Information & Management 51 (2014) 618626

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/im

Dening decision making process performance: Conceptualization and

validation of an index
Manon G. Guillemette a,*, Maxime Laroche b, Jean Cadieux b,1
a
b

PRISME Research Group, Universite de Sherbrooke, Faculte dadministration, 2500 Boulevard de lUniversite, Quebec, Canada J1K 2R1
Universite de Sherbrooke, Faculte dadministration, 2500 Boulevard de lUniversite, Quebec Canada J1K 2R1

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 5 March 2014
Received in revised form 20 May 2014
Accepted 23 May 2014
Available online 3 June 2014

Many studies have demonstrated the impact of information technology (IT) on decision making but few
have used decision making process performance (DMPP) as a dependent variable. Our study proposes a
rich formative conceptualization of DMPP, a valid and reliable measure for this construct, and studies its
inuence on the quality of decision making. The results show that DMPP is a formative second-order
aggregate construct composed of procedural rationality, exhaustivity of the information analyzed,
openness of spirit, and effort. This study illustrates the importance of building proper denitions of
constructs and contributes to the development of shared meaning in IS.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Decision making process performance
Formative construct
Procedural rationality
Exhaustivity of information
Openness of spirit
Decision-making effort

1. Introduction
Information technologies (IT) have long been presented as
useful tools that support structured, semi-structured and unstructured decision making. For example, expert systems have been
associated with semi-structured decisions, enterprise resource
planning systems have been associated with structured decisions,
and business intelligence systems have been associated with
unstructured decisions. It is now widely acknowledged that
information systems contribute to the overall quality of decision
making in organizations.
Many studies have demonstrated the impact of IT on decision
making. For example, group decision support systems (GDSS) have
been shown to provide better access to electronic databases and to
facilitate the sharing of information in group decisions [30].
Executive information systems have been shown to play an
important role in gathering data for strategic decision making by
top executives [34]. In this respect, the use of a data warehouse
may result in superior performance compared to the use of either a

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 819 821 8000x62983; fax: +1 819 821 7934.
E-mail addresses: Manon.Guillemette@USherbrooke.ca (M.G. Guillemette),
Maxime.Laroche2@usherbrooke.ca (M. Laroche), Jean.Cadieux@USherbrooke.ca
(J. Cadieux).
1
Tel.: +1 819 821 8000x61925; fax: +1 819 821 7934.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.05.012
0378-7206/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

partial data warehouse (which contains no long-term history or

aggregated data) or no data warehouse at all [24]. Moreover, ERP
systems have been shown to increase business professionals
satisfaction in their individual work by providing strong support
for the design phase (evaluation of alternatives) of the decision
making process [1]. As a last example, decision support systems
have proven useful in risk planning by helping decision makers
implement the most effective countermeasures for reducing the
security threats faced by rms [28].
However, much like other researchers, we observed that these
studies do not always measure the impact of IT on the same
construct, sometimes creating confusion in how the results
are interpreted [27]. For example, Barkhi and Kao [2] study the
importance of psychological climate on decision making performance in a GDSS context. The dependent variable of their model is
named performance of GDSS users and is built from decision quality,
decision satisfaction and decision time. The authors state, The
decision quality and satisfaction measure the effectiveness of the users
decision process and hence are critical measures for the impact of
GDSS on decision-making. The use of different names for similar
constructs employed in different ways is a good example of the
type of confusion that has been created through the years in
attempts to develop a construct of decision-making performance.
Thus an important distinction must be made between the
performance of the decision making process and the quality of the
decision itself or between the result of the process and the result of

M.G. Guillemette et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 618626

the decision. In the business world as much as in research, decisionmaking process performance is an important prerequisite for a
quality decision, and a relationship appears to exist between these
two distinct constructs [33,3,21].
We found relatively few studies in our literature review that use
the decision making process performance construct, due in part to
the complexity of the analysis required but also because the
construct is not always properly conceptualized. As a result, few
reliable and valid measures have been proposed to accurately
measure this construct and those that have been proposed have
not been sufciently tested.
Consequently, this paper proposes a rich formative conceptualization of decision making process performance (DMPP) and
studies its inuence on the quality of decision making. First, we
conceptualize DMPP as a multidimensional construct in the form
of a formative second-order aggregate construct [26] composed, at
the rst-order level, of four reective dimensions: procedural
rationality, exhaustivity of the information consulted, openness of
spirit, and effort. We then develop a measure of this construct that
we validate with a sample of 198 respondents. Our results
demonstrate that the DMPP construct is, from a conceptual
perspective, a true formative construct with the above-mentioned
four dimensions and that it is also an important and signicant
antecedent of decision quality. Our study is a response to the call
made by other researchers to focus on evaluating decision
processes rather than the consequences of those decisions [21].
It proposes a reusable tool for researchers that is a valid measure of
this important dependent variable.
2. Theory development
It has been argued that managers spend most of their working
time communicating and making decisions. However, all decisions
are not the same, and different decisions may require that
managers adopt different decision making processes. Our study
focuses on important decisions for organizations that we call
high-impact decisions. These decisions are mostly ill-structured,
relatively complex, and important for the organization (tactical or
strategic decisions). Examples of high-impact decisions include the
decision to implement a new information technology, the decision
to invest in the development of a new product or to abandon
production of an existing one, and decisions regarding the
termination of a marketing campaign.
Such decisions are not usually made by a single individual in
complete isolation. Rather, decision makers are inuenced by other
people (top-managers, colleagues and employees), structures,
politics and culture. High-impact decisions are likely to involve the
use of information and knowledge in the decision making process
to cope with uncertainty that is intrinsically related to the
organizational context [11,20].
Past research has found that this type of decision is approached
more carefully and rationally by managers compared to less
important decisions. Recent research has shown that the degree of
structure of the decision making process is somewhat related to
the degree of adaptation required by the context. For example, in
planning a new strategic initiative, or in reaction to a new
uncertainty, decision makers tend to carefully reevaluate their
implementation plans and use a structured decision making
process to do so. However, in a crisis-like context, managers tend to
adopt a more straightforward approach [13,20]. Indeed, the
positive impact of high-quality analysis on the quality of decision
making is well documented [24,3]. The results show that highimpact decisions, such as tactical and strategic decisions [34] or
ethical decisions [15], in high-performing rms are taken in a more
rational and less intuitive and political way than some have
suggested [23]. Even if managers are under the inuence of

619

political forces, they tend to use a rational approach in their

decision making process, although they may use heuristics or
intuition to cope with bounded rationality at some points in this
process [5].
In light of these considerations, we adopted a rational
approach2 to the organizational decision making process, basing
our approach on Simons three-stage model of intelligence, design
and choice. Although phases are used to dene the decision making
process, they are not used in a predened temporal sequence [13].
The adoption of this model is also in accordance with the use of IS
to support managers decision making processes.
Evaluating the performance of a process is not a simple task. In
this respect, we have noticed that extant research (e.g. [33]) adopts
a unidimensional conceptualization of the DMPP construct based
on a reective conceptualization, which does not seem entirely
appropriate for this type of problem. In fact, this assumption
suggests that the observed indicators reect the construct that
they are measuring such that all of the indicators move in the same
direction. In such a situation, performance is measured by only one
aspect of the construct [26].
Instead, we observed that the DMPP construct appears to
consist of a certain number of distinct factors that are actually the
causes of the construct and therefore do not necessarily always
move in the same direction [26]. This suggests a formative
conceptualization rather than a reective one. However, although
DMPP appears to be a multidimensional construct, most extant
studies have focused mostly on procedural rationality, paying less
attention to other process characteristics. As a result, these studies
do not fully capture the complexity and diversity of the
phenomenon of decision making process performance [13].
2.1. Developing the content of the DMPP construct
In this study, we adopted the 7-step model proposed by Polites
et al. [26] to conceptualize the DMPP multidimensional construct.
The rst step in dening a multidimensional construct is to
identify the content domain under investigation. These identied
facets are then considered for inclusion as dimensions of the
higher-order construct. We conducted a literature review on
decision making process performance by focusing on the elds of
management and information systems. We began with reviews on
decision making [e.g. 13,22,14] and applied a snowball strategy,
retrieving papers that were cited in the reviews and choosing those
that discussed a potential dimension of process performance. We
also examined papers that cited these reviews, applying the same
criteria. Papers published in top-tier journals were preferred, but
some highly cited papers published in lower-tier journals were
also included in our review. We also extended our search laterally
to include papers on the dimensions that used synonyms to
present similar constructs. We concluded this step once saturation
was achieved.
The second step consisted of making theory-driven decisions
about the nature of the constructs facets. In other words,
researchers must evaluate whether the construct is unidimensional or multidimensional. Because our DMPP construct consists
of a number of distinct yet interrelated dimensions, we conceptualized it as a multidimensional construct. Polites et al. [26]
underscore the importance of considering the focus of a study to
ensure that its content reects its theoretical orientation.
Therefore, an important issue in developing our DMPP construct
was to select dimensions that would reect the decision-making
2
A rational approach should not be confused with decisions that seek
optimization. Rational decision-making can be associated with a structured
decision process that is grounded in the bounded-rationality concept proposed by
Simon.

620

M.G. Guillemette et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 618626

process as it is conceptualized in this study. We used three criteria

to make this assessment. First, we wanted dimensions that are
central to the organizational and IT decision making literature.
Second, we wanted the dimensions to be logically and empirically
distinct. Finally, we wanted the dimensions to be theoretically
consistent with our conceptualization of the decision making
process as one that is largely rational and structured to ensure the
internal coherence of the DMPP construct.
Four dimensions met these criteria: procedural rationality,
exhaustivity of the information analyzed, effort and openness of
spirit.
2.1.1. Procedural rationality
One of the components that has been most studied as a
prerequisite for a quality decision is procedural rationality on the
part of the decision maker [16]. Procedural rationality may be
conceptualized as the extent to which the decision making process
involves collecting information relevant to the decision and relying
on analysis of this information when making ones choice [9]. It
refers to the broad rational cycle of decision making and measures
the rigorousness and discipline with which the decision maker
follows each step. Past research has shown that procedural
rationality is associated with managers that expect rewards for
a strong decision performance and decision makers that have high
levels of accountability in their decision making process. The
results showed that the use of procedural rationality in the
decision making process by these managers is associated with
improved decision performance [29]. In sum, procedural rationality is a fundamental component of performance in the decision
making process because it fosters a more rigorous analysis of the
situation requiring a decision because the decision maker
consciously follows a dened process [11,13].
2.1.2. Exhaustivity of the information
The exhaustivity of the information taken into account by the
decision maker is another important factor in the decision making
process. Different types of information are required to make
business decisions. The more information that is available to and
used by a decision maker, and the more detailed this information
is, the better the quality of the decision making process [21].
Exhaustivity of the information refers specically to the completeness of the information available to the decision maker when
following each step of the decision making process. In other words:
Does the decision maker have enough information at the time that
the decision must be made?
2.1.3. Effort
Effort represents a critical dimension in the decision making
process and has been found to be the most important factor
inuencing strategy selection [32]. In the context of decision
making, effort has been dened as the total use of the cognitive
resources required to complete the task [21]. Past research has
shown that use of a nondirective decision support system (DSS) on
a complex problem may increase the amount of effort invested by
managers, facilitating comprehension of the problem and encouraging the assessment of multiple alternatives [21]. Decision
makers usually use a cost/benet model and, more often than
not, seek a compromise between maximizing performance and
minimizing effort, which affects the quality of the decision making
process [21]. Therefore, a decision maker who invests more effort
in the decision making process should have a better performance
process than a decision maker who makes less effort.
2.1.4. Openness of spirit
Openness of spirit refers to the extent to which decision makers
are open to new ideas, sources of information and roles [31]. Many

decision makers often choose solutions with which they are most
familiar, and do not always explore new avenues as part of their
decision making processes. Openness of spirit allows decision
makers to make decisions by going beyond their usual limitations.
Extant research associates openness of spirit with creativity,
dened as using ones imagination and intellectual abilities to
develop a new line of thinking. Generally, decision makers who
demonstrate openness of spirit in their decision-making processes
are more inclined to make decisions that take all of the issues into
account, and therefore engage in more effective decision making
processes [31].
Procedural rationality, exhaustivity of the information analyzed, effort and openness of spirit may be conceptualized as the
underlying dimensions of DMPP, the dimensions that are
conceptually distinct.
2.2. Formative conceptualization of DMPP (steps 35)
The third step in the conceptualization of a multidimensional
construct is deciding whether the construct is reective or
formative in nature. Because the DMPP construct combines the
four dimensions presented earlier in a way that creates meaning,
our construct can be qualied as formative. Taking this approach,
the DMPP construct is conceptualized as a Type II formative
construct [17]. More specically, the proposed model is reective
at the rst-order level and formative at the second-order level (see
Fig. 1).
We expressed the DMPP construct at the second-order level as a
formative model with four dimensions: procedural rationality,
exhaustivity of the information analyzed, effort, and openness of
spirit. As in any formative conceptualization, a change in the value
of one of the four dimensions will not necessarily affect one of the
other dimensions. For example, a decision maker who does not
engage in a rational process may still review large quantities of
information as part of his or her decision making process.
Consequently, there is causality, from each dimension to the
construct, underscoring, once again, the formative nature of the
construct under study [17].
At the rst-order level, we conceptualized each of these
dimensions as created from reective measures. The purpose of
the reective measures at the rst-order level is to reveal the
presence of phenomena related to the latent constructs. The main
feature of these reective items is that they are interchangeable.
For example, if a decision maker is not following a rational process,
all of the measures used for this dimension will be weak because
they act as reective measures. The rst-order, reective nature of
the measurement items is particularly appropriate because it
targets manifestations of their main indicators. Because each of
these rst-order dimensions has been used in the past as reective
and observable measures, reective items have already been
developed, and they are used and tested in this study.
Finally, the fourth and fth steps consist of determining the
nature of the construct (aggregate or prole), and then, if it is
aggregate, determining mathematical relationships between the
dimensions. It has been suggested that once a construct has several
dimensions of the same order, the dimensions can be aggregated
into an index [35]. One would expect that performance can be
interpreted in the same way because it generally consists of an
aggregation of measures rather than a single observable measure.
3. Methodology
A Q-Sort activity was carried out to establish the content
validity of the reective rst-order dimensions of our second-order
formative construct [25]. This methodology entailed reproducing
all of the questions of the rst-order dimension and asking a few

M.G. Guillemette et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 618626

621

0;

0;
e1

e2

Q21

DMPP2
Q23
0;

e3

0;

DMPP

Formave
0;

0;

0;
0;
0;
0;
0;
0;
0;

e10

Q4.7

e9

Q4.6

e8

Q4.5

e7

Q4.4

e6

Q4.2

e5

Q4.1

e4

Q4.3

EF

EI

PR

0;

0;

OS
Q2.1

Q3.5

Q3.1

Q3.2

1
0;

1
0;

1
0;

e15

e14

e13

Q3.4 RQ3.3
1
0;

e12

1
0;

e11

Q1.4

Q1.3

Q1.1

Q1.2

Q1.5

1
0;

1
0;

1
0;

1
0;

1
0;

e20

e19

e18

e17

e16

e21

Q2.3

e22

Q2.5

e23

Q2.4

e24

e25

Q2.2

0;
0;
0;
0;

Reecve

0;

Fig. 1. Formative model of DMPP.

individuals unfamiliar with the study to classify them based on the

second-order formative structure. The technique combined
validation of content and construct, using experts who grouped
the items based on their similarities. The procedure was also used
to eliminate items unrelated to the expected rst-order dimension.
A single Q-Sort activity with only one association phase, was
performed by three professors from our business school with a
success rate of 92%. The activity resulted in the removal of some
measurement items unrelated to any of the four fundamental
dimensions of the DMPP construct and a rewriting of ambiguous
formulations to make the questionnaire clearer. This effectively
associated each of the rst-order items with the appropriate
dimension.
This study is based on a self-administered questionnaire.
According to the literature review, the four selected rst-order
dimensions cover the most important and fundamental aspects of
DMPP. In total, our DMPP construct had 22 items, shown in Table 1
and in Appendix A. We created our measures by adapting the
measures used in the references presented in Table 1. Questions
were listed in random order to minimize the risk of common
method bias.
To be able to mathematically estimate the formative constructs
parameters, it is common to include, at the second order level, at
least two additional reective measurement items (see Fig. 1). The
purpose of this additional constraint is to give the latent construct
a scale. The resulting model is called a MIMIC model. To estimate
the MIMIC model, the additional measures (at the top of the
formative model) are observable items related to the construct
under study or constructs with nomological links to the construct
Table 1
Measures of DMPP.
Variable name

Indicator

References

# of items

PR
EI
EF
OS

Procedural rationality
Exhaustivity of information
Effort
Openness of spirit

[11,9,10]
[27,4]
[21,8,18]
[31]

7
5
5
5

under study. We decided to include perceptual measures for the

DMPP construct and perceptual measures of the decision quality
construct (nomological validity) to estimate our MIMIC model.
A pretest was performed with 37 respondents to ensure that the
questions were clear but also to demonstrate that any colinearity
between the second-order indicators and the rst-order indicators
would be limited.
3.1. Data collection
Data were collected from a sample of undergraduate business
students3 [19]. All of the students were randomly assigned to
groups, and the groups were randomly selected from the sample.
As part of the students business strategy class (nal year), they
were enrolled in an online simulation in which they had to run a
digital camera company in head-to-head competition against
companies run by their classmates. All aspects of the simulation
mirrored a real-world market, thus allowing the students to think
about what to do next and the potential consequences of each
decision. Topics such as marketing, product design, quality control,
production operations, distribution, human resources and nancial
aspects were targeted.
We let the students make one decision (one round of the
simulation) before we disclosed the objectives of our study. Once
this decision had been made, the objectives of the study were
presented, and the students were asked to complete our
questionnaire anonymously.
A total of 212 students completed the questionnaire for a
response rate of 98.6%. Four questionnaires were removed from the
sample due to visible biases in the answers, and 10 uncompleted
3
It is typically acknowledged that the performance of students from one
university compares with that in other universities, so our approach should not
interfere with the generalization of the results. Concerning the convenience sample
and the generalizing process, Keppel and Wickens [19, p. 10] states that The
statistical methods allow us to generalize from our sample to an idealized
population from which it could have been sampled, and the extrastatistical
generalization let us conclude that this hypothetical population is similar to the
actual population that we want to study.

M.G. Guillemette et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 618626

622
Table 2
Analysis of indicators of DMPP.

PR
EI
EF
OS

Average of items

Standard dev.

Cronbachs alpha

VIF

5.4610
5.0071
5.7980
5.1859

0.72535
1.06182
0.75212
0.76960

0.783
0.834
0.811
0.688

1.674
1.135
1.520
1.659

questionnaires were also removed. This resulted in 198 usable

questionnaires.
In our study, students acted as managers and had to make highimpact decisions in a simulated real-world context. Although
students are not organizational decision makers, we believe that
the sample is appropriate given the objectives of our study.
Because we focused on the decision making process and not on the
quality and impacts of the decision, the students lack of experience
in assessing complex situations should not have played an
important role in their decision making processes. Moreover,
students were graded for this exercise and thus they faced
consequences for not exercising care in their decisions. We
therefore have no reason to believe that the students did not
perform business simulations as seriously as real managers would
have.

4. Results
4.1. Estimating the measurement model
Table 2 presents various statistics relating the items to the
latent dimensions and relationships between the indices (variance
ination factors). The right part of the table presents correlation
values between the four indices, created by averaging the related
items at the reective rst-order level.
Cronbachs alpha was used to analyze the internal consistency
of the rst-order reective dimensions. As seen in Table 2, the
Cronbachs alpha values are all greater than or equal to 0.688,
which is slightly less than the usually accepted 0.7 threshold. This

e1

0.735

1
0.51
0.35

1
0.47

e3
0.193

0.255

EI

DMPP22
DMPP

DMPP

PR

0.382

1
0.56
0.69
0.53

e2

DMPP 1

0.208

result nevertheless conrms internal consistency among the rstorder dimensions.

The variance ination factors (VIFs) were analyzed to nd signs
of multicolinearity among the rst-order indices [6]. The maximum observed VIF is 1.67, which satises the standard proposed
by Diamantopoulos and Siguaw [12] of a maximum VIF of 3.33.
As shown in Fig. 2, a MIMIC model was created by adding two
global measurement items (DMPP1 and DMPP2) to analyze the
relationship between the indicators and the DMPP model.
The formative measure consists of our four dimensions that use
reective measures.
Table 3, which is based on Fig. 2, presents the MIMIC models
goodness of t. The threshold values of the normed t index (NFI),
the comparative t index (CFI), and the general t index (GFI) must
exceed 0.9, and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) and the square root mean residual (SRMR) must be below
0.1 and, if possible, under 0.05.
Table 3 shows that the measurement models chi-square
statistic is 4.482, with three degrees of freedom, which is not
signicant. Other indicators also suggest a good t between the
model and the data. The values for NFI, CFI and GFI are equal to or
greater than 0.992. In addition, the values for SRMR and RMSEA are
less than or equal to 0.05. In sum, the four components explain a
signicant amount of the variance in DMPP, and the value for R2 is
0.72.
Cenfetelli and Bassellier [6] suggest assessing the weights of
indicators as an initial analysis of a formative model. As seen in
Fig. 2, the coefcients of the four major components of DMPP were
what was we expected. The weights were: 0.208 for procedural
rationality, 0.255 for exhaustivity of information, 0.382 for effort,

0.817

Correlations

0.200

EF

Fig. 2. MIMIC model of DMPP.

OS

M.G. Guillemette et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 618626

Table 3
Goodness of t of the MIMIC model of DMPP.
MIMIC model

Beta

Measures of goodness of t
X2 (df; p value)
R2
NFI
CFI
GFI
SRMR
RMSEA

4.482 (3; 0.214)

0.72
0.992
0.997
0.993
0.012
0.050

DMPP index
Procedural rationality (RP) component
Exhaustivity of information (EI) component
Effort (EF) component
Openness of spirit (OE) component

N = 198
0.208
0.255
0.382
0.200

Reective measurement items in the MIMIC model

DMPP1
DMPP2

0.817
0.735

623

GFI statistics were all equal to or greater than 0.919, and the SRMR
and RMSEA statistics were equal to or greater than 0.102. In
addition, the DMPP index explains a good portion of the variance in
the decision quality construct (R2 = 0.362). In sum, the statistics
support external validity of the DMPP index.
By way of comparison, the formative index is superior to the
reective measure in terms of criterion validity. An analysis of the
explained variances for decision quality, as measured by their R2,
shows that the R2 for the index is higher than those for the
reective measures. The gap between DMPP and decision quality is
greater with the formative index. These results suggest that the
proposed formative measure provides a better t but also that it
predicts decision quality better than the various reective
measures used in the past.
5. Discussion

and 0.200 for openness of spirit. The standardized regression

weights suggested that each component is an important determinant of DMPP. Moreover, all of the non-standardized regression
coefcients were signicant at a level of 0.05.
4.2. Nomological and external validity
To achieve external validity, the index of DMPP should feature
signicant correlations with other, theoretically related, constructs. Fig. 3 presents the relationship between the DMMPP index
and the decision quality construct, which, according to the
literature, should be related. Following extant literature, the
estimated model used DMPP as an antecedent to the construct of
decision quality (DQ). Fig. 4 presents a concurrent reective model.
The statistics suggest external validation of the DMPP index and
that the relationship between DMPP and decision quality is
signicant (R2 = 0.601), as seen on the left side of Table 4.
The models goodness of t statistics also suggest strong
goodness of t between the model and the data. The NFI, CFI and

This paper proposed a comprehensive denition of DMPP. We

argued that the DMPP construct is formative in nature and based
on four fundamental distinct components. We used a MIMIC model
to assess the goodness of t of this conceptualization of DMPP. In
our review of the literature, we noticed several different
dimensions that have been used to assess various aspects of
DMPP. However, these approaches did not provide an overview of
the entire construct and all of its dimensions. Our approach
consisted of analyzing the entire construct using a single
integrated measure with four fundamental dimensions: procedural rationality, exhaustivity of information, effort and openness of
spirit. This denition of the construct was validated by performing
a statistical analysis of the model.
By conceptualizing DMPP as a formative second-order structure, we ensured that the links between the constructs would be in
the expected directions. As anticipated, the nature of the construct
is additive because it takes into consideration different aspects of
this performance that are theoretically distinct but, when taken
together, provide an appropriate denition of all of its distinctive
components. We validated this premise by showing that each of
the dimensions makes a positive contribution to the index. Because
all four components are relevant in this context and their

e1

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

DQ1

DQ2

DQ3

DQ4

DQ5

DMPP 1
0.817

DQ

1
1

DMPP

PR

EI

EF

0.362
1

e3
0.601

OS

Fig. 3. Formative model of the external validity of DMPP.

e6

M.G. Guillemette et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 618626

624

e7

e8

e9

e10

e11

DQ1

DQ2
1

DQ3

DQ4

DQ5

DQ

0.291
1

0.539

DMPP

e2

PR

EI
1

1
e3

e4

EF

OS

e5

e6

Fig. 4. Concurrent reective model of DMPP.

signicant contributions are in the expected direction, we suggest

that they are good indicators of our DMPP construct.
We made a conscious choice in this study to relate our DMPP
measure to a rational decision making process. Other views of the
decision making process exist in the literature. For example,
political models view decision making as non-rational and propose
that decisions are made by bargaining and negotiating with
powerful actors. Our study acknowledges that decisions are not
made in isolation but are, in fact, subject to the inuence of other
stakeholders. However, following Cabantous and Gond [5], we
contend that even in these highly political contexts, managers are
somewhat rational in their choices, making trade-offs when
necessary and acting accordingly. These behaviors may help
explain why rationality is so rmly anchored in organizations [5].
Other researchers have shown that heuristics are sometimes as
effective at accurately predicting an event as optimization models.
Most of the research in this stream compares the use of statistical
models (called rational models) with many parameters to human
decision makers using only a limited quantity of information,
coping with their bounded rationality. Consequently, by taking this
approach, people intentionally ignore some information. We do
not nd this incompatible with our own conceptualization. In fact,
our conceptualization does not ask the decision maker to use all of
the available information, but rather to use a structured approach
to making a decision, use enough information to have a clear idea

Table 4
Goodness of t of the formative and reective models of external validity.
Formative model (Fig. 3)

Concurrent reective
model (Fig. 4)

Estimated standardized parameters

DMPP ! DQ
R2

0.601
0.362

Measures of goodness of t
X2 (df; p value)
85.805 (28; 0.00)
NFI
0.931
CFI
0.951
GFI
0.919
SRMR
0.053
RMSEA
0.102

0.539
0.291

84.768 (26; 0.00)

0.923
0.944
0.911
0.066
0.107

of the problem, analyze enough information to identify and

analyze alternatives, make a deliberate effort in making this
decision, and inject some creativity into the process.
Our decision to conceptualize decision making as a rational
process was grounded in the managerial and information systems
literature and represents continuity in this respect. It also opens
some interesting and important research avenues in terms of
identifying specically how DSS supports the decision making
process in organizations. We know that managers make considerable use of information technologies to guide their decision
making (such as in information searches, scenario analyses,
hypothesis testing, etc.). This highlights the crucial role played
by IT tools in day-to-day decision making [7]. It is likely that both
heuristics and political pressures will be intertwined with
rationality in the decision making process of managers. Researchers interested in these interactions may nd this a promising area
of research. Our DMPP measure may help them assess the impacts
of IT on the decision making process.
Even though the four dimensions of DMPP were based on an
exhaustive review of the literature, they may not constitute an
exhaustive list of potential indicators. Rather, they should be seen
as forming a relevant and generalizable list of measures of the
construct between decision contexts and types. Other researchers
may identify other dimensions that may be relevant in some
contexts or for some types of decisions and will need to make
judicious choices to ensure the completeness of the index and its
theoretical parsimony. Our measure benets from this theoretical
parsimony and offers signicant explanatory power concerning
decision quality. Researchers who work on making the index more
complete will be able to continue to assess the generalizability of
the construct in different contexts.
It is typically acknowledged that the performance of students
from one university compares with that in other universities.
Thus, our approach should not interfere with the generalization of
the results. Concerning the convenience sample and the generalizing process, Keppel and Wickens [19] states, The statistical
methods allow us to generalize from our sample to an idealized
population from which it could have been sampled, and the extrastatistical generalization let us conclude that this hypothetical
population is similar to the actual population that we want to
study. (p. 10).

M.G. Guillemette et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 618626

This study has not examined how DMPP varies in different

decision making contexts. However, it appears important for the
decision maker to have a full understanding of this context to
arrive at a good decision. Additional research will be required to
determine how (and if) the weights of these dimensions vary from
one context to the next and if this depends on the type of decision
taken.
Additional research will be necessary to measure the relative
impact of the components of DMPP on other external variables
related to decision making, such as the objective quality of the
decision and corporate performance. Such studies will allow
researchers to explore the relative contributions made by each of
the DMPP dimensions on variables that are theoretically linked. By
drawing on a reliable and valid measure of the DMPP construct,
these studies will help build a shared knowledge base that will
provide a better understanding of various phenomena associated
with decision making.
Finally, this study has mainly been based on the use of some
perceptual measures in terms of both DMPP and decision quality.
Although these measures simplify the assessment of the measurement model, they nevertheless have some important limitations
because it is understood that participants may be biased when
evaluating their own problem solving approaches and the quality
of their decisions. Arriving at an objective measure of the
performance of a decision-making process would be complex,
and the costs of making this measurement are likely greater than
its benets. The same cannot be said for decision quality, which is
less complex in measuring objectively. Future research should
examine this issue more closely.

625

In conclusion, this study has added to the literature by

proposing a grounded formative denition of the DMPP construct
by identifying its main components, and by validating this index
according to best practices and its relationship with decision
quality. Our study has made a signicant contribution to
information systems research by proposing a reliable and valid
measurement model of an important construct in information
systems, thereby contributing to the advancement of knowledge
and the construction of shared meaning.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our reviewers for their useful
comments. Additionally, we would like to thank the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: 4102009-1653 and the Fonds de recherche sur la societe et la culture
du Quebec: 145092 for their support during this study.
Appendix A. Items

Decision Making Process Performance Formative Construct

Effort
I put much effort into achieving this task.
I made the required effort to solve the problem.
I was focused on decision making.
I have shown my eagerness to address the problem.
I was completely immersed in solving this problem.

6. Conclusions
Openness of spirit
This study illustrates the importance of building proper
denitions of constructs. We argue that the conceptualization of a
construct must reect its nature and the context of study. We have
shown that DMPP should be conceptualized as a formative
construct, consisting of four dimensions that capture its different
characteristics (i.e. procedural rationality, the exhaustivity of the
information analyzed, effort, and openness of spirit) that ensure
better coverage of the construct. This improved denition of DMPP
should lead to more accurate results in future studies by eliminating
some biases that may have affected past results and conclusions.
It has been empirically demonstrated that DMPP is a signicant
antecedent of decision quality. Using our formative measure, we
made a similar observation, indicating that our conceptualization of
DMPP benets from a certain nomological logic. Overall, our
formative index is conceptually superior to previous approaches
that used reective measures and includes four components that
make signicant contributions to DMPP and appear to be generalizable to many contexts. Future studies, particularly in the DSS area,
will benet from a validated and well conceptualized construct,
encouraging knowledge creation through the reuse of common tools.
Moreover, the construct may prove particularly useful to
managers interested in studying the performance of their
decision making process. The development of a simple instrument, in the form of a questionnaire, represents an attractive
self-assessment tool for managers who want to make sure that
they build on each DMPP component to make the best possible
decision. Our measure will also help them identify weaknesses in
the decision-making process, which could lead to specic
training in these areas. Additionally, being aware of personal
weaknesses may help a manager exercise more care in decision
making. This will ultimately help the manager avoid continuously making the same mistakes, thereby improving personal
performance in this area and, ultimately, the organizations
overall performance.

To what extent were innovative ideas considered as alternatives?

To what extent were you creative in your decision making?
Did you take into account new possibilities in your decision
making?
What was the importance of novelty in your decision making?
To what extent did you use unusual approaches to make your
decision?
Exhaustivity of information
I had enough information to analyze the alternatives.
The information available was sufcient to solve the problem.
I did not have enough information to reach a decision (reversed).
I had enough information to understand the problem.
I had enough sources of information to make the best possible
choice.
Procedural rationality
I evaluated all possible solutions before making my nal choice.
I identied the entire problem and its implications.
I analyzed each choice.
I used enough decision criteria to arrive at the nal solution.
I considered the risks associated with each alternative.
I have considered the challenges associated with implementing
the nal decision.
I have considered the objectives related to each choice.
DMPP perceptual measure
In general, I used a high-performance approach to make my
decision.

626

M.G. Guillemette et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 618626

Overall, I have adequately covered the entire issue with a

complete analysis process.
Overall, my decision-making process has been successful.
Overall, I used a comprehensive problem solving approach to
make my decision.
Overall, my problem solving approach was effective.
Decision quality perceptual measure
I am satised with the decision.
The decision is of high quality.
I completely agree with the decision.
I like the decision.
I am sure that the decision will work well.
References
[1] R.A. Antonelli, L.B.d. Almeida, M.M.d.S.B. Espejo, F.L. Longhi, Business professionals perceptions related to the inuence of information technology in individual work, J. Inform. Syst. Technol. Manage. 10, 2013, pp. 4160.
[2] R. Barkhi, Y.-C. Kao, Psychological climate and decision-making performance in a
GDSS context, Inform. Manage. 48, 2011, pp. 125134.
[3] A. Bernd-Mathias, W.B. Baets, R. Konig, A complexity perspective on collaborative
decision making in organizations: the ecology of group-performance, Inform.
Manage. 48, 2011, pp. 157165.
[4] M.H. Birnbaum, Measurement, Judgment, and Decision Making, Academic Press,
San Diego, 1998.
[5] L. Cabantous, J.-P. Gond, Rational decision making as performative praxis:
explaining rationalitys Eternel Retour, Organ. Sci. 22, 2011, pp. 573586.
[6] R.T. Cenfetelli, G. Bassellier, Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems research, MIS Quart. 33, 2009, pp. 689707.
[7] P.K. Chathotha, R. Law, Managerial perceptions of information technology and
their impact from a transaction cost perspective, J. Travel Tourism Mark. 28, 2011,
pp. 787803.
[8] P.C. Chu, E.E. Spires, Perceptions of accuracy and effort of decision strategies,
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 91, 2003, pp. 203214.
[9] J.W. Dean, M.P. Sharfman, Procedural rationality in the strategic decision making
process, J. Manage. Stud. 30, 1993, pp. 587611.
[10] J.W. Dean, M.P. Sharfman, The relationship between procedural rationality and
political behavior in strategic decision making, Decis. Sci. 24, 1993, pp. 10691083.
[11] J.W. Dean, M.P. Sharfman, Does decision process matter? A study of strategic
decision-making effectiveness Acad. Manage. J. 39, 1996, pp. 368396.
[12] A. Diamantopoulos, J.A. Siguaw, Formative versus reective indicators in organizational measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration, Br. J.
Manage. 17, 2006, p. 263.
[13] S. Elbanna, Strategic decision-making: process perspectives, Int. J. Manage. Rev. 8,
2006, pp. 120.
[14] G. Gigerenzer, W. Gaissmaier, Heuristic decision making, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62,
2011, pp. 451482.
[15] R. Haines, L.N.K. Leonard, Situational inuences on ethical decision-making,
Inform. Manage. 44, 2007, pp. 313320.
[16] J.R. Hough, M.A. White, Environmental dynamism and strategic decision-making
rationality: an examination at the decision level, Strat. Manage. J. 24, 2003, pp.
481489.
[17] C.B. Jarvis, S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff, A critical review of construct indicators
and measurement model misspecication in marketing and consumer research, J.
Consum. Res. 30, 2003, pp. 199218.
[18] E.J. Johnson, J.W. Payne, Effort and accuracy in choice, Manage. Sci. 31, 1985, pp.
395414.
[19] G. Keppel, T. Wickens, Design and Analysis: A Researchers Handbook, 4th ed.,
Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004.
[20] R. Klingebiel, A.D. Meyer, Becoming aware of the unknown: decision making
during the implementation of a strategic initiative, Organ. Sci. 24, 2012, pp.
133153.
[21] G.L. Lilien, A. Rangaswamy, G.H. Van Bruggen, K. Starke, DSS effectiveness in
marketing resource allocation decisions: reality vs. perception, Inform. Syst. Res.
15, 2004, pp. 216235.

[22] R.J. McKenna, B. Martin-Smith, Decision-making as a simplication process: new

conceptual perspectives, Manage. Decis. 43, 2005, pp. 821836.
[23] M. Nooraie, Decision magnitude of impact and strategic decision-making process
output, Manage. Decis. 46, 2008, pp. 640655.
[24] Y.-T. Park, An empirical investigation of the effects of data warehousing on
decision performance, Inform. Manage. 43, 2006, pp. 5161.
[25] S. Petter, D. Straub, A. Rai, Specifying formative constructs in information systems
research, MIS Quart. 31, 2007, pp. 623656.
[26] G.L. Polites, N. Roberts, J. Thatcher, Conceptualizing models using multidimensional constructs: a review and guidelines for their use, Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 21,
2012, pp. 2248.
[27] J. Reb, Regret aversion and decision process quality: effects of regret salience on
decision process carefulness, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 105, 2008, pp.
169182.
[28] L.P. Rees, J.K. Deane, W.H. Baker, Decision support for cybersecurity risk planning,
Decis. Support Syst. 51, 2011, pp. 493505.
[29] D.F. Riedla, L. Kaufmanna, C. Zimmermannb, J.L. Perolsb, Reducing uncertainty in
supplier selection decisions: antecedents and outcomes of procedural rationality,
J. Oper. Manage. 31, 2013, pp. 2436.
[30] C. Saunders, S. Miranda, Information acquisition in group decision making,
Inform. Manage. 34, 1998, pp. 5574.
[31] M.P. Sharfman, J.W. Dean, Flexibility in strategic decision making: informational
and ideological perspectives, J. Manage. Stud. 34, 1997, pp. 191217.
[32] P. Todd, I. Benbasat, Evaluating the impact of DSS, cognitive effort, and incentives
on strategy selection, Inform. Syst. Res. 10, 1999, pp. 356374.
[33] G.H. Van Bruggen, A. Smidts, B. Wierenga, Improving decision making by means of
a marketing decision support system, Manage. Sci. 44, 1998, pp. 645658.
[34] B.A. Walters, J.J. Jiang, G. Klein, Strategic information and strategic decision
making: the EIS/CEO interface in smaller manufacturing companies, Inform.
Manage. 40, 2003, pp. 487495.
[35] R.T. Wright, D.E. Campbell, J. Bennett Thatcher, N. Roberts, Operationalizing
multidimensional constructs in structural equation modeling: recommendations
for IS research, Commun. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 30, 2012, pp. 367412.

Manon G. Guillemette Ph.D. is an associate professor of

Information Systems, the Director of PRISME - Business
Intelligence Research Group, and the creator of the
Masters Degree in Business intelligence strategy, at
Universite de Sherbrooke, Canada. Her research interests include organizational aspects of business intelligence, IT management and IT governance. Her work has
been received with great interest by both the academic
and professional communities. Findings from her work
have recently appeared in MIS Quarterly, Information &
Management, the International Journal of Business Intelligence Research, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, Communications of the Association of
Information Systems, and Syste`mes dinformation et Management.

Maxime Laroche M.Sc. PMP works in Montreal, Canada

as a senior advisor IT performance management. Holder
of a Master of Strategy Business Intelligence, he has
experience in the areas of transportation, manufacturing and nancial services. In recent years, he managed
projects related to the denition, implementation and
use of KPE for executives and managers. He also
managed projects portfolios in accordance with business strategies.

Jean Cadieux Ph.D. is a Professor and Researcher of

Information Systems Management at the University
Sherbrooke (Canada). His current research interest
include Information system and sustainable development. He recently co-editor a book on sustainable
development for canadian businesses.