MIS A Model of the MIS Domain and its Important Papers, Key Contributors, and Leading Research Universities MIS 696ADec 16, 2004Dr. 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 Framework Application Theory TechnicalBehavioral 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 schools  Follow-up to same study Im, Kim, and Kim Decision Line Sept/Oct schools

School Listing Methodology Sources of rankings:  An Evaluation of Research Productivity in Academic IT Athey and Plotnicki Communications of the AIS, March 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 world  57 in the United States  3 in Canada  6 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” rankings  Research-centric: three studies that focused on research productivity  Student-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 interests  Funded labs  Key researchers  Department name

School Listing - Interests

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 Intelligence SchoolTier1234 MITIXX University of ArizonaIXX University of PittsburghIIX Arizona State UniversityIIIXX University of MichiganIIIX University of IllinoisVX Drexel UniversityResearch IX 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 SchoolTier1234 MITIX University of ArizonaIXX University of Texas – AustinIXX Georgia State UniversityIIX University of GeorgiaIIX Arizona State UniversityIIIX Indiana UniversityIIIX University of MichiganIIIX 1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name

Data Management Edgar F. Codd ( )  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 Photo Not 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 SchoolTier1234 MITIXX New York UniversityIX University of ArizonaIXXX University of Texas – AustinIX Georgia State UniversityIIXX Arizona State UniversityIIIX Indiana UniversityIIIX 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 SchoolTier1234 Carnegie Mellon UniversityIX MITIXX New York UniversityIXX University of ArizonaIXX University of MinnesotaIXXX University of PennsylvaniaIXXXX University of Texas – AustinIXX 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 SchoolTier1234 Carnegie Mellon UniversityIX MITIXXX New York UniversityIXX University of ArizonaIX University of MinnesotaIXX University of PennsylvaniaIXXX University of Texas – AustinIX 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 SchoolTier1234 Georgia State UniversityII X University of MichiganIII X University of MarylandIII X University of British ColumbiaResearch I XX Hong Kong University of S&TResearch II X Tel Aviv UniversityResearch 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 SchoolTier1234 MITI XXX New York UniversityI X University of MinnesotaI XXX University of Texas – AustinI XX Georgia State UniversityII X University of California – IrvineII X University of GeorgiaII XX 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 SchoolTier1234 University of Texas – AustinI X Georgia State UniversityII X Arizona State UniversityIII X University of WashingtonIV X Georgia Institute of TechnologyV X Drexel UniversityResearch I X Florida International UniversityResearch I X Florida State UniversityResearch I X University of British ColombiaResearch I XX 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