IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/jumsac/294930.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selbst gemacht ist gut gemacht? Der Einfluss von Self-Service Reporting auf die Qualität von Managemententscheidungen

Author

Listed:
  • Stinshoff, Volker

Abstract

Instrumente des Self-Service Reportings haben das Potenzial, datengetriebene Entscheidungsfindung auf allen Ebenen zu ermöglichen oder zu erleichtern. Der Einsatz dieser Technologie wird maßgebliche Veränderungen des Entscheidungsverhaltens mit sich bringen. Bisher existieren wenige wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse darüber, wie der Einsatz von Self-Service Reporting die Qualität der getroffenen Entscheidungen beeinflusst. Diese Arbeit geht eben jener Frage nach und untersucht die Auswirkungen auf die Qualität sowie die Bereitschaft zum Treffen der Entscheidung in einem Investitionskontext. Es wird ein Experiment mit zwei Gruppen durchgeführt, bei dem die Probanden auf der Basis unterschiedlich präsentierter Informationen eine Auswahl vornehmen müssen. Die Ergebnisse des Experiments zeigen, dass der Einsatz von Self-Service Reporting einen negativen Einfluss auf die Qualität von Entscheidungen hat und zu einer geminderten Entscheidungsbereitschaft führt.

Suggested Citation

  • Stinshoff, Volker, 2020. "Selbst gemacht ist gut gemacht? Der Einfluss von Self-Service Reporting auf die Qualität von Managemententscheidungen," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 5(2), pages 223-245.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:jumsac:294930
    DOI: 10.5282/jums/v5i2pp223-245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/294930/1/5074-3281.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5282/jums/v5i2pp223-245?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Alpar & Michael Schulz, 2016. "Self-Service Business Intelligence," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 58(2), pages 151-155, April.
    2. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    3. Schweitzer, Maurice, 1994. "Disentangling Status Quo and Omission Effects: An Experimental Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 457-476, June.
    4. Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
    5. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    6. Sebastian Serfas, 2011. "The impact of cognitive biases on capital investments," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 427-446, April.
    7. Heath, Chip & Gonzalez, Rich, 1995. "Interaction with Others Increases Decision Confidence but Not Decision Quality: Evidence against Information Collection Views of Interactive Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 305-326, March.
    8. Kimberly M. Sawers, 2005. "Evidence of Choice Avoidance in Capital†Investment Judgements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 1063-1092, December.
    9. Cho, Hyun-Chul & Abe, Shuzo, 2013. "Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1261-1266.
    10. Brounen, D. & de Jong, A. & Koedijk, C.G., 2004. "Corporate Finance In Europe Confronting Theory With Practice," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2004-002-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    11. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1992. "Status-Quo and Omission Biases," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-61, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 2002. "Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions : The attenuating role of decision justifiability," Other publications TiSEM 44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Mourali, Mehdi & Yang, Zhiyong & Pons, Frank & Hassay, Derek, 2018. "Consumer power and choice deferral: The role of anticipated regret," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 81-99.
    3. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    6. Georgios, Gerasimou, 2013. "A Behavioural Model of Choice in the Presence of Decision Conflict," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-25, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    7. Christian König-Kersting & Johannes Lohse & Anna Louisa Merkel, 2020. "Active and Passive Risk-Taking," Working Papers 2020-04, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    8. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Cueva, Carlos & Gerasimou, Georgios, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-17, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    9. Connolly, Terry & Ordonatez, Lisa D. & Coughlan, Richard, 1997. "Regret and Responsibility in the Evaluation of Decision Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 73-85, April.
    10. Ropret Homar, Aja & Knežević Cvelbar, Ljubica, 2021. "The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    11. Böhm, Robert & Halevy, Nir & Kugler, Tamar, 2022. "The power of defaults in intergroup conflict," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    12. Seunghee Han & Jennifer Lerner & Richard Zeckhauser, 2012. "The disgust-promotes-disposal effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 101-113, April.
    13. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia J., 2004. "Effect propensity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 156-174, November.
    14. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Cueva, Carlos & Gerasimou, Georgios, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-17, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Yury Shevchenko & Bettina von Helversen & Benjamin Scheibehenne, 2014. "Change and status quo in decisions with defaults: The effect of incidental emotions depends on the type of default," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(3), pages 287-296, May.
    16. Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Jorien Veldwijk & Mattijs S Lambooij & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Henriëtte A Smit & G Ardine de Wit, 2014. "The Effect of Including an Opt-Out Option in Discrete Choice Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    18. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    19. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    20. Erica Mina Okada, 2010. "Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and WTA vs. WTP," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 75-84, 01-02.
    21. Rachel Croson & James Sundali, 2005. "The Gambler’s Fallacy and the Hot Hand: Empirical Data from Casinos," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 195-209, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:jumsac:294930. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://jums.academy/en/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.