This document outlines a proposed research program for studying management information systems (MIS). It identifies key variables that comprise an MIS, including: psychological type of users, class of problems, method of generating evidence, organizational context, and mode of presentation. The document argues that most past MIS research has assumed only one state for each variable. It then provides taxonomies with multiple possible states for each variable, suggesting 240 possible MIS configurations. The research program would systematically explore different combinations of these variables to develop a more comprehensive understanding of MIS design.

1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227443936
A Program For Research on
Management Information
Systems
Article in Management Science · January 1973
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.19.5.475 · Source: RePEc
CITATIONS
532
READS
2,465
2 authors:
Richard O. Mason
Southern Methodist Univer…
84 PUBLICATIONS 3,735
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Ian I. Mitroff
University of California, Ber…
183 PUBLICATIONS 6,215
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Richard O. Mason on 01 December 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Vol 19, No. 6, January. 1973
Printed in V S.A.
A PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH ON MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS*
RICHARD O. MASONt AND IAN I. MITROFFJ
An information system consists of, at least, a PERSON of a certain PSYCHO-
LOGICAL TYPE who faces a PROBLEM within some ORGANIZATIONAL CON-
TEXT for which he needs EVIDENCE to arrive at a solution, where the evidence
is made available through some MODE OF PRESENTATION. This defines the key
variables comprising a Management Information System (MIS). It is argued that
most research and development to date on MIS has assumed only one underlying
psychological type, one class of problem types, one or two methods of generating
evidence, and, finally, one mode of presentation. Other states are suggested for all
these key variables. The result is the outline of a systematic research program on
MIS.
1. Introduction
The most generic definition of information comes from philosophy: information is
knowledge for the purpose of taking effective action [3], [14]. So put, the concept of infor-
mation raises all of the thorny problems that all generic definitions do: What is "knowl-
edge," "effectiveness," "action;" and further, who defines them and for what "pur-
pose?" The thesis of this paper is that the concept of Management Information
Systems (MIS) has suffered accordingly, not because we have not analyzed the
components of the definition of information at all, but because we have not analyzed
them in sufficient and in reflective enough detail. In effect, it is our contention that the
current philosophy underlying the design of MIS has presupposed a greatly restricted
view of "knowledge," "effectiveness," "action," and "purpose."
More specifically, we propose that an information system consists of at least one
PERSON of a certain PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE who faces a PROBLEM within
some ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT for which he needs EVIDENCE to arrive at
a solution (i.e., to select some course of action) and that the evidence is made available to
him through some MODE OF PRESENTATION.^ This defines the key variables that
comprise an MIS. A program of research on MIS should seek to explore the differing
characteristics of an MIS by manipulating these variables systematically. We will
argue in the sequel that to date much of the research and development work on
MIS has assumed only one underlying psychological type, one class of problems, one
or two methods of generating evidence, and finally, one mode or method of presenta-
tion. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that other methods are available by
indicating a research program that would attempt to explore each of the variables in a
systematic fashion.
In order to carry out our program of research, a taxonomy of states for each variable
* Received December 1971; revised January 1972.
t University of California, Los Angeles.
t University of Pittsburgh.
' This notion of information squares with the preceding philosophical definition in the follow-
ing way; A "person" is a teleological [14] or "purposeful" creature characterized by his or her
"preference" (i.e., "psychological type") [30] for a certain kind of "knowledge" [3]. A "problem"
is a situation for which there is doubt concerning the "effectiveness" of two or more proposed
courses of "action" [3], [14]. We will discuss the terms "evidence" and "mode and presentation"
later. The concept of an "organization" as a teleological entity has already been dealt with by
Ackoff.
475

3. 476 RICHARD O. MASON AND IAN I. MITROFF
is necessary. The following are offered and shall be elaborated on each in subsequence:
Psychological Type
(a) Thinking—Sensation
(b) Thinking—Intuition
(c) Feeling—Sensation
(d) Feeling—Intuition
Class of Problems
(a) Structured
(1) Decisions under certainty
(2) Decisions under risk
(3) Decisions under uncertainty
(b) Unstructural—"Wicked" Decision Problems
Method of Evidence Generation and Guarantor of Evidence—Inquiring Systems (IS)
(a) Lockean IS (Data Based)
(b) Leibnitzian IS (Model Based)
(c) Kantian IS (Multiple Models)
(d) Hegelian IS (Deadly Enemy—Conflicting Models)
(e) Singerian-Churchmanian IS (Learning Systems)
Organizational Context or Organizational Class of Problem
(a) Strategic planning
(b) Management control
(c) Operational control
Modes of Presentation
(a) Personalistic
(1) Drama—Role plays
(2) Art—Graphics
(3) One-to-One contact group interaction
(b) Impersonalistic
(1) Company reports
(2) Abstract models—computerized information systems
Neglecting for a moment the subheadings under each variable and assuming inde-
pendence between variables, there are 4 X 2 X 5 X 3 X 2 or 240 possible ways of
forming an MIS. Of couise this does not exhaust all of the possible ways that one could
ever form an MIS. Indeed, we could add a large number of additional variables to our
list. This taxonomy, however, captures some of the most important variables, and it
also reveals the places where we have concentrated our previous MIS design efforts.
Let us turn now to a discussion of each variable.
2. Psychological Types
Although by no means the only personality typology that could be used for our pur-
poses, the most suggestive of research hypotheses is the Jungian ty; logy [31], particu-
larly as operationalized by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator [48]. ilie Jungian typol-
ogy is characterized by four major modes or psychological functions. Two of the modes
pertain to the dominant psychological functions that an individual uses to perceive

4. PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH ON MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 477
(sense) the objects of the world, while the other two modes pertain to the dominant
psychological functions that the individual uses to evaluate (judge) the objects of his
perception. Since the functions for perception are presumed to be independent of the
functions for evaluation, four perception-evaluation combinations result. The alternate
modes of perception are Sensation and Intuition. The alternate modes for evaluation
are Thinking and Feeling. In most individuals, a preference for one mode of perceiving
and one mode of evaluation is characteristically developed. The alternate modes re-
main, as a result, underdeveloped or unconscious.
A preference for Sensation refers to that type of individual who relies primarily on
data received by his senses in order to perceive the objects of the world. The reality of
the Sensation type, in other words, is typified by sensory processes, "objective, hard
facts," and attention to detail. Intuition, on the other hand, refers to the mode of per-
ceiving objects as possibilities. Whereas Sensation perceives objects as they are, in
isolation, and in detail. Intuition perceives objects as they might be and in totahty,
as a Gestalt.
Notice that although these modes are in conflict, neither one is superior or more
fundamental than the other. The virtue of Sensation types is that they are guided by
the facts and are careful not to extrapolate them, while the virtue of Intuition types
is that they see through the facts and extrapolate beyond them (one is reminded of
Freud cautioning scientists that in order to see beyond their facts they have to be pre-
pared to ignore them). Whereas the Sensation type may be too data-bound (he tends
to go on collecting data forever because he is afraid to risk a generalization that "goes
beyond the available data"), the Intuition type maybe too data-free; he may spin out
a hypothetical conclusion a minute, none of which is based on available data.
Both types of perception are important for management as William T. Morris'
excellent paper on "Intuition and Relevance" [46] vividly demonstrates. Every cor-
poration needs both kinds of managers. Strategy making is the strength of the Intuitive
type, while day-to-day operations management tends to be the Sensation type's forte.
Both have their limitations as well. A management composed solely of Sensation types
runs the risk of being too limited and bound by the current set of available facts; it
runs the risk of being unable to envision future possibilities completely contrary to the
current state of affairs; it lacks innovation; and it has a short planning horizon. A
management composed solely of Intuition types, on the other hand, runs the risk of
always living in the future and thus never paying proper attention to the present.
The practical differences between the sensation-oriented corporate staff planner and
the more intuitive approach of the manager are well demonstrated in Michael Kami's
remarks:
If I were the planner for RCA, I would have killed color television. If I were the plan-
ner for Xerox, I would have killed Xerography. And if, many years ago, I were the plan-
ner for IBM when Watson, Sr., bought the electric typewriter and for 12 years nothing
happened, the reality would have been to kill that one, too. So the purely scientific
approach of planning for the future without that gutsy risk-taking and intuition also
is not going to produce results. [33, pp. 6-7].
The alternate modes for evaluation are Thinking and Feeling. A Thinking individual
is the type who relies primarily on cognitive processes. His evaluations tend to run
along the lines of abstract true/false judgements and are based on formal systems of
reasoning. A preference for Feeling, on the other hand, implies the type of individual
who relies primarily on affective processes. His evaluations tend to run along per-
sonalistic lines of good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, and like/dislike. Thinking types

5. 478 KICHARD O. MASON AND IAN I, MITROFF
systenmtize; feeling types take moial stands and are interested and concerned with
moral judgements. As in the case of tbe two perceptual modes, the two evaluative
modes also tend to be mutually exclusive. An individual characteristically tends to
prefer one type more than the other [28], [32].
Rarely, of course, does one observe a "pure" tyi>e of any sort. The human per-
sonality is too diveise, rich, and complicated to be explained in terms of only four
modes. Nevertheless, even as caricatures, these types piove to be useful heuristic
devices characterizing personalities and managerial styles. In contrast to other typolo-
gies, the Jungian system at least constantly stresses that the pure types are theoretical
constructs only. It is a blending aiid contrasting of these pure types that makes up tbe
actual personality. The Jungian typology also constantly stresses that no one mode of
perceiving reality is ultimately more basic than another. Indeed, it is the belief in the
superiority of one function or another that "types" an individual. For example, con-
sider the caricature of the Thinking type. Rule-making, especially formal rule-making,
is particularly characteristic of tbe Thinking type's basic approach to real problems.
In any situation his first and instinctive reaction is to formulate models and to make
rules. Unless they can do this they are unable to understand a situation or to deal with
it effectively. The approach of Thinking types is thus so model bound that their models
do not just represent reality; they often become the "most perfect" expressions of it.
Not too surprisingly, this very compulsiveness to systematize everything is often their
own undoing. They often become victims of and slaves to their own categories and sys-
tems. As a result, Thinking types often suffer from "hardening of the categories."* —•
Each of these types has a different concept of "information," and this is important
for MIS design. If one is a pure Thinking type, information will be entirely symbolic,
e.g., some abstract system, model, or string of symbols devoid of almost any empirical
content. If one is a Sensation type, information will be entirely empirical devoid of
almost any theoretical content. Thus, Sensation types speak of "raw data," "hard
facts," "numbers." For Intuition types, information will be in the form of "imagina-
tive stories," "sketches of future possibilities." Information for Feeling types takes the
form of "art," "poetry," "human drama," and especially "stories that emphasize or
have a strong moral component." What is information for one type vHll definitely not
be information for another. Thus, as designers of MIS, our job is not to get {or force)
all types to conform to one, but to give each type the kind of information he is psychologically
attuned to and will use most effectively.
The growing literature on the sociology and psychology of science [7], [17], [21],
[24], [25], [26], [27], [36], [38], [50], [53], [62] indicates that science (and this includes
management science) has tended to be a predominantly Thinking-Sensation activity.
The result is that the design of MIS has tended to reflect this orientation of their
designers, i.e., the designers of MIS have tended to project (or mistake) their dominant
' For further details and supporting evidence for the actual existence of these types, the reader
is referred to the work of Allport, Vernon and Lindzey [4], Ginzberg [18], Gundlach and Gerum
[20], Murray [47], Spranger [57], Thuratone [59], and, especially, Mogar [45]. For an alternate per-
sonality typology that has strong philosophical and Jungian overtones, see Churchman [10]. He
defines the following cognitive types or styles: (1) the mathematical type who reduces every
problem to a mathematical one, even where it is not appropriate or efficient; (2) the realist who
exclusively associates reality with facts or hard data; (3) the idealist wh< associates reality with
possibilities and imagination; (4) the pragmatist who associates reality Mth the feasible, i.e.,
the "doable" (even if it is not worth doing); (5) the consensual type for nom reality is what is
generally agreed upon; and, finally, (6) the conflictual type for whom realiiy is that which survives
a strong debate.

6. PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH ON MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 479
psychological type (Thinking-Sensation) onto that of their clients. The consequence
has been the almost total neglect of MIS designed expressly for Feeling and Intuition
types. To our knowledge Argyris is the only analyst who has explicitly considered the
importance of Feeling and Intuition within the context of MIS design [6]. There is a
need for more research on this important MIS variable.
3. Problem Types
Since more extensive and complete discussions can be found in the literature [12],
[50], the class of problem types will be discussed only briefly.
For our purposes, problems can be divided into two main categories: structured
versus unstructured decision problems.' (For purposes of brevity we restrict ourselves
to the class of decision problems.) A decision problem is defined as follows: to choose
from among a set of acts Ai, • • • , A,^ that A, which optimizes (in some sense) the
decision-maker's (Z's) return C/,j, where U,, is the utihty or value to Z of the outcome
0 i, corresponding to the doublet (Ar ,S,) where | iS, j is the set of the "states of nature"
[50].
There are three basic kinds of structured decision problems. A decision problem
under certainty is one for which the sets {^4,}, [ F,,), (0,), and {Sj are all known. In
addition, there is a known deterministic relationship holding between the choice of an
A, and the occurrence of an 0,. If the relationship between A, and 0, is probabilistic
and known (i.e., the probabilities p,y are known) then we have a decision problem
under risk. If the probabilities are not kncwTi but the possible states of the world
j(S,| are known (as are [A,], {V,,] and (Oj}), we have a problem under wncertointi/.
An unstructured or "wicked" decision problem is one for which one or more of the
[At], [U,,], [Oj], and [Sj] terms or sets is totally unknown or not known with any
high degree of "confidence." The problem with wicked decision problems is thus that of
"defining the state or nature of the problem" [44]. The treatment of wicked decision
problems has received little or no treatment in the OR/MS literature. As Raiffa has
put it:
, , , By and large, most operations researchers prefer to work on problem^s that are repetitive
in nature and that do not require subjective inputs. Those one-of-a-kind strategic problems,
the analyses of which must be based to a large extent on the opimOTis and judgments of ex-
perts, have received only scant treatment in the literature of Operations Research [emphasis
oure] [50, pp, 296-297],
In contrast, real management design or decision problems appear overwhelmingly
wicked or ill-behaved. As Rittel has put it:
1, They are not well defined; i,e,, every formulation of the problem is already made
in view of some particular solution principle. If the idea of the solution is elaborated
or even changed during the design process, new aspects become relevant and new kinds
of information will lead to different questions about what is the case in the particular
situation and about what is desired or acceptable. Since nobody can anticipate all con-
ceivable design possibilities before design starts, nobody can list all potentially rele-
vant data in a complete, well-defining problem formulation,
2, For design problems there is no criterion which would determine whether a solu-
tion is correct or false. These are meaningless labels which cannot be applied to BOIU-
' An alternative distinction would be that of programmed and nonprogrammed decisions as
made by Simon [55, pp, 5-6], However, since nonprogrammed decisions tend to be unstructured
and programmed structured, the taxonomies are similar.

7. 480 RICHARD O. MASON AND IAN I. MITROFF
tions of design problems. Plans are judged as good, bad, reasonable, but never correct
or false. And a plan that looks good to Mr. A may be most objectionable to Mr. B.
3. For design problems there is no rule which would tell the designer when to stop
his search for a better solution. He can always try to find a still better one. Limitations
of time and other resources lead him to the decision that now it is good enough [52, p. 19).
Wicked problems require that the decision-maker form a new appreciation of the
situation. Sir Geoffrey Vickers [61, p. 40] has coined the term "appreciation" to
describe the process by which the manager reaches "judgements of fact about the
'state of the system' both internally and in its external relations" and "judgements
about the significance of these facts to the appreciator or to the body for whom the
appreciation is made." The information stimuli required to form new appreciations
are undoubtedly different from that required to deal with well-structured problems.
Although Gorry and Scott Morton have made some useful suggestions in this regard
[19] and Huysmans [28] has collected some interesting experimental data, more re-
search should be conducted to determine the kinds of information that are best suited
for each problem type.
The current design of MIS has been preoccupied almost entirely with providing in-
formation for well-defined and well-structured problems. Relatively little work has
been done on information systems for improving appreciation and for dealing with
unstructured wicked problems. In the next section, we describe some methodologies
particularly suited for wicked problems.
4. Types of Evidence Generators and Guarantors
For the manager, information is the evidence upon which his decisions will be based.
A manager will tend to place his rehance on some methods of generating evidence to
the exclusion of others because for him the "guarantees" that the evidence produced by
these "inquiring systems" is true are much stronger. Some managers, for example,
will rely on observations of basic events (e.g. accounting data); others will rely on
abstract reasoning from basic premises (e.g. O.R. models); still others will seek clarifi-
cation through debate. Consequently an important factor in MIS design is the type of
evidence generating system used and the type of guarantees behind it.
Following Churchman [8] it is useful to distinguish five archetypal ways of modeling
and generating evidence for any problem. These approaches derive from the history of
philosophy. Each of the archetypal "inquiring systems" provides for a different
"representation" of problems by starting with different primitive elements or building
blocks. Accordingly, each produces a different kind of information for coping with a
problem and each has a different kind of guarantor for insuring the validity of the final
information content. The final information content of an inquirer with respect to a
problem is that inquirer's representation of that problem. Furthermore, Mitroff [43]
has shown how each of these inquiring systems (IS) can be made scientifically opera-
tional through the use of Ackoff's behavioral systems theory [3].
Each of the inquirers is discussed briefly below, and the kinds of problems for which
they appear to be best suited are noted. While any IS can be used to model and provide
evidence for any problem, it does not automatically follow that each is equally effective
or efficient for representing or working on all kinds of problems [43], Thus there is a
need for more research in this area.
a. Lockean IS
Databanks, accounting and statistics are basically examples of Lockean systems.
Lockean IS are the archetype of experimental, consensual systems. For any problem,

8. PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH ON MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 481
they will build an empirical, inductive representation of it. They start from a set of
elementary empirical judgements ("raw data," observations, sensations) and from
these buHd up a network of ever-expanding, increasingly more general, sets of "facts."
(Whereas in a Leibnitzian IS (below) the networks are theoretically, deductively de-
rived, in a Lockean IS they are empirically, inductively derived.) The guarantor of such
systems has traditionally been the function of human agreement, i.e., an empirical
generafization is judged objective, true, or factual if there is sufficient widespread
agreement on it by a group of "experts." A beautiful example of a Lockean IS is that of
the Delphi Method [22]. The final information content of a Lockean IS is identified
almost exclusively with its empirical content. Lockean IS would seem to be best
suited for working on well-structured problem situations for which there exists a
strong consensual position on the nature of the problem situation. If the consensual
position is suspect no matter how strong it might be, Kantian and Hegelian IS may
be called for (see below).
b. Leibnitzian IS
Information derived from models or proved from axioms is Leibnitzian in nature.
Leibnitzian IS are the archetype of formal, symbolic systems. For any problem, they
will build a formal, mathematical or symbohc representation of it. They start from a
set of elementary, primitive "formal truths" and from these build up a network of
ever-expanding, increasingly more general, formal propositional truths. The guarantor
of such systems has traditionally been the precise specification of what shall count as a
proof for a derived theorem or proposition; other guarantor notions are those of
internal consistency, completeness, comprehensiveness, etc. The final information
content of Leibnitzian IS is identified almost exclusively with its symbolic content.
Leibnitzian IS appear to be best suited for working on clearly defined (i.e., well-struc-
tured) problems for which there exists an analytic formulation with a solution. Most
operations research stresses the Leibnitzian evidence-generating approach. A single
"best" model is developed, and its conclusions are communicated to the managers.
c. Kantian IS
Kantian IS are the archetype of multi-model, synthetic systems.* On any problem,
they will build at least two alternate representations or models of it. (If the alternate
representations are complementary, we have a Kantian IS; if they are anti-thetical,
we have a Hegelian.) The representations are partly Leibnitzian and partly Lockean,
i.e., Kantian IS make explicit the strong interaction between scientific theory (the a
priori) and data. They show that in order to collect some scientific data on a problem a
posteriori one always has had to presuppose the existence of some scientific theory a
priori, no matter how implicit and informal that theory may be. Kantian IS presuppose
at least two alternate scientific theories (this is their Leibnitzian component) on any
problem or phenomenon. From these alternate Leibnitzian bases, they then build up
at least two alternate Lockean fact nets. The hope is that out of these alternate fact
nets or representations of a decision-maker's or client's problem there will be one that is
"best" for representing his problem. The defect of Leibnitzian and Lockean IS is that
they give only one view of the problem. Kantian IS attempt to give many explicit views.
The guarantor of such systems is the degree of fit or match between the underlying
* Kant stressed the role of a single "a priori" model which he called the "categories" in per-
ceiving reality. For the neo-Kantian this suggests that the real problem is determining which
among aeveral alternative models is best for perceiving reality.

9. 482 RICHARD O. MASON AND IAN I. MITROFF
theory (theoretical predictions) and the data collected under the presumption of that
theory. Since in a Kantian IS information is neither purely theoretical nor experimental,
the final information content is a function of both. It may be that Kantian IS are best
suited for handling problems of "moderate" ill-structure. Problems that are "wickedly"
ill-structured would seem to be best handled by Hegelian IS.
d. Hegelian IS
Hegelian or Dialectical IS are the archetype of conflictual, synthetic systems. For
any problem, they build at least two, completely antithetical, representations of it. Hege-
lian IS start with either the prior existence (identification) of, or the cieation of, two
strongly opposing (contrary) Leibnitizian models of a problem. These opposing repre-
sentations constitute the contrary underlying assumptions regarding the theoretical
nature of the problem. Both of these Leibnitzian representations are then applied to the
same Lockean data set in order to demonstrate the crucial nature of the underlying
theoretical assumptions. They make the point that the same data set can be used to
support either theoretical model. This is because data are not information; information
results from the interpretation of data. It is proposed thatoutof a dialectical confronta-
tion between opposing interpretations (e.g., the opposing "expert" views of a situation
[39]) the underlying assumptions of both Leibnitzian models (or opposing policy ex-
perts) will be brought to the surface for conscious examination by the decision-maker
who is dependent upon his experts for advice. As a result of witnessing the dialectical
confrontation between experts or models, one would expect that the decision-maker
will be in a better position to form his own view (i.e., build his own model or become his
own expert) on the problem that is a "creative synthesis" of the two opposing views.*
In contrast to the Loekean IS in which the guarantor is agreement, in the Hegelian,
the guarantor is intense conflict, the presumption that conflict will expose the assump-
tions underlying an expert's point of view that are often obscured precisely because of
the agreement between experts. Hegelian IS would seem to be best suited for "wick-
edly" ill-structured problems. Precisely, because of their ill-structure, there will be in-
tense debate over the "true" nature of wicked problems. Conversely, the Hegelian IS
would not appear to be well suited for well-structured, clear-cut problems. For these,
conflict may be a time-consuming nuisance.
e. Singerian-Churchmanian IS
Singerian-Churchmanian IS are the most complicated and, hence, the most difficult
to describe. We must of necessity refer the reader to the literature [9], [12], [13] for an ex-
plication of their properties. In general, however, Singerian IS involve continual learn-
ing and adaptation through feedback. They do this by converting "wicked" problems
into "structured" and "structured" problems into "wicked." Too much agreement in
the data leads to asking more refined questions, too httle to asking more general
questions. Singerian inquiry shows how Leibnitzian and Lockean IS can be modified
to work on wicked problems. Thus, all the IS again become applicable for all classes
of problems and hence independent of one another.* For this reason, it would appear
that Singerian IS are best suited for studying all of the other IS.
» For a case study of this process, see Mason [39]; for a theoretical model (i.( tor a Leibnitzian
model of a Dialectical IS) see Mitroff [42]; for a treatment of decision theor i rom a dialectical
point of view, see Mitroff and Betz [44].
• How the Singerian IS do this is a most fascinating story that must be left to Churchman's
book. The Design of Inquiring Systems [8].

10. PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH ON MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 483
Although we shall not demonstrate it here, it can be shown [64] that the design of
most, if not nearly all, JNIIS to date has been undertaken from the standpoint of
Leibnitzian and Lockean inquiry. The neglect of Kantian, Hegelian, and Singerian
bases has been almost total. This undoubtedly follows from the almost total preoccupa-
tion of OR/MS with well-structured problems to the neglect of wicked ones and it
points the way for some new dimensions of research in ^IIS.
5. Organizational Context
There are a large, if not infinite, number of ways that one can discuss the influence
of organizational structure on the design of MIS. This is because an organization's
structure and its information system are in reality just two sides of the same coin. It
is useful to explore two of these ways. The first way, due to Anthony [5], is to discuss
the kinds of problems organizations typically "choose" to solve. This way says that
organizational structure is a refiection of the levels of problems the organization con-
siders important to solve. The second way, due to Wilensky [63], is to discuss the kind
of "information pathologies" that are typically associated with different kinds of or-
ganizational structures. This way says that the information problems are a reflection
of the organizational structure.
Anthony has identified three kinds of major problems organizations typically face:^
(1) Strategic Planning is the process of deciding on objectives of the organization, on
changes in these objectives, on the resources used to attain these objectives, and on the
policies used to attain these objectives, and on the policies that are to govern the ac-
quisition, use and disposition of these resources [5, p. 16].
(2) Management Control is the process by which managers assure that resources are
obtained and used effectively and efficiently in the accomplishment of the organization's
objectives [5, p. 17].
(3) Operational Control is the process of assuring that specific tasks are carried out
efficiently and effectively [5, p. 18].
The significant majority of ]IIS to date has been designed for operational systems as-
suming operational level problems. They may have thus unwittingly contributed to
that type of organizational structure most consonant with the performance of the
operational system. Unfortunately, this type of MIS may be indirect confiict with that
type of organizational structure best suited for the organization's future (i.e., strategic)
survival. Some attention has been given to developing information systems for man-
agement control. Relatively little attention has been given to ]IIS for strategic planning
problems and their associated organizational structures. However, Zani [66] has pointed
out the need for a general schema for generating information for each of these levels.
Apart from Simon et al.'s early study [56], comparatively little work has been done
on the effect of organizational structure on information systems design. All organiza-
tions have patterns of authority, task allocation schemes and degrees of centralization
(or decentralization) of decisions that influence the collection, processing and fiow of
data. Wilensky [63] has shovvTi that hierarchy, specialization and centralization tend to
create "information pathologies" (e.g., secrecy, blockage, withholding information,
leaks, distortion, etc.) in organizations. However, there are many alternative patterns
of hierarchy, specialization and centralization that an organization can employ, in-
cluding those which characterize tribal organization, autonomous work groups or par-
' It should he pointed out that Anthony's framework is similar to that of Talcott Parsons [49]
in which he distinguishes between the Institutional, Managerial and Technical levels of organ-
izational decision-making.

11. 484 RICHARD O. MASON AND IAN I. MITROFF
ticipatory democracies. How do each of these affect an organization's information
system? Does it make a difference? To our knowledge these questions have not been
systematically asked.
Closely associated with the interdependency of the information systems and the or-
ganizational structure is its interdependency with the people who play organizational
roles. In an organization information is power. It affects one's authority, status, visi-
bility and career. Thus one might conclude as Dickson and Simmons [16] have that the
dysfunctional reactions to the installation of ]IIS (that range from failure to use the
output to outright sabotage) are based on the individual's defensive responses such as
aggression, projection and avoidance in all levels of the organization. However, the in-
teractions of these aspects of the organizational context have not been systemati-
cally researched in conjunction with other aspects of ]IIS design.*
6. Modes of Presentation
Information is conveyed to a user via some mode of presentation. While Scott ^lorton
[54] has provided many valuable insights on how computer displays (e.g. CRT) are use-
ful in relatively complex, unstructured problem solving situations, most ]IIS designs
still assume without question that the computer and its printout will provide for both
computation and display. It has almost become an article of faith that the heart of an
]IIS must be a computer. This may be a reasonable assumption for internal computa-
tional requirements, but, it is highly questionable as an assumption about effective
display [1]. In sharp contrast to the impersonalistic nature of formal models, computer
printouts and displays and company reports is the alternative of a more personalistic
approach. Stories, drama, role plays, art, graphics, one-to-one contact and group dis-
cussions may be more effective in some information contexts and, if so, they may sug-
gest media, channels and technologies for presentation which are radically different
from the computer and its ancestors—manual accounting systems, adding machines,
bookkeeping machines and punch cards. Television, radio, films and telephones may
begin to take on more important roles in the ^IIS of the future.
For example, it is far from clear that all psychological types (especially Feeling and
Intuitition types) want "information" or will most effectively use information that is
in the language of abstract symbols and "hard" data. Indeed, FeeUng and Intuition
types may react extremely negatively to the idea of computer generated information,
especially when it is numerical rather than verbal. For Feeling and Intuition the ap-
propriate modes of "information transfer" (if not generation) may be that of role-
playing, cartoons, group-interaction, psycho-drama, and even therapy groups. There
is a need to understand more thoroughly the effect of these modes of presentation on
the effectiveness of an MIS design.
7. Summary and Conclusions: Management Mis-Information Systems
Revisited [2]
This paper suggests a program of research in Management Information Systems by
means of identifying five general considerations for any INIIS design—psychological
type, class of problem, method of evidence, organizational context and modes of pre-
sentation. Each of these variables can assume several different ^i ates. Accordingly, a
full program of MIS research would seek to test the interaction iTects of all possible
combinations of these variables. It is our contention that most [IS designs to date
' For a survey of articles dealing with the "state of the art" concerning the behavioral aspects
of information, see Rappaport [51, pp, 36S-447],

12. PROGRAM FOR RESEARCH ON MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 485
have implicitly assumed a situation characterized by a Thinking-Sensation type, a well-
structured problem, a data or model basis, an operational control-hierarchal authority
organizational context and an impersonalistic computer printout mode of presentation.
Suppose, however, we change one or all of these conditions. Would the same ]IIS de-
signs be effective? How does changing these assumptions affect the overall design? P'or
example, how would an MIS be designed that assumed the Intuitive-Feeling type, a
wicked problem, evidence generated through conflict and debate, a strategic planning-
autonomous work group organizational setting and a personahzed drama as the mode
of presentation? How effective would it be? These are some of the unanswered questions
that our program for research raises.
Our investigation suggests two tentative principles that might guide subsequent re-
search :
(1) Managers need "information" that is geared to THEIR psychology NOT to that of
their designers. This places a heavy burden on the designers of ^^IIS. They must not
only find out what information the manager actually needs (as Ackoff [2] points out this
is often far removed from what they think they need), but the designers must also find
out which mode of displaying the information is most amenable to the manager's psy-
chology. This requires designers who are aware of their own psychology, i.e., psychologi-
cal type.
(2) Managers need a method of generating evidence that is geared to THEIR problems
NOT those of their designers. This requires designers who are aware and prepared to
cope with wicked, as well as structured problems, and finally, who are aware of the
archetypal ways of modeling them.
The phenomenon of information is too important to be left to unsystematic investi-
gation. We must seek to become better informed about the effects of the key variables
which comprise a management information system.
References
1. ACKOFF, RUSSELL L., "Frontiers of Management Science," The Bulletin of TIMS, Vol. 1,
No. 2, pp. 19-24.
2. , "Management Misinformation Systems," Management Science, Vol. 14, No 4 (Decem-
ber 1967), pp. B-147-B-156.
3. , "Towards a Behavioral Theory of Communication," Management Science, Vol. 4 (1958),
pp. 218-234.
4. ALLPORT,G.W.,VERNON, P. E. AND LINDZEY, G., Study of Values, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston,
1960.
5. ANTHONY, ROBERT, Planning and Control Systems- A Framework for Analysis, Harvard, Bos-
ton, 1965.
6. ARGYRIS, CHRIS, "Management Information Systems: The Challenge to Rationality and
Emotionality," Management Science, Vol. 17, No. 6 (February 1971), pp. B-275-B-292.
7. BL.iNKENSHip, L. VAUGHN, "Public Administration and the Challenge to Reason," to appear
in Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence, Dwight Waldo, ed.
8. CHURCHMAN, C. WEST, The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books, New York, 1971.
9- , Challenge to Reason, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
10. , "On Large Models of Systems," Internal Working Paper No. 39, Space Sciences Labora-
tory, University of California, Berkeley, June, 1966.
II' , "Letter to the Editor," Management Science, Vol. 14, No. 4 (December 1967), pp. B-141-
B-143.
12- , Prediction and Optimal Decision: Philosophical Issues of a Science of Values, Prentice-
Hall, New Jersey, 1961.
13- , Theory of Experimental Inference, The MacMillan Company, New York, 1948.
!*• • AND ACKOFF, RUSSELL L . , "An Experimental Measure of Personality," Philosophy of
Science, Vol. 14 (1947), pp. 304-332.
15- AND ScHAiNBLATT, A. H., "The Researcher and the Manager: A Dialectic of Implementa-
tion," Management Science, Vol. 11, No. 4 (February 1965), pp. B-69-B-87.

13. 486 RICHARD O. MASON AND IAN I. MITROFF
16. DicKSON, G. W. AND SIMMONS, JOHN K . , "The Behavioral Side of MIS," Business Horizons
(August 1970), pp. 5&-71.
17. FRIEDMAN, NEIL, The Social Nature of Psychological Research: The Psychological Experiment
as a Social Interaction, Basic Books, New York, 1967.
18. GiNZBERG, E., The Development of Human Resources, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966.
19. GoRRY, G. ANTHONY AND SCOTT MORTON, MICHAEL S., "A Framework for Management In-
formation Systems," Sloan Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Fall 1971), pp. 55-70.
20. GuNDLACH, R. H. AND GERUM, E., "Vocational Interests and Types of Ability," Journal of
Educational Psychology, Vol. 22 (1931), p. 505.
21. HAGSTROM, WARREN O., The Scientific Community, Basic BookB, New York, 1965
22. HELMER, OLAF, Social Technology, Basic Books, New York, 1966.
23. AND RESCHER, NICHOLAS, "On the Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences," Management
Science, Vol. 6 (October 1959), pp. 25-52.
24. HiTT, WILLIAM D., "TWO Models of Man," American Psychologist, Vol. 24, No. 7 (July 1969),
pp. 651-658.
25. HUDSON, LIAM, Contrary Imaginations, Schocken Brooks, New York, 1966.
26. , ED., The Ecology of Human Intelligence, Penguin, England, 1970.
27. , Frames of Mind, W. W. Norton, New York, 1968.
28. HuYSMANS, J. H. B. M., "The Implementation of Operations Research: A Study of Some
Aspects Through Man-Machine Simulation," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, U.C.,
Berkeley, 1968. Also, Internal Working Paper #78. Space Sciences Laboratory, U.C.,
Berkeley.
29. JACOBI, J.. The Psychology of C. G. Jung, Yale University Press, 1967.
30. JUNG, C. G., "Psychological Types," The Basic Writings of C. G. Jung, Modern Library
Edition, New York, pp. 183-285.
31. •, Psychological Types, Rutledge, London, 1923.
32. ——, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Pantheon, New York, 1900.
33. K.Mi, MICHAEL J., "Planning: Realities and Theory," Managing Change, a collection of
papers presented at the National Industrial Conference Board, Inc., Management Confer-
ence in New York City, January 19 and 20, 1967.
34. KELLY, G., The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. 2, Norton, New York, 1955.
35. KLUCKHOHN, C. AND MUBPAY, H., EDS., Persmatity in Nature, Society, and Culture, A. Knopf,
New York, 1961.
36. KuHN, THOMAS, "The Elssential Tension: Tradition and Innovation in Scientific Research,"
in C. W. Taylor and F. Barron, eds.. Scientific Creativity, Wiley, 1963, pp. 341-354.
37. LUCE, R . DUNCAN AND RAIFFA, HOWARD, Games and Decisions, Wiley, New York, 1958.
38. MASLOW, ABRAHAM, The Psychology of Science, Harper & Row, New York, 1966.
39. MASON, RICHARD O., "A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning," Management Science,
Vol. 15, No. 8 (April 1969), pp. B-403-B-414.
40. MCCLELLAND, DAVID C , "On the Dynamics of Creative Physical Scientists," in The Ecology
of Human Intelligence, Liam Hudson, ed.. Penguin, England, 1970, pp. 309-341.
41. MiNAS, J. S., "Formalism, Realism, and Management Science," Management Science, Vol. 3
(1956), pp. 9-14.
42. MiTROFF, IAN I., "A Communication Model of Dialectical Inquiring Systems—A Strategy
for Strategic Planning," Management Science, Vol. 17, No. 10 (June 1971), pp. B-634-B-648.
43. , "Epistemology as a Basis for Building a Generalized Model of General Policy-Sciences
Models," Management Science, special issue on "The Philosophy of Science of Management
Science," to appear.
44. AND BETZ, FREDERICK, "Dialectical Decision Theory: A Meta-Theory of Decision Mak-
ing," Management Science, Vol. 19, No. 1 (September 1972).
45. MoGAR, ROBERT E., "Toward a Psychological Theory of Education," Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, Vol. IX, No. 1 (Spring 1969), pp. 17-52.
46. MORRIS, WILLIAM T., "Intuition and Relevance," Management Science, Vol. 14, No. 4 (De-
cember 1967), pp. B-157-B-165. '
47. MURRAY, H . A., Explorations of Personality, Oxford, New York, 1938.
48. MYEBS-BBIGGS, I., Manual for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Educational Testing Service,
Princeton, N.J., 1962.
49. PARSONS, TALCOTT, Structure and Process in Modem Societies, The Free Press, New York,
1960.

14. PROGBAM FOR RESB1A.RCH ON MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 4 8 7
1
50. RAIFFA, HOWARD, Decision Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1968.
51. RAPPAPOBT, ALFRED, BD.. Information for Decision-Making: Quantitative and Behavioral Di-
mensions, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1970.
52. RiTTEL, HoRST, "Some Principles for the Design of an Educational System for Design,"
Journal of Architectural Education, Vol. XXVI, Nos. 1 and 2 (Winter-Spring 1971), pp. 1&-27.
53. RosENTHAL, R., Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research, Appleton, New York, 1966.
54. SCOTT MORTON, MICHAEL S., Management Decision Systems: Computer-Based Support for
Decision-Making, Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business
Administration, Boston, 1971.
55. SIMON, HERBERT A., The New Science of Management Decision, Harper & Row, New York,
1960.
56. •
, GtJETZKOW, HAROLD, KOZMETSKY, GEORGE AND TYNDALL, GORDON, Centralization vs.
Decentralization in Organizing the Controller's Department, American Book-Stratford Press,
New York, 1954. (Prepared for Controllership Foundation, Inc.)
57. SPRANGER, E . , Types of Men, Newmayer, Halle, 1928.
58. TAGIURI, RENATO, "Value Orientations and the Relationship of Managers and Scientists,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1 (June 1965), pp. 39-51.
59. THURSTONE, L. L., "A Multiple Factor Study of Vocational Interests," Personnel Journal,
Vol. 10 (1931), pp. 198-205.
60. VERNON, P . E., "The Assessment of Psychological Qualities by Verbal Methods," Industrial
Health Research Board Reports, No. 83, H. M. Statistical Office, London, 1938.
61. VICKERS, SIR GEOFFREY, The Art of Judgement, Basic Books, New York, 1965.
62. WALBERG, H . J., "A Portrait of the Artist and Scientist as Young Men," Exceptional Children,
Vol. 36, No. 1 (September 1969), pp. 5-12.
63. WiLENSKY, HAROLD D . , Organizational Intelligence, Basic Books, New York, 1967.
64. WILLIAMS, JAMES AND MITROFF, IAN I., "Methodologies in Search of Information Science
Problems," in preparation for submission to Journal of the American Society of Information
Science.
65. WiTKiN, H. ET AL., Psychological Individuation, Wiley, New York, 1962.
66. ZANI, WILLIAM M., "Blueprint for MIS," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (November-
December 1970), pp. 95-100.