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 subdomain 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
Foundational
Extension
Technical
Behavioral
Exploratory
Review
Theory
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 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 “researchcentric” 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 researchand 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 studentcentric 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
S
na
ly
si
s
an
d
D
es
ig
n
In
fo
rm
at
ic
s
ac
ti o
n
12
So
ci
al
om
pu
te
rI
nt
er
30
A
um
an
-C
t
an
ag
em
en
t
an
ag
em
en
40
Sy
st
em
s
H
M
M
ol
la
bo
ra
ti o
n
of
In
fo
rm
at
ic
s
pe
ra
ti o
ns
at
a
Ec
on
om
ic
s
ci
en
ce
/O
D
C
fic
ia
lI
nt
el
l ig
en
ce
20
ec
is
io
n
Ar
ti
School Listing - Interests
70
62
60
50
36
27
21
23
15
10
10
0
Artificial Intelligence

Hsinchun Chen



Edward Feigenbaum



Stanford University
Knowledge-Based Systems Research
Marvin Minsky



University of Arizona
Digital Libraries and Visualizations
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


Dendral and Meta-dendral: Roots of
Knowledge Systems and Expert System
Applications


Newell, J., Shaw, C. and Simon, H.A.(1957)
Feigenbaum, E. A. and Buchanan, B. G. (1993)
Learning to reason

Khardon, R. and Roth, D. (1997)
Artificial Intelligence
School
Tier
1 2 3 4
MIT
I
X X
University of Arizona
I
X
University of Pittsburgh
II
X
Arizona State University
III
X X
University of Michigan
III
X
University of Illinois
V
X
Research I
X
Drexel University
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
and organizational decision making

Jay F. Nunamaker
 University of Arizona
 Group Decision Support
Systems and
Electronic Meeting Systems

Murray Turoff
 New Jersey Institute
 Delphi method
of Technology
design,
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 4
MIT
I
X
University of Arizona
I
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
X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Data Management

Edgar F. Codd (1924-2003)



Peter Pin-Shan Chen




Photo
Not
Available
Louisiana State University
ER model, database design, CASE
Michael Stonebraker


IBM Research Laboratory
Relational databases
University of California at Berkley
INGRES and OO Databases
Ray Boyce


IBM System R
SQL and Boyce-Codd Normal form
Data Management

A Relational Model of Data for Large
Shared Data Banks


The Entity-Relationship Model –
Toward a Unified View of Data


Chen, P. P. (1976)
The design and implementation of
INGRES


Codd, E. F. (1970)
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



Hau Lee



Stanford University
Supply chain management, Global logistic system design
and control
Marshall Fisher



Stanford University
Optimization, Linear programming
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


Electronic Commerce: Structures and
Issues


Sprague, R. (1980)
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
University of Arizona
I
X X
University of Minnesota
I
X X
University of Pennsylvania
I
X X X X
University of Texas – Austin
I
X X
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



Ronald Coase



MIT
Organization of work, productivity, pricing and sharing of
digital information.
University of Chicago
Nobel Laureate, transaction costs
Haim Mendelson


Stanford University
Electronic business, networks, and financial markets
Economics of Informatics

Management Misinformation Systems


Bundling information goods: Prices,
profits, and efficiency


Ackoff, R.L. (1967)
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



Ben Shneiderman



University of Maryland
User interface design
George W. Furnas



Stanford University
Mother of all demos, invented the mouse
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 HumanSystem Communication


Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond
Programming Language


Furnas, G. W., et al (1987)
Shneiderman, B. (1993)
A Language/Action Perspective on the
Design of Cooperative Work

Winograd, T. (1988)
Human Computer Interaction
School
Tier
Georgia State University
II
University of Michigan
III
University of Maryland
III
1 2 3 4
X
X
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


Institutional Factors in Information
Technology Innovation


Kling, R. (1991)
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
University of Georgia
II
X
X X
1 = Research Lab, 2 = Faculty Interest, 3 = Leading Researchers, 4 = Department Name
Systems Analysis and Design

Barry Boehm



Grady Booch



IBM/Rational
Booch method and UML
Ole-Johan Dahl & Kristen Nygaard



University of Southern California
Developed the spiral model of software development
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


Managing the Development of Large Systems:
Concepts and Techniques


Stevens, W. P., et al (1974)
Structured Analysis (SA): A Language for
Communicating Ideas


Royce, W. W. (1970)
Structured Design


Dahl, O. and Nygaard, K. (1966)
Ross, D. T. (1976)
A Spiral Model of Software Development
Enhancement

Boehm, B. W. (1988)
Systems Analysis and Design
School
Tier
1 2 3 4
University 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 subdomain
Selection and grouping of top
academic institutions based on the
type of research conducted in each
university