CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE GOALS OF THE GLOBAL CC2020 PROJECT: INTERACTIVE TUTORIAL

The purpose of this tutorial is to give the conference participants an update on the current status and future goals of the global CC2020 project. It will also provide the SIGED community with an opportunity to participate in a discussion that gives the CC2020 steering committee qualitative feedback, contributing directly to the outcomes of the project. The tutorial will actively solicit participant contributions and serve as an important mechanism for interaction between the project and the SIGED community. The topics will include a) general introduction to the project and its goals; b) use of competencies as common currency for curriculum analysis; c) use of visualization to compare computing degree programs; and d) lessons for the information systems discipline from the CC2020 project

Information Systems in CC2020: Comparing Key Structural Elements of Curriculum Recommendations in Computing

This paper describes the characteristics of the Computing Curricula 2020 process, discusses the reasons why it is essential for information systems to be involved, and explores the core structures of existing computing curriculum recommendations, particularly from the learning outcome and competency perspective. The two main categories are the knowledge area – knowledge unit structure used by CE, CS, and SE and the competency structure used by IT and MSIS. Finding a way to express the competency expectations of all degree program types in computing at the same level of abstraction will be a key to the success of the CC2020 project. The upcoming process to develop a new IS undergraduate recommendation will also benefit from CC2020 work and contribute to it

USING COMPETENCIES FOR SPECIFYING OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS FOR DEGREE PROGRAMS IN COMPUTING: LESSONS LEARNED FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES

This essay reviews the use of the competency concept in various educational and professional development contexts. Its key purpose is to identify the lessons that computing education and practice can learn from disciplines that have explored and evaluated the use of competency-based approaches much longer than computing. The review reveals a broad variety of definitions and uses of the competency concept in a number of fields but no single unifying success formula emerges. The key recommendations of the essay are as follows: the efforts in computing education that use a competency-based approach should 1) carefully consider ways to specify competencies in an integrated, holistic way instead as a simple combination of components (such as knowledge, skills, and attitude); 2) recognize the purpose and timeframe for which competencies are specified, specifically avoiding a sole focus on short-term professional competencies; and 3) explicitly and transparently communicate whether or not the intent of any effort that uses a competency-based approach is to transform the entire educational model (instead of simply using competencies for specifying outcome expectations)

PROGRAM DIRECTORS’ PERSPECTIVES ON MSIS OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This paper reports the results of a summer 2014 survey of MSIS program directors. The results are intended to serve the MSIS revision process, but they will also provide insights regarding the current status and future direction of MSIS degree programs for faculty members and administrators interested in the state of graduate education in IS. The results are well-aligned with the recent popularity of graduate programs focused on data and analytics, but at the same time, they indicate that program directors still consider traditional core IS topics (such as systems analysis and design) to be very important. The revision process should carefully address the impact of the capabilities of the students entering the master’s programs on program outcomes and the effects of popular highly focused program versions, such as those emphasizing analytics and security

Reflections on the Current State and Future of Information Systems Education

This essay discusses the current state of and potential future directions for information systems education structured around several key themes that have emerged as central in several large-scale IS education initiatives over the past 15 years. The core idea that connects all of these themes is the centrality of IS as a transformative enabler for virtually all goal-directed human activities. The essay emphasizes the role of IS as the initial integrative discipline that for decades has prepared its students to identify opportunities to fundamentally change multiple target domains with computational capabilities. Furthermore, the discussion recognizes the distinctive focus of IS on bringing multiple technologies together into systems that serve organizational and societal goals and underscores the responsibility to carefully consider implications and potential consequences of technology- based solutions. The essay also acknowledges the essential roles of formal quality assurance mechanisms (such as accreditation) and education-focused research as essential resources for the future of the discipline

Invited Paper: A Generalized, Enterprise-Level Systems Development Process Framework for Systems Analysis and Design Education

Current academic and industry discussions regarding systems development project approaches increasingly focus on agile development and/or DevOps, as these approaches are seen as more modern, streamlined, flexible, and, therefore, effective as compared to traditional plan-driven approaches. This extends to the current pedagogy for teaching systems analysis and design (SA&D). However, overemphasizing agile and DevOps neglects broader dimensions that are essential for planning and executing enterprise-level systems projects. Thus, a dilemma may arise: do we teach agile and DevOps techniques that may be inadequate for enterprise-level projects or do we teach the wider range of plan-driven skills and techniques that may conflict with the tenets and benefits of agile and DevOps? In this paper, we advocate for resolving this dilemma by adopting a generalized process framework that both fully supports enterprise-level projects but can also be selectively scaled back toward increased agility for smaller, less complex projects. In its full realization, this framework combines extensive project planning and up-front requirements with iterative delivery – an increasingly popular approach today for enterprise projects. In scaling back toward agile, the framework carefully accounts for system, environment, and team characteristics. Further, the model emphasizes issues frequently underemphasized by agile approaches, including the use of external software such as commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS), Software- as-a-Service (SaaS), and open source products and components; the need for business-oriented project planning and justification; and support for change management to ensure successful system adoption. The framework thereby flexibly accommodates the full range of activities that software projects must support to be successful

ADDRESSING AI-BASED CAPABILITIES IN SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN: A PEDAGOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

This paper explores the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) based capabilities into organizational systems with a specific focus on the ways in which increased proliferation of AI affects systems analysis and design (SA&D) pedagogy. Existing IS literature on the links between SA&D and AI capabilities appears to be very limited, and there are only few published papers on the role of AI in IS education in general. This paper explores the reasons why AI capabilities often must be integrated into organizational systems for the organization to gain full benefits from AI and provides an initial analysis of how the inclusion of AI capabilities affects various SA&D activities, including the identification of new types of analysis and design uncertainty caused by AI. The findings suggest that it is essential for the IS community to study the best organizational practices on AI integration into systems projects and use these findings to improve the ways in which we prepare IS students for advanced application of AI in organizational systems

WHEN IS AGILE APPROPRIATE FOR ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT?

Using agile methods for enterprise software development (ESD) remains contentious. Advocates of agile and plan-driven methods (i.e., waterfall) argue their respective cases with near evangelical zeal, and recent evidence indicates that waterfall (or some variant) remains a widely used approach. This controversy persists despite strong arguments by Boehm and Turner (2004) recommending a balanced software development approach combining aspects of agile and plandriven methods, aligned to pro-jects based on each project’s fit with agile vs. plan-driven “home ground” characteristics. In this re-search, we hypothesize that Boehm and Turner were fundamentally correct and that neither of the “pure” models will lead to the highest level of project success in all circumstances. This paper de-scribes a research project to study the impact of alignment with a flexible but simple agile vs. hybrid vs. plan-driven approach on ESD outcomes. The discussion includes: 1) Articulating the identifying characteristics of ESD, 2) distilling the essence of plan-driven vs. agile methods along two key dimen-sions, 3) explicating a hybrid method of software development using those dimensions, and 4) extend-ing Boehm and Turner’s “home grounds” model to better determine the optimal ESD approach. The discussion includes our planned research questions, data collection and analysis, and hypotheses

Industry Expectations for Transforming IS Education—Discussion on AACSB MaCuDE IS Task Force Finding

The second webinar in a series of seminars organized by AIS and AACSB MaCuDE project’s IS task force provides the members of the IS community a preliminary overview of the findings of Stage II of the project. These findings highlight industry needs for big data and analytics based on interviews of around 25 big data / machine learning industry experts and leaders around the globe. The webinar offers also an opportunity for an in-depth discussion on the implications of these findings for future IS curricula. The seminar summarizes initial results of the in-depth interviews of industry experts and discusses some implications for future educational needs. Building on the key observations, the webinar welcomes the participants to join in a conversation to interpret the meaning of these findings for the IS discipline. The discussion particularly focuses on the role of advanced analytics and AI in future business school curricula and the ways in which developments in these areas of study and practice are impacting the field of IS in the business school context. The outcomes of the conversation inform the MaCuDE IS task force’s Stage II report to this AACSB project as a whole. The seminar will also include commentary notes from some eminent industry experts

SELECTING BETWEEN AGILE, PLAN-DRIVEN, AND HYBRID SYSTEMS PROJECT OPTIONS

SA&D—encompassing requirements, design, and project approach—has always been complex and challenging. But at least there once was a single, standard approach: plan driven. Plan-driven (e.g., traditional SDLC or “waterfall”) prescribes detailed, up-front requirements and linear, one-activity-at-a-time project execution. That changed in the mid-1990s when, given unacceptably high project failure rates, agile emerged as a key alternative, radically different from plan driven. Agile (e.g., eXtreme Programming, Scrum) defers detailed requirements and executes activities iteratively. In reality, many projects integrate elements of plan-driven and agile into a hybrid model. This complicates SA&D, requiring knowing how to: • Do everything in multiple ways • Choose the optimal approach This workshop cuts through the confusion with concepts, frameworks, and exercises helping you learn: • Essence of plan-driven vs. agile vs. hybrid o Two key dimensions: Requirements analysis and software construction o Underlying project assumptions: Impacting the value of plan-driven vs. agile vs. hybrid o Systems development process framework: Illustrating a unified understanding of each approach • How to choose the optimal approach o Key project characteristics: Using an extended “home grounds model” describing circumstances ideal for each approach o Radar chart tool: Analyzing each project in terms of functional requirements, non-functional requirements, and team characteristics, which point to the best approac