Abstract
From its foundation in 1981, the goal of the International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP) Working Group 8.3 has been to share ideas about the design, development, use, and impact of systems intended to support decision makers and about the process of decision-making – in other words, to contribute to the accumulation of knowledge in the field of decision support systems (DSS). The working group organised its first conference in 1982 and up to 2014, the group has held twenty major conferences with published proceedings. These proceedings include over six hundred papers authored by researchers from over fifty countries. This paper presents the story of the group and the contribution of its members via a bibliometric analysis of the conference corpus. This analysis examines the themes and domains of the papers published by the working group over the decades. This includes statistics on the country, institutional and individual contributions as well as citations and referencing history. The paper concludes with a systematic review of the contribution of the international community of researchers who have become members of the working group over the years.
1. Introduction
The International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) was founded as a federation of national peak bodies in information processing and technology under the auspices of UNESCO. IFIP established Technical Committee (TC) 8 Information Systems in 1975 in recognition of the maturing nature of Management Information Systems (MIS) as a field of research and practice. The 1970s also saw the establishment of decision support systems as a newly mature area of information systems research. Consequently, in 1981, IFIP TC8 established Working Group 8.3 on Decision Support Systems (DSS).
The stated aim of IFIP Working Group 8.3 was
‘The development of approaches for applying information systems technology to increase the effectiveness of decision-makers in situations where the computer system can support and enhance human judgments in the performance of tasks that have elements which cannot be specified in advance’
while the means it proposed to use were ‘To improve ways of synthesising and applying relevant work from resource disciplines to practical implementations of systems that enhance decision support capability’Footnote1. Resource disciplines included information technology, artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, decision theory, organisational theories, operations research and modelling.
The working group has organised twenty international conferences over its thirty-four years of existence, with the group’s 2016Footnote2 conference marking the 35th anniversary of the establishment of the group. This paper aims at providing a definitive account of the achievements of the working group to date by collecting, presenting and reviewing data related to all previous conferences. This data-set is analysed as a surrogate measure for the activities of the group itself in general: its characteristics in terms of output and contributors, the topics explored, and the references it has used and the citations it received. The paper is organised as follows: Section 0 provides a brief history of the working group; Section 0 explains the data collection methods leveraged by 8.3 researchers; Section 0 presents data related to contributions by countries, institutions and individuals; Section 0 explores the domain focus of papers over the years, while Section 0 analyses the citations and references involved in the 600 or so papers. The paper concludes with a short summary and a call for more research work in the context of the group.
2. A brief history of the IFIP Working Group 8.3 conferences
The working group organised its first conference in 1982 along with the forming of the group and this took place in Austria. The beautiful ‘Schloss’ buildings of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria (just south of Vienna) had been selected due to the fact that it was accessible to researchers on either side of what was then known as the ‘iron curtain’. A feature of the early days of the working group was to enable the interaction between academics working on different sides of this particular political divide. A bi-annual pattern of conferences was established, each conference planning the theme and location of the next event. The last international conference considered in this paper was held in 2014 in Paris, and in between 17 bi-annual conferences were held. In addition, there were 3 major conferences outside of the established bi-annual pattern, in 1991, 1993, and 1997. In total, twenty conferences and over 600 papers have been published. Thus, our analysis concentrates on the research published in the identified proceedings of the successive conferences. Over the years, special issues of journals were also published, most of which contain extended versions of the papers published in the official proceedings and we have not tracked these additional papers, although they are other outputs of the working group which would have been identified as such in the activity reports of the groups. A number of journals have published regular thematic special issues leveraging the most relevant papers presented at the different conferences. The Journal of Decision Systems for instance has published a special issue after every conference since 2002.
Table summarises the data related to each individual conference including its year, location (city and country), thematic, and the number of papers presented.
Table 1. Chronological list of 8.3 conferences and their themes.
The table shows that conferences have been hosted by nineteen different cities in twelve different countries. Typically, each location was associated with leading researchers and their institution(s) would have hosted or organised the event. Over the years, there has been a steady stream of proposals to host future conferences and this has served the group well. The 1996 and 2006 conferences in London, both organised at the London School of Economics and Political Science illustrate this pattern, as the Head of the Institute of Social Psychology at the LSE was a key researcher in the working group throughout its entire history. The 2000 conference in Stockholm is also interesting as it was organised collectively by a grouping of Swedish researchers affiliated to the working group. The 2004 conference was organised in Prato by Australian working group members at their campus in Italy to ensure the bulk of 8.3 researchers would not have to make the long journey to Australia. This choice proved to be an excellent one as the Prato conference remained the largest ever conference organised by the working group at the time of writing this paper.
Table lists all of the conference proceedings arising out of the conferences organised by the working group and provides links to those papers that are publicly available on the web. One key element in Table is the detail of the authorship of the proceedings: over the years, 35 lead researchers have served as editors of the proceedings, typically the programme chairs of the different conferences. Some names are repeated, indicating the leadership roles played by these researchers at various stages of the life of the working group: Hank Sol (4 participations as editor) clearly led the working group in its early stages, whereas Patrick Humphreys (5 participations) came to play a key role throughout the entire lifecycle of the working group (which he chaired from 2004 to 2011). One interesting pattern in Table is the evidence of gender balance in the scientific leadership of the working group. Where the early years of the working group were clearly male dominated, authorship has been quite clearly balanced since 2008. This has also been reflected in the make-up of the officers of the working group in the corresponding period. Arguably, this is a very strong sign of the development of the working group at a time where academia as a sector faces the challenge of establishing grater gender balance.
Table 2. Proceedings references and links to web resources, where they exist.
3. Data sources and collection methods
In order to analyse the published work of the working group, copies of all twenty conference proceedings from 1982 to 2014 were obtained, including the three special conferences held in 1991, 1993 and 1997. Each presented conference paper was scanned to create an electronic copy, and bibliographic data was manually extracted and stored in a relational database. Papers that provided introductory remarks to proceedings, or sections of proceedings, that were not presented as papers at a conference were excluded from the collection. Further, some special papers such as case studies for workshops where only the abstracts were included in the proceedings were excluded from the corpus. Consequently, data related to all such papers, introduction, special papers, or keynotes have been excluded from the analysis as well. In total, 634 papers from 20 conferences were included in the data-setFootnote3 for analysis. Bibliographic data recorded for each paper included the elements listed in Table .
Table 3. Bibliometric data elements.
It should be noted that authorship does not mean conference attendance. As is standard practice at information systems conferences one author is expected to attend and present the paper. It has been noted that for a given paper with multiple authors, it is unusual for all authors to attend the conference, unless all authors are from the hosting institution. As a result, analysis of the published proceedings does not match the analysis of the numbers of participants at each conference. Such analysis was not undertaken as part of this paper. Thus, in this analysis, only data relating to paper authorship itself have been considered. On the other hand, for all conferences, the number of papers is a good surrogate for the relative size of the conference relative to other conferences. For instance, as previously stated, the 2004 conference which has the largest number of papers was also the largest in terms of attendance with over 120 paying participants. The 2002 conference has the second largest number of published papers and was also the second largest in terms of attendance over the period considered in this paper.
The institutional affiliations of authors were categorised according to whether they were a university, a research institute based outside a university setting or a non-research organisation (such as a private company). Papers with authors from more than one country or institution were counted for each country and each institution - i.e. they were not discounted by the number of authors neither was it assigned to the first author only. This was intended to provide a truer picture of contribution and participation to the working group, in keeping with the focus of the paper.
Finally, papers were coded according to one of twelve domains indicating the decision-making area supported. Several domains only appeared a few times or could not be categorised specifically, these papers were coded under the general term ‘Industrial Issues’. The domains used are listed when analysing that data (Section 0).
Citation counts for the published conference papers were collected using Google Scholar. These citation counts include those made from within the conference. In addition, conference self-citation data was also collected, where self-reference means how many papers presented at later conferences have been building on previous results as presented at earlier conferences. The coding of the papers for the classification of the author’s affiliation, the domain supported and the collection of citation counts was performed by one of the authors, and then reviewed and amended by one of the co-authors. The collection of reference and citation data was executed during the second quarter of 2015, hence it might have evolved to some degree since then.
4. Contributors to the DSS conferences
4.1. Overview
Over the 20 conferences, 634 papers have been published by 877 individual authors who represented 361 institutions from 52 countries, not including those excluded from our analysis – see Table and Figure . This is a remarkable accumulated body of knowledge, and constitutes a substantial contribution to the discipline of DSS.
Table 4. Overview of contributions in numbers.
Figure 1. Key trends of contributions.
Many authors have published more than one paper. For each paper the mean number of authors is 2.18. The mean number of authors per paper has increased gradually over time. In the early years of the working group, the mean number of authors per paper was in the 1.45–1.74 range (during the 1980s), however, in the most recent conferences, this number climbed to as high as 2.74 (see Figure ).
Figure 2. Authors per paper over the years.
Contributing authors come from a wide range of institutions representing a large number of countries. The growth is a commendable reflection of the concerted efforts invested by successive officers of the working group to invite new researchers from increasingly diverse horizons into the group, especially since 2002 where the conferences have become noticeably larger. Arguably, this might also be explained, at least in part, by the increasing ease with which academics can communicate with each other resulting from the growth in use of the Internet. In any case, the change of scale in the number and diversity of contributors to the working group is evidenced in Figure .
The significant jump in numbers of papers, authors and institutions is evident in 2002 and 2004. Prior to this time, the conference was comparatively small, with most conferences including less than 40 authors and 20 presented papers, dominated by European authors. In 2002 and 2004 (and to a lesser extent 2006), a broader range of participants and a higher number of papers were included in the conferences. After 2006, the conference numbers fell back somewhat, but continued at a much higher level than prior to 2002. This suggests three different epochs in the conference history: 1982–2000 with small conferences, dominated by European and, to a lesser extent, US authors; 2002–2006 large scale conferences with a larger cross-section of authors from Europe, the US, Australasia and Asia; and 2008 onwards, with medium scale conferences, and a spread of authors from various regions, albeit dominated by European and Australasian participants. This slight reduction in attendance might also have been as a result of the recession and corresponding reduction in the funding available to academics to travel to international conference since 2008. Analysis of the attendance at other comparable conferences could confirm this notion.
Figure also suggests that the level of collaboration between authors has increased over the last two epochs. Although the number of authors per paper had increased through the first epoch (1982–2000), the rate of collaboration is particularly high (over 2.5 authors per paper) in the final epoch (2008–2014). Although smaller than the conferences of 2002–2006, the working group is now a more diverse, more collaborative community. This must be analysed in terms of the rate at which the working group was able to retain new contributors ‘friends’ in IFIP terminology, and convert them into members (after their second participation). However, the evolution of the membership of the working group, as stated earlier, is outside the scope of this paper.
4.2. Countries
Table presents an overview of the top twenty countries that have contributed to the conference. The table lists the countries in order of the most papers presented and also indicates how many conferences researchers from that country appeared at and all together how many authors presented over the years. In the 1982 to 2014 period, the UK has been the only country that has had at least one paper at each of the conferences. The ‘spanned years’ column displays the first and last appearance of that country in the period of analysis. The ‘longest continuous run’ award of having at least one author at each consecutive conference goes to UK, of course, with France being the runner-up with fourteen appearances in a row between 1992 and 2014. However, the USA is the largest contributor in terms of both papers and authors. If distance to travel was included, Australia would have to be singled out as having invested very significant resources in contributing to the working group.
Table 5. Summary of contributions by country.
4.3. Institutions
Table presents the most productive institutions, including the most papers and the most authors. Not surprisingly, the top 6 institutions have either hosted some of the conferences or have co-organised them in collaboration with other institutions in their country. Monash and Melbourne organised the 2004 conference at their Italian campus, whereas university College Cork, the LSE and UPMC have hosted the conference in 2002, 1996 & 2006 and 2014, respectively. This indicates the commitment of these institutions to the working group in general rather than just the desire to contribute to its research.
Table 6. Most papers and most authors from the same institution.
4.4. Individuals
It is also worthwhile to look for the most productive individuals – including the researcher with the most papers or the longest run. Another dimension that helps understanding the community of the conference is the return of authors, i.e. the proportion of regular attenders as opposed to one-time contributors – as in Table .
Table 7. Number of authors with a certain number of contributions.
Over the 32 years, there have been 48 members who participated in at least four conferences and also 48 who participated at conferences over a 10 year period or longer (i.e. at least two or more conferences spanning at least a 10 year period). The super set of these two groups consist of 63 members. One may call these people ‘the core’ members of IFIP Working Group 8.3. They constitute 7.2% of all the authors. It is useful to remember that participation means having a paper co-authored, although not necessarily attending (on the other hand, one might have attended without a paper). This interesting figure can be compared to the membership of the working group which stands at ca. 250 in the period 2010–2014.
Table shows the 12 authors with at least 10 papers over the 20 events. As shown in Table , there were 80 authors with between two and 10 papers, and 93 authors with exactly two papers. 691 authors submitted only one paper. One-time contributors thus make up 79% of all authors. Arguably, the proportion of single contribution is disappointing given that membership of the working group requires participation in at least two working group events, but there is anecdotal evidence that the group’s core is larger than is suggested by these figures, with some researchers attending the conference without presenting a paper.
Table 8. Number of papers by the most productive authors (incl. co-authorship).
As shown in Table , over the last 8 conferences 42% to 57% of authors submitted to that conference only. Prior to 2000 this fluctuated from 20% to 83%.
Table 9. Number and proportion of authors who attended a given conference only.
Interestingly, the hypothesis that the proportion of non-returning attendees is related to the size of the conference (i.e. larger conferences have a higher proportion of contributions by non-members who attend once) is not supported. The large conferences of 2002, 2004 and 2006 have an average proportion of authors who attended only one conference. This is because the membership of the working group is larger than the attendance at specific conferences and there is a natural rotation with the membership of the group in terms of attendance. The 2002 and 2004 conference for instance, saw the return of many members who had not contributed papers for a while.
5. Domain focus
As mentioned earlier, each conference had a dedicated theme (see Table ). These themes have been identified at the successive business meetings of the working group, often proposed by the would-be host of the next conference and accepted by present group members. As is evident in Table , the thematic have alternated between following broad trends within the IS field, towards novel concepts and ideas (e.g. DSS 2.0), and trying to refocus the efforts of the working group on the important core topics of the DSS field (Decision Support Systems: A Decade in Perspective).
Table 10. Title of conferences – indicating the focused theme of each event.
However, irrespective of the actual theme, there has been a wide range of recurring domains discussed over the years with a few areas being strongly represented. The domains here do not represent scientific areas or disciplines, rather, consider practical fields on the one hand (i.e. from what field the problem being supported comes) and decision support aspects (i.e. whether the main question relates to technical or general decision-making issues if there is no specific area of focus) – see Table .
Table 11. Domains for coding of papers.
The interest in supported domains and DSS areas has changed considerably over time as presented in Figure - yet, at the same time, the group remained focused on support issues related to decision-making. The dichotomy between the focus on decision-making issues on the one hand and technical issues on the other hand is arguably exactly as it should be in a field of inquiry such as DSS, as it reveals a well-balanced dual focus on both the domain of application and the underlying tools and techniques / technology. It is very interesting however to see that the balance between these two focal points has shifted from conference to conference and the equilibrium in Table is achieved over the period of analysis rather than within each of the conferences.
Figure 3. Focus of domains of individual conferences over time.
Generally, in the early conferences, working group authors investigated general aspects of decision support, considering both relevant questions of decision-making and issues related to the development aspects of DSS. These two topics dominated the early discourses, taking as much as 52–76% of papers over the first four events. In later conferences, technical issues became less relevant (with the exception of 2000, indicating the emergence of Internet-based solutions). On the other hand, general decision-making aspects kept strong over the three decades: except for the last three conferences when it stayed under 8% (and even disappeared from 2012), it had a steady presence of 13–56%, typically being addressed by 23–27%, or one quarter of the papers.
In conclusion, while the most important topic of the conference through the lens of papers were about general decision-making and decision support issues, there was a good range of real-life professional and industrial questions covered as well.
6. Citations and referencing
6.1. Referencing within the conferences
This analysis looks at a rarely used measure, citation within the conference series. This investigation was focused on how many papers presented at later conferences of the series relied on and referenced publications from earlier events of the working group. This analysis is presented in Table .
Table 12. Citation of conference papers by later conference papers within IFIP 8.3.
Firstly, many of the citations to earlier conferences, 43% to be precise, are to the previous conference and altogether more than 60% of citations are focused on papers published no more than two conferences back. Furthermore, with the exception of 1986 and 2002 each conference predominantly referenced the previous one (excluding the 1991, 1993, and 1997 events which were too close to the normal conferences to allow for cross referencing). On the one hand, this pattern could be analysed as a failure to remember earlier research, however, there is also evidence of papers citing research from as far back as 10 years earlier or more. The oldest references stand at 22 years (a 1990 paper cited in a 2014 paper) and 20 years (a 1986 paper cited in a 2006 paper). Thus, the average age of back-references is just over 10 years which confirms that the working group community is truly accumulating knowledge in an organised fashion.
Interestingly, there are cases of papers referencing other papers from the same conference: almost all of these cases have at least one shared co-author from the same institution (the exception is the 1997 ‘extra’ meeting, when most papers were improved versions of the 1994 conference - thus authors had been aware of other papers).
The conference which saw most papers referencing earlier papers was the 2006 event with 32 citations of earlier 8.3 works. In this event’s proceedings, there were exceptionally high number of references not only to the previous conference of 2004, but also to the one before, 2002.
Overall, the conference that has been referenced the most is the 1988 conference with 32 citations of its papers by later conference papers. Some conferences are ‘remembered’ longer than others (not counting the extra meetings): most conferences were ‘remembered’ for at least ten years, while the ‘longest impact’ award goes to 1992, from where a paper was referenced as late as 2014. Looking at conferences with at least five previous instalments, 1996 has the ‘shortest memory’: referencing back to eight years only.
As for actual individuals Table displays who were citing the most within the 8.3 community and who were cited the most from within the community. The positioning of Patrick Humphreys at the top of both tables is an accurate reflection of his sustained contribution to the core topics in the working group. His contribution is therefore recognised both from administration as well as research leadership view points within the working group.
Table 13. Authors citing and authors cited within the conference series.
6.2. References to conference papers
It is interesting to note that some papers have been published in journals a short time after the conference. These journal versions are typically more likely to be cited by others. A prime example from 8.3 is the paper titled ‘Decision Support Systems: The Next Decade’ presented by Peter Keen in 1986 and later published in Decision Support Systems Journal: the former appears to have received no citations while the latter had received 500 – indeed, Google Scholar does not even recognise the former paper as being separate.
This may be explained by the publication timelines typical at the time of the earlier conferences where it was common for the published proceedings to come out in the year after the conference itself. During this time, papers could be improved upon and submitted to more widely distributed journal outlets, appearing at roughly the same time as the earlier, less developed conference publication.
Regardless of the cause, journal versions are more likely to be referenced due to higher respect for such publications as well as due to higher visibility of those outlets. It remains a key concern for the officers of the working group that the citation count of 8.3 proceedings is not at the same level as that of other international conferences in the discipline, such as ECIS or ICIS. Arguably, this problem is not unique to 8.3, but is shared with many other IFIP working groups, especially those that are most specialised.
Beyond the most cited papers in Table , Table summarises the most cited authors with respect to their 8.3 papers according to Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that the most cited papers are not the oldest papers (as citations accumulate, one could expect older papers to be more cited on average). The fact that the 2004 conference seems to be over represented in Table seems to indicate that access to the proceedings plays a role in a paper being cited. Attendance at the conference may also play a role as 2004 was the largest event in the period considered. The scholar index of the corpus is 27 and its i10 is 94.
Table 14. Most cited conference papers based on Google Scholar.
Table 15. Authors with papers cited at least fifty times, as per Google Scholar (GS).
The data in Table is not surprising as the most heavily cited authors within 8.3 proceedings are also those most heavily cited generally. Both Graeme Shanks and Patrick Brezillon have several thousand citations in their record. On the other hand, Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigner, are under-cited within 8.3 in comparison to the thousands of citations their work on Business Models has received elsewhere, perhaps reflecting the fact that they have only contributed one paper (in 2002).
7. Some concluding remarks
This paper presented some key observations related to the conferences organised by the IFIP Working Group 8.3 on Decision Support Systems. The intent was to provide an account of the accumulated research efforts invested by researchers under the 8.3 banner over a 35-year period. Our analysis pays tribute to all the contributors of the group, especially to those individuals who contributed the most to the conference series, numerically speaking, and that this paper will offer an opportunity for future researchers to use this data and approach as a reference.
The working group has had a strong influence on the early development of the DSS field during the 1980s, with key figures publishing in the conference series. As the working group matured through the 2000s, the conference size expanded significantly, and broadened to include a wider cross-section of nationalities. The working group now is a more collaborative and diverse community. This does not mean that it should rest on its laurels, however. Engagement with modern DSS practice, working with practitioners in business intelligence and business analytics, from a diverse range of locations beyond Europe, the US and Australasia is important to the on-going health and relevance of our research community. The low citation count over the period also indicates that the positioning of the working group in research indexes must be given some consideration.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
3. Some data can be viewed at http://dsslab.infotech.monash.edu/ifip83analysis
References
- Adam, F., Brézillon, P., Humphreys, P. C., & Pomerol, J. C. (Eds.). (2002). Decision making and decision support in the internet age. Cork, IRL: Oaktree Press.
- Adam, F., Brézillon, P., Carlsson, S., & Humphreys, P. C. (Eds.). (2006). Creativity and innovation in decision making and decision support. London, Peterborough: Decision Support Press.
- Berkeley, D., Widmeyer, G. R., Brézillon, P., & Rajkovic, V. (Eds.) (1998). Context sensitive decision support systems, IFIP TC8/WG8.3 International Conference, Springer Science & Business Media, USA and Kluwer, The Netherlands.
- Bots, P. W. G., Sol, H. G., & Traunmüller, R. (Eds.). (1993). Decision support in public administration, Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.3 Working Conference, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
- Carlsson, S. A., & Rajkovič, V. (Eds.). (2000). Decision support through knowledge management. Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
- Humphreys, P. C., Bannon, L. J., McCosh, A., Migliarese, P., & Pomerol, J. Ch. (Eds.). (1996). Implementing systems for supporting management decisions. London: Chapman and Hall.
- Humphreys, P. C., Ayestaran, S., McCosh, A., & Mayon-White, W. M. (Eds.). (1997). Decision support in organisational transformation. London: Chapman and Hall.
- Jelassi, T., Klein, M. R., & Mayon-White, W. M. (Eds.) (1992). Decision support systems: experiences and expectations, Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.3 Working Conference, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
- Lee, R. M., McCosh, A. M., & Migliarese, P. (1988). Organizational decision support systems: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.3 Working Conference, North Holland, Amsterdam.
- Mayon-White, W. M., Ayestaran, S., & Humphreys, P. C. (Eds.). (1994). Proceedings of IFIP WG 8.3 Conference, San Sebastian, September 1994, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
- McLean, E. R., & Sol, H. G. (Eds.). (1986). Decision support systems: A decade in perspective: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.3 Working Conference, North Holland, Amsterdam.
- Meredith, R., Arnott, D., Shanks, G., & Carlsson, S. (Eds.) (2004). CD Proceedings of DSS2004, the 2004 IFIP WG8.3 International Conference on Decision Support Systems, Prato, Italy.
- Methlie, L. B. (Ed.) (1985). Knowledge representation for decision support systems: proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.3 Working Conference, North Holland, Amsterdam.
- Phillips-Wren, G. E., Carlsson, S., Respício, A., & Brezillon, P. (Eds.) (2014). DSS 2.0 – Supporting decision making with new technologies. Amsterdam, Washington: IOS Press.
- Respicio, A., & Burstein, F. (Eds.). (2012). Fusing DSS into the fabric of the context. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. Amsterdam, Washington: IOS Press.
- Respício, A., Adam, F., Phillips-Wren, G., Teixeira, C., & Telhada, J. (Eds.). (2010). Bridging the socio-technical gap in decision support systems - Challenges for the next decade. Amsterdam, Washington: IOS Press.
- Sol, H. G. (Ed.) (1983). Processes and tools for decision support: Proceedings of the Joint IFIP WG 8.3/IIASA Working Conference, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
- Sol, H. G. (Ed.). (1991). Environments for supporting decision processes: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.3 Working Conference, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
- Verrijn-Stuart, A. A., Sol, H. G., & Hammersley, P. (Eds.). (1991). Support functionality in the office environment: Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.3/WG8.4 Working Conference, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
- Zaraté, P., Bealuad, J. P., Camilleri, G., & Ravat, F. (Eds.). (2008). Collaborative decision making: Perspectives and challenges. Amsterdam, Washington: IOS Press.