IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/jikmxx/v13y2014i02ns021964921450018x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationalising Business Intelligence Systems and Explicit Knowledge Objects: Improving Evidence-Based Management in Government Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Carlton E. Sapp

    (National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suit 455, Arlington, VA. 22230, USA;
    The George Washington University, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 1776 G. Street, N.W., Suite 145, Washington, D.C. 20052, USA)

  • Thomas Mazzuchi

    (The George Washington University, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 1776 G. Street, N.W., Suite 145, Washington, D.C. 20052, USA)

  • Shahram Sarkani

    (The George Washington University, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, 1776 G. Street, N.W., Suite 145, Washington, D.C. 20052, USA)

Abstract

Public sector programs often fail to leverage their business intelligence systems and explicit knowledge objects to drive efficiency and effectiveness. Given the current federal fiscal environment and the need for effective government — a catalyst to the requirement to use "evidence and rigorous evaluation in budget, management, and policy decisions" (OMB Memorandum M-12-14) — federal programs look to business intelligence as an evidence-based decision-making practice leading to a more lean government, improving efficiency and effectiveness. However, cost overruns, technical obstacles, and next-generation information challenges stemming from pervasive computing can reduce any perceived value of utilising explicit knowledge systems to support evidence in decision making. Through the evaluation of five diverse projects tasked to address the use of evidence in decision-making practices, this research shows that achieving contextualisation of information requirements, stakeholder alignment, and the complexity/feasibility of information integration are key factors that should be analysed to improve the evidence-based decision-making practice in government programs, and may be accomplished through a systematic approach, such as the rationalisation of business intelligence systems. Thus, a rationalisation framework is provided to facilitate the management of business intelligence systems geared towards a more efficient and effective use of explicit knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlton E. Sapp & Thomas Mazzuchi & Shahram Sarkani, 2014. "Rationalising Business Intelligence Systems and Explicit Knowledge Objects: Improving Evidence-Based Management in Government Programs," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(02), pages 1-18.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:jikmxx:v:13:y:2014:i:02:n:s021964921450018x
    DOI: 10.1142/S021964921450018X
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021964921450018X
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S021964921450018X?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lurie, Nicholas H, 2004. "Decision Making in Information-Rich Environments: The Role of Information Structure," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(4), pages 473-486, March.
    2. Lidong Wang, 2012. "RFID-based information technology and management in agriculture and food supply chains," International Journal of Information Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(3), pages 225-239.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hajiheydari, Nastaran & Delgosha, Mohammad Soltani & Olya, Hossein, 2021. "Scepticism and resistance to IoMT in healthcare: Application of behavioural reasoning theory with configurational perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. Zheyin (Jane) Gu & Giri K. Tayi, 2015. "Research Note—Investigating Firm Strategies on Offering Consumer-Customizable Products," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 456-468, June.
    3. Laura J. Kornish & Sharaya M. Jones, 2021. "Raw Ideas in the Fuzzy Front End: Verbosity Increases Perceived Creativity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1106-1122, November.
    4. J. Miguel Villas-Boas, 2009. "Product Variety and Endogenous Pricing with Evaluation Costs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1338-1346, August.
    5. Brühl, Johanna & Smith, Grant & Visser, Martine, 2019. "Simple is good: Redesigning utility bills to reduce complexity and increase understanding," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Philip G. Joyce, 2008. "Does more (or even better) information lead to better budgeting? A new perspective," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 945-960.
    7. Li, Qian & Huang, Zhuowei (Joy) & Christianson, Kiel, 2016. "Visual attention toward tourism photographs with text: An eye-tracking study," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 243-258.
    8. Roland T. Rust & Tuck Siong Chung, 2006. "Marketing Models of Service and Relationships," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 560-580, 11-12.
    9. Aksoy, Lerzan & Cooil, Bruce & Lurie, Nicholas H., 2011. "Decision Quality Measures in Recommendation Agents Research," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 110-122.
    10. Wang, Fang & Menon, Kalyani & Ranaweera, Chatura, 2018. "Dynamic trends in online product ratings: A diagnostic utility explanation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 80-89.
    11. Wang, Kuo-Ching & Chou, Shu-Hui & Su, Che-Jen & Tsai, Hsin-Yi, 2007. "More information, stronger effectiveness? Different group package tour advertising components on web page," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 382-387, April.
    12. Bonsall, Peter & Shires, Jeremy & Maule, John & Matthews, Bryan & Beale, Jo, 2007. "Responses to complex pricing signals: Theory, evidence and implications for road pricing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 672-683, August.
    13. Chih-Hung Peng & Nicholas H. Lurie & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2019. "Using Technology to Persuade: Visual Representation Technologies and Consensus Seeking in Virtual Teams," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 948-962, September.
    14. Hutzinger, Clemens & Weitzl, Wolfgang J., 2021. "Co-creation of online service recoveries and its effects on complaint bystanders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 525-538.
    15. Goutam Sen & Mohan Krishnamoorthy & Narayan Rangaraj & Vishnu Narayanan, 2016. "Facility location models to locate data in information networks: a literature review," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 246(1), pages 313-348, November.
    16. Daniela Defazio & Chiara Franzoni & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2021. "How Pro-social Framing Affects the Success of Crowdfunding Projects: The Role of Emphasis and Information Crowdedness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(2), pages 357-378, June.
    17. Kim, Da Yeon & Kim, Sang Yong, 2023. "Investigating the effect of customer-generated content on performance in online platform-based experience goods market," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    18. Choudhary, Vidyanand & Currim, Imran & Dewan, Sanjeev & Jeliazkov, Ivan & Mintz, Ofer & Turner, John, 2017. "Evaluation Set Size and Purchase: Evidence from a Product Search Engine," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 16-31.
    19. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2011. "An experimental study of the effect of uncertainty representation on decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(2), pages 380-392, October.
    20. Sicilia, Maria & Ruiz, Salvador, 2010. "The Effect of Web-Based Information Availability on Consumers' Processing and Attitudes," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 31-41.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:jikmxx:v:13:y:2014:i:02:n:s021964921450018x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/jikm/jikm.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.