Complexity of Information Society Prevents Achievement of Satisfactory Decision Making


  • Vladimír Bureš Associate professor, Ph.D., MBA, Faculty of Informatics and Management, University of Hradec Králové, Hradec Králové, Czech Republi
  • Tereza Otčenášková Assistant professor, MSc., BA, Faculty of Informatics and Management, University of Hradec Králové, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic



Information society, case study analysis, decision making, meta-system,


Current society is characterised by increasing number of complex situations which require the prompt and efficient decisions. It has repeatedly been proved that humans confronted with complex situations fail to perform decision making at the desired level of quality. This study searches for understanding how the current information society influences decision making, which is not always as successful as we expect. The main research question of this paper aims at the identification of the factors limiting the outcomes of decision-making processes based on three case studies. The methodology includes the repetitive semi-structured interviews with domain experts and the consequent creation of three scenarios. The main finding, the set of characteristics of decision-making processes, is provided to consider more issues related to those situations and to eliminate their threats and bottlenecks. In addition to this, mutual relationships among characteristics are outlined with the help of the causal-loop diagram. Altogether, twelve characteristics of complex decision making typical for information society are identified in this study. This study reveals that due to growing complexity the decision-makers in the current information society have to deal with issues that are associated with the Law of Requisite Variety. This confirms that growing complexity of information flows represents an inevitable trait of the information society.


Ashby, W.R. (2011). Variety, constraint, and the law of requisite variety. Emergence: Complexity & Organizations, 13(1-2), 190-207.

Blecha, P., Mikulecký, P., Tučník, P., & Matyska, J. (2016). Smart home environment - Agent-based models with scenarios implementation support. In Global Information Infrastructure and Networking Symposium (pp. 1- 5). New York, NY: IEEE.

Buntaine, M.T., Daniels, B., & Devlin, C. (2018). Can information outreach increase participation in community-driven development? A field experiment near Bwindi National Park, Uganda. World Development, 106, 407-421.

Bureš, V. (2017). A Method for Simplification of Complex Group Causal Loop Diagrams Based on Endogenisation, Encapsulation and Order-Oriented Reduction. Systems, 5(3), 46.

Bureš, V., Jašíková, V., Otčenášková, T., Kolerová, K., Zubr, V., & Marešová, P.: (2012). A Comprehensive View on Evaluation of Cluster Initiatives. In Politis, J. (Ed.), 8th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance ECMLG-12 (pp. 74-79). Reading, UK: Academic Publishing International Limited

Bureš, V., & Stropková, A. (2014). Labour Productivity and Possibilities of its Extension by Knowledge Management Aspects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1088-1093.

Bureš, V., & Tučník, P. (2014). Complex Agent-based Models: Application of a constructivism in the Economic Research. E+M Ekonomie a Management, 17(3), 152-168.

Bureš, V., Otčenášková, T., Čech, P., & Antoš, K. (2012). A proposal for a computer-based framework of support for public health in the management of biological incidents: the Czech Republic experience. Perspectives in Public Health, 132(6), 292-298.

Corbett, E.A., & Smith, P.L. (2017). The Magical Number One-on-Square-RootTwo: The Double-Target Detection Deficit in Brief Visual Displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(7), 1376–1396.

Diehl, E., & Sterman, J.D. (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 198–215.

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482. 145346

Gonzalez, C., Vanyukov, P., & Martin, M.K. (2005). The use of microworlds to study dynamic decision making. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), 273– 286.

Gret-Regamey, A., Sirén, E., Brunner, S.H., & Weibel, B. (2017). Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept. Ecosystems Services, 26(B), 306-315.

Haigh, T., Takle, E., Andresen, J., Widhalm, M., Carlton, J.S., & Angel, J. (2015). Mapping the decision points and climate information use of agricultural producers across the U.S. Corn Belt. Climate Risk Management, 7, 20-30.

Hájek, P., Procházka, O., & Pachura, P. (2017). Fuzzy cognitive maps based on text analysis for supporting strategic planning. In International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: IEEE.

Karakul, M., & Quadrat-Ullah, H. (2008). How to Improve Dynamic Decision Making? Practice and Promise. In Quadrat-Ullah, H., Spector, J.M., & Davidsen, P.I. (Eds.), Complex Decision Making (pp. 3-24). Heidelberg: Springer.

Kolerová, K., Bureš, V., & Otčenášková, T. (2014). Usage of System Archetypes in Business administration by top-managers. In Soliman, K.S. (Ed.). 23rd International Business Information Management Association Conference: Vision 2020: Sustainable Growth, Economic Development, and Global Competitiveness (pp. 1734- 1743), Norristown, PA: IBIMA.

Konstantinou, N., Constantinidou, F., & Kanai, R. (2017). Discrete capacity limits and neuroanatomical correlates of visual short-term memory for objects and spatial locations. Human Brain Mapping, 38, 767–778.

Meroni, G., & Plebani, P. (2017). Artifact-driven monitoring for human-centric business processes with smart devices: Assessment and improvement. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 297, 160-176.

Martin, J. M. (2017). The Global Informatin Society. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mikulecký, P., Olševičová, K., Bureš, V., & Mls, K. (2011). Possibilities of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments in Educational Institutions, In N.Y. Chong, & Mastrogiovanni, F. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments: Trends and Perspectives (pp. 620-639). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.

Niu, L., Lu, J., & Zhang, G. (2009). Cognition-Driven Decision Support for Business Intelligence. Heidelberg: Springer.

Osman, M. (2010). Controlling uncertainty: a review of human behavior in complex dynamic environments. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 65–86.

Picot-Coupey, K., Huré, E., & Piveteau, L. (2016). Channel design to enrich customers’ shopping experiences: Synchronizing clicks with bricks in an omni-channel perspective – the Direct Optic case. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 44(3), 336-368.

Quesada, J., Kintsch, W., & Gomez, E. (2005). Complex problem-solving: a field in search of a definition?. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(1), 5–33. doi: 10.1080/14639220512331311553

Rajagopal, V., Venkatesan, S.P., & Goh, M. (2017). Decision-making models for supply chain risk mitigation: A review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 113, 646-682.

Saaty, T., & Peniwati, K. (2012). Group decision making: drawing out and reconciling differences. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications. Postmodern June, 2018

Singer Fisher, E., & Burns, B. (2017). Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: New Strategies for Improving Outcomes. Emergency Medicine Practice, 19(5), 1-24.

Sterman, J.D. (2006). Learning from Evidence in a Complex World. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 505-14.

Sterman, J.D. (2009). Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Tremblay, S., Gagnon, J.F., Lafond, D., Hodgetts, H.M., Doiron, M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2017). A cognitive prosthesis for complex decision-making. Applied Ergonomics, 58, 349-360.

Turban, EE. (2007). Decision support and business intelligence systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Velasquez, M., & Hester, P.T. (2013). An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. International Journal of Operations Research, 10(2), 56-66.

Wang, H., Gong, Q., & Wang, S. (2017). Information processing structures and decision making delays in MRP and JIT. International Journal of Production Economics, 188, 41-49.

Wang, L., Wang, J.M, & Martínez. L. (2017). A group decision method based on prospect theory for emergency situations. Information Sciences 418-419, 119- 35.

Yu, L., & Lai. K.K. (2011). A distance-based group decision-making methodology for multi-person multi-criteria emergency decision support. Decision Support Systems, 51(2), 307-15.

Zhou, L., Wu, X., Xu, Z., & Fujita, H. (2018). Emergency decision making for natural disasters: An overview. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 567-76.




How to Cite

Bureš, V., & Otčenášková, T. (2018). Complexity of Information Society Prevents Achievement of Satisfactory Decision Making. Postmodern Openings, 9(2), 175-195.



Research Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Publish your work at the Scientific Publishing House LUMEN

It easy with us: publish now your work, novel, research, proceeding at Lumen Scientific Publishing House

Send your manuscript right now