From the article: Abstract Since decision management is becoming an integrated part of business process management, more and more decision management implementations are realized. Therefore, organizations search for guidance to design such solutions. Principles are often applied to guide the design of information systems in general. A particular area of interest when designing decision management solutions is compliance. In an earlier published study (Zoet & Smit, 2016) we took a general perspective on principles regarding the design of decision management solutions. In this paper, we re-address our earlier work, yet from a different perspective, the compliance perspective. Thus, we analyzed how the principles can be utilized in the design of compliant decision management solutions. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to specify, classify, and validate compliance principles. To identify relevant compliance principles, we conducted a three round focus group and three round Delphi Study which led to the identification of eleven compliance principles. These eleven principles can be clustered into four categories: 1) surface structure principles, 2) deep structure principles, 3) organizational structure principles, and 4) physical structure principles. The identified compliance principles provide a framework to take into account when designing information systems, taking into account the risk management and compliance perspective.
Business Rule Management (BRM) is a means to make decision-making within organizations explicit and manageable. BRM functions within the context of an Enterprise Architecture (EA). The aim of EA is to enable the organization to achieve its strategic goals. Ideally, BRM and EA should be well aligned. This paper explores through study of case study documentation the BRM design choices that relate to EA and hence might influence the organizations ability to achieve a digital business strategy. We translate this exploration into five propositions relating BRM design choices to EA characteristics.
Crew resource management (CRM) training for flight crews is widespread and has been credited with improving aviation safety. As other industries have adopted CRM, they have interpreted CRM in different ways. We sought to understand how industries have adopted CRM, regarding its conceptualisation and evaluation. For this, we conducted a systematic review of CRM studies in theMaritime, Nuclear Power, Oil and Gas, and Air Traffic Control industries. We searched three electronic databases (Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus) and CRM reviews for papers. We analysed these papers on their goals, scope, levers of change, and evaluation. To synthesise, we compared the analysis results across industries. We found that most CRM programs have the broad goals of improving safety and efficiency. However, there are differences in the scope and levers of change between programs, both within and between industries. Most evaluative studies suffer from methodological weaknesses, and the evaluation does not align with how studies conceptualise CRM. These results challenge the assumption that there is a clear link between CRM training and enhanced safety in the analysed industries. Future CRM research needs to provide a clear conceptualisation—how CRM is expected to improve safety—and select evaluation measures consistent with this.
