Affiliations: [a] Department of Sociology, University of Nijmegen, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands | [b] Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109, USA
Note: [*] The authors would like to thank Fred Kochen, Kan Chen and C.K. Prahalad for their insightful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Also, the work reported here was in part made possible by financial aid received by J. Geurts via a Fulbright Grant and a Nato Science Fellowship administered through the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research.
Abstract: The development and use of decision techniques on the one hand, and the conduct of empirically-based social and behavioral research on the other, have proceeded in virtual isolation from one another. Each stream of activity, however, does share one feature in common: they both lack a framework or set of contingency principles for organizing their products or findings along dimensions salient to both researchers and practitioners. This paper addresses that omission by developing a framework to reconcile these two streams of activities with the realities of decision making in organizations. Specifically, the article (1) identifies key dimensions for organizing different problem types into appropriate categories, (2) creates a means for integrating the scattered findings flowing from the relevant empirically-based research fields, and (3) classifies existing decision techniques on the basis of their appropriateness to the problem. The practical and research implications of this framework are also discussed.
