mis a model of the mis domain and its important papers, key contributors, and leading research...
TRANSCRIPT
MIS
A Model of the MIS Domain and its Important Papers, Key Contributors, and Leading Research Universities
MIS 696A Dec 16, 2004 Dr. Jay Nunamaker
Project Objectives Build on existing mappings of the MIS domain
Identify top academic contributors, adding a “completeness check” with sub-domain expert
Identify research papers within each sub-domain and re-classify them according to new framework
Display the landmark events for each discipline in a timeline format
Identify the top research institutions within the MIS domain
Classification FrameworkApplication
Theory
Technical Behavioral
Foundational
Extension
Exploratory
Review
School Listing Methodology Sources of rankings:
An Assessment of Individual and Institutional Research Productivity in MIS
Im, Kim, and Kim Decision Line Dec/Jan 1998 50 schools
Follow-up to same study Im, Kim, and Kim Decision Line Sept/Oct 1998 50 schools
School Listing Methodology Sources of rankings:
An Evaluation of Research Productivity in Academic IT
Athey and Plotnicki Communications of the AIS, March 2000 24 schools
U.S. News and World Report “Best Graduate Schools 2004”
MIS rankings 26 schools
U.S. News and World Report “Best Graduate Schools 2005”
MIS rankings 28 schools
School Listing Results Goal is to give an overview of academic
institution choices to a prospective MIS student
Final List: 66 universities around the world57 in the United States3 in Canada6 elsewhere in the world
School Listing Results - Tiers Classified into tiers based on which
studies schools were listed in Ten tiers in all Distinction made between “research-
centric” and “student-centric” rankingsResearch-centric: three studies that focused
on research productivityStudent-centric: USN&WR rankings
School Listing Results - Tiers 5 tiers of schools listed in both research-
and student-centric rankings:Tier I (7 schools)Tier II (4)Tier III (6)Tier IV (3)Tier V (2)
School Listing Results - Tiers 3 tiers of schools listed in only the
research-centric rankings:Tier I Research (10 schools)Tier II Research (16)Tier III Research (8)
School Listing Results - Tiers 2 tiers of schools listed in only the student-
centric rankings:Tier I Teaching (5 schools)Tier II Teaching (5)
School Listing - Categorizations We attempted to highlight the domain
areas in which each of our schools participates
Four methods of identifying areas of interest:Faculty interestsFunded labsKey researchersDepartment name
School Listing - Interests
1215
21
62
27
10
36
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Artific
ial In
tellig
ence
Collab
orat
ion
Data
Man
agem
ent
Decisi
on S
cienc
e/O
pera
tions
Man
agem
ent
Econo
mics
of I
nform
atics
Human
-Com
puter
Inte
racti
on
Socia
l Info
rmat
ics
Syste
ms A
nalys
is an
d Des
ign
Artificial Intelligence Hsinchun Chen
University of Arizona Digital Libraries and Visualizations
Edward Feigenbaum Stanford University Knowledge-Based Systems Research
Marvin Minsky MIT Important work in Neural Networks
Herbert A. Simon Carnegie Mellon University Father of Artificial Intelligence, General Problem
Solver
Artificial Intelligence Preliminary Description of General
Problem Solving - I Newell, J., Shaw, C. and Simon, H.A.(1957)
Dendral and Meta-dendral: Roots of Knowledge Systems and Expert System Applications Feigenbaum, E. A. and Buchanan, B. G. (1993)
Learning to reason Khardon, R. and Roth, D. (1997)
Artificial IntelligenceSchool Tier 1 2 3 4
MIT I X X
University of Arizona I X X
University of Pittsburgh II X
Arizona State University III X X
University of Michigan III X
University of Illinois V X
Drexel University Research I X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Collaboration George P. Huber
University of Texas at Austin Organizational change, organizational design,
and organizational decision making
Jay F. Nunamaker University of Arizona Group Decision Support Systems and
Electronic Meeting Systems
Murray Turoff New Jersey Institute of Technology Delphi method
Collaboration
Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Systems Huber, G.P. (1984)
Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., et al (1991)
Delphi and its Potential Impact on Information Systems Turoff, M. (1971)
Collaboration
School Tier 1 2 3 4MIT I X
University of Arizona I X X
University of Texas – Austin I X X
Georgia State University II X
University of Georgia II X
Arizona State University III X
Indiana University III X
University of Michigan III X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Data Management Edgar F. Codd (1924-2003)
IBM Research Laboratory Relational databases
Peter Pin-Shan Chen Louisiana State University ER model, database design, CASE
Michael Stonebraker University of California at Berkley INGRES and OO Databases
Ray Boyce IBM System R SQL and Boyce-Codd Normal form
PhotoNot
Available
Data Management A Relational Model of Data for Large
Shared Data Banks Codd, E. F. (1970)
The Entity-Relationship Model – Toward a Unified View of Data Chen, P. P. (1976)
The design and implementation of INGRES Stonebraker et al. (1976)
Distributed data base management: Some thoughts and analyses. Mohan, C. (1980)
Data Management
School Tier 1 2 3 4
MIT I X X
New York University I X
University of Arizona I X X X
University of Texas – Austin I X
Georgia State University II X X
Arizona State University III X
Indiana University III X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Decision Sciences George Dantzig
Stanford University Optimization, Linear programming
Hau Lee Stanford University Supply chain management, Global logistic system design
and control
Marshall Fisher University of Pennsylvania Supply Chain Management and Lagrangian Relaxation
Ralph Sprague University of Hawaii DSS, Electronic Document Management
Decision Sciences
A Framework for the Development of Decision Support Systems Sprague, R. (1980)
Electronic Commerce: Structures and Issues Zwass, V. (1996)
Decomposition Principle for Linear Programs Dantzig, G.B.; Wolfe, P (1960)
Decision Sciences
School Tier 1 2 3 4
Carnegie Mellon University I X
MIT I X X
New York University I X X
University of Arizona I X X
University of Minnesota I X X X
University of Pennsylvania I X X X X
University of Texas – Austin I X X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Economics of Informatics Yannis Bakos
New York University Economic and business implications of information
technology, the Internet, and online media
Erik Brynjolfsson MIT Organization of work, productivity, pricing and sharing of
digital information.
Ronald Coase University of Chicago Nobel Laureate, transaction costs
Haim Mendelson Stanford University Electronic business, networks, and financial markets
Economics of Informatics
Management Misinformation Systems Ackoff, R.L. (1967)
Bundling information goods: Prices, profits, and efficiency Bakos, Y. and Brynjolfsson, E. (1999)
The Nature of the Firm Coase, R. (1937)
Economics of Informatics
School Tier 1 2 3 4
Carnegie Mellon University I X
MIT I X X X
New York University I X X
University of Arizona I X
University of Minnesota I X X
University of Pennsylvania I X X X
University of Texas – Austin I X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Human Computer Interaction Douglas C. Englebart
Stanford University Mother of all demos, invented the mouse
Ben Shneiderman University of Maryland User interface design
George W. Furnas University of Michigan Information access, visualization
Terry A. Winograd Stanford University HCI design theoretical background and conceptual models
Human Computer Interaction
The Vocabulary Problem in Human-System Communication Furnas, G. W., et al (1987)
Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Language Shneiderman, B. (1993)
A Language/Action Perspective on the Design of Cooperative Work Winograd, T. (1988)
Human Computer Interaction
School Tier 1 2 3 4
Georgia State University II X
University of Michigan III X
University of Maryland III X
University of British Columbia Research I X X
Hong Kong University of S&T Research II X
Tel Aviv University Research II X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Social Informatics Rob Kling
Indiana University Effective use of electronic media to support scholarly
and professional communication.
Sara Kiesler Carnegie Mellon University Social and behavioral aspects of computers, group
dynamics, computer-based communication technologies.
John L. King University of Michigan Design and development of socio-technical
information infrastructures
Social Informatics
Computerization and Social Transformations Kling, R. (1991)
Institutional Factors in Information Technology Innovation King, J. L., et al (1994)
Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication Sproull, L. S. and Kiesler, S. (1986)
Social Informatics
School Tier 1 2 3 4
MIT I X X X
New York University I X
University of Minnesota I X X X
University of Texas – Austin I X X
Georgia State University II X
University of California – Irvine II X
University of Georgia II X X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Systems Analysis and Design Barry Boehm
University of Southern California Developed the spiral model of software development
Grady Booch IBM/Rational Booch method and UML
Ole-Johan Dahl & Kristen Nygaard University of Oslo Invented object-oriented programming
Edward Yourdon Cutter Consortium Structured analysis and design, author of 26 books
Systems Analysis and Design Simula—An Algol-Based Simulation Language
Dahl, O. and Nygaard, K. (1966)
Managing the Development of Large Systems: Concepts and Techniques Royce, W. W. (1970)
Structured Design Stevens, W. P., et al (1974)
Structured Analysis (SA): A Language for Communicating Ideas Ross, D. T. (1976)
A Spiral Model of Software Development Enhancement Boehm, B. W. (1988)
Systems Analysis and Design
School Tier 1 2 3 4University of Texas – Austin I X
Georgia State University II X
Arizona State University III X
University of Washington IV X
Georgia Institute of Technology V X
Drexel University Research I X
Florida International University Research I X
Florida State University Research I X
University of British Colombia Research I X X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Conclusion
Our Contributions:
Complete, concise, and more accurate reflection of the MIS academic domain
Updated framework with addition of role of paper in development of sub- domain
Selection and grouping of top academic institutions based on the type of research conducted in each university