A number of active researchers of Management Information Systems (MIS) have recently expressed preoccupations about the actual state and future evolution of MIS as a scientific field. Preoccupations of this type have been around for quite a while, but they seem to have gained in popularity and acuteness in the last few years as witnessed by the frequency of exchanges related to this topic whether it be through papers, colloquia, or private and public conversations. Some of those expressing concern assert that MIS researchers too often work on non-pertinent [5,22] or unrelated topics ("gadget of the week") while others [26,53] question the research methods. Some will propose frameworks [24, 35,42] that should bring unity to a field they see as characterized by too much dispersion. Others [16] will react to an apparent proliferation of frameworks and contend that "we have enough conceptual frameworks. It is time to test, enhance, and embellish these frameworks with empirical research results." Keen [25]. the opening speaker at the First International Conference on Information Systems, asks for no less than a clarification of reference disciplines, a definition of the dependent variable, the building of a cumulative tradition and the solution to corollary problems such as the relationship of MIS to technology, the relationship between MIS research and practice and the establishment of publication outlets. Others, explicitly adopting Kuhn's model of the development of science [31], announce the advent [18,19] or ask for the establishment of [52] or for efforts leading to a clear definition [51] of a paradigm for MIS. This list could be extended to contain concerns about the establishment of journals [8] or the organization of coUoquia [37, 41] or other such manifestations. It is ® 19Sy ACM 0001-0782/89/0100-0048 S1.5Uprobably sufficient, however, to show the pervasiveness among some of the most active members of the MIS field of the interest for the actual state and future of MIS as a scientific field.A major driving force underlying the concerns of these authors is a preoccupation with the idea of progress and maturation of the MIS field. Indeed, their comments are aimed at one or both of the two following goals: first, to point at what they perceive as obstacles to progress within the field and to propose means to eliminate them; second, to suggest actions deemed appropriate for accelerating the pace of progress in order for the field to mature more rapidly. In both cases this implies a legitimate need to understand and evaluate the present state and foresee the future of the MIS field. Indeed, members of any scientific field, and particularly those belonging to fields struggling for recognition such as MIS, have to worry about the social and scientific status of their discipline.It must be realized that anyone attempting to assess the state of a particular scientific discipline must necessarily proceed with the implicit or explicit help of a model as to what a scientific discipline is and how it should develop. Th...

Research into quantitative decision‐making has undeniably made considerable progress in recent years, having gone from coping with single decision‐maker, single criterion to multiple decision‐makers, multiple criteria decisions situations. Suitable mathematical methods and instruments have been perfected and are now quite sophisticated. Moreover, they are often supported by a powerful software. However, most decision situations require that the systemic socio‐political aspects of the decision processes be taken into account and the methods and instruments developed so far may not be satisfactory in this regard. This paper presents a proposition that is aimed at improving this situation. It is based on the concept of stakeholder which, in our view, should be more directly incorporated into any multiple criteria decision aid (MCDA) approach. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract