the
expediting process. The information needed to
Problem
Solution
Getting reliable, consistent

information
Timebox toward improved

cycle time
Revenue priorities conflict

with lead-time schedule
Measure/track predictable
cycle time
Bullwhip at end of quarter
Matinee pricing or allocation

system for sales/customer
expediting
Lead time can vary

between quote & order
cycle
Process could be faster
Simplifying/
platforming/postponing
Info/Process Requirements
Lead-times
Expedites by sales and
customer
Matinee price sensitivity
Distribution of disturbances
& costs of each
Overall cost per order
Misuse of ASAP status for

orders
25% of customers expedite
promised date
Table 1a: Requirements Interview for Short Predictable Lead-times BSP
41
implement the solutions was then discussed (e.g.,

how responsive would customers be to a matinee
pricing program?).
The second phase of the BSP approach focuses
on the critical decisions that need to be made in
the organization. Again, unlike traditional
methods, the first questions are not related to what
information is needed. Rather, a context is built
for the participants that focus, in this case, on the
decisions they need to make. From the table, we
again notice a cross-functional flavor to the
responses. The information and process
requirements in this case focus on issues like
competition, design stability, customer ability,
asked to turn their attention to the critical success

factors of the organizational unit that they
manage. Again, CSFs are those things that must
go right for the organization to be successful.
Upon completion of CSF identification, the
managers were asked to identify the information
that is needed to ensure that critical success
factors are under control (See Table 2). As can
be seen from Table 2, the responses have a
strategic flavor to them (e.g., supporting macrolead times, being competitive with the lead-time
process, gaining customer confidence, etc.). This
is typical with the CSF approach since the context
created for participants leads them to think in
Decisions to be Made
How much to stock
Competition
Lead-time to quote
Product blocking for marketing
How much to spend on lead-time

improvements
Production ability
Design stability
Sales force training
Customer ability
How much customers are willing to

spend
Product announcements vs. lead-time
Materials commitment
How to modify scope to optimize

behavior
Distribution
Table 1b: Requirements Interview for Short Predictable Lead-times BSP
and sales force training responses that would

not necessarily have been gleaned by adopting a
just-an-information view or just-a-process view.
Table 1b provides the results of this phase of the
BSP model.
Results from the Critical Success Factor

(CSF) Approach
Upon completion of BSP method, the group was
42
strategic (i.e., critical success) terms.

Accordingly, this particular method tends to work
well with upper management and other executives
that are charged with developing plans at the
strategic level. Another interesting point that can
be gleaned from Table 2 is that to accomplish
strategic objectives, objectives that are more
tactical in nature must be achieved. In this case,
understanding variances relating to internal leadtimes are essential if macro lead-times are to be
understood and competitive. Similarly, getting
feedback from customers (through surveys
Critical Success Factors
Internal process cycle time must

support macro lead-times
Variance analysis at sub-process level

- bottlenecks
Lead-times must be competitive,

accurate & predictable
Lead-times for competitors
Lead-times for internal operations
Lead-times that do not compromise

quality or create inordinate costs
TQM tracking for lead-times improvements and expediting
Integrity in commit process
Carrying costs
Customer confidence and satisfaction
Number of reschedules
Effective forecast
Survey
Rapid feedback system
Table 2: Requirements Interview for Short Predictable Lead-times CS
perhaps) is prerequisite to determining and

improving customer satisfaction and confidence.
Results from the Ends/Means (E/M) Analysis

Like the BSP method, the E/M analysis method
also has two parts. During the first phase, the
respondents were asked what end good or service
was important given the purpose of this session.
They were then asked what makes the good or
service effective and what information is needed
to evaluate the effectiveness. The results of this
portion of E/M analysis can be found in Table
Ends
Lead-times
3a. What is important to notice here is that it is

not necessarily shortened lead-times that are
important to the organization and its customers.
Rather, it is lead-times that are stable and
predictable that was believed to be most important
to supply chain participants. This revelation
shows how these methods can often nurture out
of the box thinking (battling the human bias to
anchor on one right answer).
Once the end product or service was determined
to be stable and predictable lead-times, the session
moved to the second part of E/M analysis which
focuses on the key means used to generate or
Effectiveness
Predictable
Survey
Accurate
Feedback
Competitive
Communicated to
appropriate people
Stable
Table 3a: Requirements Interview for Short Predictable Lead-times E/M Analysis
43
provide the good or service. Once this was

determined, the respondents were asked what
makes the good or service efficient and what is
needed in terms of information or process to
evaluate these efficiency characteristics. (See
Means
reduce the likelihood that existing biases can be

brought to bear on the issues. The fact that crossfunctional members are present further allows
them to engage in an informed discussion of
systemic characteristics, interdependencies, etc.
Efficiency
Supply plan analysis
Cost effectiveness
Survey
Provide demand to
suppliers
Low carrying costs
Feedback
Daily monitoring and

adjustment
Process orders and

schedule
Inventory management
Table 3b: Requirements Interview for Short Predictable Lead-times E/M Analysis
Table 3b). As with earlier methods, the

importance of feedback and surveying supply
chain members was voiced. The repetitive nature
of these requirements should serve as a validation
to participants that these requirements are indeed
important and should be followed up on.
Summary of Information Requirement
Determination Sessions
From the tables above, some general comments
can be made about the information/process
requirements session. First, the requirements
elicited tended to reflect a cross-functional nature.
In addition, the systemic nature of the problems,
decision, ends, means, etc., reflect an appreciation
for the interdependencies that exist in the process.
This appreciation is often one of the biggest
challenges in improving existing processes. Of
course some of this is due to the fact that the
session was comprised of participants from across
the organization. However, the three elicitation
methods employed also force participants out of
their functional comfort zones into a more
system-wide arena. In effect, this serves to
44
without resorting to the use of cognitive rules

of thumb.
Second, the focus on the importance of lead-time
predictability is illustrative of the effect that these
methods often encourage out of the box
thinking away from preexisting cognitive
anchors. In this case, the anchor of doing
things faster gave way to doing things in a way
that can be predicted by members of the supply
chain. Similarly, the concept of matinee pricing
to customers was an original idea not previously
considered. Interestingly, the importance of
predictability over speed has been documented
before in the information systems industry. In
the so-called Minnesota Experiments,
researchers discovered that computer users tended
to favor predictable response times of getting
information to the computer screen over getting
the fastest, albeit variable, response times
available. In other words, users preferred a stable
three-second response every time over response
times that may be sub-second on one transaction
and then four seconds on the next, etc. (Dickson,
Senn, and Chervany, 1977).
At this point you may be asking yourself why

three different methods are necessary to elicit
information requirements. In addition to the
safety net mentioned earlier, there is another
important reason: Since every individual creates
their own set of mental-models, they tend to have
their own unique perspective of the world. To
elicit a correct and complete set of information
requirements, multiple techniques are encouraged
since one technique often works better with
certain individuals (and their attendant mentalmodels) than other techniques. Since this in not
known ahead of time, trying all of the methods
increases the probability that at least one method
will click with every participant. These
methods are powerful as they are based on
fundamental theories of human information
processing and provide a comprehensive set of
approaches that are additive in their results.
Conclusions
In this article, we have demonstrated that humans
do not handle complex tasks very well, for
example, the optimization of business processes.
As a result, if care is not taken when eliciting
information requirements, bias can surface. By
just being aware of these limitations, information
requirement elicitation sessions can be structured
in such a way that will allow participants to focus
on the task at hand, improving the process, rather
than getting side tracked with less important
details.
The case study illustrated that by using a variety
of methods for determining information
requirements, participants tended to view the
process in more systemic terms. This allowed
them to think out of the box in order to prioritize
the notion of short and predictable product lead
times for their organization.
References
Ackoff, R.L., Management Misinformation
Systems, Management Science, December
1967, pp. 147-156.
Bazerman, M., Judgment in Managerial
Decision Making, Wiley: New York, 1998.
Berrisford, T.R. and J.C.Wetherbe, Heuristic
Development: A Redesign of Systems Design,
MIS Quarterly, March, 1979, pp. 11-19.
Carlson, S., Executive Behavior, Stromberg,
Stockholm, 1951.
Colter, M.A., A Comparative Examination of
Systems Analysis Techniques, MIS Quarterly,
(8:1), March 1984, pp. 51-66.
Davis, G.B., Strategies for Information
Requirements Determination, IBM Systems
Journal, 1982, pp. 4-30, 1982.
Dickson, G.W., J.A. Senn, and N.L. Chervany,
Research in Management Information Systems:
The Minnesota Experiments, Management
Science, 23(9), 1977, pp. 913-923.
Dorner, D., The Logic of Failure, Perseus Books:
Reading, MA, 1996.
IBM, A Management System for the
Information Business, Volume I: Management
Overview, Document GE20-0662-01, The IBM
Corporation, Armonk, NY, 1981.
Jones, J.W. and R. McLeod, The Structure of
Executive Information Systems: An Exploratory
Analysis, Decision Sciences, Spring 1986, pp.
220-249.
March, J.G. and H.A. Simon, Organizations,
Wiley: New York, 1958.
Moore, J. H., Senior Executive Computer Use,
Stanford Graduate School of Business, Palo Alto,
CA. Unpublished Working Paper, 1986.
45
Norman, D. A., The Design of Everyday Things,

Basic Books: New York, 1988.
Rockart, John F., Chief Executives Define Their
Own Needs, Harvard Business Review, March/
April 1979, pp. 81-93.
Simon, H.A., Models of Man, New York: Wiley,
1957.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman, Judgement
Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,
Science, 185, 1974, pp. 1124-1131.
Wetherbe, J.C., Systems Analysis and Design,
Third Edition, West Publishing: St Paul,
Minnesota, 1988.
Wetherbe, J.C., Executive Information
Requirements: Getting It Right, MIS Quarterly,
(15:1), 1991, pp. 51-65.
Wetherbe, J.C., Determining Executive
Information Requirements: Better, Faster,
Cheaper, Cycle Time Research, (3:1), 1997, pp.
1-18.
Brian D. Janz, Ph.D., is the Director of the

Institute for Managing Emerging Technology and
an Associate Professor of Management
Information Systems at The University of
Memphis. His research focuses on how
information technologies affect organizational
strategy, design, and knowledge worker behavior.
Mark N. Frolick , Ph.D., is an Associate
Professor of Management Information Systems
at The University of Memphis and a Project
Manager with the FedEx Center for Cycle Time
Research. His research, teaching, and consulting
have emphasized executive information systems,
data warehousing, electronic commerce, cycle
46
time reduction, and systems development. Dr.

Frolick has over 17 years experience in the
information systems field and has worked as an
independent consultant for numerous Fortune
500 companies.
James C. Wetherbe, Ph.D., is a professor of
Information Systems & Quantitative Sciences at
Texas Tech University and a professor at the
Carlson School of Management at the University
of Minnesota. Quoted often in leading business
and information system journals, Dr. Wetherbe
is internationally known as a leading authority
on the use of computers and information systems
to improve organizational performance and
competitiveness. His specialties include cycle
time reduction, e-business, business
reengineering, management and computer based
information systems, systems analysis and design,
and interpersonal skills.

Human Perception

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Perception

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Perception: A Challenge to Organizational Process Optimization

accurate data relating to process requirements