Table of Contents:

Group and personal decision-making support, varies by high lightening the fact of group decision-making support in organization cannot happen without crucial adaptations. Those alterations grow from the necessity of integration of multiple teams around highly collective and composite (though intertwined) group decision procedure, creating a necessity for the management of dependencies amongst individuals, measures, administrative components, and artifacts. Alongside, three prime kinds of addictions might be studied: movement, distribution, and variation. The movement appears once a movement needs an outcome of an alternative. Distribution of enslavements appears once various happenings claims identical source (individuals, machineries, planetary, etc.). Lastly, version appears since the requirement of an appropriate fitting amongst happenings of organization.

With the expansion of complications within an organization there, lies a necessity in solemnize besides standardizing them. Instead of implanting a definite explanation, officially termed procedures should act as a backbone in providing a definite assembly to the specific with communal performance [28].

It is effortless in considering that decision-making can serve to be advantageous on existence of framework of organization till becoming definite and enforced procedure. Feldman and Pentland [29] elaborated that, inside administrative boundaries, two categories/models of associated acts exist: the ostensive and the performative. These organizational structures are a powerful source in explanation of organizations flexibility, behavior, change, and, thereby powerful information source in estimation of opportunities and constraints to undertake decisions in organization.

The apparent models obtain an accurate description about the ways of operation and execution of methodologies supported with examples, which uses tools like commercial procedure modeling, symbolization, and UML illustrations (specifically, performance besides communication), aimed at description of workflow procedure. These explanations generally erected into manuals for working procedures which apparently explore in appointing a precise besides comprehensive method aimed at performing duties along-with otherwise procedure.

Performative customs focuses explanation of ways of duties or procedures earned out importing adjacent to the grounded theoiy research methodology [30] which manuscripts, evidences, furthermore cautiously analyzes the behavior of individuals, establishing a description or tolerance for the procedures and arrangements influenced by them.

While a focus is made on conventional supervisory procedure realization becomes easier that it efforts huge quantity of undertaking-arrangement within groups, so the performances are enclosed with an ostensive methodology since the judgment procedure exploits a mechanized nature commencing three-phase model of intellect, plan, with alternatives [31]. Here the procedure conceivable originates starting contradictory towards convergent condition by a distinct succession, with pursue of iteration procedure [32]: (a) quandaiy investigation and description occurring within astuteness stage; (b) disagreement sustained by generating alternatives with its evaluation by collection, the meeting procedure originates; (c) thr oughout proposed stage, available outcomes for the problems be achieved (disagreement) pursued through joining of similar thoughts with removal of unnecessary or immaterial thoughts (meeting); (d) selection comprises of contradictory assessment of prevalent thoughts through convergence choice. For expanding the usage of the earlier “traditional” structure with amalgamation of organizational decision-making, the organizations should also revolve around ways the procedures are really accomplished, alternatively only regard the way to be earned on, if an existent interest to build an equal managerial collection conclusion sustain organization. The communal arrangement model [33] being used to organize the communal arrangement intended for judgmental sustainance elaborates mapping which essentially takes place anywhere the space (position) is regarded within a broad and relatively effective way. Since connections of facts, estimations, conviction, with vigor are considered indispensable in organizational methodology, this model places the important players for possible reasons and interruptions while communicating, or alliance, the subgroups build on temporary ground, and so forth.

This model is moreover worn as methodology or investigative instrument [34] whiles the study of relationships and interactions amongst unlike actors. This procedure is commonly used in virtual and computational environments [35], has gained an importance in the last decade. Alongside the prevalent tools for helping this kind of amalgamation are generally made for recording effortlessly and mechanically evidence, records, and obtain large amount of data for analysis [36], to make it adaptable in grounding an effectual assemblage judgmental sustainance within an organization. Figure 1.8 combines earlier deliberations, with viewing a complication augmentation within assemblage judgmental sustainance, with advancement from personal to networked group decisional aids. The organizational network elaboration demonstrates that ostensive procedures in decision-making can grant themselves unequal in some activities by determination of versification within the group adaptation. Here the usage of formal methods as structure to decide about the following rigid method. The benefit of performing replicas, for instance social network model, is valuation of genuine procedures with bestow on reassessment of formal procedures, promotion of organizational flexibility and efficient assistance for combined organizational group decision support system.

Usage of social network model for managerial assemblage managerial sustainance [36]

FIGURE 1.8 Usage of social network model for managerial assemblage managerial sustainance [36].


Social media forms budding area within educational arena. Prevalent investigation within areas of social media is mostly objected in promotional exertions otherwise alternative work within the outlooks of the firm else should demonstrate into the outer arenas. The chapter concentrates on the acceptance of information from the organization perspective, focusing on evolution of facts commencing social medias for undertaking any decisions. The area which this chapter investigates lies on the application of communal facts for taking any decisions within organization, thus providing with huge prospects in the world of business intelligence. In this respect, the chapter is distinguished from other areas of research.


  • business intelligence
  • decision making
  • perceptions
  • real-time social business intelligence
  • social business intelligence
  • social network


  • 1. Mitra, A., Satapathy, S. R., & Paul, S., (2013). Clustering in Social Network Using Covering-Based Rough Set. Paper presented at IEEE-Int. Conf. (IACC 2013) Gliaziabad, India.
  • 2. Mitra, A., Paul, S., Panda. S., & Padlii, P., (2016). A Study on the Representation of the Various models Dynamic Social Netw orks. Paper presented at Elsevier-Int. Conf. (ICCCV 2016), Mumbai, India.
  • 3. Elbasliir, M. Z., Collier. P. A., & Davern. M. J., (2008). Measuring the effects of business intelligence systems: The relationship between business process and organizational performance. International Journal ofAccounting Infonnation Systems, 9(3), 135-153.
  • 4. Van Beek. D., (2006). The Intelligent Organization. Performance improvement and organizational development with business intelligence.
  • 5. Rouibah, K., & Ould-ali, S., (2002). Puzzle: A concept and prototype for linking business intelligence to business strategy. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(2), 133-152.
  • 6. Smith. R., (2006). Key Performance Indicators. The basics of maintenance and reliability - Chapter 6.
  • 7. Tsai, Y., & Cheng, Y., (2012). Analyzing key performance indicators (KPIs) for e-commerce and internet marketing of elderly products: A review. Archives of Gerontology! and Geriatrics, 55(1), 126-132.
  • 8. Shahin, A., & АН, M. M., (2007). Prioritization of key performance indicators: An integration of analytical hierarchy process and goal setting. International Journal of Productivity! and Performance Management, 56, 226-240.
  • 9. Bugliin, J.. Chui, M., & Manyika, J., (2010). Clouds, Big Data, and Smart Assets: Ten Tech-Enabled Business Trends to Watch. McKinsey & Co. Quarterly (White Paper).
  • 10. Kapow, (2009). Five Key Lessons for Converting Social Media Data into Business Intelligence. Kapow Software (White Paper).
  • 11. Bryant, L., (2011). Moving from Social Media Monitoring to Social Business Intelligence. Head shift, Dachis Group. Retrieved from: our-blog/2011/06/15/from-social-media-monitoring-to-social-business-intelligence/ (accessed on 25 February 2020).
  • 12. Evolve24, (2012). Website. Retrieved from:
  • 13. Netbase, (2012). Website. [Online] sapsocial-media-analytics/ (accessed on 25 February 2020).
  • 14. Doeland, D„ (2012). Social Media and Internet Key Performance Indicators. Retrieved from: performance-indicators/ (accessed on 25 February 2020).
  • 15. Kaplan, A. M, & Haenlein, M., (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
  • 16. Heijnen. J., (2012). “Social Business Intelligence.” Master Thesis. Teclinische Univer- siteit delft.
  • 17. Forte Consultancy Group, (2014). Social BIfor Intelligent Enterprise 2.0.
  • 18. Group Charger, (2011). Social Business Intelligence.
  • 19. Larson, D., & Matney, D., (2007). The four Components of BI Governance. [Online] http://www.bibestpractices.coru/view/4681 (accessed on 25 February 2020).
  • 20. Muntean. M., Muntean, C., & Cabau, L., (2013). Evaluating business intelligence initiatives with respect to Bi governance. Proceedings of the IE2013 International Conference.
  • 21. Kaplan, R.. & Norton, D.. (1996). Danslating Strategy! wj0 Action. The Balanced Scorecard, Haward Business School Press Boston.
  • 22. Blonmie, J., (2012). The New Nonnal in Business Intelligence, http://www.slideshare. net/johblouTthe-new-normal-in-business-intelligence (accessed on 25 February 2020).
  • 23. Harrysson, M., Metayer, E., & Sarrazin, H., (2012). How 'SocialIntelligence’Can Guide Decisions. McKinsey Quarterly, tech_telecoms_internet/how_social_intelligence_can_guide_decisions (accessed on 25 February 2020).
  • 24. Palmer, D., Mahidhar, V, Galizia, T, & Sharma, V., (2013). Reengineering Business Intelligence. Amplify Social Signals. Business Trends. Deloitte University Press.
  • 25. Kobielus, J., (2007). Business Intelligence Gets Collaborative. Network World, http:// (accessed on 25 February 2020).
  • 26. Jain, U., (2012). Collaborative BI: Wisdom of the crowds, software magazine. The Software Decision Journal. [Online] asp?P=3377 (accessed on 25 February 2020).
  • 27. Muntean. M., & Cabau, L., (2011). Business Intelligence Approach in a Business Perfonnance Context. Austrian Computer Society, Band 280.
  • 28. Poltrock, S., & Handel, M., (2009). Modeling collaborative behavior: Foundations for collaboration technologies. In: Proceedings of the 42d Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Computer Society Press, Big Island. Hawaii, USA.
  • 29. Feldman. M. S., & Pentland, В. T., (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48( 1), 94-118.
  • 30. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L.,(1967). TheDiscoveiy of Grounded Theoty: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago, 111, USA.
  • 31. Simon, H., (1977). The New Science of Management Decision, Prentice-Hall. Englewoods Cliffs. NJ, USA.
  • 32. Pendergast, M., & Hayne, S., (1999). “Groupware and social networks: Will life ever be the same again0Information and Software Technology', 41(6), 311-318.
  • 33. Cross, R. L., & Parker, A., (2004). The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. USA.
  • 34. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K., (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA.
  • 35. Harrer, A., Moskaliuk, J., Kimmerle, J., & Cress, U., (2008). Visualizing wiki-supported knowledge building: Co-evolution of individual and collective knowledge. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym ‘08). Porto. Portugal.
  • 36. Nooy, W. D., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V., (2005). Exploratoiy Social Network Analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA.
  • 37. Francisco, A., & Joao. P. C., (2012). Integrating decision support and social networks, Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. Hindawi Publishing Corporation, doi: 10.1155/2012/574276.
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >