Factors Affecting DOD FM Usage of a GDSS

1
Factors Affecting DOD FM Usage of a GDSS

• Jeff Bohler Dianne Hall, PhD
• Auburn University
• Pre-ICIS 2006 SIGDSS
• Research Workshop
• 10 December, 2006
• The opinions and observations expressed in this
  presentation are mine alone and do not represent
  the opinions of the DOD, the USAF, or the USN.

2
Overview

• Research Motivation Relevance
• Decision Support Method
• GRASP
• Research Model Hypotheses
• Methodology Analysis
• Results
• Limitations Future Research

3
Research Motivation Relevance

• Changes in the DOD workforce
• Personnel reductions
• Retirement of Baby Boom generation
• Shortage of analytical skills in FM
• Financial Manager Comptrollers School
• Decision Support concept introduced
• What makes this study interesting?
• Decision Support training effectiveness
• Professional population
• Many IT, GSS, DSS changes underway in DOD

4
GRASP - BackgroundGroup Resource Allocation
Simulation Program

• Course includes Strategic Economics
• Macro view of political, military, and economic
  relationships
• GRASP Usage
• Capstone exercise, used in both curricula
• Decision Task
• National level budget decisions
• Group oriented (president cabinet)
• Face to face, synchronous, no right answer
• Multiple objectives to optimize

5
GRASP As a GDSSGroup Resource Allocation
Simulation Program

• Contains a body of knowledge (DIKW)
• Data Rules Relationships Context
  Knowledge
• Record keeping ability
• Displays data history (17 variables / 4 turns)
• Provides standardized reports to the decision
  maker
• Allows decision maker choice in KM activities
• Enables decision support from cabinet
• Provides estimates of likely outcomes from
  decisions gt new knowledge

6
Relevant Literature

• Carroll Johnson (1990)
• Temporal stages of decision making
• Nunamaker, Dennis, et al. (1991)
• GSS Research Framework
• Zopounidis et al. (1997)
• Survey of DSS in financial management
• Proposed a Knowledge Based DSS
• Hall Paradice (2003)
• Adapted Simons IDC model, incorporating KM

7
GRASP Decision Support Method

• Identify Issue
• Analyze Issue
• Develop Alternatives
• Evaluate Alternatives
• Make a recommendation
• DS provides a framework for FMC course
• Addresses need for DS training in DOD FM
• Congressional call for improved FM practice

8
Research Hypotheses

• H1 Groups that only use FtF communication
  methods will achieve greater decision quality
  than groups that use hybrid proximity (FtF
  paperless).
• H2 Groups with higher complexity tasks (wars)
  will achieve lower decision quality than groups
  that have lower complexity tasks.
• H3 Groups that display greater adaptation of
  GRASP capabilities (intelligence gathering) will
  achieve greater decision quality than groups with
  a lower rate of adoption.
• H4 Groups that used DS methods will achieve
  greater decision quality than groups that did not.

9
Analysis Model
Communication
H1
H2
Complexity
Outcome (DQ)
H3
Adaptation
H4
Goal Accomplishment
DS Method Used
10
Methodology

• Subjects (850) randomly assigned Seminars
  balanced for military/civilian/job
• Each seminar was split into two teams
• President is self selected
• President picks cabinet (4 6 members)
• Resulted in n172 teams
• Competition
• A faculty facilitated exercise lab experiment
• Four years of exercise data
• Used for debriefing, student feedback

11
Analysis

• Linear Regression Model AR2 .291
• Decision Quality Communication Complexity
  Adaptation DS Model Use
• Operationalizing Decision Quality
• Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
• Unequal cell sizes
• Brown-Forsythe test (constancy of error variance)

12
Results (at a 0.05)

• H1 Communication Not supported
• Beta -0.097, p 0.228
• H2 Complexity Supported
• Beta -0.532, p 0.000
• H3 Adaptation Not supported
• Beta 0.540, p 0.410
• H4 DS Model Supported
• Beta 0.170, p 0.034

13
Limitations Future Research

• Observational study
• Hard to know cause effect relationship
• Other possible explanatory factors
• More detailed analysis required
• Content analysis of user reports will allow a
  better understanding of the decisions made,
  priorities, tradeoffs.
• Gather more data use PLS
• Future research
• The decision making environment of DOD financial
  managers

14
Summary

• Simulations useful, but limited
• Allows isolation of decision behaviors
  (individual, group, organization)
• Limited generalizability to other groups
• Need more research on decision support
• Role of financial managers in decision making
• Effectively decision support training methods
• Questions?

15
Backup slides

• Models for review

16
GRASP Exercise Model
Instruction Factors - Instructor - Course type -
Decision Support Concept - Decision Support
Methodology
Feedback - Internal - External
Class Factors - Class Timing - Class Size -
Class Character - Year Attended
4th year Score
Decision Support Group
Decision Support
Decision Quality Score
Decision Maker
Group Factors - Group Size - Group Character
Bonus Points
Personal Factors - Computer Literacy - Education
Level - Military / Civilian - Rank - Gender
Task Factors - Complexity Wars
Communications - Time Available - Resources
Available
Environmental Factors - Competition Stress -
External Distractions - Algorithm Anomalies
17
GSS Research Framework(Nunamaker, Dennis et al.,
1991) adapted
H1Communication H4DS Methods Used
n 850 Randomly Assigned
Group
H3Adaptation
H2Complexity
Intervening Adaptation Process
Task
Outcome

• Controlled
• Instructor
• Course
• Phase

Context
DV Decision Quality
DSS
Decision Group Environment
Feedback
Organizational Decision-Making Environment
Next Phase / PLS
GRASP