Bioenergy Decision Support Systems: Worth the Effort?

Daniel Wright
Aston University, Birmingham, UK

Prasanta Dey
Aston University, Birmingham, UK

John Brammer
Aston University, Birmingham, UK

Phil Hunt
Enco Energy Limited, UK

Ladda ner artikelhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3384/ecp110579

Ingår i: World Renewable Energy Congress - Sweden; 8-13 May; 2011; Linköping; Sweden

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 57:2, s. 9-16

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2011-11-03

ISBN: 978-91-7393-070-3

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


The purpose of this research is to explore the disparity between the existing model-orientated bioenergy decision support system (DSS) functions and what is desired by practitioners; in particular bioenergy project developers. This research has compiled the published bioenergy project development models; to highlight the characteristics emphasised by academics. When contrasted against a UK practitioner’s perspective through the administration of a Likert style questionnaire; it is clear that the general DSS issues still persist. Finally; the research suggests how this ’theory-practice’ divide could be addressed. The research contribute


Decision Support System; Bioenergy Project Development; Theory-Practice Divide


[1] C. P. Mitchell; Development of decision support systems for bioenergy applications; Biomass and Bioenergy; 18; 2000; pp. 265-278. doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(99)00099-9.

[2] R. Slade; C. Panoutsou and A. Bauen; Reconciling bio-energy policy and delivery in the UK: Will UK policy initiatives lead to increased deployment?; Biomass and Bioenergy; 33; 2009; pp. 679-688. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.10.007.

[3] D. J. Power; Decision Support Systems; Greenwood Pressed; 2002.

[4] S. B. Eom; The Development of Decision Support Systems Research; The Edwin Mellen Press Ltd; 2nd ed; 2007.

[5] D. Arnott and G. Pervan; Eight key issues for the decision support systems discipline; Decision Support Systems; 44; 2008; pp. 657-672. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2007.09.003.

[6] R. Brown and A. Vari; Towards a research agenda for prescriptive decision science: The normative tempered by the descriptive; Acta Psychologica; 80; 1992; pp. 33-47. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(92)90039-G.

[7] G. A. Gorry and S. S. Scott-Morton; a framework for management information systems; Sloan Management Review; 13; 1971; pp. 55 - 70.

[8] S. Alter; Decision Support Systems: Current Practice and Continuing Challenges Addison Wesley Longman ed; 1980.

[9] D. Arnott and G. Pervan; A critical analysis of decision support systems research; Journal of Information Technology; 20; 2005; pp. 67-87. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000035.

[10] R. A. Hirschheim and H. K. Klein; Crisis in the IS field? A critical reflection on the state of the discipline; Journal of the Association for Information Systems; 4; 2003; pp. 237-293.

[11] I. Benbasat and R. W. Zmud; Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance; MIS Q.; 23; 1999; pp. 3-16. doi: 10.2307/249403.

[12] A. E. Rizzoli and W. J. Young; Delivering environmental decision support systems: software tools and techniques; Environmental Modelling & Software; 12; 1997; pp. 237-249. doi: 10.1016/S1364-8152(97)00016-9.

[13] A. P. Wierzbicki and J. Wessels; The modern decision maker; In: J. Wessels; Model-based decision support methodology with environmental applications; Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000.

[14] M. Simo; L. Risto; A. Anna-Maria and J. Antti; Multi-criteria decision support in the liberalized energy market; Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis; 12; 2003; pp. 27-42. doi: 10.1002/mcda.341.

[15] R. M. Carlos and D. B. Khang; A lifecycle-based success framework for grid-connected biomass energy projects; Renewable Energy; 34; 2009; pp. 1195-1203. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2008.10.014.

Citeringar i Crossref