IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tch/wpaper/cep049.html

Identifikation, Analyse und Systematisierung von Anforderungen an betriebswirtschaftliche Entscheidungsmodelle - Entwicklung einer Anforderungshierarchie

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Rudolph
  • Anika Suess

    (Professur BWL III: Unternehmensrechnung und Controlling, Fakultaet fuer Wirtschaftswissenschaften)

  • Florian Lindner
  • Kristina Hoese
  • Josephin Haenel
  • Fanny Richter
  • Uwe Goetze

Abstract

Modelle sind vereinfachte Abbilder der Realitaet und koennen zu verschiedenen Zwecken eingesetzt werden. Im Kontext der Betriebswirtschaftslehre dienen sie dem Erkennen und Analysieren von Problemen und letztendlich der Unterstuetzung bei der Entscheidungsvorbereitung. Als Mass zur Beurteilung der Guete und adaequaten Eignung von Modellen tragen Anforderungen im Sinne von zu erfuellenden Voraussetzungen zur zielgerichteten Modellentwicklung bei. In der Literatur existiert kein einheitliches Verstaendnis darueber, welche Anforderungen bei der Modellentwicklung und -bewertung, und im weiteren Verlauf auch bei der Modellanwendung, zu beruecksichtigen sind. Waehrend der Modellentwicklung treten einige Herausforderungen auf - neben der Darstellung komplexer Sachverhalte bestehen in fruehen Phasen der Modellentwicklung hohe Unsicherheiten. Der vorliegende Aufsatz widmet sich deshalb der Identifikation, Analyse und Systematisierung von Anforderungen an betriebswirtschaftliche Entscheidungsmodelle. Ziel ist die Erarbeitung einer Anforderungshierarchie, welche eine unterstuetzende Rolle bei der Entwicklung, Beurteilung und auch Anwendung von Entscheidungsmodellen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre einnimmt. Dazu werden zunaechst die Grundlagen der Entscheidungstheorie, von Modellen und Modellarten sowie der Modellentwicklung erlaeutert. Eine strukturierte Literaturanalyse bildet dann die Grundlage fuer die Systematisierung von Anforderungen, welche die Wirkungszusammenhaenge zwischen diesen verdeutlicht. Abschliessend erfolgt vor dem Hintergrund betriebswirtschaftlicher Modelle eine strukturierte Ueberfuehrung der Ergebnisse in eine Hierarchie.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Rudolph & Anika Suess & Florian Lindner & Kristina Hoese & Josephin Haenel & Fanny Richter & Uwe Goetze, 2021. "Identifikation, Analyse und Systematisierung von Anforderungen an betriebswirtschaftliche Entscheidungsmodelle - Entwicklung einer Anforderungshierarchie," Chemnitz Economic Papers 049, Department of Economics, Chemnitz University of Technology, revised Sep 2021.
    • Handle: RePEc:tch:wpaper:cep049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/wirtschaft/vwl1/RePEc/download/tch/wpaper/CEP049_Suess.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2021
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John D. C. Little, 1970. "Models and Managers: The Concept of a Decision Calculus," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(8), pages 466-485, April.
    2. Pfohl, Hans-Christian & Braun, G., 1981. "Entscheidungstheorie. Normative und deskriptive Grundlagen des Entscheidens," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 41746, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fanny Richter & Wladislav Gawenko & Uwe Götze & Michael Hinz, 2023. "Toward a Methodology for Social Sustainability Assessment: a Review of Existing Frameworks and a Proposal for a Catalog of Criteria," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 587-626, December.

    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. Michael Bitz, 1998. "Bernoulli-Prinzip und Risikoeinstellung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 50(10), pages 916-932, October.
    2. McCown, R. L., 2002. "Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 179-220, October.
    3. Zhong, Tao & Young, Rhonda, 2010. "Multiple Choice Knapsack Problem: Example of planning choice in transportation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 128-137, May.
    4. Harikesh S. Nair & Sanjog Misra & William J. Hornbuckle IV & Ranjan Mishra & Anand Acharya, 2017. "Big Data and Marketing Analytics in Gaming: Combining Empirical Models and Field Experimentation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(5), pages 699-725, September.
    5. Borgonovo, E., 2010. "Sensitivity analysis with finite changes: An application to modified EOQ models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 127-138, January.
    6. Linda Ellis Johnson & Arnold L. Redman & John R. Tanner, 1997. "Utilization and Application of Business Computing Systems in Corporate Real Estate," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 13(2), pages 211-230.
    7. George, Morris & Kumar, V. & Grewal, Dhruv, 2013. "Maximizing Profits for a Multi-Category Catalog Retailer," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(4), pages 374-396.
    8. J. S. Armstrong & R. Brodie & S. McIntyre, 2005. "Forecasting Methods for Marketing:* Review of Empirical Research," General Economics and Teaching 0502023, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Tyson R. Browning, 2009. "The many views of a process: Toward a process architecture framework for product development processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 69-90, March.
    10. Wiesel, Thorsten & Skiera, Bernd & Villanueva, Julian, 2011. "Customer Lifetime Value and Customer Equity Models Using Company-reported Summary Data," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 20-22.
    11. Fuglseth, A. M. & Grønhaug, K., 1997. "IT-enabled redesign of complex and dynamic business processes: the case of bank credit evaluation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 93-106, February.
    12. David A McDonald, 2016. "The weight of water: Benchmarking for public water services," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(11), pages 2181-2200, November.
    13. Stefan N. Groesser & Niklas Jovy, 2016. "Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy tool for exploration and decision-making," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-88, February.
    14. Peter S. Whalen & Samuel S. Holloway, 2012. "Effectual marketing planning for new ventures," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 2(1), pages 34-43, March.
    15. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Lahtinen, Tuomas J., 2016. "Path dependence in Operational Research—How the modeling process can influence the results," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 14-20.
    16. Donald G. Morrison & Jagmohan S. Raju, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: The Marketing Department in Management Science: Its History, Contributions, and the Future," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(4), pages 425-428, April.
    17. de Brentani, Ulrike, 1995. "New industrial service development: Scenarios for success and failure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 93-103, February.
    18. Ali A. Yassine & Luke A. Wissmann, 2007. "The Implications of Product Architecture on the Firm," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 118-137, June.
    19. McCown, R. L., 2002. "Locating agricultural decision support systems in the troubled past and socio-technical complexity of `models for management'," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 11-25, October.
    20. Little, John D. C., 1993. "On model building," Working papers 3556-93., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:tch:wpaper:cep049. 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: Christian Kulitza The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Christian Kulitza to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwtucde.html .

    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.