BMGT 808L: THE TECHNOLOGY ARTIFACT IN IS RESEARCH
FALL 2003
DAVID P. DARCY
The purpose of this seminar is two-fold: first, to explore how research is carried out on the artifact
of technology within the Information Systems (IS) discipline. Particular attention will be paid to
contemporary and emerging technologies. Second, the seminar will provide basic grounding in
Information Technology (IT) including history and current ‘hot’ topics. A secondary purpose of the
seminar is to explore the teaching of and teaching with technology. Issues in relation to teaching
and using technologies and their impact on learning, incentives and evaluation will be discussed.
To establish the technological context and encourage a level playing field in terms of knowledge,
upon starting the course, a 60-minute exam will be held in the first class. Much of the material
should be familiar to the average IS student; background material will be provided before the exam
to clarify and supplement existing understanding. The exam will cover such fundamental topics as:
History of digital computing, including components such as CPU, storage etc;
Software concepts, including operating systems, application packages, etc;
Telecommunications and networks, including typologies, protocols, etc;
Internet, including history, design, etc.
The course will start off in a traditional research seminar mode. Research on the technology artifact
will be examined covering material under the following headings:
Design science
Software engineering
Databases
Telecommunications and networks
Internet
Towards the end of the course, the focus will tighten on ‘hot’ technology topics (see assignment 1).
Each student will discuss a chosen topic and the rest of the class will provide potential research
ideas related to the topic. Ahead of the class discussion, the student leading the discussion will
provide relevant material to enable a fully informed discussion by the class. The topics could be
drawn from but is not limited to the following list:
Hardware such as voice recognition, mobile computing, biometrics, interoperability, etc;
Internet topics such as web services, XML, .NET, Internet II, EAI, etc;
Major applications such as ERP, CRM, data mining, knowledge management, SCM, etc;
The course will end with students presenting research proposals on a technology (see assignment 2).
TOPIC CALENDAR
Week of
9/1
9/8
9/15
9/22
9/29
10/6
10/13
10/20
10/27
11/3
11/10
11/17
11/24
12/1
12/8
Topic
Introduction and exam
Technology review
Databases I
Databases II
Telecommunications
Internet
Design science
Software engineering I
Software engineering II
Hot technology topics I
Hot technology topics II
Teaching with technology
Thanksgiving: no class
Research proposal presentations
Research proposal presentations
READINGS
Background for Exam
In terms of the structure of the exam, you will have 4 questions from which you will respond to 3.
Each of the four questions will have two parts; the first part will ask something specific about some
aspect of technology and the second will ask something about the implications of that technology
for information systems. An example might look like:
Describe Moore's Law. What are the implications of Moore’s Law on technology and its uses?
http://www.eingang.org/Lecture/
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/
http://www.forthnet.gr/forthnet/isoc/short.history.of.internet
http://www.w3.org/History.html
http://www.pbs.org/nerds/timeline/
http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/ov/node8.html
http://www.eingang.org/Lecture/difference.html
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/teaching/electronics/CS121/memory4.pdf
http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-203750.html?legacy=cnet
http://www.redherring.com/insider/2003/02/moore021003.html
http://www.webbconsult.com/hist-time.html
Technology Review
Wanda J Orlikowski, C Suzanne Iacono, “Desperately seeking "IT" in IT research - A call to
theorizing the IT artifact,” Information Systems Research, June 2001, Vol. 12(2), p. 121-134.
Baskerville, Richard L.; Myers, Michael D., “Information Systems as a reference discipline,” MIS
Quarterly, March 2002, Vol. 26(1), p. 1-14.
Schultze, Ulrike; Leidner, Dorothy E., “Studying knowledge management in information systems
research: discourses and theoretical assumptions,” MIS Quarterly, September 2002, Vol. 26(3), p.
213-242.
Webster, Jane; Watson, Richard T., “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature
review,” MIS Quarterly, June 2002, Vol. 26(2), p. xiii-xxiii.
Databases I
Ramez Elmasri & Shamkant B. Navathe, Fundamentals of Database Systems, 3rd Ed., 2000,
Chapters 1 & 2.
Brian L. Cooper, Hugh J. Watson, Barbara H. Wixom, Dale L. Goodhue, “Data warehousing
supports corporate strategy at First American Corporation,” MIS Quarterly, December 2000, Vol.
24(4), 547-568.
Barbara H. Wixom, Hugh J. Watson, “An empirical nvestigation of the factors affecting data
warehousing success,” MIS Quarterly, March 2001, Vol. 25(1), 17-42.
Rathindra Sarathy & Krishnamurthy Muralidhar, “The security of confidential numerical data in
databases,” Information Systems Research, December 2002, Vol. 13(4), p. 389-403.
Databases II
Video conference with Ramesh Venkatraman, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University.
H. Topi and V. Ramesh, “Toward an Extended Framework for Human Factors Research on Data
Modeling,” forthcoming in Readings in Database Systems, Keng Siau (ed.), Idea Group Publishing,
2004.
Kim,Y-G, & March,S.T. , “Comparing Data Modeling Formalisms,” Communications of the ACM,
38, 1995, 103-115
F. Bodart, A. Patel, M. Sim, and R. Weber, “Should Optional Properties Be Used in Conceptual
Modelling? A Theory of Three Empirical Tests,” Information Systems Research, 12(4), December
2001, pp. 384-405.
Y. Wand, D. E. Monarchi, J. Parsons, and C. C. Woo, “Theoretical Foundations for Conceptual
Modeling in Information Systems Development,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 15, No. 4, pp.
285-304, 1995.
Telecommunications
Ray Panko, Business Data Communications and Networking, Third Edition, 2001, Prentice Hall,
Chapter 1.
Parthasarathy, Madhavan, Bhattacherjee, Anol, “Understanding post-adoption behavior in the
context of online services,” Information Systems Research, December 1998, Vol. 9(4), p. 362Paul Chwelos, Izak Benbasat, Albert S Dexter, “Research report: Empirical test of an EDI adoption
model,” Information Systems Research, September 2001. Vol. 12(3), p. 304-321.
Anjana Susarla, Anitesh Barua, Andrew B. Whinston, “Understanding the service component of
application service provision: an empirical analysis of satisfaction with ASP services,” MIS
Quarterly, March 2003, Vol. 27(1), p. 91-123.
France Berlanger, Rosann Web Collins, Paul H Cheney, “Technology requirements and work group
communications for telecommuters,” Information Systems Research, June 2001, Vol. 12(2), p. 155176.
Internet
Ritu Agarwal, Viswanath Venkatesh, “Assessing a firm's Web presence: A heuristic evaluation
procedure for the measurement of usability,” Information Systems Research, June 2002, Vol. 13(2),
p. 168-186.
D Harrison McKnigh, Vivek Choudhury, Charles Kacmar, “Developing and validating trust
measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology,” Information Systems Research, September
2002, Vol. 13(3), p. 334-351.
Amitava Dutta, “Business planning for network services: A systems thinking approach,”
Information Systems Research, September 2001, Vol. 12(3), p. 260-283.
W. M. P. van der Aalst, Akhil Kumar, “XML-based schema definition for support of
interorganizational workflow,” Information Systems Research, March 2003, Vol. 14(1), p. 23-46.
Design Science
Markus, M. Lynne; Majchrzak, Ann; Gasser, Les, “A design theory for systems that support
emergent knowledge processes,” MIS Quarterly, September 2002, Vol. 26(3), p179-212.
Braha, D., Maimon, O., “The design process: properties, paradigms, and structure,” IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, March 1997, Vol. 27(2), p. 146 –166.
Ben Shneiderman, “Universal usability,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43(5), p. 84 – 91.
Software Engineering I
Brooks, Jr., F. P., “No Silver Bullet--Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering,” IEEE
Computer, April 1987, Vol. 20(4), p. 10-19. [Reprinted from Proceedings of the IFIP Congress,
Dublin, Ireland, 1986; see http://wwwinst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~maratb/readings/NoSilverBullet.html.]
Chidamber, S.R.; Darcy, D.P.; Kemerer, C.F., “Managerial use of metrics for object-oriented
software: an exploratory analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, August 1998, Vol.
24(8), p. 629-639.
L. Briand, S. Morasca, and V. Basili, “An Operation Process for Goal-Driven Definition of
Measures”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, December 2002, Vol. 28(12), p. 11061125.
Herbsleb, J.D.; Mockus, A., “An empirical study of speed and communication in globally
distributed software development”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, June 2003, Vol.
29(6), p. 481- 494.
Software Engineering II
Yair Wand, Ron Weber, “Information systems and conceptual modeling-a research agenda,”
Information Systems Research, December 2002, Vol. 13(4), p. 363-377.
Sircar, Sumit; Nerur, Sridhar P.; Mahapatra, Radhakanta, “Revolution or evolution? A comparison
of object-oriented and structured systems development methods,” MIS Quarterly, December 2001,
Vol. 25(4), p457-472.
Jonathan W. Palmer, David P. Darcy, Robert Geter, William B. McCarthy, “Software development
methodology choice and software maintenance,” August 2003, Under review at Information
Systems Research.
Teaching with technology
Piccoli, Gabriele; Ahmad, Rami; Ives, Blake, “Web-based virtual learning environments: a research
framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training,” MIS
Quarterly, December 2001, Vol. 25(4), p401-426.
Neil McBride, Ray Hackney, “Establishing the principles of Information Systems teaching,”
Communications of the AIS, 2003, Vol. 11, p. 322-331.
BMGT 808: ASSIGNMENT 1
TECHNOLOGY BRIEFING
The purpose of the assignment is to brief the audience on a new, emerging or “hot” technology.
The briefing will describe the characteristics of and bound the technology. The briefing will also
focus on the implications of the technology for Information Systems (IS).
One (possibly 2) “articles” will be distributed prior to the briefing. The article will, at the least,
outline the chosen technology. The article also may discuss its implications for IS but this is not a
must. The article does not have to be a research article; it could be a web page/site, newspaper or
magazine article or even video clip.
The briefing itself will consist of a 10-minute presentation (the time will be strictly enforced). It is
suggested that around 3-6 slides could be utilized to support the briefing.
After each briefing, a 20-minute discussion will occur. The discussion will assess the implications
of the technology for IS. Moving beyond the briefing, the discussion will also dissect possible
avenues of research in relation to the chosen technology.
As an example of articles, consider the following relating to speech recognition:
http://www.out-loud.com/
Ben Schneiderman, “The limits of speech recognition”, Communications of the ACM, September
2000, Vol. 43(9), p. 63-65.
Deliverables:
Short e-mail briefly describing technology and pointing to (or attaching) article due before
class on October 13.
Chosen articles to be distributed in class (or in e-mail) on October 27.
10 minute briefing (on November 3 or 10).
One hard copy of slides at briefing.
BMGT 808: ASSIGNMENT 2
RESEARCH PROPOSAL ON TECHNOLOGY ARTIFACT
The purpose of the assignment is to propose a research study that is focused on a particular
technology artifact. You will prepare a research proposal and present it to the class. You will also
submit your proposal for suggestions. The proposal must be based on your own original ideas.
Your proposal should address the following concerns:
What is the technology artifact you are proposing to study? [Introduction]
Why should we study the artifact? [Introduction]
How has it been studied in the literature? [Background or Literature Review]
How will you study the artifact? [Research Method or Design]
What results might you expect to find? [Results]
What are the limitations of your proposed study? [Results]
What is unique, new and valuable about your proposed study? [Discussion/Conclusions]
If your study produces the results you expect, how have you contributed?
[Discussion/Conclusions]
The technology chosen for the research proposal does not have to be the same as that chosen for the
technology briefing.
Deliverables:
One page outline on chosen technology artifact and proposed study, due October 27.
7-10 page (single spaced, 1” margin, 12 point font) research proposal due December 1.
15-minute presentation (for either December 1 or 8).
One hard copy of presentation.