Objectives. To identify the decision requirements
for the management of an organization. T o analyze the design of an information gathering and processing system intended to facilitate decision making and plan- ning and control. To analyze the concept of an infor- mation system. T o review the approaches and tech- niques available to evaluate existing systems. T o examine the concept of common data base for all func- tional modules.
Description. Nature of the decision-making process.
Operational, tactical, and strategic-level systems. Sys-
tem life cycle management. Basic analysis tools. De-
fining logical system requirements. Determining eco-
102
nomics of alternative systems. Prerequisites: UA8, and UC2 or UC8.
Course UD9. System Design and Implementation
Objectives. To provide the knowledge and toolsnecessary to develop a physical design and an opera- tional system from the logical design. To provide students with supervised and structured practical ex- perience in the development of computer-based systems.
Description. Basic design tools and objectives.
Hardware/software selection and evaluation. Design and engineering of software. Data base development.
System implementation. Post implementation analyses.
Long-range system planning. System development proj- ects. Prerequisites: UD8, and UC3 or UC9.
5. Programs and Scheduling
The courses described in Section 4 are the basis for undergraduate programs following the two concentra- tion options: organizational and technological. This section discusses how these options fit into four-year undergraduate programs and how they may feed into graduate programs.
5.1 Undergraduate Program Scheduling
The sequence of core courses shown in Figure 2, for both organizational and technological options, implies that the core concentration for the information systems speciality is fitted into the third and fourth undergraduate years. The typical undergraduate pro- gram must include general education components and general field requirements imposed by the department or school under whose auspices the program is taken, referred to as "university requirements" or "school requirements." The latter reflects the fact that these programs will most likely be incorporated in an under- graduate professional school, such as business or en- gineering.
There are requirements to be satisfied for the stu- dents major, including an application field in addition to the information systems core courses appropriate to each of the concentration options. These are referred to as "program requirements" for the core, and "paral- lel program requirements" for the other component of the "double m a j o r . "
Figure 3 gives a typical four-year program (as- suming five courses per semester, two semesters per year) for the organizational concentration in a business school, with accounting as the parallel program field.
Figure 4 gives a corresponding typical program for the technological option in an engineering school. To fit these requirements into arts and sciences programs is more complicated, in general, since there is much more variation in the "typical." Nevertheless, the programs given should be adaptable to such requirements in most university settings.
A further question which naturally arises is how the
undergraduate work prepares the student for a pro- fessional master's level program. The undergraduate preparation would be adequate to cover some but not all of the corresponding graduate components. In par- ticular, the D group courses should be taken in their entirety at the graduate level, despite the condensed coverage already afforded by U D 8 and UD9.
Figure 5 shows two one-year graduate programs, one for each of the undergraduate concentration options. The organizational concentration, Figure 5(a), enables the graduate program to be completed in one year and is consistent with the second year of the graduate program specified in the earlier report [2, Sec. 5.2.].
The technological concentration, Figure 5(b), in- volves five of the same courses, but also two additional graduate courses B2 and A2, reflecting the behavioral and organizational material not included in the under- graduate technological option.
Note that in the format specified, B2 and A2 are assumed to be offered in the first semester, which is at variance with their scheduling for the full two-year graduate program in the second semester [2, Sec. 5.1].
Also C3 and C4 are omitted for the student with an undergraduate technological concentration. Thus, in this case only is it assumed that the corresponding undergraduate courses, U C 3 and UC4, are sufficient substitutes for second-year master's level work.
6. Implementation
The graduate report [2, Sec. 6] also covers imple- mentation, and discusses institutional considerations, course interactions, and instructional materials related to a graduate professional two-year program, or the one-year program, or options in other programs. Many of the remarks made and conclusions reached there are also relevant to initiation of undergraduate programs.
There are, however, some differences that warrant dis- cussion and recommendation when undergraduate pro- grams are being considered. These are made here in the same three categories: institutional considerations, course interactions, and instructional materials.
6.1. Institutional Considerations
In Section 5, a number of alternative programs have been presented. In this section, the questions how such programs are to be started, where the program is to be placed in the institution, what resources will be required and how they are to be acquired will be discussed.
According to the estimates made by Hamblen,
1,700 institutions of higher education had a computing
center, and more than 500 had degree programs of
some kind in 1970. Most institutions are therefore
starting from some base. For those that have no degree
program and offer only a few courses under the auspices
of a computing center, the easiest approach is to grad-
Fig. 3. Typical course schedule for undergraduate program—organizational concentration (illustrated with accounting as parallel program).
\ T E R M
Y E A R \
1st Semester
First Year
Elective First
Year Finite Math*
Econ* English Science Elective
Sec- ond Year
1 S C H O O
Computer Program- ming*
L R Q M T S . 1
Intro.
Acct.
U N I V
Social Science
. R Q M T S . 1
Humanities Elective
Third Year
UBl Human &
Organiza- tional Behavior
S C H O O L R Q M T S . -
UB2 Operations Analysis
&
Modeling
Market- ing
Elective Elective
Fourth Year
UD8 System &
Informa- tion Analysis
UC9 Computer- ware
P/>
1 P R O G I
(e.g.) Cost Acct.
R A L L E L
( A M R Q M T S . 1
(e.g.) Intermed Acct.
Elective
2nd Semester
Elective Psych* English Science Humanities Elective
L - S C H O O L
Statistics*
R Q M T S . 1
Intro.
Acct.
| U N I V
Social Science
R Q M T S . 1
Humanities Elective.
I.JA8 Systems Concepts
& Impli- cations
UC8 Program- ming Structures
& Techn.
1 S C H O <
Money
&
Banking
) L R Q M T S . 1
Finance Elective
UD9 System Design &
Implemen- tation
P A R A L L E L P R O G R A M
Elective UD9
System Design &
Implemen- tation
(e.g.) Auditing Theory
(e.g.) Acct.
Theory (e.g.) Acct.
Prob. &
Cases
Elective
* Information systems prerequisite
Fig. 4. Typical course schedule for undergraduate progam—technological concentration (assuming program is in an Engineering College and industrial engineering courses are used as electives).
T E R M
Y E A R
First Year
Second Year Third Year
Fourth Year
1st Semester
Finite*
Math
• U N I V . R Q M T S -
Econ*
- E N G . R Q M T S .
English Science
- U N I V . R Q M T S . -
Social Science UBl
Operations Analysis &
Modeling
UD8 Info Systems Analysis
1. E . R Q M T S -
UC1 Info Structures
UC3 File &
Communi- cations Systems
Probabil- ity
Humanities
Elective
- E E . R Q M T S . -
Elem*
Com- puter Progr.
Elective
Elective
Elective
2nd Semester
U N I V . R Q M T S . -
Psych* English Science
- E N G . R Q M T S -
UA8 Systems Concepts
& Impli- cations UD9 System Design
& Imple- mentation
UC2 Computer Systems
Humanities
- L N I V . R Q M T S -
Social Science
Humanities
- I . E. R Q M T S —
Statistics Stochastic Processes
- I . E . R Q M T S . -
* Information systems prerequisites
Fig. 5. One-year graduate programs for students who completed undergraduate options, (a) Undergraduate program had organizational concentration.
1st Semester 2nd Semester
A3 Dl C3 A4 D2 D3 C4
Information Information File and Elective Social System Systems Software
Systems for Analysis Communi- Implications Design Development Design
Operations cation of Information Projects
and Systems Systems
Projects Management
(b) Undergraduate program had technological concentration.
1st Semester 2nd Semester
A3 Dl B2 A2 A4 D2 D3
Information Information Human and Organiza- Social System Systems Elective Systems for Analysis Organiza- tional Implications Design Development
Operations tional Functions of Information Projects
and Behavior Systems
Management
ually expand this set of courses in line with the recom- mendation given in this report.
Other universities may be in a position to offer undergraduate or graduate programs or both in other academic areas: computer science, business, electrical or industrial engineering. F o r these institutions the problem is to move to a new program.
Usually the stimulus for the creation of an informa- tion systems program will come from one of the exist- ing schools, and in the natural course of events, the program will be established there. Sometimes the initial interest will arise at the university level and some deci- sion a b o u t where to house the program will have to be made. Occasionally there may be more than one school or college that claims jurisdiction over the program.
Universities differ widely in organization and objec- tives and in the number and strengths of faculty in various disciplines. Also, because the field of informa- tion systems is still relatively new and because the information systems program interacts with most of the disciplines and programs at a university, it is not possible to give a generally applicable recommendation a b o u t the organizational location of the information systems program. The curriculum may be housed in the school of business, computer science department, or industrial engineering department—depending on the particular academic structure and interests of faculty.
However, unless an institution is particularly rich in computer faculty, it is i m p o r t a n t to pull together all faculty talent through j o i n t appointments with the department where the systems development program is to be housed. This approach enables implementation in the shortest time span. Later, when the program
grows to the point of multiple sections of courses, it may be advisable to begin hiring specialist faculty and to establish a separate department for the program.
It is possible, however, to list some considerations that should be included in the decision. Foremost, wherever the program is housed, its courses should be easily available to majors in other programs.
Implementation of a program requires resources in terms of faculty time and computer capabilities. Adop- tion of both options may be beyond the budget capa- bility of some schools. The Committee assumes that most schools will decide to adopt one of the two op- tions rather than both. The special circumstances and emphases of various schools will dictate a preference for one of the options.
Also, some schools will prefer to offer either the graduate or the undergraduate program, but not both programs. However, for a school where both programs are being considered, the approach shown in Figure 5 permits a student to obtain both a baccalaureate and a master's degree in five years.
Resources required for the programs include faculty to teach the courses, computer facilities, and facilities for students to obtain experience. The need for faculty to teach courses is covered in Section 6.2.. C o m p u t e r resources required depend on the particular alternatives chosen, but the a m o u n t and kind are not materially different f r o m that required for other computer related courses. One way to provide opportunity for experience is through a cooperative program.
Other institutional considerations include gaining
acceptance of a program. Students can be easily per-
suaded concerning the value of the program by show-
ing its relevance to the needs of the society and t o the
positions available to graduates. Faculty acceptance can be gained through the opportunity for association with a rapidly growing field. One area of concern is the question of accreditation by professional bodies. In most cases the implementation of the recommenda- tions made here should not lead to conflict with these bodies.
6.2. Courses and Course Interactions
Implementation of the program will require devel- opment and offering of a number of courses which are not now generally available to undergraduates. Of these, three could be taught in schools of business:
UB2. H u m a n and Organizational Behavior U B l . Operations Analysis and Modeling UA8. Systems Concepts and Implications
Six of these could be taught in the computer science department or in Engineering:
U C 1 . Information Structures UC2. Computer Systems
UC3. File and Communications Systems UC4. Software Design
UC8. Programming Structures and Techniques UC9. Computerware
and the remaining two could be taught in either:
U D 8 . Information Systems Analysis U D 9 . System Design and Implementation
A major feature of the graduate program is the concept of the program as an integrated whole. Students would enter the program as a class and proceed through the same set of courses and the same experiences. The faculty would view the program with common objec- tives and consequently plan the material to be consist- ent, integrated, and supportive through the program.
Although this approach is possible, desirable, and efficient in a professional program—certainly as an ideal—such an approach is usually not practical in undergraduate programs. The information systems courses are only a small part of the student's learning experience. This person is concerned with obtaining a general education at least as much as with getting enough practical training to obtain a first position.
Students may take a given course at different stages in their undergraduate life—even prerequisites cannot always be enforced consistently. Any given class will usually contain a mixture of students—some who regard the course as central to their interests; others who treat it as an elective for broadening their general education.
For all of these reasons it is not practical to expect much integration of the course material to be accom- plished by the program. Flexibility is much more important at the undergraduate level. The person gradu- ating from that program will therefore not be well pre- pared to assume immediate responsibility for informa- tion system development, but rather, he will be ready to enter an apprenticeship position. This is taken into
account in the list of qualifications for those who com- plete the undergraduate program (Section 3).
All of this is not to say that the interaction of courses or the integration of course material is not desirable when it can be accomplished.
6.3. Instructional Materials
The graduate curriculum report [2] contains exten- sive bibliographies for the topics covered in the recom- mended courses. It was assumed that instructors would be qualified to evaluate the various sources and make selections appropriate to their own situation. This assumption is less likely to hold for undergraduate courses where teaching loads tend to be greater and where the instructors do not have time to devote to research and to keeping up with the rapidly growing field.
An attempt has been made to recommend textbooks for courses. Unfortunately, few texts are available for the recommended undergraduate courses. The particu- lar ones listed should be regarded as candidates, but instructors are encouraged to examine new books ap- pearing on the market.
The number of films and computer-aided instruc- tional material is increasing. While these generally are not substitutes for formal courses, lectures, and texts, they can be very useful as supplementary material. A survey and review of such material is published annually in the May issue of the Computing Newsletter [11], 7. Summary
The growth in size and complexity of computer- based systems necessitates more depth of knowledge on the part of the system design team if improved per- formance of the system is to be achieved. Users and practitioners alike need a broader understanding of both the managerial process and the technology in computer- izing managerial systems.
Entry-level personnel for the information systems field may be properly prepared through an under- graduate education. With experience and advanced education, the individual can make a significant con- tribution to the system design processes.
The courses recommended for the undergraduate program may be housed in several academic units, permitting the degree program to be implemented with a minimum of additional resources. Many schools al- ready have courses in a variety of academic units; analy- sis of these courses with the perspective of the recom- mended curriculum may permit an undergraduate program to be implemented merely by redesigning exist- ing courses.
The committee welcomes feedback on its prototype proposal and is willing to comment on proposed im- plementations.
Acknowledgments. The following persons assisted
the Committee in one or another of the d r a f t stages which preceded the final preparation of the report. The list includes those who supplied written reviews and those who participated in the meeting at Colorado Springs, mentioned in the Preface. The help of all is most gratefully appreciated.
Bibliographic entries are selectively annotated and in many cases accompanied by a citation to the review of the book or article in Computing Reviews. This is of the form "CR volume, number (year) review number."
UA8. Systems Concepts and Implications (3-0-3)
Gerald St. AmandLloyd J. Buckwell William K. Daugherty Harold J: Highland Hugh R. Howson P. Jin
Boulton B. Miller Andy S. Phillippakis Ralph Sprague
William M. Taggart Jr.
Norman Taylor Gerald Wagner Lawrence Wergin Theodore C. Willoughby Howard Wilson William Windham Philip Wolitzer Leon Youssef References
1. Teichroew, D. (Ed.) Education related to the use of computers in organizations (Position Paper—ACM Curriculum Committee on Computer Education for Management). Comm. ACM 14, 9 (Sept. 1971), 573-588. Reprinted in 1AGJ. 4 (1971), 220-252.
2. Ashenhurst, R.L. (Ed.) Curriculum recommendations for graduate professional programs in information systems. Comm.
ACM 15, 5 (May 1972), 365-398.
3. Hammond, J.O. Planning data processing education to meet job requirements. Proc. AFIPS 1972 SJCC, Vol. 40, AFIPS Press, Montvale, N.J., pp. 59-67. CR 23, 10(71)874.
4. Tomorrow's manpower needs. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bull.
1606, U.S. Dep. of Labor, Feb.1969, Vol. 1, App. A.
5. Occupational manpower and training needs. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bull. 1701, U.S. Dep. of Labor, 1971.
6. Hamblen, J .W. Production and utilization of computer manpower in U.S. higher education. Proc. AFIPS 1972 SJCC, Vol.
40, AFIPS Press, Montvale, N.J., pp. 637-632.
7. Gilchrist, B., and Weber, R.W. Sources of trained computer personnel—A quantitative survey. Proc. AFIPS 1972 SJCC, Vol.
40, AFIPS Press, Montvale, N.J., pp. 633-647.
8. McKenney, J.L., and Tonge, F.M. The state of computer oriented curricula in business schools 1970. Comm. ACM 14, 7 (July 1971), 443-448.
9. Couger, J.D. Updating the survey on computer uses and computer curriculum. Computing Newsletter for Schools of Business, Colorado Springs, Colo., Oct. 1970, p. 1.
10. Brightman, R.W. (Ed.) The Computer and the Junior College:
Curriculum, American Association of Junior Colleges. One Dupont Circle, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, 1970.
11. Couger, J.D. Guide to audio/visual instruction in data processing. Computing Newsletter for Schools of Business, Colorado Springs, Colo. (May issues, 1971, 1972, 1973).