The Cost of Risk in Offshore Systems Development

Organizations frequently consider offshore systems development in the belief that projects can be completed for lower cost. While prices quoted by offshore vendors are often very appealing when compared with domestic vendors, there are additional risks that must be considered when looking to offshore systems development. These risks typically take the form of intangible and indirect project costs. This paper describes and classifies these risks, which fall into three primary categories of security risks, legal risks, and general risks. Suggestions for incorporating these intangible and indirect costs into the decision making process for offshore v. domestic vendor selection are offered

Motivation for Writing the Paper Risk Effect on Offshore Systems Development Project Cost

This paper discusses the motivation behind the original version of the paper Risk Effect on Onshore Systems Development Cost, and why the paper was revised for publication in this Special Issue. This revised paper more effectively supports our belief that considering all the risk-driven project costs in offshoring may result in total project costs exceeding domestic solutions.</p

Risk Effect on Offshore Systems Development Project Cost

Organizations frequently consider offshore systems development in the belief that projects can be completed for lower cost.  While prices quoted by offshore vendors are often very appealing when compared with domestic vendors, additional risks must be considered when looking into offshore systems development.  These risks typically take the form of intangible and indirect project costs which add to the total cost of the delivered system.  This paper describes and classifies these risks, which fall into three primary categories of security risks, legal risks, and general risks.  Suggestions for incorporating these intangible and indirect costs into the decision making process, and their effects on total project costs, are offered for the offshore v. domestic vendor selection process.</p

Risk Effect on Offshore Systems Development Project Cost

Organizations frequently consider offshore systems development in the belief that projects can be completed for lower cost.  While prices quoted by offshore vendors are often very appealing when compared with domestic vendors, additional risks must be considered when looking into offshore systems development.  These risks typically take the form of intangible and indirect project costs which add to the total cost of the delivered system.  This paper describes and classifies these risks, which fall into three primary categories of security risks, legal risks, and general risks.  Suggestions for incorporating these intangible and indirect costs into the decision making process, and their effects on total project costs, are offered for the offshore v. domestic vendor selection process.</p

A Comparison of Open Source Tools for Data Science Exploratory Study of Effects of eLearning System Acceptance on Learning Outcomes Special thanks to members of AITP-EDSIG who perform the editorial and review processes for JISAR. 2016 AITP Education Speci

The journal acceptance review process involves a minimum of three double-blind peer reviews, where both the reviewer is not aware of the identities of the authors and the authors are not aware of the identities of the reviewers. The initial reviews happen before the conference. At that point papers are divided into award papers (top 15%), other journal papers (top 30%), unsettled papers, and non-journal papers. The unsettled papers are subjected to a second round of blind peer review to establish whether they will be accepted to the journal or not. Those papers that are deemed of sufficient quality are accepted for publication in the JISAR journal. Currently the target acceptance rate for the journal is about 40%. Questions should be addressed to the editor at [email protected] or the publisher at [email protected]. Special thanks to members of AITP-EDSIG who perform the editorial and review processes for JISAR. AITP Education Special Interest Group (EDSIG) Board of Directors Abstract End-user learning is an important element of Information Systems (IS) projects. End-user learning of software applications can constitute roughly 5% to 50% of project budgets. To lower costs and make learning more convenient for the end-users, organizations are largely utilizing online systems for the electronic delivery of such learning programs, referred to as Technology Mediated Learning (TML). In this learning format, before the end-users are able to immerse themselves in the actual learning program, they are first required to adopt and use an online learning system. Currently published IS research has two mature streams of publications: one stream focused on models of technology acceptance and usage that is based on the TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) model and a second stream based on the TML framework consisting of learning content, structures and outcomes. This research study aims to build and validate an empirical model extended from the TML framework with constructs from TAM. This extended model is validated and relationships are tested using survey data collected from an e-learning system used for teaching spreadsheet and database management software applications. The results indicate that the acceptance and usage of the e-learning system and the learning outcomes of mastering office productivity applications is related to individual characteristics and facilitating conditions that boost perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The results of this study have implications for both the TAM and TML research streams and also the design and use of elearning for software applications by IS practitioners

A and Benyoucef M. Similarity and ties in social networks: A study of the YouTube social network

The journal acceptance review process involves a minimum of three double-blind peer reviews, where both the reviewer is not aware of the identities of the authors and the authors are not aware of the identities of the reviewers. The initial reviews happen before the conference. At that point papers are divided into award papers (top 15%), other journal papers (top 30%), unsettled papers, and non-journal papers. The unsettled papers are subjected to a second round of blind peer review to establish whether they will be accepted to the journal or not. Those papers that are deemed of sufficient quality are accepted for publication in the JISAR journal. Currently the target acceptance rate for the journal is about 40%. Questions should be addressed to the editor at [email protected] or the publisher at [email protected]. AITP Education Special Interest Group (EDSIG) Board of Director

Developing an Introductory Level MIS Project in Accordance with AACSB Assurance of Learning Standard 15 Beyond the Bake Sale: Fundraising and Professional Experience for Students Involved in an Information Systems Student Chapter Microsoft Enterprise Cons

The Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) is a double-blind peer-reviewed academic journal published by EDSIG, the Education Special Interest Group of AITP, the Association of Information Technology Professionals (Chicago, Illinois). Publishing frequency is six times per year. The first year of publication is 2003. ISEDJ is published online (http://isedjorg) in connection with ISECON, the Information Systems Education Conference, which is also double-blind peer reviewed. Our sister publication, the Proceedings of ISECON (http://isecon.org) features all papers, panels, workshops, and presentations from the conference. The journal acceptance review process involves a minimum of three double-blind peer reviews, where both the reviewer is not aware of the identities of the authors and the authors are not aware of the identities of the reviewers. The initial reviews happen before the conference. At that point papers are divided into award papers (top 15%), other journal papers (top 30%), unsettled papers, and non-journal papers. The unsettled papers are subjected to a second round of blind peer review to establish whether they will be accepted to the journal or not. Those papers that are deemed of sufficient quality are accepted for publication in the ISEDJ journal. Currently the target acceptance rate for the journal is about 45%. Information Systems Education Journal is pleased to be listed in the 1st Edition of Cabell&apos;s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Technology and Library Science, in both the electronic and printed editions. Questions should be addressed to the editor at [email protected] or the publisher at [email protected]. AITP Education Special Interest Group (EDSIG) Board of Directors ABSTRACT The ubiquitous nature of social networking and online/electronic communication has become expected in every area of life by those students that are entering colleges and universities today. This is in direct opposition with the trend of colleges and universities to reduce support for basic infrastructure services such as school provided E-mail. The continued rise of reliance on adjunct professors as a source of direct on ground instruction has also led to a shift and reduction of the opportunities for the student to interact with their teachers. The availability of modern technology for communication has provided many new avenues for this interaction to take place. It is necessary for adjunct faculty and institutions to explore and leverage new channels of electronic and online communication to provide opportunities for timely and valuable exchanges between instructor and student outside of the classroom

2017 AITP Education Special Interest Group (EDSIG) Board of Directors Information Systems Education Journal Editors 2016 ISEDJ Editorial Board Programming in the IS Curriculum: Are Requirements Changing for the Right Reason?

Abstract All curricula for any given academic discipline evolves over time. This is also true for the Information Systems (IS) model curriculum. Curriculum evolution is driven by several factors, such as changes in technologies, industry shifts to meet customer needs, and perceived student deficiencies. One outcome of such factors has been a change in the entry point into the IS major due to the perception that IS majors need a different method of entry from other computing majors (e.g., Computer Science (CS)). The current entry point for many IS majors is a programming course, often taken by a variety of majors. This paper addresses the question: is there a difference in performance in this initial programming course for students of different majors? More precisely, does major differentiate performance in the first programming course, such as CS1? The data clearly show this is not the case when there is a level playing field. The paper demonstrates that non-computing majors perform as well as computing majors given equal preparation. It is a misconception that changes to the IS curriculum are necessary when based on the belief that IS majors, as compared to other computing majors, need a different entry point. The data presented in this paper suggest the underlying presuppositions for IS curricular changes are misguided -supporting the need for preparation prior to a first programming course