Integrated DSS for strategic planning in public institutions/Integruota viesojo sektoriaus instituciju strateginio planavimo sprendimu paramos sistema.
Tuncikiene, Zivile ; Bivainis, Juozas ; Drejeris, Rolandas 等
1. Introduction
Strategic planning in public institutions as a system for
developing the possibilities of the compatibility of the
institutions' activity with their environment creates preconditions
to stimulate the processes of development of the country's economy
as well as to ensure their purposefulness by permanently revealing,
efficiently distributing and rationally using the potential of the
institutions' activity. Strategic planning which is perceived in
such a way is a means of harmonious development of the institutions as
well as of the state (Butkevicius and Bivainis 2009; Bivainis and
Tuncikiene 2009; Karnitis and Kucinskis 2009). However, its application
is still problematic. Methodological issues were solved in principle
(Bivainis and Tuncikiene 2009). The offered strategic planning model for
public institutions expresses a conception of the strategic planning on
the basis of which it is possible to create better conditions for
implementing the objectives of the in future-oriented activity of the
institutions. But the information provision for the strategic planning
of public institution is still an open problem. Improving the
information provision for the fulfilment of the different management
decisions is a frequent subject of scientific research (Dzemydiene et
al. 2008; Mickaityte et al. 2008; Azadeh et al. 2009; Ginevicius and
Podvezko 2009; Gudas 2009; Kaklauskas et al. 2009; Urbanaviciene 2009a,
b; Kanapeckiene et al. 2010). In order to use the strategic planning
model for public institutions, existing results of the research (Goul et
al. 1986; Koutsoukis et al. 2000; Mabin et al. 2001) are inadequate. The
essential factor which predetermines the possibilities of effective
information provision is the approaches of the DSS for strategic
planning in the institutions.
The subject of the research is the decision support for the
strategic planning in public institutions. The main goal of the research
was defining the principal approaches of the DSS for the strategic
planning of the institutions, according to them created the DSS would
help analysts to prepare and to adopt the rational strategic planning
decisions. The following tasks were raised: to reveal the role of the
DSS; to define the standard structure of the system; to systematize the
qualities of the varieties of the DSS; to define the factors which
predetermine the requirements for the DSS of the strategic planning in
public institutions; according to them and results of the investigation
of the DSS theoretical potential to provide the intelligent support to
the strategic planning decisions in public institutions. Methods of
systematic analysis, logic and synthesis were used in this research.
2. Conception of the DSS
Usually the DSS is interpreted as a computer based information
system which is intended to form the information needed for making the
decisions, in this way to help the user or their group to solve the
problem. The DSS provides the information necessary to generate the
alternatives, to analyze and evaluate them, to choose the best
alternative for achieving the goals set (French and Turoff 2007;
Kaklauskas et al. 2007; Mickaityte et al. 2007; Adekola et al. 2008;
Banaitiene et al. 2008; Power 2008). The standard purpose of the system
is specified by characterizing the object in terms of certainty of a
problem. The DSS is perceived as a system for accumulating and
processing the various sources of data and knowledge which helps
managers to adopt the decisions of specific or unstructured and/or
partially structured problems. In special literature it is usually
pointed out that the DSS is interactive computer-based information
system which helps a decision-maker to use the data and models to solve
unstructured problems.
A concept of the DSS presented by Alekseev and Borisov is mixed
(Dzemydiene 2006). According to them the DSS can be understood not only
as a system for helping to choose the decisions, but also as the system
which selects the best or acceptable way from its own formed
alternatives or from alternatives produced to it. This conception of the
DSS is criticized by Adla et al. (2007) who argue that such DSS
doesn't integrate the user into decision creation and it is
suitable for solving simple problems.
In addition to the basic help for managers to make decisions by
providing the information reports, there are other components of the
purpose of the DSS pointed out. The DSS allows: 1) to develop the
solution to the problems; 2) to increase the efficiency of the
decision-making. Many researchers accept the mentioned functions of the
DSS. For example, Turban and Aronson (2001) approved such conception of
the destination of the DSS. According to them the main functions of the
DSS are: 1) interaction with the decision-maker; 2) problem
identification; 3) offering the decisions on the problem; 4)
substantiation of the decisions. The main qualities of the DSS offered
by Turban and Aronson (2001) allow discovering the analogy of the DSS
functions with Kaklauskas et al. (2007, 2009), Banaitiene et al. (2008)
treatment. Summarizing the opinions of these researchers in this
respect, it can be concluded that the purpose of the DSS is to
rationalize preparing and making the decisions, in this way to assist
analysts in reasonably adopting the decisions. Such essential
requirements for the DSS were distinguished by Urbanaviciene et al.
(2009b) and Kanapeckiene et al. (2010). In special literature different
treatments of the DSS's functions are presented. Therefore it can
be concluded that the DSS is a lot of functions from which the necessary
set of the functions needed to solve a concrete problem is made.
The diversity of the approaches to and the definitions of the DSS
proposed in special literature are determined by the nature of the
problems, the goals set as well as the chosen approaches to achieve the
goals. Summarizing the results of the analysis of the factors which
determine the role of the DSS, the DSS as an information computerized
system provides thorough information necessary to set, analyze, evaluate
alternatives and make the right choice. It also provides the possibility
to make the purposeful development of prepared information reports in
order to choose the most rational means of neutralizing specific
problems.
In order to create better conditions for the rational strategic
planning, the DSS should meet the requirement of universality of helping
managers of public institutions to prepare alternatives and make the
planning decisions.
3. Structuring the DSS
There are different opinions in terms of the structure of the DSS.
The typical DSS consists of such three subsystems as the data
management, model management, user's interface (Kaklauskas et al.
2007; Naimaviciene et al. 2007; Urbanaviciene et al. 2009b). Besides
these components, the DSS may possess a system of e-mail management
(Kaklauskas et al. 2007, 2009; Naimaviciene et al. 2007; Urbanaviciene
et al. 2009b). Turban and Aronson (2001) configured the DSS with the
four subsystems: 1) the dialog generation and management system (DGMS);
2) the database management system (DBMS); 3) the model base management
system (MBMS); 4) the knowledge base management system (KBMS). A
significant component of the DSS is the decision-maker or user and his
tasks (Adla et al. 2007; Naimaviciene et al. 2007). Therefore it can be
concluded that such composition of the DSS is the most rational (Fig.
1).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Most of the researchers (Turban and Aronson 2001; Kaklauskas et al.
2007; Banaitiene et al. 2008) had the similar perception on the role of
the DGMS. The essential function of the DSS is transforming the input
from the user into languages that can be read by the DBMS, MBMS and KBMS
and into a form that can be understood by the user. The DBMS supports
the dialogue between the user and the other constituents of the DSS.
Being the one component of the DSS with which the user directly
interacts, the user views the DGMS subsystem as the entire DSS. As a
result, the DSS is the system of interaction between the user and data,
also models (Adla et al. 2007). Various interface modes exist:
menu-type, command-line, questions and answers, input and output,
language, graphic, mixed (Kaklauskas et al. 2007; Naimaviciene et al.
2007).
Generally the DBMS is defined as a software kit for organizing data
in database. The primary tasks of the DBMS are the capture and storage
of internal and external data which are needed to make decisions (Adla
et al. 2007). In scientific literature (Dzemydiene 2006) a broader
approach to the purpose of DBMS is found. Authors of many works
(Kaklauskas et al. 2007; Banaitiene et al. 2008; Urbanaviciene et al.
2009b) signed that database (specially created for the DSS, personal,
external) can possess both quantitative and qualitative data which
describe the object. The DBMS allows to link data from the different
sources.
The primary functions of the MBMS are the creation, storage and
update of models that enable the problem solving inside the DSS. The
much broader list of the MBMS functions possesses the functions of MBMS
which correspond to the DBMS functions. According to Kaklauskas et al.
(2007) the MBMS performs a similar role with models as well as the
database management system with data. The MBMS assists the user to
choose a desirable model, to adapt it to the situation.
In order to choose the suitable model it is rational to use the
knowledge and experience of which the user of the DSS or expert system
possesses (Dzemydiene 2006; Kaklauskas et al. 2007). According to Turban
and Aronson (2001) the KBMS is the necessary component of the effective
DSS. Adla et al. (2007) cited the statement by Holsapple and Whinston
that the KBMS as well as the problem processing system are as key DSS
components. The KBMS allows generating, collecting, managing,
disseminating and using knowledge needed to solve problems.
The above components (DGMS, DBMS, MBMS, KBMS) are considered to
constitute the software portion of the DSS. The final part is being the
decision-maker himself. A significant element of conceptual structure of
the DSS is the decision-maker usually understood as an analyst who
analyses the situation, takes into account the rules, however, makes his
own conclusions.
According to the results of structuring the DSS the following
conclusion can be made that application of the standard composition DSS
is an important condition for effective provision of strategic planning
decisions.
4. Variety of the DSS
Special literature proposes different approaches to analyze the
diversity of DSSs. There is suggested analyzing the variety of DSSs in
conceptual, user-based, technical terms. Generally the most acceptable
approach is the essential or conceptual approach whose application
allows differentiating the DSSs according to the object. According to
Kaklauskas et al. (2007) the DSSs were distinguished into the DSS, group
DSS, expert system and artificial neural networks. Banaitiene et al.
(2008) did not separate the group DSS, their proposed set of DSSs from
the standpoint of intelligent support is more aggregated. According to
Mickaityte et al. (2008) the DSS, expert system, neural networks and
multimedia form a network of distributed systems each facing and solving
a specific problem. The DSS as a separate group of systems consists of
the individual and collective decision-making systems. The latter system
includes the group and negotiation support systems (Oprean et al. 2009;
Istudor and Duta 2010).
Summarizing DSSs presented in special literature, the most rational
list of DSSs from the standpoint of intelligent support specification
consists of the: 1) individual decision support system (IDSS); 2) group
decision support system (GDSS); 3) negotiation support system (NSS); 4)
expert system (ES).
The IDSS is defined as the software based on traditional
algorithmic search. It assists to solve a problem by providing reasoned,
usually quantitative arguments by applying the information and other
resources. The essential functions of IDSS are: 1) capture of data and
knowledge from various sources; 2) algorithmic data manipulation; 3)
presentation, storage of the information reports necessary to analyze a
problem, to make a decision. Examples of the IDSS can be found in a
paper by Banaitiene et al. (2008).
The GDSS is an interactive computer-based system which allows a
group of decisionmakers to accept effective decisions of unstructured
problems. In special literature the specifics of GDSS is pointed out in
terms of the support for: 1) decision process; 2) content of problem
(Matsatsinis and Samaras 2001). The GDSS structurises the process of
problem decision, in this way helps to concentrate on the important
issues, to avoid the irregularities and inefficient actions. Typical
GSPS purpose is to improve the preparation and adoption of group
decisions. In order to systematize the GDSS variety, different features
of classification are applied. The most popular is the influence on
group's activity. The NSS are often regarded as a certain
specialized variety of GSPS which is oriented to provide assistance for
people involved in the negotiations in order to get the acceptable
decision for each. The NSS provides information on opportunities of
compromise which helps to reach mutually acceptable decisions. In such
systems the negotiation component helps to purify the objectives of
participants and integrate their vague, subjective priorities and the
objective data. The main functions of NSS are: 1) provision of
information on actual object necessary to negotiate, 2) support of
electronic negotiation (Kersten and Lai 2007; Urbanaviciene et al.
2009a, b). The examples of the NSS: NEGOPLAN, NegocIAD (Kaklauskas et
al. 2007; Butkevicius and Bivainis 2009). The outcome of the negotiation
depends also on intellectual support measures.
The typical purpose of the ES, which consists of the knowledge
base, conclusions generator and user interface, is to do the work of a
professional in the relevant field. ES recognizes a situation, makes a
diagnosis, formulates a decision, and recommends choosing the actions.
ES performs many secondary functions as formulating the questions,
substantiation of the conclusions (Kaklauskas et al. 2007, 2009;
Mickaityte et al. 2007; Fazlollahtabar et al. 2010). The variety of ES
is distinguished according to type of tasks. Each is specialized in
certain cognitive areas. For example, the project quality management ES
QM-XPS whose knowledge base contains information on implemented
projects, compares the planned project with realized, identifies
potential problems and provides possible decisions to improve the
project quality (Banaitiene et al. 2008).
The investigation into the varieties of the DSS allowed noticing
that the authors of various papers highlight different qualities of the
varieties of DSS. Research enabled to systematize the essential
qualities of the varieties of DSS (Table 1) and to treat them as
preconditions which in case of applying the certain variety of DSS are
favorable for helping managers of institutions to make the decisions
under the conditions of different uncertainty.
Considering the defined characteristics of the DSSs, it is rational
to integrate systems thereby increasing their expedience. According to
the results of analyzing the experience of DSSs integration, generating
intelligent DSS, a frequent practice is to take traditional DSS as the
basis and supplement them with advanced artificial intelligence elements
(Goul et al. 1986; Koutsoukis et al. 2000; Urbanaviciene et al. 2005;
Mickaityte et al. 2007, 2008; Banaitiene et al. 2008; Butkevicius and
Bivainis 2009; Huang et al. 2009; Kaklauskas et al. 2009, 2010; Secrieru
2009). Application of intelligent DSS generated following this principle
preconditions for making a rational decision by providing comprehensive,
real-time information, creating conditions to integrate and interpret
information.
5. Factors predetermining the requirements for integrated DSS of
strategic planning in public institutions
In order to create an effective DSS for the strategic planning in
public institutions, it is expedient to apply the system integration
principle. The factors determining the requirements for the strategic
planning DSS are as follows: 1) principle model of the strategic
planning (the suggested model based on the principle of integrated
methodology (Bivainis and Tuncikiene 2009)); 2) the methods for
implementation of its components (the rational composition sets of
methods were compiled for each component of the strategic planning model
(Bivainis and Tuncikiene 2007, 2009)); 3) type of relation between the
implementers (staff works independently or in collaboration with
others). These factors are presented in Table 2. The offered model
possesses such components as the strategic analysis, setting of target
orientation, strategic decision-making, preparation of an action plan
for implementation as well as monitoring of the implementation of the
plan, where joining of the components into a whole is based on the
results of the analysis of the link between the environment and the
internal factors of the institutions. Each of them is intended for
solving the complex planning tasks. Basically, all strategic planning
tasks are solved on a few institutional levels. The essence of the
proposed methods and models for solution of the strategic planning tasks
determines a complex character of intelligent support. Therefore, the
characteristics of the strategic planning tasks with emphasis on the
type of relation between the actions of individuals participating in the
process allowed revealing the specifics of the need for intelligent
support for the strategic planning tasks in DSS.
6. Integrated system of support for the strategic planning in
public institutions
According to the suggested model, the strategic planning in public
institutions begins with the analysis and evaluation of the environment
and resources of the institutions followed by the analysis and
evaluation of the SWOT of the institutions, subsequently by analyzing
and evaluating the strategic links of the institutions. In order to
rationality, in particular to avoid the duplication, it is expedient to
centralize the procedures of the strategic analysis of the institution
at the strategic planning department. In order to use the suggested
methods and models for strategic analysis, it is rational to apply the
support of decision based on algorithmic and heuristic data
manipulation, exactly, to solve such task, it is expedient to apply the
individual decision and the expert support. The strategic planning
department refers the results of analyzing and evaluating the
environment and the recourses to all concerned structural departments.
The latter departments present their comments, assessments and proposals
for the strategic planning department. In analyzing evaluations of the
environment and internal factors of the institutions as well as
synthesizing them with the help of proposed methods it is typical to
apply group work mode, therefore, it is rational to apply group decision
support. The expediency of such support is strengthened with the
circumstance that it is more probably the iterative exchange of
information by specifying the arguments and evaluations. Such support
would allow setting the SWOT and strategic links more reasonable, in
accordance with the evaluations of the external and internal factors of
the departments of the institutions. Besides, it is typical to apply the
group work mode in discussing the final results of the strategic
analysis (the participants are the authorities of the institution, the
heads of the structural departments, the strategic planning department).
It would be helpful to additionally apply the negotiation support mode
to the latter one. To increase efficiency of the works at this stage it
is most appropriate to use the group decision and the negotiation
support.
In order to introduce the proposed methods of defining target
orientation of the institution, different intelligent support is needed.
To form the institution's mission, to create the vision it is
useful to apply the group decision and expert support. To specify the
mission it is enough to apply the decision support based on manipulation
of data on previous and ongoing powers of the institution.
In order to introduce the proposed models, methods of defining
target's orientation of the institution, different intelligent
support is needed. In order to define and adjust the strategic goals of
the institution, it is predicted the revision of the factors which
predetermine the institution's activity development, and of their
interrelation, according to results of such revision the converting of
factors predetermined development into the goals set, the evaluation of
the goals set in terms of the possibilities to neutralize the
difficulties of the link between the environmental and the inner factors
of institution. The proposals for the goals prepared by the strategic
planning department are discussed in conjunction with the
institution's authorities and departmental heads. The group
decision support should be specially noted here which at different stage
of solution to defining orientation objective is supplemented with the
expert and negotiation support.
At the stage of preparing the alternatives and making the strategic
decisions to implement the goals set of the institution, the managers of
structural departments of the institution must provide the information
on possible ways to implement the goals to the strategic planning
department. For this reason the strategic alternatives within the
structural departments are generated, according to the criteria the
alternatives are evaluated, according to the results of evaluation the
best alternatives in the form of proposals are provided. In terms of
content it is a complex task that requires nonstandard thinking and
creativity, however, in principle, it is characterized by the autonomous
nature of the work. The specifics of the objective solution predetermine
the need for the individual decision and expert support. The strategic
planning department generalizes the information on the ways of
implementing the goal set of the institution received from the
structural departments of institution. In order to form the rational
composition sets of the strategic decisions, it is rational to revise
the results of the investigation of the factors which predetermine the
implementation of the strategic goals as well as the possibilities of
strengthening of the factors, and if it is necessary, to specify the
list of the factors and aspects of their strengthening. In order to
create the rational composition set of the decisions to implement the
goals, it is expedient to apply collective work mode, it is rational to
apply the group decision support. Expert judgements are dominated by
evaluating the elements of the decisions set in terms of compatibility
with the strategic goals, compliance with the strategic situation and in
other respects. In order to increase the efficiency of expert
judgements, it is rational to supplement the decision support with the
expert support. The consideration of the results of the multicriteria
evaluation of strategic alternatives is characterized by nature of group
work. The adoption of the strategic decisions is a collective work which
involves various employees and managers of structural departments of
institution and the authorities. Specifics of such objective solution
require both negotiation and decision support in order to eliminate the
potential difference between the opinions of participants with regard to
the weight of foreseen means for implementing the goals set.
To solve other objective of the strategic planning in the
institution--to prepare an action plan of implementation of strategic
decisions--the analogous elements are applied (Table 2). The essential
decision-making is a multi-step process which stages are characterized
by information processing, expert judgements, modeling the alternatives,
their evaluation and debates. This complex objective of the strategic
planning is solved at the structural departments of the institution, on
a level of specialists by participating managers of departments and
analysts of strategic planning department. Modeling the alternatives of
tasks to implement the goals of the action plan and alternatives of
activities of implementing the tasks, defining the evaluation criteria
and forming a combination of criteria, evaluation of alternatives
according to the criteria are carried out in autonomous mode, so it is
useful to apply individual decision and expert support. To consider the
results of multicriteria evaluation of the alternatives it would be most
appropriate to apply the group decision support. For example, by
analyzing and evaluating the action plan alternatives the main support
objects are presented in Table 3.
The strategic planning department investigates the projects of the
action plan for implementing the strategic decisions prepared by the
structural departments. It has to inspect the validity of the factors
determining the implementation of strategic decisions, if it is
necessary, to correct the list of such factors. This is done in
consultation with the relevant structural departments, usually with
their leaders, so it would be useful to apply group decision support. In
order to complex evaluate the action plan alternatives it is necessary
to supplement group decision support with the expert support. In order
to adapt the best project of the action plan in terms of content as well
as to use possessed resources by considering the projects of the action
plan, the strategic planning department carries on negotiations with the
structural departments. Therefore, it is rational to supplement group
decision support for this objective with negotiation support.
The ministry of finance, government office and strategic planning
committee evaluate the strategic plan of the institutions. According to
their comments and proposals the institutions must specify the programs
and increase effectiveness of using the resources. Of course, and
substantiate the validity of their decisions. In order to evaluate the
plans it is necessary to apply individual decision support, to respond
to comments and proposals--negotiation support.
The complex support is necessary to monitor the implementation of
the action plan. Firstly, considering the specifics of solution of
monitoring tasks which consist of actual data processing and their
comparison with the planned indicators, it would be helpful to apply
individual decision support based on algorithmic data manipulation. It
is more difficult to assess the changes that occurred due to the
implementation of the action plan. The expert judgements are planned
here. For expert judgements of institutional changes, that occurred due
to the implementation of the action plan, expert support is undoubtedly
useful. According to the results of analysis of implementing the plan
and the recommendations from the internal audit, the need for specifying
or changing the measures to implement the directions of activity
development is considered. Group decision mode is typical here. In order
to define the significance of the need for the new or improved measures,
negotiation mode of decision support is also foreseen. So, both group
decision and negotiation support are necessary here. According to the
results of consideration, the plans are specified, in order to do that
it is helpful to apply the methods of decision-making which determine
the need for decision support.
The defined regularities of support in accordance with its nature
allow accepting decision on integrated system of support for the
strategic planning in public institutions. The latter's
advantage--focus on integrated improvement to preparing and making the
decision of strategic planning.
7. Conclusions
Summarizing the results of the analysis of the factors that
determine the role of the DSS, the DSS as an informative computerized
system provides thorough information necessary to set, analyze, evaluate
alternatives and make the right choice, it also provides a possibility
to make purposeful development of prepared information reports in order
to choose the most rational means to neutralize the specific problems of
management. In order to create the better conditions for rational
strategic planning, such DSS should meet the requirements of
universality for helping managers of public institutions to prepare
alternatives and make planning decisions.
Summarizing DSSs presented in scientific literature, the most
rational list of DSSs from the standpoint of intelligent support
specification consists of individual decision support, group decision
support, negotiation support and expert system. Detailed analysis of
systems from the viewpoint of their ultimate goal, proposal initiative,
leading direction, main dialogue direction and other viewpoints allowed
defining the main characteristics of DSSs. The defined qualities are
treated as preconditions which in case of applying the certain variety
of the DSS are favourable for helping managers of public institutions to
prepare and make the decisions under the conditions of different
uncertainty of institutions. Considering the defined characteristics of
DSSs, it is rational to integrate systems thereby increasing efficiency
of support for their users.
The essential factors determining the requirements for the
strategic planning DSS are as follows: principle model of strategic
planning, implementation method of its components and type of relation
between the performers. Therefore, the characteristics of strategic
planning tasks with emphasis on the type of relation between the actions
of individuals participating in the process allowed revealing the
specifics of the need for intelligent support for strategic planning
tasks. In order to carry out the strategic planning in institutions, it
is necessary to apply a complex character of intelligent support:
individual decision, group decision, expert and negotiation support.
The essence of the proposed methods and models for solution of
strategic planning tasks determines a complex character of intelligent
support. Application of the intelligent DSS generated following this
principle enables public institutions to make a rational decision by
providing comprehensive, real-time information, creating conditions to
integrate and interpret information.
doi:10.3846/jbem.2010.33
References
Adekola, A.; Korsakiene, R.; Tvaronaviciene, M. 2008. Approach to
innovative activities by Lithuanian companies in the current conditions
of development, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 14(4):
595-611. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.595-611
Adla, A.; Laskri, M. T.; Soubie, J. L. 2007. A cooperative
framework for intelligent decision support systems, International Review
on Computers and Software 2: 292-301.
Azadeh, A.; Sharifi, S.; Saberi, M. 2009. Design and implementation
of a human centered expert system for improvement of strategic planning
in a manufacturer of construction products, Australian Journal of Basic
& Applied Sciences 3(3): 2447-2458.
Banaitiene, N.; Banaitis, A.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.
2008. Evaluating the life cycle of a building: a multivariant and
multiple criteria approach, Omega: the International Journal of
Management Science 36(3): 429-441. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2005.10.010
Bivainis, J.; Tuncikiene, Z. 2007. Integrated approach to strategic
planning in public institutions, Journal of Business Economics and
Management 8(4): 245-252.
Bivainis, J.; Tuncikiene, Z. 2009. Strategic Planning in Public
Institutions. Vilnius: Technika. 240 p. (in Lithuanian).
Butkevicius, A.; Bivainis, J. 2009. Planning of National Budget
Expenditure. Vilnius: Technika. 248 p. (in Lithuanian).
Dzemydiene, D. 2006. Design and Application of Intelligent
Information Systems. Vilnius: MRU leidybos centras. 352 p. (in
Lithuanian).
Dzemydiene, D.; Maskeliunas, S.; Dzemyda, I. 2008. Interoperability
of information system components for monitoring of sewage and
intelligent analysis of water resources, Technological and Economic
Development of Economy 14(3): 260-278.
doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2008.14.260-278
Fazlollahtabar, H.; Eslami, H.; Salmani, H. 2010. Designing a fuzzy
expert system to evaluate alternatives in fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process, Engineering 2(4): 409-418. doi:10.4236/jsea.2010.34046
French, S.; Turoff, M. 2007. Decision Support System,
Communications of the ACM 50 (3): 39-40. doi:10.1145/1226736.1226762
Ginevicius, R.; Podvezko, V. 2009. Evaluating the changes in
economic and social development of Lithuanian counties by multiple
criteria methods, Technological and Economic Development of Economy
15(3): 418-436. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.418-436
Goul, M.; Shane, B.; Tonge, F. M. 1986. Using a knowledge-based
decision support system in strategic planning decisions: an empirical
study, Journal of Management Information Systems 2(4): 70-84.
Gudas, S. 2009. Enterprise knowledge modelling: domains and
aspects, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 15(2):
281-293. doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.281-293
Huang, G. H.; Qin, X. S.; Sun, W.; Nie, X. H.; Li, Y. P. 2009. An
optimisation-based environmental decision support system for sustainable
development in a rural area in China, Civil Engineering &
Environmental Systems 26(1): 65-83. doi:10.1080/10286600802003732
Istudor, I.; Duta, L. 2010. Web-based group decision support
system: an economic application, Informatica Economica [Informatics
Economics] 14(1): 191-200.
Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Trinkunas, V. 2007. A multiple
criteria decision support online system for construction, Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20(2): 163-175. doi: 10.1016/j.
engappai.2006.06.009
Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Budzeviciene, R. 2009. Web-based
model of multiple criteria ethical decision-making for behaviour of
students, Journal of Business Economics and Management 10(1): 71-84.
doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.71-84
Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Naimaviciene, J.; Krutinis, M.;
Plakys, V.; Venskus, D. 2010. Model for a complex analysis of
intelligent built environment, Automation in Construction 19(3):
326-340. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.12.006
Karnitis, E.; Kucinskis, M. 2009. Strategic planning and management
of national development processes in Latvia, Journal of Business
Economics and Management 10(1): 3-13. doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2009.10.3-13
Kanapeckiene, L.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Seniut, M.
2010. Integrated knowledge management model and system for construction
projects, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 23(7):
1200-1215. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2010.01.030
Kersten, G.; Lai, H. 2007. Negotiation support and e-negotiation
systems: an overview, Group Decision & Negotiation 16(6): 553-586.
doi:10.1007/s10726-007-9095-5
Koutsoukis, N. S.; Dominguez-Ballesteros, B.; Lucas, C. A.; Mitra,
G. 2000. A prototype decision support system for strategic planning
under uncertainty, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management 30(7/8): 640-661. doi:10.1108/09600030010346387
Mabin, V.; King, G.; Menzies, M.; Joyce, K. 2001. Public sector
priority setting using decision support tools, Australian Journal of
Public Administration 60(2): 44-59. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.00208
Matsatsinis, N. F.; Samaras, A. P. 2001. MCDA and preferance
disaggregation in group decision support systems, European Journal of
Operational Research 130(2): 414-429. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00038-2
Mickaityte, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A. 2007. The
knowledge presentation according to the needs of the participants in the
public refurbishment sector, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 13(1): 47-55 (in Lithuanian).
Mickaityte, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Tupenaite, L.
2008. The concept of model of sustainable buildings refurbishment,
International Journal of Strategic Property Management 12(1): 53-68.
doi:10.3846/1648-715X.2008.12.53-68
Naimaviciene, J.; Kaklauskas, A.; Gulbinas, A. 2007. Multi-variant
decision support e-system for device and knowledge based intelligent
residential environment, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 13(4): 303-313 (in Lithuanian).
Oprean, C.; Kifor, C. V.; Negulescu, S. C.; Candea, C.; Oprean, L.;
Kifor, S. 2009. Ecollaborative decisions--a DSS for academic
environment, Proceedings of World Academy of Science: Engineering &
Technology 39: 173-179.
Power, D. J. 2008. Understanding data-driven decision support
systems, Information Systems Management 25(2): 149-154.
doi:10.1080/10580530801941124
Secrieru, I. 2009. Structured knowledge management techniques or
the development of interactive and adaptive decision support system,
Computer Science Journal of Moldova 17(1): 58-73.
Turban, E.; Aronson, J. 2001. Decision support systems and
intelligent systems. NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall. 867 p.
Urbanaviciene, V.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2009a.
Conceptual model of construction and real estate negotiation,
International Journal of Strategic Property Management 13(1): 53-70.
doi:10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.53-70
Urbanaviciene, V.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Seniut, M.
2009b. The web-based real estate multiple criteria negotiation decision
support system: a new generation of decision support systems,
International Journal of Strategic Property Management 13(3): 267-286.
doi:10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.267-286
Zivile Tuncikiene (1), Juozas Bivainis (2), Rolandas Drejeris (3)
(1,2,3) Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11,
LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania
E-mails: (1) zivile.tuncikiene@vgtu.lt; (2) vvfsevk@vgtu.lt; (3)
rolandas.drejeris@vgtu.lt
Received 26 January 2010; accepted 30 September 2010
Zivile TUNCIKIENE. Doctor of social sciences, Dept of Social
Economics and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
Research interests: intensification of economic development, strategic
planning of public institutions.
Juozas BIVAINIS. Professor, Doctor Habil, Head of Dept of Social
Economics and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
Research interests: intensification of economic development, business
management theory, economic legislation.
Rolandas DREJERIS. Doctor of social sciences, Dept of Social
Economics and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University.
Research interests: innovations of service business, innovation
management, service marketing, creating methodologies for development of
new services.
Table 1. The main qualities of the varieties of DSSs
Feature DSS
IDSS GDSS
Purpose Help decision- Help decision-
maker to solve makers to solve
a problem the problem
by providing by providing
reasoned, usually the results of
quantitative synthesis of
arguments various decisions
of problem
Initiative of Decision-maker Decision-makers
proposals and/or system and/or system
Reference Individual Group
direction decision-making decision-making
The main User [right arrow] User [right arrow]
direction of system system
dialogue
Nature of Personal Group
support
Nature of data Usually Algorithmic,
manipulation algorithmic heuristic
manipulation manipulation
Characteristic Extended Extended
of subject area
Type of appeals Unique Unique
to system
Content of Facts (actual Facts (actual
database knowledge) knowledge)
Possibilities Large Large
of logical
conclusions
Possibilities of Large Large
interpretation,
substantiation
of decision
Feature DSS
NSS ES
Purpose Help customers Help to accept
to achieve an the decision
acceptable of the problem
decision by according to a
providing defined decision
information on path
opportunities of
compromise
Initiative of Users and/or System
proposals system
Reference Collective Formation
direction decision making of proposals,
based on expert
judgments
The main User [right arrow] User [right arrow]
direction of system system
dialogue
Nature of Institutional Personal and
support group
Nature of data Algorithmic, Usually heuristic
manipulation heuristic manipulation
manipulation
Characteristic Extended Narrow
of subject area
Type of appeals Unique Repetitive
to system
Content of Facts (actual Procedures and
database knowledge) facts
Possibilities Large Limited
of logical
conclusions
Possibilities of Large Limited
interpretation,
substantiation
of decision
Table 2. The factors predetermining the requirements for integrated
strategic planning DSS
Components Tasks Proposed methods for
of model solving the tasks
Strategic Analysis and PEST analysis, analysis of
analysis of the evaluation of the environmental complexity
institution environment of and turbulence, influence
the institution and interest groups
analysis, modified national
diamond
Analysis and Modified 7 S model,
evaluation of the modified VRIO model,
resources of the product existing cycle
institution model, modified value
chain, modified BCG matrix,
modified competitive model,
financial analysis
SWOT analysis SWOT analysis based on
of the institution evaluating the development
preconditions, SWOT
analysis based on
evaluating the scenarios as
well as development of
resources
Analysis and Method of structurizing
evaluation of the problems, problem tree
strategic links of
the institution
Defining target Forming the Methods of warrant
orientation of mission of the analysis, mission creation
the institution institution methods based on evaluation
and creative thinking
Creating the Questionnaires on factors
vision of the determining the future
institution state, vision creation
methods based on evaluation
and creative thinking
Defining the Goal tree method
strategic goals of
the institution
Making Generating Methods of conformity,
strategic strategic methods of conversion,
decisions alternatives methods of existing
of the solution, mapping
institution technique, benchmarking
Defining the Criteria definition method
evaluation criteria based on converting the
of strategic hierarchy of goals into a
alternatives criteria system, method
and forming a of defining the priorities
combination of of criteria
criteria
Analysis and Methods of multicriteria
evaluation evaluation, ranking method
of strategic
alternatives
Strategic Methods of collective
decisions decision-making
Preparing of an Generating action Methods of conformity,
action plan of plan alternatives methods of conversion,
implementation methods of existing
of strategic solution, benchmarking,
decisions of the critical path method
institution
Defining the Methods based on
evaluation criteria converting the set goals
of action plan into a system of criteria
alternatives
and forming a
combination of
criteria
Analysis and Method of "cutting"
evaluation of network technological model
action plan components, methods of
alternatives multicriteria evaluation,
causal analysis
Adoption of an Methods of collective
action plan decision-making
Monitoring of Record and Control matrix, strategic
implementation controlling of the control
of the action implementation
plan of the of the action plan
institution
Analysis and Situational analysis,
evaluation of systemic analysis
the results of
implementation
of the action plan
Use of the results Decision-making methods
of the analysis
and evaluation of
the action plan
implementation
Components Tasks Performers
of model
Strategic Analysis and Strategic planning
analysis of the evaluation of the department
institution environment of
the institution
Analysis and Strategic planning
evaluation of the department
resources of the
institution
SWOT analysis Strategic planning
of the institution department
Structural departments
of the institution
Authorities of the
institution
Analysis and Strategic planning
evaluation of the department
strategic links of Structural departments
the institution of the institution
Authorities of the
institution
Defining target Forming the Strategic planning
orientation of mission of the department
the institution institution Authorities of the
institution
Creating the Strategic planning
vision of the department
institution Authorities of the
institution
Defining the Strategic planning
strategic goals of department
the institution Structural departments
of the institution
Authorities of the
institution
Making Generating Structural departments
strategic strategic of the institution
decisions alternatives
of the
institution
Defining the Strategic planning
evaluation criteria department
of strategic
alternatives
and forming a
combination of
criteria
Analysis and Structural departments
evaluation of the institution
of strategic Strategic planning
alternatives department
Strategic Heads of structural
decisions departments of the
institution
Strategic planning
department
Authorities of the
institution
Preparing of an Generating action Structural departments
action plan of plan alternatives of the institution
implementation
of strategic
decisions of the
institution
Defining the Strategic planning
evaluation criteria department
of action plan
alternatives
and forming a
combination of
criteria
Analysis and Structural departments
evaluation of of the institution
action plan Strategic planning
alternatives department
Adoption of an Heads of structural
action plan departments of the
institution
Strategic planning
department
Authorities of the
institution
Monitoring of Record and Structural departments
implementation controlling of the of the institution
of the action implementation Internal audit group
plan of the of the action plan
institution
Analysis and Structural departments
evaluation of of the institution
the results of Institution strategic
implementation planning department
of the action plan Internal audit group
Use of the results Structural departments
of the analysis of the institution
and evaluation of Strategic planning
the action plan department
implementation Authorities of the
institution
Table 3. The specification of intelligent support for the
analysis and evaluation of action plan alternatives
Strategic Support objects Support
planning nature
task
Analysis and Analytical calculations of Individual
evaluation of expediency of action plan decision support
action plan alternatives ([MATHEMATICAL
alternatives EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII], where: [Exp.sub.j]--the
value of the partially integrated
criterion to evaluate the
alternative's expediency,
v--evaluations, 1--the index of
primary criteria group in terms
of expedience, i--the index of
the primary criterion, j--the
index of an alternative, q--the
weight of primary criteria)
Analytical calculations of Individual
relevance of action plan decision support
alternatives ([MATHEMATICAL
EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII], where: [Rlv.sub.j]--the
value of the partially integrated
criterion to evaluate the
alternative's relevance, 2--the
index of primary criteria group
in terms of relevance)
Calculations of the typical Individual
parameters of the calendar decision
graphic and evaluations of the support
graphic to implement the
alternative in terms of rational-
ity of using the work resources:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], where
[summation][R.sub.i-
j]([t.sub.k])-the defined work
resources need to implement the
tasks set in the time scale,
P([t.sub.k])--the possessed work
resources potential to implement
the tasks set in the time scale,
[L.sub.1]--the coefficient of
uniformity of the work resources
need, [t.sub.kst]--the duration
of implementation of the tasks
set, when the work resources need
is stable; t--the duration of
implementation of the tasks set,
[L.sub.2]--the coefficient of the
ratio of change of the work
resources need, [n.sub.max]--the
largest work resources need,
[n.sub.aver]--the average work
resources need, [n.sub.min]--the
least work resources need)
A comparative analysis of the Individual
work resources' need according to decision support
action plan alternatives
Analytical calculations of Individual
efficiency of action plan decision
alternatives ([MATHEMATICAL support
EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN
ASCII], where: [Eff.sub.j]--the
value of the partially integrated
i=1 criterion to evaluate the
alternative's efficiency, 3--the
index of primary criteria group
in terms of efficiency)
Analytical calculations of Individual
multicriteria evaluation of decision
action plan alter- natives support
([Komp.sub.j] = [Exp.sub.j] x
[q.sub.1] + [Rlv.sub.j] x
[q.sub.2] + [Eff.sub.j] x
[q.sub.3], where weight of
partial integrated criteria of
[q.sub.1]--expedience,
[q.sub.2]--relevance and
[q.sub.3]-- efficiency;
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (TOPSIS),
where [[bar.a].sup.+.sub.j]--the
relative proximity of each
alternative to the ideal variant;
the proximity of the alternative
to the ideal positive
([[bar.a].sup.+.sub.j]) and
negative variants
([[bar.a].sup.-.sub.j]);
[n.sub.j] = [q.sub.j]/[q.sub.max]
x 100% (COPRAS), where
[n.sub.j]--the usefulness of the
alternative; [q.sub.j]--the
relative weight of the
alternative)
A comparative analysis of the Individual
results of multicriteria decision
evaluation of action plan support
alternatives
Ranking of action plan Individual,
alternatives according to the group
results of comparative analysis decision
support
