the is expectation gap: industry expectations versus ...€¦ · expectation gap. previous...

Information Systems Curriculum

The IS ExpectationGap: IndustryExpectations VersusAcademicPreparation

By: Eileen M. TrauthManagement Information SystemsCollege of Business AdministrationNortheastern UniversitY214 Hayden HallBoston, Massachusetts 02115

U.S.A.

Douglas W, FarwellBull H.N. Information Systems300 Concord RoadBillerica, Massachusetts 01821

U.S.A.

Denis LeeComputer Information SystemsSchool of ManagementSuffolk UniversityBoston, Massachusetts 02108

U.S.A.

AbstractRecent changes in information systemstechnologies, applications, and personnel requireus to reconsider the skills for tomorrow’s IS pro-fessionals. This study uses data from fourgroups--IS managers, end-user managers, ISconsultants, and IS professors--to identify thekey skills and knowledge that will be required offuture IS professionals. These requirements werethen compared with current IS academic pro-grams. The results reveal that despite a sharedvision of the future IS professional, there is an"expectation gap" between industry needs andacademic preparation. Industry and universitiesmust work together to close this gap. Univer-sities need to place more emphasis on the

integration of technologies, applications, data,and business functions and less on traditionaland formal system development. Firms need tosend consistent messages to universities abouttheir expectations while recognizing that the mis-sion of university business programs is careereducation, not job training.

Keywords: Information systems education, infor-mation systems profession, informa-tion systems curriculum, training,skills, end-user computing

ISRL Categories: EH0201, EH0205, EH0208,IA01

IntroductionAre colleges and universities responding fastenough to the business and technology changesthat have redefined the role of informationsystems in today’s organizations? Are we pro-viding the right type of education for future infor-mation systems (IS) professionals? The studydescribed in this article was conducted to answer.these questions.

A key concern of curricular designers is strikingthe right balance between technical and businessknowledge (Rogow, 1993). Many believe that therapid pace of technological innovation demandsprofessionals have state-of-the-art technicalknowledge (La Plante, 1986; Sullivan-Trainor,1988), but others believe advances in computertechnology lessen the need for technical exper-tise (Young, 1988). Nevertheless, the skill mix formany IS professionals today favors technical ex-pertise over people-handling ability. The ISmanager who possesses sufficient human rela-tions and management training and can com-municate effectively remains a scarce and vitalresource (Ball, 1988; Carlson and Wetherbe,1989; Connolly, 1988; Nelson, 1991).

The IS education process has been criticized asincapable of producing qualified, employable ISprofessionals (Archer, 1983; Cardinali, 1988), anduniversities have been faulted for teaching ob-solete technologies and irrelevant-or obsoletecomputer programming languages (Mandt,1982). These accusations suggest an "expecta-tion gap" between the needs of industry and theacademic preparation of those intended to satisfythem. Meanwhile, professors complain of inade-

MIS Quarterly/September 1993 293


quate and contradictory advice from industryabout appropriate qualifications. Accreditationstandards also limit curriculum flexibility. 1 Final-ly, there is a delay between the design and im-plementation of curriculum changes.

Little previous attention has been focused on theexpectation gap. Previous discussions have con-sidered industry needs but not the role ofacademic programs in satisfying them (see, forexample, Cheney, et al., 1990). Where the ex-pectation gap is discussed (for example, Rifkin,1987), the evidence is anecdotal and general innature. Despite the publication by professionalassociations, such as the DPMA and the ACM,of curriculum guides (Data Processing Manage-ment Association, 1981; 1985; 1990; Nunamaker,1981; Nunamaker, et al., 1982), there appearsto be insufficient input from industry about thequality and relevance of IS education (Buck-ingham, 1987). In such a rapidly evolving field,thero is a need to continuously and systematicallyexamine the fit between the skills and knowledgepossessed by IS graduates and the requirementsof industry.

cation skills, analytical ability, and problemsolving.

In phase three, focus group sessions were con-ducted with IS managers, consultants, pro-fessors, and recent graduates of IS academicprograms. IS managers and consultants wereasked to describe the "ideal" IS professional,while recent graduates of IS programs wereasked to discuss how their IS program is con-tributing to the achievement of career goals. ISprofessors were asked to comment on key issuesthat they face in providing a relevant IS educa-tion to their students. The dominant theme thatemerged from the practitioners was the need fora "high quality person" with general intellectualdepth, solid interpersonal and communicationsskills, and some functional business knowledge.Professors were primarily concerned about hav-ing the necessary resources to enable schoolsto simulate the problem-solving environment ofthe workplace. Graduates noted that in schoolthey were given small, isolated problems that didnot prepare them to bring together disparateparts in the solution of large, "real world"problems.

Data CollectionIn research involving several phases, bothqualitative and quantitative data were collectedfrom 1987 to 1992. Phase one involved a "brainstorming" session of CIOs, vendors, consultants,and professors. This session focused on thegrowing concern among IS practitioners aboutthe relevance of IS curricula in the face ofdistributed computing and the explosive growthof new technologies.

In phase two, telephone interviews were con-ducted with IS practitioners to discuss: (1) entry-level job descriptions; (2) satisfaction with newhires; (3) recommendations for IS curricula; and(4) qualifications of IS professionals in the future.Respondents frequently discussed the decline ofcomputer programming, an activity that hashistorically been at the core of the IS profession.In the respondents’ view, as IS personnel moveto the functional areas of the firm, fourth genera-tion tools, packaged software, end-user com-puting, and business process analysis havegrown in importance. Respondents recommend-ed that university programs place greater em-phasis on "real world" experience, communi-

Expectation GapThe qualitative data captured in the first threephases of this research confirmed the gap be-tween practitioner needs and graduates’ abilities.Tlhe researchers attributed this expectation gapto problems with the relevance of IS curricula.Further, it was expected that this "curriculumgap" resulted from the absence of a shared vi-sion of the appropriate knowledge and skill mixfor the IS professional. Therefore, phase fourrelied on a structured method to provide quan-titative data about appropriate knowledge andskills and the academic emphasis on them. Aquestionnaire was mailed in 1989 to IS managersin both IS and functional departments, IS con-sultants, and IS professors throughout NewEngland.2 The questionnaire contained a seriesof task and knowledge/skill inventories drawnfrom previous research, curriculum guidespublished by professional societies (Data Pro-cessing Management Association, 1981; 1985;1990; Nunamaker, 1981; Nunamaker, et al.,1982), the qualitative results from the previousphases, and the experience of the research

294 MIS Quarterly~September 1993


team.3 The questionnaire was arranged intothree categories: (1) tasks IS professionals per-form; (2) technical skill requirements; and (3) terpersonal and business skill requirements.4

One hundred thirty-one (24.5 percent) question-naires were returned. Respondents includedsenior managers (68) and consultants (30), are both knowledgeable about current IS prac-tices and are in a position to comment on cor-porate needs.5 (See Table 1 for respondentprofiles.) Thirty-three IS faculty also responded,representing a variety of colleges and a widerange of educational settings.

The curriculum gapThe mean score rankings6 shown in Table 2clearly revealed a curriculum gap. The mostnotable differences between the priorities ofeducators and practitioners fell into two areas:integration and management.

While the three integration tasks7 in the survey.were ranked very high by practitioners, they wereof low priority among the faculty. Apparently ISprofessionals who must deal with the changingcorporate and competitive environment see in-tegration as a means of adding value and improv-ing information access. But faculty appearunable, unwilling, or uninterested in helping inthis critical area. Faculty in the focus groups oftenfelt that they did not have the tools to teachstudents about the hands-on aspects of in-tegrating technology and business applications.

A different profile resulted for tasks related to thesystems development process. Although theseare heavily emphasized in academic programs,their importance to practitioners is diminishing.Practitioners generally suggested placing lessemphasis on traditional systems development. Inan increasingly time-sensitive business arena, ef-ficiency and elegance of process may be less im-portant than effectively focusing new technolo-gies on business problems.

Table la. Respondent Profiles by Stakeholder Group:IS Managers and End-User Managers

IS Managers End-User Managers(n = 52) (n = 16)

IndustryManufacturingService

58o/0 56%42% 440/o

Company SizeSmall (’ $250 M) 18% 33%Medium ($250 M - $1b) 45% 48%Large (’ $1b) 37% 27%

Job FunctionCorporate / Division ISFunctionalCross-functionalOther

Organizational PositionCorporate / Divisional ExecutiveMiddle Level ManagerProfessional Staff

Average Professional Experience (Years)

84% 0%10% 53%0% 47%6% 0%

85% 44%15% 44%0% 12%

19.4 15.2



Table lb. Respondent Profiles by Stakeholder Group:IS Consultants (n = 30)

Nature of ConsultingBusinessTraining/Placement

Types of Consulting Activities*Strategic Planning / Needs AssessmentSystems Procurement/Implement/DesignMarket Analysis, ForecastingContract Programming

Average Professional Experience (Years)

77%23%

78%36%20%20%

20.3

* Categories are not mutually exclusive.

Table lc. Respondent Profiles by Stakeholder Group:IS Professors (n = 33)

Number of Universities Represented

Location of IS DepartmentWithin Business SchoolWithin Other Schools

Autonomy of IS DepartmentIndependent DepartmentPart of Another Department

Average Teaching Experience (Years)

17

86%14%

44%56%

10.5

There is also a gap in the emphasis placed ontechnical integration. Among the 10 skills rankedas most important by practitioners were four thatrelate to working in a distributed computing en-vironment. Only one of these--telecommuni-cations-is ranked among the top 10 technicalskills emphasized in IS curricula.

Once again, certain skills emphasized in schoolsare less valued by practitioners. Two highly em-phasized technical topics in IS curricula relate toprogramming languages. But practitioners thinkthat knowledge of COBOL or some other thirdgeneration language is decreasing in importance.Instead they increasingly value knowledge of afourth generation language. Another technicalskill showing a discrepancy in priority issystems/structured analysis. Once again, a time-

critical IS environment may be driving practi-tioners to replace life cycle tasks with techniquessuch as prototyping, intended to speed up theapplication of information technology.

Among the human, business, and technicalabilities, the most pronounced mismatch inpriorities relates to interaction with customers.Maintaining a productive relationship with theuser/client is viewed by practitioners as the mostimportant of this set of skills. It apparentlyreceives little attention in the classroom.

S,hared visionThe survey confirmed a curriculum gap betweenwhat is being taught in IS degree programs andwhat practitioners require. Contrary to our expec-



Table 2. The Curriculum Gap

PractitionerFutureRank*

AcademicEmphasis

Rank

IS Tasks

Integrate Networks

Integrate Existing Business Applications

Integrate New with Existing Applications

Manage/Plan Systems Development/Project Implementation

Manage/Plan Feasibility/Approval forNew Systems and Technolgy

Technical Skills

Network

Telecommunications

Fourth Generation Languages

Systems Integration

Distributed Processing

COBOL/Other Third Generation Language

A Specific Programming Language

Systems Anaylsis/Structured Analysis

Abilities

Maintain Productive User/ClientRelationships

3 23

4 14

6 20

15 1

20 5

1 13

2 8

4 10

5 14

6 15

16 4

14 3

11 1

1 10

* 1 = most highly ranked.

tations, however, this gap did not appear to resultfrom the absence of a shared vision. Instead,there was considerable agreement betweenacademic and business respondents on the im-portance of certain IS tasks and skills (see Table3).8

The same seven tasks were ranked among thetop in priority for both groups. Tasks that receivedlow importance scores from practitioners alsoreceived somewhat lower importance scoresfrom academics. The fit between both groups’ vi-sion of important technical skills was also similar.

A finding from the focus groups was that a richcombination of human, technical, and business

abilities is a key success driver. Surveyresponses showed practitioners and educatorsagreeing on the importance of these skills (seeAppendix B). One important exception--"main-tain productive user/client relationships"--wasrated by practitioners as first in future importance,while academicians rated it as eighth. Recenttotal quality management programs aimed at im-proving dialogue and relationships among inter-nal and external customer/vendor pairs may haveinfluenced practitioner responses.These results suggest that there is only a modestdifference of vision between the two groups. Butthere is an implementation problem of translatingthat shared vision into the academic reality.



Table 3. The Shared Vision

PractitionerFutureRank*

AcademicImpodance

Rank

IS Tasks

Analyze IS Solutions to Business Problems

Analyze Business Problems

Integrate Networks

Integrate Existing Business Applications

Develop Databases

Integrate New With Existing BusinessApplications

Implement New/Changed Computer-Supported Business Processes

Analyze Software Packages-Evaluationand Selection

Support Existing Portfolio of Applications

Integrate Data Types

Support User-Developed Systems

Support Hardware

Develop In-House Applications

Technical Skills

Network

Telecommunications

Relational Databases

Fourth Generation Languages

Systems Integration

Distributed Processing

Data Management

Structured Programming/CASE Methods/Tools

Decision Support Systems

18

19

21

22

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

1

2

10

8

5-

21

20

24

16

25

18

5

2

4

6

7

10

8

12

11

"1 = most highly ranked.

RecommendationsIn the final phase of this research the results werepresented to the sponsoring organization. Thesefeedback sessions provided an opportunity toconfirm our interpretations of the data. This com-

pleted the cycle of practitioner involvement in thisproject. Through the various phases of practi-tioner involvement the key issues were identified,explored, analyzed, and, finally, interpreted. Theresults tell us that the expectation gap is real.However it is not caused by an incompatible vi-



sion of the future IS professional. The cause, in-stead, seems to lie with the slow process of cur-riculum change and implementation. Startingfrom a shared vision of the future IS professional,practitioners and universities must together ad-dress these implementation issues. To providea backdrop for the specific recommendations tofollow, we offer a description of this future IS pro-fessional, labeled "the integrator."

The integratorThe respondents described a new type of IS pro-fessional. This individual will possess traditionalIS skills but will be focused on integration ratherthan systems development, integrating activitiesassociated with joint ventures, mergers, downsiz-ing, globalization, and the ever-present demandfor cost control continue to be the most signifi-cant challenges faced by IS professionals. Thesetrends will continue to increase complexitythroughout the 1990s. However, as new orenhanced information technology becomesavailable it must be quickly and seamlessly in-tegrated into existing environments. Practitionersplace significant importance on the people andtechnical skills, as well as-the businessknowledge that such integration will require. Thefuture IS professional will be required to crosspolitical, organizational, and national boundariesin order to solve problems. The ability to carryout enterprise-wide tasks, such as business pro-cess re-engineering (Davenport and Short, 1990;Hammer, 1990; Hammer and Champy, 1993), willbecome the defining characteristic of this futureIS professional, replacing traditional systemsdevelopment.

IS professionals will devote as much effort inanalyzing business problems as in developingtechnical solutions. They will integratetechnologies and applications to provide betteraccess to corporate data. But they must alsomaintain a strategic orientation toward informa-tion technology investments. In order to ac-complish these tasks they will need certain keytechnical skills, which fall into four categories:(1) telecommunications and integration; (2) access and management; (3) decision supportand CASE; and (4) firm-specific technologies (seeAppendix B).

In addition to these technical skills, the future ISprofessional will need a strong contextual orien-

tation. This will include a deep understanding ofthe business units within which they will work, in-terpersonal skills necessary to work with the endusers, and an ability to effectively applytechnology in seeking solutions to businessproblems.

Impfications for IS curriculaEducators, for the most part, concur with this vi-sion but have reacted slowly in implementing re-quired curriculum changes. Bridging the gapbetween what IS practitioners expect of gradu-ates and what graduates have learned will requirea fresh look at the IS curriculum. Activitiesassociated with the formal systems developmentlife cycle will diminish in importance, while ac-tivities associated with the integrator role shouldbegin to take center stage. While analysis skillswill remain important, they will involve more thanthe traditional "systems analysis" skills requiredto critically assess business problems. Analystsmust also be equipped to re-engineer businessprocesses in order to best fit informationtechnology to business objectives. They musthave the skills to promote change and improve-ment and to understand and select from a set oftechnical alternatives the one most appropriateto the particular business context. The IS cur-riculum must also promote a strategic orientationtoward specific applications and the IS function.

The growth of end-user computing has causedthe tasks and skills associated with data accessto take on greater importance. Although most ISprograms are adequately preparing students forthis area, greater emphasis needs to be placedon fourth generation languages and the supportof information access and security.

The greatest need for curriculum change lies withthe skills and knowledge associated with integra-tion. These were a low priority in the schoolssurveyed but were the highest priority amongpractitioners. Acquiring this skill set may be dif-ficult to achieve, however, in a traditionalclassroom setting. Learning about integration re-quires a sufficiently complex environment so thatstudents can observe how disparate parts arebrought together. Schools with internship orcooperative education programs have a mecha-nism already in place. Practitioners can assist byproviding sites for student work placement or fieldresearch.

MIS Quarterly~September 1993 299


Further studyTwo issues arose in the course of doing thisresearch that suggest important areas for furtherstudy. One issue relates to the academic rewardsystem. University professors are rewarded forclassroom teaching and research but not general-ly for curriculum development. Further, pro-fessors conducting curriculum-related researchoften experience difficulty and delays inpublishing their results. The influence of theacademic reward system on closing the cur-riculum gap should be further explored.

The second issue relates to recruitment. Thisstudy suggests that companies are sending in-consistent messages to students and professorsabout the appropriate skill set. Despite the factthat tasks associated with developing and main-taining applications are perceived by practitionersto be declining in importance, current hiringcriteria and campus recruiters still place heavyemphasis on skills in such areas. Educatorspreparing graduates for immediate placement in-to IS positions may be using valuable curriculumresources to teach techniques that will soon be(if they are not already) outmoded and for whomthere is already a large base of skilled workers.Research that explores the dimensions of this"recruitment gap" would be a valuable additionto IS curriculum discussions.

Implications for the IS professionNeither practitioners nor scholars, working alone,can shape our field. The issue is not defining whoshould lead and who should follow but rathercreating a productive partnership. To do so wemust open up the lines of communication andchange perceptions. For example, during the in-itial data gathering activities, some IS managershad the impression that the purpose of the studywas to enable practitioners to tell educators whatto teach. Professors, meanwhile, at timesbecame defensive about their "turf."

A bridge is needed between the long-term educa-tional approach of the classroom and the short-term skills expectation of the workplace. Thisbridge can take several forms. One approachwould be for students to take more courses thatfocus on specific technologies, softwarepackages, and programming languages. Ac-creditation standards, however, place a con-

straint on the number of IS courses for which astudent can receive graduation credit. A secondoption is for schools and companies to worktogether to develop cooperative education or in-ternship positions to enable students to becomefamiliar with company-specific technologies andapplications. A third approach is in-house train-ing for new employees. However, only 28 percentof the respondent MIS managers indicated thattheir companies currently offer such programs.No matter which options are chosen, the rapidpace of technological innovation coupled with en-vironmental turbulence means that employeetraining will be an ongoing requirement.

ConclusionIn the past the typical career path of an IS pro-fessional was linear: from programmer tosystems analyst to project manager to ISmanager. Most IS professionals, seeking ad-vancement, would move through the same stepstoward the same goal. But the changes in cor-porate computing brought about by powerful yetaffordable technology, end-user developed ap-plications, off-the-shelf software, increased useof telecommunications, and the increased use ofsystems integration houses and outsourcing havecreated many new career paths. We find that theIS profession is being pulled in opposite direc-tions. One is toward a more business and humanorientation. The other is toward the technical skillrequired to maintain a firm’s technology in-frastructure. The result is a knowledge explosion."l’he range of IS knowledge and skill that mustbe available to a firm has expanded and diver-sified. No longer can one individual or a singlecurriculum be all things to all people. Just as thesystems life cycle is giving way to integration as’the organizing principle of the field, the program-mer/analyst as the focal point Of the IS career hasbeen replaced by a range of career paths, asshown in Figure 1. These career paths havedistinct educational implications, entry points,and objectives (Trauth, 1988; 1989).

The technical specialist possesses deeptechnical expertise in an area such as telecom-munications, database, or operating systems.Those following this career path would work asindividual contributors in a scaled-down ISdepartment whose mission is to maintain the in-formation technology infrastructure of the firm.

300 MIS Quarterly/September 1993


TechnicalSpecialist

IBandwidth Telecommunications

Administrators Consultants

TechnicalOrientation

SoftwareDevelopment

INetwork

ApplicationsDevelopers

FunctionalIS

INetwork Applications

Managers

FunctionalOrientation

Figure 1. Continuum of IS Career Paths(Using Telecommunications Positions as an Example

The software developers work for software ven-dors, consulting and outsourcing firms, or(generally large) companies that still do their ownsoftware development and/or tailoring. The pro-grammer/analyst, which had been the typical"product" of IS degree programs, has beenreplaced by the functional IS career path. Endusers developing their own applications havereduced the need for specialists who design andprogram systems for others. Instead, these ISprofessionals must have a solid understandingof the business areas, as well as a broad rangeof possible technological solutions. This type ofIS professional may not work in the IS departmentbut rather in accounting, finance, marketing, orsome other area of the company. It is thereforeimportant that IS educational preparation be inthe context of a business education.

Closing the expectation gap requires the involve-ment of all stakeholder groups: professors, ISmanagers, end-user managers, and consultants.industry and groups such as the Society for In-formation Management need to communicatewith universities and help develop programs toexpose students to real-life integration situations.Academic programs, for their part, need to con-tinually reassess their markets and their customerrequirements. Without compromising long-termeducational benefits for short-term training, aschool can select from the continuum of IS careerpaths those that best suit its circumstances andcorporate customers.

AcknowledgementsThis research was sponsored by the BostonChapter of the Society for Information Manage-

ment. We would like to acknowledge the intellec-tual contribution of two other members of ourresearch team: Linda Kuramoto from the DMRGroup and Christine Winslow from Blue Cross.We would also like to thank Stewart Stokes andthe members of the Industry-Education LiaisonCommittee for their comments and suggestionsthroughout this project.

Endnotes

Current accreditation guidelines of the American Assemblyof Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) (AmericanAssembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, 1991) requirethat general education--that is, nonbusiness--courses com-prise at least 50 pement of the undergraduate student’s fouryear program. From the remaining 50 percent a student musttake a set of required business courses. As a result, thereis a limit on the number of courses a student can take in hisor her major area such as information systems.

Recipients were members of the Boston SIM Chapter, theSociety for the Management of Professional Computing, andIS professors at New England colleges and universities. Thesame skill inventory was sent to every respondent, but thephrasing of questions was tailored to each stakeholder’s posi-tion in the field. (See Appendix A.)

Practitioners were not asked what to include in the IS cur-riculum because educators are the experts in curriculumdesign. This became clear during the "brainstorming" ses-sion when practitioners’ views of the skills and knowledgeneeded by IS professionals, while valuable, were sometimescontradictory. One attendee sought "people who can hit theground running" and who would "be able to program rightaway in COBOL." But another attendee sought graduateswith a well-rounded, liberal education. Instead, practitioners’viewpoints were solicited on the tasks that IS professionalsmust perform and the skills and knowledge they mustpossess in order to carry them out.The questionnaires were pilot tested on a subset of thestakeholder groups prior to dissemination of the revised in-strument.



Given the uneven response rate of the three practitionergroups and the consistency of responses across them, ISmanagers, end-user IS managers, and IS consultants weregrouped together for analysis.

Appendix B shows the complete set of mean scores and rank-ings for tasks, skills, and abilities by practitioners and pro-fessors. For identification of a curriculum gap, differencesbetween "practitioner future" and "academic emphasis"were used. The reason that rankings along these two differentscales were compared is that each indicates prioritiesthrough the relative rankings of tasks, skills, and abilities.By integration we mean the ability to link business processesthrough integrating technology, data, and applications. Fiveitems in the survey specifically related to integration (see Ap-pendix B): integrate networks, integrate existing business ap-plications, integrate new with existing applications, integratedata types, and systems integration.

The shared vision was examined by comparing practitionermean scores and rankings on the future importance of thetasks and skill sets with academics’ view of the importanceof each item in the skill set mix of an IS professional. Weassumed a future orientation in the professors’ descriptionsas well because of the delay in implementing curriculumchanges. The length of the delay will vary. At some univer-sities a curriculum change is applied to the next freshmanclass, resulting in a four-year delay. Other universities mayimplement a curriculum change immediately. It is generallydifficult, however, to introduce a significant curriculumchange when students are in their third or fourth year.

ReferencesAmerican Assembly of Collegiate Schools of

Business. Achieving Quality and ContinuousImprovement Through Self-Evaluation andPeer Review: Standards for Business andAccounting Accreditation, AmericanAssembly of Collegiate Schools of Business,St. Louis, MO, April 23, 1991.

Archer, C.B. "What Does Business and IndustryExpect from Computer Science GraduatesToday?" ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (15:1),February 1983, pp. 82-84.

Ball, M. "MIS Hiring and Training: In Search ofBusiness Savvy," Computerworld, April 4,1988, pp. 57-59.

Buckingham, R.A., Hirschheim, R.A., Land, F.L.,and Tully, C.J. (eds.) Information SystemsEducation: Recommendations and Implemen-tation, Cambridge University Press, New York,NY, 1987.

Cardinali, R. "Business School Graduates--DoThey Meet the Needs of MIS Professionals?"Words (16:5), May 1988, pp. 33-35.

Carlson, P. and Wetherbe, J.C. "Test MBA Pro-grams for Reality," Computerwor/d, March 20,1989, p. 101.

Chancy, P.H., Hale, D.P., and Kaspar, G.M."Knowledge, Skills and Abilities of Informa-tion Systems Professionals: Past, Present andFuture," Information & Management (19:4),May 1990, pp. 237-247.

Connolly, J. "Managing MIS: Handle with Care,"Computerworld, May 23, 1988, p. 8.

Data Processing Management Association. CIS’86: The DPMA Model Curriculum forUndergraduate Computer InformationSystems, Data Processing ManagementAssociation, Park Ridge, IL, 1985.

Data Processing Management Association.DPMA Model Curriculum for UndergraduateComputer Information Systems Education,Data Processing Management Association,Park Ridge, IL, 1981.

Data Processing Management Association. Infor-mation Systems: The DPMA Mode/ Cur-ricul.um for a Four Year UndergraduateDegree, Data Processing ManagementAssociation, Park Ridge, IL, 1990.

Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. "The New In-dustrial Engineering: Information Technologyand Business Process Redesign," SloanManagement Review (31:4), Summer 1990,pp. 11-27.

Hammer, M. "Reengineering Work: Don’tAutomate, Obliterate," Harvard BusinessReview (68:4), July-August 1990, pp. 104-112.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. Re-Engineering theCorporation, Harper Business, New York, NY,1993.

L,aPlante, A. "MIS Management Criteria Shifting,Study Says," Infoworld, October 13, 1986,p. 33.

Mandt, J. "The Failure of Business Educationand What to Do About It," ManagementReview (71:8), August 1982, pp. 47-55.

Nelson, R. "Educational Needs as Perceived byIS and End-User Personnel: A Survey ofKnowledge and Skill Requirements," MISQuarterly(15:4), December 1991, pp. 503-521.

Nunamaker, J.F. "Educational Programs in In-formation Systems," Communications of theACM (24:3), March 1981, pp. 124-133.

Nunamaker, J.F., Cougar, J.D., and Davis, G.B."information Systems Curriculum Recom-mendations for the 80’s: Undergraduate andGraduate Programs," Communications of theACM (25:11), November 1982, pp. 781-805.

Rifkin, G. "Crisis in Education: Top StudentsShunning MIS," Computerworld, June 15,



1987, pp. 20-21.Rogow, B. "Putting the ’T’ Back into IT: Develop-

ing the IT Management Agenda for theMid-1990’s," SIM Executive Brief (4:1), Spring1993.

Sullivan-Trainor, M. "MIS Stares at SkillsCrunch," Computerworld, March 7, 1988, p. 1.

Trauth, E.M. "A Multifaceted Approach to Infor-mation Systems Education in the UnitedStates," presented at the InternationalBusiness Schools Computer Users GroupEuropean Conference, Fontainbleau, France,April 1988.

Trauth, E.M. "The Information Systems Field:Future Directions and Critical Decisions,"presentation at Western New England Col-lege, Springfield, MA, April 1989.

Young, J. "In the Hands of Laymen," Computer-world, November 2, 1988, p. 6.

About the AuthorsEileen M. Trauth is associate professor ofmanagement information systems in the Collegeof Business Administration at NortheasternUniversity. Her research interests include thesocietal and organizational impact of informationtechnology, information management, global in-formation technology issues, and telecom-munications policy. Her articles have appearedin such journals as MIS Quarterly, ACM Transac-tions on Information Systems, Information &Management, Journal of Systems Management,Telecommunications Policy, as well as in several

scholarly books. She has published a number ofpapers about IS education and is the author ofInformation Literacy: An Introduction to Informa-tion Systems. Dr. Trauth has taught in severalcountries, including Ireland, where she was aFulbright Scholar. She received her Ph.D. fromthe University of Pittsburgh.

Douglas W. Farwell is the director of manufac-turing systems for Bull HN Information Systems,Inc. Mr. Farwell, who worked for two othermanufacturers prior to joining Bull, has 20 yearsof experience designing and implementing infor-mation systems for manufacturing and distribu-tion. He holds a BA from Merrimack College andan MBA from Babson College.

Denis Lee is professor of computer informationsystems at Suffolk University’s School ofManagement. He does research on the manage-ment of both computer-based technologies andtechnical professionals. Dr. Lee has givenseminars and speeches to professional societiesand has published a variety of articles in his areaof expertise. He is a former member of thetechnical staff at Bell Laboratories. He currentlyserves on the editorial boards of the Institute ofElectrical and Electronic Engineers’ Transactionson Engineering Management and the Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management. Dr.Lee holds a BS from Columbia University, an MSin mechanical engineering from theMassachusetts Institute of Technology, and aPh.D. from the SIoan School of Management atM.I.T.



Appendix AStructure of Questionnaires

(Using the Sample Item: Telecommunications Skill)

Form A: MIS ManagersPlease indicate below how important the following IS knowledge of skills are in supporting the com-puting needs of your company, now and in three years:

NowNot ExtremelyImportant Important

Telecommunications 1 2 3 4 5

Three Years from NowNot ExtremelyImportant Important1 2 3 4 5

Form B: Non-DP ExecutivesPlease indicate below how important the following IS knowledge of skills are in supporting the com-puting needs of your department now and in three years:




Form C: IS ConsultantsPlease indicate below how important the following IS knowledge of skills are in supporting the com-puting needs of the companies with which you work, both now and three years from now:




Form D: CIS/MIS ProfessorsPlease indicate below how important it is for IS professionals to possess the following IS knowledgeof skills and the extent to which they are emphasized in your program:

Telecommunications

Importance to JobsNot ExtremelyImportant Important1 2 3 4 5

Emphasis in CurriculumNot HeavilyEmphasized Emphasized1 2 3 4 5



Appendix BSurvey ItemsTable B1. IS Tasks

Activity

Practitioner Academic

Future Currant Emphasis Importance

Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD

Analyze IS Solutions toBusiness Problems 1 4.53 0.62 3 3.71 0.94

A~alyze Bus!ness Problems 2 4.43 0,71 5 3.56 1,09

Integrate Networks

Integrate ExistingBusiness Applications

Develop Databases

Integrate New WithExisting Applications

Implement New or ChangedComputer-SupportedBusiness Processes

Manage/Plan CorporateIS Strategies

Support InformationAccess and Security

Manage/Plan Identificationof Strategic IS Application 10 4.18 0.75 18 3.19 1,01

Implement DataManagement Procedures 11 4.13 0.77 22 2.99 0.97

Train/EducateEnd Users 12 4,10 0,88 21 3.07 1.01

Train/Educate

3 3.73 1.00 1 4.48 0.51

2 3.85 1.08 2 4.46 0.51

3 4.37 0.89 19 3.17 1.13 23 2.48 0.90 10 4.04 0.89

4 4.34 0.82 7 3.48 1.24 14 2.96 1.12 8 4.04 0.66

5 4.29 0,77 11 3.40 1.06 4 3.62 1,13 5 4.08 0,74

6 4.28 0,82 6 3.53 1,07 20 2.75 0.99 5 4.08 0.74

7 4.25 0,67 9 3.44 0.88 10 3.12 0.95 3 4.11 0.82

8 4.25 0,74 16 3.27 1.16 8 3.26 1.10 14 3.88 1.03

9 4.25 0.87 15 3.28 1.00 13 3.04 1.19 17 3.65 0.89

7 3.29 1.04 13 3.92 1.09

6 3.37 1,01 11 4.00 0.69

9 3.17 1.31 4 4.11 1.01

IS Professionals 13 4.03 0.90 14 3.29 1.00 15 2.92 1.28 19 3.56 1.15

Manage/Plan ISTechnology Architecture 14 4.02 0.92 17 3.24 1.03 21 2.67 0.92 17 3.65 0.98

Manage/Plan SystemsDevelopment/ProjectImplementation 15 4.00 0.81 4 3.63 0.88 1 3.87 0.85 5 4.08 0,74

Support End-UsarComputing 16 3.96 1.03 20 3,13 1.05 17 2.87 0,97 23 3,50 0,81

Develop Application Soft-ware (Purchase and Tailor) 3.93 0,91 8 3.45 0.98 19 2.79 1.18 15 3.81 0.79

Analyze Software Packages--Evaluation and Selection 18 3,89 0.84 12 3.35 0.89 18 2,80 1.08 21 3.52 0,89

Support Exisiting Portfolioof Applications

Manage/Plan Feasibility/Approval for New Systemsand Technology

Integrate Data Types

Support User-DevelopedSystems

Implement SystemsEvaluation Process

Support Hardware

Develop In-HouseApplications

19 3.88 0.96 1 3,77 1.09 22 2.61 1.03 20 3.54 0.71

20 3.79 0.91 13 3.33 0.92 5 3.48 1.08 9 4.04 0.84

21 3.66 1.05 25 2.41 1.03 24 2.17 0.82 24 3.42 0.99

22 3.55 1.05 24 2.60 1.00 16 2,91 1,12 16 3,73 0,92

23 3.48 1.01 23 2.93 1.00 12 3.08 1.18 12 4.00 0.89

24 3.47 1.11 10 3.41 1.04 25 2,00 0.67 25 2.77 0,99

25 3.33 1.10 2 3.75 0.89 11 3,12 1.26 18 3.56 0.89

MIS Quarterly~September 1993 305


Table B2. Technical Skills


Future Current Emphasis Importance

Skill Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD

Network 1 4.43 0.80 3 3.44 1.03 13 2.78 0.85 5 4.19 0.75

Telecommunications 2 4.38 0,85 2 3.53 0,99 8 3.22 1.00 2 4.35 0.63

Relational Databases 3 4.37 0,68 11 2.94 0,97 2 3.86 0.83 4 4,19 0,69

Fourth GenerationLanguages 4 4.15 0.89 5 3,19 1.00 10 3.09 1,19 6 4.00 0.80

Systems Integration 5 4.12 0.99 6 3,17 1.03 14 2.65 0.88 7 3.96 0.77

Distributed Processing 6 3.90 1,07 12 2,81 1.05 15 2.54 1.01 10 3.85 0.78

Data Management 7 3.88 1.00 14 2.77 0.99 7 3.27 0.93 8 3.92 0,81

Other Technical Knowledge*8 3.78 1.40 17 2.42 1.07 16 2.40 0.89 1 4.40 0.55

Structured Programming/CASE Methods or Tools 9 3.69 1.10 15 2.49 0.96 9 3.14 1.04 12 3.69 0.97

Decision Support Systems 10 3.64 1.01 16 2,47 0.87 5 3.48 0.79 11 3.73 0.67

Systems Analysis/Structured Analysis 11 3.55 0.98 9 2.97 0.95 1 4,04 0.78 3 4.35 0.69

Systems Life CycleManagement 12 3.43 1.06 10 2,97 0.96 6 3.39 0.89 9 3,88 0.99

Operating Systems: Micros 13 3.41 1.18 8 3,06 1.05 12 2.95 0.84 16 3,31 0.88

A Specific ProgrammingLanguage’* 14 3.34 1.37 13 2.79 1,23 3 3.60 1.43 15 3.33 1.43

Expert Systems/AI 15 3.25 1,19 19 1.98 0.92 11 2.96 0.98 13 3.46 0,76

COBOL or Other Third ̄Generation Language 16 3,24 1.17 1 3.69 1.16 4 3.50 1.26 14 3,4:2 1.14

Operating Systems: Mini 17 3.22 1.24 7 3,11 1.04 17 2,09 0.75 17 2,88 0.65

Operating Systems:Mainframe 18 3.08 1.27 4 3.27 1,32 18 2.00 1.11 18 2.85 0.73

Assembly Language 19 1.82 1,03 18 ~.06 1,03 19 1.36 0.79 19 1,73 0.92

* Examples include executive IS, image processing, UNIX, end-user computing.** Responses were evenly distributed across C, BASIC, and Pascal.



Table B3. Abilities


Future Current Emphasis ImportanceActivity Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SO Rank Mean SD

Human

Be Close to Customersand Maintain ProductiveUser/Client Relationships 1 4.51 0.63 3 3.88 0.98 10 2.83 1.15 8 4.19 0.80

Accomplish Assignments 2 4.50 0.60 1 4.35 0.66 1 3.83 1.03 3 4.58 0.58

Plan/Execute Work in aCollaborative Environment 3 4.37 0.68 4 3.85 0.88 3 3.73 0.99 2 4.60 0.58

Be Self-Directed andProactive 4 4.34 0.72 6 3.81 0.96 7 3.22 1.08 6 4.31 0.74

Work Cooperatively in aOne-to-One and ProjectTeam Environment 5 4.33 0.70 2 4.04 0.81 2 3.77 0.81 1 4.68 0.50

Deal with Ambiguity 6 4.30 0.75 7 3.75 1.06 8 3.17 1.11 4 4.50 0.58

Plan. Organize and LeadProjects 7 4.22 0.78 5 3.84 0.90 6 3.43 1.04 7 4.25 0.68

Plan, Organize, and"Write Clear. Concise.Effective Memos,Reports, and Documents 8 4.03 0.79 8 3.51 0.88 5 3.65 0.98 5 4.38 0.75

Develop and DeliverEffective, Informative, andPersuasive Presentations 9 4.02 0.81 10 3.43 0.92 4 3.70 0.76 9 4.15 0.61

Teach Others 10 3.94 0.77 9 3.47 0.88 9 2.87 1.18 10 3.96 0.87

Business

Understand the BusinessEnvironment 1 4.61 0.57 1 3.83 1.03 1 4.13 0.97 1 4.69 0.55

Learn About BusinessFunctions 2 4.50 0.63 2 3.75 1.01 2 4.04 0.82 2 4.50 0.71

Knowledge of a SpecificBusiness Function* 3 4.48 0.63 4 3.40 1 ;00 3 4.00 0.71 3 4.29 0.76

Be Sensitive toOrganizataional Cultureand Politics 4 4.20 0.79 2 3.75 1.01 4 2.59 1.10 4 4.20 0.76

Technical

Interpret BusinessProblems and DevelopAppropriate TechnologySolutions 1 4.39 0.73 1 3.83 1.00 1 3.87 0.92 1 4.35 0.63

Focus on Technologyas a Means, not an End 2 4.28 0.83 3 3.63 1.00 2 3.35 1.03 4 4.08 0.93

Ability to Learn aboutNew Technology 3 4.12 0.68 2 3.68 0.75 4 3.17 0.98 2 4.27 0.83

Ability to UnderstandTechnology Trends 4 4.05 0.80 4 3.62 0.95 3 3.22 0.74 3 4.08 0.74

*Responses were evenly distributed across the range of functional areas.
