1 Current Status of the Department - Georgia State … Table 4. Junior Student Retention Rates Fall...

1

-

The CIS Department is a 44-year-old institution housed in the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State

University. It is centered on solving strategic business problems by designing computer-based information

systems, providing an education necessary for exciting and rewarding careers for students, opportunities to

contribute new knowledge through research, and service to advance the information systems profession.

1 Current Status of the Department

In fall 2013, CIS served 842 students majoring or concentrating in information systems. These include 738

undergraduate students seeking a Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA), 79 graduate students seeking an

MS in Information Systems (MSIS), six graduate students seeking a Master of Business Administration (MBA),

and 19 students seeking a Doctor of Philosophy (PHD) degree. See Figure 1 for a proportional representation

of the CIS graduate versus undergraduate student population.

Figure 1. Enrollment by Level.

2

In September 2013, the CIS undergraduate program was ranked #8 in the nation according to U.S. News &

World Report. In March 2013, the CIS graduate program was ranked #8 in the nation according to U.S. News &

World Report.

Table 1 summarizes the academic programs offered by the CIS Department. Further details are available from

the online links provided. Appendix A lists the graduate and undergraduate courses fielded by the CIS

Department for the past three years.

Table 1. CIS Departmental Academic Programs

CIS Academic Program Description Further Information

Bachelor of Business

Administration (BBA)

in Information Systems

CIS students establish a robust foundation

that prepares them to pursue either a

business career with a strong

understanding of how technology

(leading-edge and contemporary)

facilitates achieving business objectives or

a technology career with a strong

understanding of how business objectives

drive information systems toward

achieving business goals.

http://cis.robinson.gsu.ed

u/academic-

programs/bba/

Health Informatics and

Process Information

A Bachelor of Business Administration in

Computer Information Systems with a

concentration in Health Informatics has

been established as a joint venture of the

Department of Computer Information

Systems and the Institute of Health

Administration.


u/academic-

programs/health-

informatics/undergraduat

e-study/

Undergraduate Minor

in Information Systems

Minors combine with your major to

enhance your marketability. Typically, a

minor can be earned by taking five

courses in another discipline. Any

undergraduate student at Georgia State

University can have a minor in

information systems.


u/academic-

programs/undergraduate-

minor-in-cis/

Executive Master of

Science in Managing

Information

Technology (MS MIT)

This executive-format program meets the

needs of busy IT professionals. The

program is designed to be completed in

one year while maintaining full-time

employment. Face-to-face classes are held

on alternate Saturdays. Electronic distant-

learning modules are offered in between

these Saturdays at the convenience of the

participant – any time, any place.


u/academic-

programs/executive-ms-

mit3/

Fast-Track Master of

Science in Information

Systems (FT MSIS)

The purpose of the Fast-Track Master of

Science in Information Systems program

is to produce graduates who are able to


u/academic-

programs/ms-is/

http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/bba/



http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/health-informatics/undergraduate-study/





http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate-minor-in-cis/




http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/executive-ms-mit3/




http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/ms-is/



3


combine business knowledge with the

latest information systems tools and

techniques to enable organizations to

compete strongly in the global

marketplace.

Master of Science in

Information Systems

(MS IS)

The Master of Science in Information

Systems (MS IS) is designed to meet the

needs of students who want to build a

strong background in information systems

and the application of information and

communications technology in business.


u/academic-

programs/master-of-

science-in-information-

systems/

Master of Science in

Information Systems

Audit and Control (MS

ISAC)

This program is designed to meet the

needs of students who want to build a

strong background in application, auditing

and assurance of information, and

information and communication

technology (ICT) in accounting.


u/academic-

programs/ms-is-audit/

MSIS with

concentration in Health

Informatics

Health informatics combines knowledge

from medical areas, healthcare

administration, and information

technology. Experts in health informatics

can help the health industry effectively

adopt information technology to innovate

and improve its medical services and the

way they are administrated. Robinson

offers an undergraduate degree and two

graduate degrees in health informatics.


u/academic-

programs/health-

informatics/

Master of Business

Administration in CIS

(MBA)

The MBA with a major in computer

information systems offers the choice of

two different orientations: managerially

oriented CIS courses with no

programming prerequisite or a more

technically focused concentration. The

difference between the MBA and the MS

is in the core offering…the MBA has a

core of all business courses, where the MS

degree has a core of all information

systems courses.


u/academic-

programs/mba/

Doctor of Philosophy

(Ph.D.) in CIS

The doctoral program prepares individuals

for careers as researchers and educators.

Graduates typically take faculty positions

in colleges and universities.


u/academic-

programs/phd/

Graduate Certificate in

Information Systems

The Graduate Certificate in Information

Systems program is designed for students

in any graduate major who wish to


u/academic-

programs/graduate-

http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/master-of-science-in-information-systems/





http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/ms-is-audit/



http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/health-informatics/




http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/mba/



http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/phd/



http://cis.robinson.gsu.edu/academic-programs/graduate-certificate/



4


prepare to meet business and personal

challenges through the use of information

technology. From biology and the health

sciences through the arts, social sciences,

legal and business disciplines, information

systems are a fundamental enabler.

certificate/

1.1 Quality of Undergraduate Students

Incoming freshmen declaring a CIS major in Fall 2012 had an SAT average of 1078, which is roughly in line

with the university average of 1093 (See Table 2). In fall 2012, three-quarters of the CIS undergraduate

population was male (See Figure 2), and the largest racial group is Black (40%) (See Table 3).

Table 2. CIS Fall 2012 Freshman Index

Figure 2. Undergraduate Enrollment By Gender.


5

Table 3. Undergraduate Enrollment by Race

In terms of retention and graduation rates, CIS Six-year Freshman retention/graduation rates fell from 63% to

44% between Fall 2009 to Fall 2012 (See Figure 3). This figures represent the percentage of freshmen who

have graduated (or are still in the program) six years after their freshman semester. The fall 2012 rate compares

poorly with the university average of 58% and the business college rate of 59%.

Figure 3. FTFT Freshmen 6 year Graduation Rate

However, it may be more realistic to compare the junior student retention/graduation rates, since most majors

actually first meet the CIS Department as juniors, rather than as freshmen. The three-year graduation/retention

rate for CIS juniors entering in fall 2010 and having graduated (or are still in the program) by fall 2013 is 75.6%

(See Table 4). This figure is roughly equivalent to the university average of 74.8% and the business school

average of 76.7%.

6

Table 4. Junior Student Retention Rates Fall 2010 Cohort

The Robinson College of Business Career Management Center surveys BBA CIS graduates regarding

employment and other next steps following graduation. For the most recent survey, 105 graduates responded.

Of these, 77% were employed full-time within six months of graduation. 14% were still seeking employment

six months after graduation. 2% were accepted to graduate school leaving 7% in military service, part-time

work, and other miscellaneous categories. Given the current economic and employment environment, these

results indicate substantial placement success. These BBA CIS graduates not only successfully gained

employment but achieved the second highest starting salaries among the RCB BBA graduates.

Appendix C details the comparison of a survey of CIS undergraduate students concerning their educational

experience in CIS as compared with the university more broadly. In general, the undergraduate students in the

CIS department regard their educational experience less favorably in comparison with other programs in the

university. While generally within one standard deviation of the university mean, CIS students rank their

educational experience below others within the university on nearly every survey item.

The full, detailed results of the undergraduate survey are found in Appendix F. A further survey, this time of

undergraduate graduates, is found in Appendix G. In this study, as shown in Table G1, the overwhelming

opinion of CIS undergraduate alumni indicates they are generally satisfied or highly satisfied with their degree

program.

This mixed undergraduate data may reflect the situation in which the students rarely are taught by full-time

faculty, but are mostly taught by part-time instructors and PhD students. The department has not actively

recruited majors during the last four years due to the lack of full-time faculty to teach additional sections. The

active recruitment by other departments may have drawn the best students to those departments especially when

full-time faculty are more face-to-face in those departments’ undergraduate classes. See the comments below

for the graduate program that is generally taught by CIS faculty.

1.2 Quality of Graduate Students

In terms of enrolled applicants, the university GRE/GMAT average percentiles in 2012 were 59 verbal and 47

quantitative, with an overall GPA of 3.29. For the business school, the average 2012 percentiles were 61 verbal

and 48 quant., with an overall average GPA of 3.21. The CIS Department percentiles were 52 verbal and 51

quant., with an overall average GPA of 3.01. Given the technological nature of CIS, it is probably not

surprising to find that enrolling CIS graduate students have higher quantitative and lower verbal scores than

typical for the university or the college. The lower average GPA suggests that the quantitative bent of enrolling

CIS graduate students means CIS is not capturing the top undergraduate students in competition with other

7

departments in the business school and across campus. Table 5 and Table 6 detail the GRE and GMAT scores

for applied, accepted, and enrolled students. The Tables show a variance, without any clear patterns, suggesting

that CIS enrollment decisions may be largely affected by other factors that vary from year-to-year than just the

GRE or GMAT scores.

Table 5 GRE Scores

8

Table 6. GMAT Scores

In terms of program selectivity, CIS figures also vary without a clear pattern (see Table 7). The conversion rate

for the MoIT program is noticeably stronger than other CIS programs without noticeably dropping the

GRE/GMAT average. The regular MSIS program draws a larger interest, but has a much smaller conversion

rate, suggesting that there is strong competition with this program. The enrolled rate was higher in 2012, but

GRE/GMAT scores were lower, suggesting that the better students in that year may be enrolling elsewhere.

9

Table 7. Graduate Program Selectivity

The graduate program is developing more progressive inroads into reducing the gender bias predominant in

Computer Information Systems and Computer Science. The percentage of female graduate students has been

rising for the past three years; reaching 36% in fall 2012 (see Figure 4). The largest racial group in the CIS

graduate programs is Asian (approximately) 40% (see Table 8).

Figure 4. Graduate Enrollment by Gender

10

Table 8. Graduate Enrollment by Race.

CIS generally compares favorably with other programs in the university and the college in terms of graduate

retention and graduation rates (See Table 9). The average three-year graduation rate (or students still in the

programs) across all CIS graduate programs is 86.4% for the cohort beginning fall 2010. This compares

favorably with the College of Business rate of 82.5% and the university rate of 81.9%. CIS appears to be doing

well at graduating its students successfully. However, the department is increasingly turning to cohort-based

master’s programs, suggesting that more recent cohorts have been even more successful. The data suggests that

this might be the case. Table 10 lists the two-year average graduation/retention rate for the fall 2011 cohort.

The rate rises to 95%, compared to 84% in the College of Business and the university’s 82.5%. It appears that

the cohort strategy is bringing increased success to the graduate students in these CIS programs.

Table 9. Fall 2010 Cohort Graduate Student Retention Rate

11

Table 10. Fall 2011 Cohort Graduate Student Retention Rate

Figure 5 is a graphic representation of the number of degrees conferred through the CIS Department at the

masters and doctoral levels. Particularly we are seeing a larger number of graduate completions following a

low point in 2012.

Figure 5. Graduate Degrees Conferred

The Robinson College of Business Career Management Center surveys Masters graduates regarding

employment and other next steps following graduation. While response to this survey from the CIS masters

students was very low (14), the results from those responding were strongly positive. Of the respondents, 100%

were fully employed at the end of six months. None of the respondents were seeking additional graduate

studies. While this indicates strong placement success, efforts to raise the response rate need to be increased.

Also, of all of the RCB masters graduates surveyed, the MS IS graduates garnered the second highest post-

degree salaries.

Appendix D details the comparison of a survey of CIS graduate students concerning their educational

experience in CIS as compared with the university more broadly. In general, the graduate students in the CIS

Department regard their educational experience as superior in comparison with other programs in the university.

12

While generally within one standard deviation of the university mean, CIS students rank their educational

experience as better compared with the university on nearly every survey item.

The findings from the survey of CIS graduate students are detailed in Appendix H. Appendix I also details the

findings from a survey of CIS graduate alumni. As was true of the undergraduate alumni, and shown in Table

I1, CIS graduate alumni are generally satisfied or highly satisfied with their degree program experience.

This strong graduate showing reflects the situation that the graduate students have contact with, and are taught

by, full-time CIS faculty, unlike the undergraduate program that is mostly taught by part-time instructors and

PhD students.

1.3 Research Culture

CIS Department has a strong research culture. Our faculty is ranked #1 in the world for the number of

information systems scholars as well as for research published in leading journals.

Our research has received the following recognition rankings:

#1 In the world in IS research publications, Communications of the AIS, 2007

#2 In the world in IS research citations, Communications of the AIS, 2007

#1 In the world in the number of IS scholars (6 out of the top 30 IS scholars in the world are in the

Robinson College’s CIS Department.) Communications of the AIS, 2007

#2 In the world in information systems research publications, Communications of the ACM, 2008

#4 In agile software development research (USA) Agile Software Development: “Current Research

and Future Directions,” 2010

#5 On the Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index among research universities (USA), Chronicle of

Higher Education, 2007

The department is home to three research centers:

Center for Health Information Technology: A partnership between CIS and the Institute of Health

Administration in the J. Mack Robinson College of Business, along with the Georgia Health Policy

Center in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. The Center builds upon the existing strengths of

the nationally ranked CIS and Health Administration programs — and their new Health Informatics

specialization at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels — and the extensively funded research of

the Georgia Health Policy Center by advancing research, improving education and building partnerships

with industry around Health IT issues.

Center for Research in Information Systems: Recognizing the increasingly central and critical role that

information systems play in organizations, both public and private, the Center for Research in

Information Systems (CRIS) is dedicated to undertaking research that (1) aids in our understanding of

this phenomenon and (2) explores ways whereby information systems can be used more effectively

within organizations.

Korean-American Business Center: organized within the CRIS and housed in CIS, it is a boundary-

spanning organization between the CIS Department and the Korean business community in the United

States and Korea. In addition to providing opportunities to the business communities in Korea and

Georgia, KABC provides leadership, assistance and opportunity for Korean and American groups

seeking knowledge about United States and Korean business practices.

13

This research culture is also represented by the number of graduate research assistants when compared with the

numbers of other graduate assistantships, typically double the number of GLAs or GTAs (See Figure 6).

Figure 6. Graduate Assistants.

While research productivity is high in terms of the number of high quality publications, departmental research

funding has been fluctuating. It slipped from $306k to $7.5k over the period between FY08 and FY10 (See

Figure 7), although in 2011-12, Upkar Varshney, received a $98,000 NIH grant and in 2013, William

Robinson, a $310,000 NSF grant.

14

Figure 7. Research Direct Cost Expenditures.

CIS also operates a weekly research colloquium as an ongoing series of lectures by experts in the field to

provide an opportunity for Atlanta business professionals and educators to hear about the latest developments

and ideas in computer information systems technology and application.

Appendix B lists the journal publications by CIS faculty for the past three years.

1.4 Service to the College and University

A number of CIS faculty are engaged in service to the College and University as well as teaching in courses

outside of the CIS area. D. Straub teaches the introductory “Cornerstone” course in the MBA; D. Robey (now

retired) teaches a course in Organization Development in the Management Department; S. Harris teaches four

courses in the Management Department; and D. Truex teaches a course in the International Business

Department. The college has recently launched a new three-year Executive Doctorate in Business (EDB) in

which several CIS faculty – R. Baskerville, M. Gallivan, M. Keil, L. Mathiassen, A. Rai, B. Ramesh, among

others – teach.

This “outside” teaching means that these faculty are only available to teach a few CIS courses, forcing the

department to rely on doctoral students and part-time faculty, particularly for undergraduate courses.

In terms of college administrative appointments, CIS faculty serve the college as: the chair of the P&T

Committee, the chair of the Graduate Policy Committee, the chair of Faculty Development Committee, the

Director of the EDB program, and the Director of the PhD program – all of which are provided with course

relief for their service, thus further reducing their availability to teach CIS courses. In addition to these chair

appointments, other faculty serve as members of college committees as well as members of the university

Academic Senate.

15

1.5 Activities in the Business Community

A number of years ago, Professors Senn and McLean played a central role in the founding of the Atlanta

chapter of the Society for Information Management (SIM). The department remains committed to supporting

SIM, both locally and nationally, with its annual Institutional Academic membership in SIM (jointly with AIS

Institutional membership), the only university in Georgia to support SIM at this level. Four or five CIS faculty

regularly attend the monthly chapter meetings. The department has also become a Premier member of the

Technology Association of Georgia (TAG), thereby providing membership, not only to the CIS Department, but

to the entire Georgia State University community.

Several members of the faculty also participate in the local M.I.T. Enterprise Forum, which offers regular

programs on leading-edge technology topics and brings together VCs and angel investors, as well as faculty

from Georgia Tech and GSU.

Six years ago, in cooperation with the firm, Evanta, the department began sponsoring the Atlanta CIO

Executive Summit, which each year brings together approx. 200 CIOs and their direct reports from around the

southeast. Three years ago, we added the Atlanta CISO Executive Summit; and this year, the CIO Institute, an

intensive three-day program taught by CIOs and GSU faculty for senior IT managers.

Reflecting its research interest in health IT, the department is a member of the Bioscience Health IT Leadership

Council and the Workforce Council of the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, and was active in supporting

the national Health IT Leadership Summit held in Atlanta last year.

1.6 Globalizing the University

The business office of the Association for Information Systems (AIS) is housed in the CIS Department. AIS is

an international organization whose mission is to serve society through the advancement of knowledge and the

promotion of excellence in the practice and study of information systems. AIS is the premier academic

association for individuals and organizations who lead the research, teaching, practice and study of information

systems worldwide. AIS is a not-for-profit organization. For nine years, Eph McLean was the Executive

Director of AIS and currently Richard Baskerville is the AIS Vice President for Communications and Richard

Welke is the AIS Vice President of Technology.

Participation in Study Abroad programs, such as the Departments collaboration with the University of Nantes

(France) is generally small. See Figure 8 for a graph representing the number of CIS students participating in

Study Abroad programs for the past five years, although in the summer of 2012, J.P. Shim conducted a Study

Abroad trip to Hong Kong and Korea for 23 students recruited from throughout the university.

16

Figure 8. Study Abroad

1.7 Overall Assessment of the Unit The goal of the CIS Department is to be a world leader in the creation and the dissemination of knowledge in

information systems and technology. Our activities are centered on research toward the development of

knowledge, and its dissemination through publications, educational offerings and engagement with the

professional community.

The CIS Department is among the largest Information Systems departments in the USA. Moreover, it is ranked

very highly both for its research output as well its educational offerings (both graduate and undergraduate). The

department has been able to maintain its core strengths in research and educational activities even through the

Great Recession which disproportionately affected the IS job market. In fact, enrollments in its programs have

been rising significantly over the past few years and its research productivity has also gone up significantly.

Faculty members of the department engage in research projects that are very diverse in terms of their topics and

research methods. The department is among the very few that engages in quantitative, qualitative, and design

science research projects, and in studying both technical topics as well as the management of information

systems. However, concerns about the decline in the diversity of research projects pursued by the department,

currently favoring mainly quantitative research, are reflected in the survey of the faculty. The retirements of

Prof. Dan Robey and Prof. Vijay Vaishnavi has dealt a further decline in this diversity. CIS faculty members

have enjoyed very high levels of productivity and have published substantial research during the period of this

academic program review. The department has experienced mixed success in attracting research grants in

recent years, partly because of the decline in the number of faculty who pursue technical research topics that are

typical candidates for externally funded research.

The Department’s academic programs in both the undergraduate and graduate levels have been enjoying

increased enrollments in recent years. The credit hour production has gone up nearly 17% over the past three

17

years. Interestingly, the department’s offering at the graduate level is unusually high compared to its

undergraduate credit hour production. However, the quality of the students entering the program (in terms of

GMAT/GRE test scores and GPA) is slightly below the average for the College in both the undergraduate and

graduate programs and represents an area of concern for the department.

While the enrollments have been increasing significantly over the recent years, the number of full-time faculty

has declined slightly during this period. In fact, a vast majority of undergraduate courses are taught by part-time

faculty or GTAs. As pointed out earlier, this is partially due to the large number of CIS faculty who are teaching

other, non-CIS courses (e.g., EDB) and serving in college administrative positions and thus not available to

teach CIS classes. While the rigorous nature of the program is valued by the students, the lack of engagement

by full-time faculty may be a significant reason why students rate their educational experience as substandard in

comparison with other programs at the university. In contrast, graduate students in the CIS department regard

their educational experience as above standard in comparison with other programs in the university. The high

level of engagement of the full time faculty in this program is likely to be a significant factor for this positive

showing.

The department’s twenty full-time faculty members are supported by two full time staff members. While the

faculty/staff ratio is not unusual within the college, the dramatic increase in credit hour production that has been

experienced by the department has placed very high demands on the departmental staff. Also, the loss of

technical staff support positions is especially limiting to the department because of the technology driven nature

of its educational programs.

The department’s technical infrastructure, including its computer forensics lab, serves students in both the

undergraduate and graduate programs. A wide range of software programs are made available through

arrangements with leading software vendors. As the department is adding to its faculty and research centers,

additional space is necessary to accommodate this growth.

The department is engaged in several initiatives that are likely to strengthen its position as world leader in the

creation and the dissemination of knowledge in information systems and technology.

2 Adequacy of CIS Resources

2.1 Faculty Resources

The CIS Department has 20 full time faculty members (See Table 11). The department is top-heavy with more

than half of its number holding positions as tenured full professors (See Table 12). The faculty is

predominantly white or Asian males. The distribution of the faculty is detailed in Table 13.

Table 11. Full Time Faculty

Baskerville Richard

Gallivan Michael

Harris Sidney

18

Hong Shuguang

Keil Mark

Mathiassen Lars

McDonald David S.

McLean Ephraim R.

Oh Cath

Rai Arun

Ramesh Balasubramaniam

Robinson William

Senn James

Shim J. P.

Storey Veda

Straub Detmar W.

Stucke Carl

Truex Duane

Varshney Upkar

Welke Richard J.

Table 12. Average Number of Faculty by Rank and Status

19

Table 13. Faculty Distribution 2010 - 2012

In comparison with the number of students in our programs (See Table 14), and the number of graduates

completing our programs (See Table 15), this number is low. In 2012, there were more than 1000 CIS majors,

making a simple student-to-faculty ratio of 50. This number does not include service courses or part-time

faculty. In general, the brunt of this faculty shortage is borne by the undergraduate students, and is reflected in

student reflections on the quality of the undergraduate program.

20

Table 14. Headcount of Major Students by Degree Program

Table 15. Degrees Conferred by Degree Program

21

Table 16. Student Faculty Ratio

The CIS department experienced a dramatic decline in student enrollments between 2002 and 2008. This

decline has reversed and a steady regrowth in interest in CIS has ensued. The recent evidence of this regrowth

is detailed in Table 17. Overall credit hour production has increased from 14,844 in Fy2011 to17,297 in

Fy2013 (approximately 17% increase over the period). The majority of this workload increase has been

accommodated through the use of part-time instructors. As Table 18 details, the credit hour production of part-

time instructors has increased by 150% since 2010.

Table 17. Credit Hour Taught By Level 2010-2012

22

Table 18. Credit Hours Taught By Faculty Type 2010-2011

The CIS department has an unusually strong graduate presence. In FY 2013 (See Table 19), CIS delivered

approximately 7,000 graduate and 10,000 undergraduate credit hours; a seven-to-ten ratio. While the average

number of hours delivered by full-time faculty has remained relatively constant over the past three years

(around 147 credit hours per semester, see Table 20), the overall number of hours delivered by the department

has risen by approximately 65% in the past three years.

Table 19. Average Annual Credit Hours by Level

23

Table 20. Average Fall Credit Hours by Faculty Type

In terms of the faculty opinion survey (see Appendix E), the CIS faculty reflect several notable points of pride.

We are proud of our national rankings and we appreciate the rigor of our undergraduate program and the quality

of these students (an opinion not shared by the undergraduate students, as noted above and in Appendix C).

While CIS faculty opinions are generally within one standard deviation of the university faculty, the CIS faculty

opinions of the CIS department are broadly lower than typical for GSU. The response rate to the survey itself

is notably lower. There are several points on which CIS faculty opinions are more than one standard deviation

below the university mean:

The responding faculty members feel excluded from objectives setting, lacking in opportunities for

research collaboration with colleagues, and that their CIS colleagues undervalue their research.

CIS Departmental faculty members have low opinions of the department’s demands on their personal

life (despite recognized, existing difficulties in gaining faculty commitments to departmental service and

with the need for departmental service to increase with the pending retirement of the associate chair).

More than half of the CIS faculty members have plans for career development that include possible

employment in another university than Georgia State (as compared with about a quarter of their non-CIS

GSU colleagues, See Table E3, Appendix E). ). A partial reason for their considering employment

elsewhere is the fact that there have been no faculty or staff salary increases in six years.

The full results of the survey of CIS faculty are found in Appendix J.

The department is following a mixed mode recruiting strategy. An opportunistic strategy involves pursuing

faculty recruitment in concert with university or college strategic directions, such as advancing overall

capabilities in health care management or data analytics. A best-of-breed strategy pursues faculty recruiting of

targets-of-opportunity with exceptional research or teaching records.

2.2 Administrative Resources

The CIS Department has twenty full-time faculty members, with sixteen of them receiving administrative

support from the two full-time administrative support staff. This comprises a ratio of eight faculty members per

staff member. Our full-time administrative staff includes an Administrative Specialist-Administrative (that

provides financial, human resource, event planning, office management, supervision of student workers; as well

as academic support services for course scheduling, staffing, and recruitment of part-time instructors); and a

Public Relations Specialists (that coordinates the department internship and scholarship application processes,

marketing and outreach for premium graduate programs, and academic support services). A faculty to staff ratio

in comparison to other academic departments within the College is below:

24

Department Faculty Staff Faculty/Staff Ratio

School of Hospitality 9 2 4:1

Center for Process Innovation 4 1 4:1

School of Accountancy 22 2 11:1

Institute of Health Administration 7 1 7:1

Computer Information Systems 16 2 8:1

Managerial Sciences 38 2 19:1

Risk Management & Insurance 23 4 5¾:1

Finance 20 2 10:1

Marketing 35 3 12:1

Real Estate 3 1 3:1

Institute of International Business 13 2 6½:1

As of August of 2012, the department lost its two full-time technical support staff. The Robinson College’s

Technology Services Group has begun to provide support for the department’s server infrastructure. A part-time

undergraduate student, now a graduate assistant, was hired to provide technical support for the department,

assisting faculty and staff with desktop support needs, and maintaining the laboratory facilities. His role has

now expanded to include supporting faculty, staff, and PhD students with technical needs relating to research,

course support, and special projects. He is also supporting the department’s Center for Health Information

Technology, one of the University’s Second Century Initiatives, with I.T. project management and special

projects. He also supports the technical infrastructure for the department’s computer forensics courses,

including server and laboratory maintenance. The financial support for this technical support person is not

provided by the college but comes entirely from limited departmental funds. While the College’s Technology

Group works closely with the technical support graduate assistant, there is still a need for a full time staff

member to provide technical support for the department.

The department, by its very nature, is technology driven. In both research and teaching, the faculty strives to be

leaders in the information systems field. This necessitates the implementation and use of complex information

systems to help facilitate these activities. It is therefore necessary for the department to have a full-time staff

member who can coordinate and support the myriad range of technologies used by faculty and staff.

25

Technological Resources The department’s technical infrastructure includes 80 workstations, four Infocus Mondopads, eight printers, a

virtual server farm, backup storage, a virtualized server, and a new server that will be online later this year.

With financial support from tech fee funds, the department has expanded our computer forensics lab from eight

workstations to a 25 workstation/multipurpose training center for studies in computer information system.

These include: (1) computer forensics, (2) Microsoft certification, (3) training and tutoring for CIS classes, and

(4) support for a virtual lab. The lab which is located in two rooms, include an Infocus Mondopad for delivery

of tutoring and training sessions (one for each lab). Two additional Mondopads- located in the department main

conference room and in a small meeting room,-allow our students to deliver presentations and classroom

lectures with leading edge technology, as well as participate in video conferences and webinars from our local

facility. Our Ph.D. students that teach on-line CIS courses utilize the Mondopads to access Blackboard

Collaborate for conducting on-line classes and meetings in a webinar format.

The expanded multipurpose center provides students the opportunity to receive training and tutoring on the

various software programs that are utilized in their CIS courses. These programs include Microsoft Project,

Excel, Oracle, Java, C++, SQL database, SAP/ERP, and mobile platform development.

The center also enables CIS students to receive training in Microsoft Certification. The CIS Department is a

member of the Microsoft IT Academy that offers CIS students the opportunity to obtain five types of Microsoft

certifications: Microsoft Technology Associate, Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist, Microsoft Certified

IT Professional, Microsoft Certified Master, and Microsoft Certified Architect. Software for the certifications is

provided by Microsoft Developers Network Academic Alliance (MSDNAA).

The department is also a member of the SAP University Alliance, which provides access to the full SAP

software suite, as well as the SAP management simulation, which is used in some of our CIS masters courses.

The multipurpose training center also functions as a virtual software study lab that supports 150 virtual

workstations via use of EnCase virtual software. The virtual facility allows students to remotely login to the

system from classroom, campus labs, and at home.

2.3 Space Resources

The growth of the CIS Department includes joint initiatives/programs with the School of Nursing for students

enrolled in its Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies program. The initiative created an increase in demand and

enrollment of BIS students in CIS courses, and a need for additional classroom spaces with student work

stations.

With the current recruitment for two full-time faculty members, there is a need for additional office space for

new faculty. There is no available office-space within the CIS department for additional faculty.

In 2009, GSU embarked upon the Second Century Initiative (2CI) to strengthen collaborative research by hiring

at least 100 faculty members over a five-year period. In Fall 2010, university departments were asked to submit

proposals for “cluster hires,” in which each awarding unit will be able to hire two or more people to help boost a

research area to nationally recognized significance. The Robinson College of Business contributed to two of

the eight proposals that were chosen for funding.

26

One of the funding research clusters, Health Information Technology (HIT) is a collaborative effort of the

Department of Computer Information Systems and the Institute of Health Administration (in the Robinson

College of Business) and the Georgia Health Policy Center (in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies).

This cluster will focus on establishing a world-renown Center for Health Information Technology that builds

upon the growing demand for IT professionals equipped for the unique challenges of the health care sector, as

well as take advantage of the tremendous opportunities to conduct cross-discipline, collaborative health

informatics research.

The 2CI has made it possible to hire three full-time faculty members (one per department) and nine doctoral

students (three students per department) for the Center for Health Information Technology. For the Center to be

efficient and effective, it is important that the faculty, staff and doctoral students be housed in a central location.

As such, the center will require approximately 920 square feet of space to house four offices (130 square feet

each/520 square feet total) for the three faculty members and one administrator, and nine cubicles (44 square

feet each/396 square feet total) for the nine doctoral students.

2.4 Laboratory Resources The Department maintains laboratory facilities to support undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in

Computer Information System courses. The laboratory’s primary purpose is for the study of computer forensics,

providing assistance to students in the CIS 4000 and CIS 8630 courses. In the coming months, the lab will offer

students the opportunity to access self-paced Microsoft training courses. Students may use these to prepare for

Microsoft certifications.

The lab consists of 18 workstations, two Infocus Mondopads, and one server. Two more servers are scheduled

to be brought online later this year. The lab also includes forensic write blockers, and 16 desktop systems used

for teaching computer hardware assembly. The lab is currently staffed by one graduate research assistant, and

one part-time undergraduate student worker.

2.5 Foundation & Gift Resources The CIS Department has nine Foundation accounts: George E. Smith Eminent Scholar, Korean American

Business Center, Computer Information Systems, Center for Research in Information Systems, Matrix Resource

Scholarship Fund, J.M. Tulle Professorship, John B. Zellars Professorship; Jeff & Sherry Wang Scholarship

Fund, and Bergeron Women in Technology Scholarship Fund.

The George E. Smith Eminent Scholar, Tulle Professorship and Zellars Professorship are used to provide

supplemental salaries for designated CIS faculty, including the department chair. Funds for the Korean

American Business Center (KABC) are donated by its Executive Director and business constituents, and used to

support administrative services and initiatives of the center.

Funds for the Computer Information Systems and Center for Research in Information Systems foundation

accounts are donated by CIS faculty and alumni, and external constituents. Members of the Center for Research

in Information Systems round table provide annual donations to the CRIS account.

Donations for the Matrix Resource Scholarship Fund are received from CIS alum; Jeff & Sherry Wang provide

funding for the Jeff & Sherry Wang Scholarship Fund. The Bergeron Women in Technology Scholarship Fund

is funded by annual contributions from Sandra and Douglas Bergeron

27

2.6 Library Resources The CIS maintains its own library of magazine and journals that are CIS specific; most of the journals have

articles written by CIS faculty and doctoral students.

2.6.1 Strengths and Weaknesses of the University Library Collection and Services The Georgia State University Library supports the curriculum and research of the CIS Department by providing

access to current resources in computer information systems, assisting individual students with research

questions and class projects and conducting instructional classes on specialized CIS resources. To meet the

diverse needs of CIS, the Computer Information Systems Subject Librarian identifies and purchases relevant

resources, manages the budget for the CIS collection, and creates instructional materials to assist students and

faculty in utilizing the collection. The CIS Subject Librarian works collaboratively with the appointed

departmental faculty liaison in accomplishing these goals.

The strength of the university library’s collection with respect to CIS is in its book collection and its research

databases. The library creates a collection development policy for each department it serves. This policy

identifies subject areas and types of materials that are most important to the research and curriculum needs of

the department. Under the collection development policy for the CIS collection, priorities include acquiring

scholarly print and electronic materials that address current topics and theoretical applications in computer

information systems and provides reliable comparative and statistical data. The emphasis is on current

information, with some interest in the history of computing. There is a strong preference for materials digital

formats. One of the library’s electronic book vendors, Books 24X7, provides access to over 17,000 reference

titles, most of which are related to business and/or information technology.

There was only one library instruction session taught for a CIS class during 2012 fiscal year. This was due in

part to the fact that CIS resources were covered in the 17 library orientation sessions that were offered to

business graduate students during that time period. Although there were only three library consultations offered

to CIS students and faculty in FY 2012, it is likely that some of the 122 general business consultations offered

during that time period were related to CIS.

2.6.2 Peer Comparison: The Georgia State University Library uses the YBP acquisition system, which allows users to run peer

comparisons of book acquisitions. Table 21 provides a report of data from the 2012 fiscal year comparing the

GSU Library’s acquisitions in key call number ranges (HD45-HD45.2; HD61; QA71-QA76.9; T56.8-T58.9;

TK5101-TK5105.9) to the acquisitions of our peer intuitions in those same call number ranges. Table 21

reports 3 measurements per peer institution. 1) “Peer but not my library” indicates titles acquired by the peer

institution’s library, but not the GSU library. 2) “My library but not peer” indicates the number of titles acquired

by the GSU Library, but not the peer institution. 3) “Both peer and my library” indicates the number of

overlapping titles between the GSU Library and the peer institution. The data suggests that we are buying

more books in key CIS subject areas than our identified peers.

28

Table 21. Peer Comparison of Library Resources

Peer Institution Titles in Key Call Number Ranges

Arizona State University (Downtown)

Peer but not my library

My library but not peer

Both my library and peer

0

215

0

Bentley University




2

213

2

Temple University




1

215

0

University of Houston




80

153

62

Table 22 provides detailed descriptive statistics regarding holdings and services provided by the university

library.

Table 22. Details of library holdings and services

Measurement Statistic Comments/Notes

Resources

Number of journal titles

supporting program 66

Number of related journal titles

added in last three fiscal years 1

Number of related journal titles

cancelled in last three fiscal

years

3

Number of related databases

added in last three years 3

Number of related databases

cancelled in last three years 0

Number of monograph titles

supporting program 18,301 Key CIS call numbers are:

HD45-HD45.2 (Industries -

Technological innovations.

Automation)

HD61(Risk Management)

QA71-QA76.9 (Instruments

and machines, Calculating

29

Measurement Statistic Comments/Notes

machines, electronic

computers, computer science,

computer software)

T56.8-T58.9 (Applied

mathematics, quantitative

analysis, information

technology)

TK5101-TK5105.9

(Telecommunication, signal

processing, Internet,

computer network

management, networking)

Number of monograph titles in

key call number ranges added in

last three years.

2,608

Percentage of available universe

of related monograph titles

purchased through approval plan

during previous fiscal year.

6.6% Print

3.2% Electronic

Indicates the percentage of books

acquired out of the number

available in relevant call number

range.

Services

Number of library instruction

courses taught for department

during previous fiscal year.

1 CIS resources are also covered in

the 17 library orientation sessions

for graduate business students.

Number of library consultations

held with students from

department during previous

fiscal year.

3 University subject librarians had

122 general business

consultations, some of which may

have been related to CIS.

2.6.3 Electronic Resources Students and faculty in the Department of Computer Information Systems rely heavily on journals, major

reference works and databases to conduct research and complete assignments. The following section provides

an overview of some of the major electronic resources available for Computer Information Systems research.

Table 23. University library electronic subscriptions and databases relevant to CIS.

GSU Library Subscription Databases

Database

Description

ABI/Inform Complete Provides access to top scholarly

business journals, news sources,

trade publications, dissertations,

conference proceedings, and

30

market reports.

ACM Digital Library Full-text repository of papers

published by the Association for

Computing Machinery and by

other publishers that have co-

publishing or co-marketing

agreements with ACM.

Conference Board Full-text research reports on the

latest issues in business

management and US and global

economics. Proprietary,

nonbiased research includes

studies of Fortune 500 companies

on business trends, leadership

decisions, performance excellence

& corporate governance.

Factiva Provides access to more than

10,000 authoritative sources

includes the exclusive

combination of The Wall Street

Journal, the Financial Times™,

Dow Jones and Reuters

newswires and the Associated

Press, as well as Reuters

Fundamentals, and D&B

company profiles

IEEE Xplore Provides access to technical

literature in electrical engineering,

computer science, and electronics

JSTOR Full text access to scholarly

content including business,

economics, mathematics and

technology literature.

LexisNexis Academic Contains thousands of

publications, virtually all in full

text. Includes newspapers, trade

publications, legal news, law

reviews, company financial

information and government

publications.

Web of Science Includes citations from top

journals in business, economics,

computer science and more.

31

GALILEO Databases

Database

Description

Business Source Complete Provides access to scholarly

journals, financial data, books,

monographs, major reference

works, book digests, conference

proceedings, case studies,

investment research reports,

industry reports, market research

reports, country reports, company

profiles, SWOT analyses and

more.

Computer Science Index Provides access to academic

journals, professional

publications, and other reference

sources at the highest scholarly

and technical levels of computer

science.

Computer Source Covers current trends in

technology. Includes literature on

computers, telecommunications,

electronics, and the Internet

Internet and Personal Computing Abstracts Provides access to literature

related to personal computing

products and developments in

business, the Internet, the home,

and all other applied areas.

3 CIS Department Goal Statements

The ten initiatives for the Department for the next 2-3 year period are:

1. Launch EX MS MIT in Songdo, Korea

2. Launch MS ISAC in a Fast Track mode

3. Ramp up our HIT concentration in our current FT MS IS program

4. Launch a new FT MS in Managing Enterprise Systems, jointly with Georgia Southern University

5. Expand the research mission of our 2CI HIT initiative

6. Appoint an Executive Director for our 2CI Center for Health IT

7. Launch a new GSU Co-op program in computing (CIS and CS)

32

8. Develop one or more non-degree executive short-course offerings

9. Expand the undergraduate B.I.S. Degree program in HIT with the School of Nursing

10.Strengthen our new CIS Board of Advisors

11. Acquire sufficient faculty and staff to accomplish these goals.

4 Goals and Objectives for the Coming Cycle

The central Goal and Objective for the coming cycle regards assessment

Current action plan items in the MS IS assessment.

Re-engineer the MS IS Assessment Process

Description: The previous MS IS assessment process proved to be infeasible due mostly to its labor intensive

nature. A Computer Information Systems assessment coordinator made one set of changes simplifying the

process. The subsequent process also proved infeasible and no tangible assessment results are seen for recent

years. During this period, our MS IS program has moved to a cohort format which now requires a capstone

project / field study. Given these three circumstances, the CIS MS (actually MS IS) assessment is being re-

engineered and re-initiated during this 2013-2014 academic year.

Implementation Status: In-Progress

Priority: High

Implementation Description: The CIS GPC will review and renew the course objectives, student artifacts for

assessment, and associated rubrics and measures for two CIS MS IS core courses each year for the next three

years. This will cover the six courses in the CIS MS IS core. The CIS GPC will also evaluate the best means to

utilize the capstone course for including in assessing the overall CIS MS IS degree program.

Responsible Party: The CIS Graduate Program Committee

Established in Cycle: 2012-2013

Active Through: Keep Active

33

5 Appendix A: CIS offerings by fiscal year, course level, number of sections, number of students and average number of students

FY LEVEL COURSE XLISTED

WITH

NUMBER OF

SECTIONS

NUMBER OF

STUDENTS

AVG. NUMBER

OF STUDENTS

2011 LOWER CIS 2010

43.0 1677 39.0

2011 UPPER CIS 3001

8.0 238 29.8

2011 UPPER CIS 3260

5.0 150 30.0

2011 UPPER CIS 3270

2.0 46 23.0

2011 UPPER CIS 3300

8.0 240 30.0

2011 UPPER CIS 3320

1.0 36 36.0

2011 UPPER CIS 3730

8.0 244 30.5

2011 UPPER CIS 4000

5.0 128 25.6

2011 UPPER CIS 4120

3.0 79 26.3

2011 UPPER CIS 4140

1.0 18 18.0

2011 UPPER CIS 4620

1.0 27 27.0

2011 UPPER CIS 4680

3.0 86 28.7

2011 UPPER CIS 4700

2.0 50 25.0

2011 UPPER CIS 4970

3.0 41 13.7

2011 UPPER CIS 4980

3.0 82 27.3

2011 GRADUATE

ACCT 8680 CIS 8080 1.0 26 27.4

2011 GRADUATE CIS 8000

2.0 41 20.5


1.0 18 18.0


1.0 25 25.0


1.0 30 30.0


1.0 26 26.0


1.0 28 28.0


1.0 21 21.0

2011 GRADUATE CIS 8080 ACCT 8680 1.1 28 26.7


1.0 14 14.0


1.0 12 12.0


1.0 11 11.0


1.0 24 24.0

2011 GRADUATE CIS 8220 IB 8710 0.5 11 21.0


1.0 21 21.0


5.0 15 3.0


3.0 26 8.7


1.0 12 12.0


1.0 22 22.0


2.0 2 1.0


1.0 6 6.0


1.0 6 6.0


1.0 5 5.0

34


WITH

NUMBER OF

SECTIONS

NUMBER OF

STUDENTS

AVG. NUMBER

OF STUDENTS


2.0 23 11.5

2011 GRADUATE EMBA 8600

1.0 39 39.0

2011 GRADUATE GMBA 8120

1.0 26 26.0


1.0 26 26.0

2011 GRADUATE IB 8710 CIS 8220 0.5 10 21.0

2011 GRADUATE MBA 8125

8.0 217 27.1

2011 GRADUATE MIT 8000

1.0 24 24.0


1.0 23 23.0


1.0 23 23.0


1.0 23 23.0


1.0 24 24.0


1.0 24 24.0


1.0 24 24.0


1.0 23 23.0


1.0 23 23.0

2011 GRADUATE PMBA 8125

2.0 70 35.0

2012 LOWER CIS 2010

32.0 1446 45.2

2012 UPPER CIS 3001

10.0 285 28.5

2012 UPPER CIS 3260

7.0 185 26.4

2012 UPPER CIS 3270

2.0 41 20.5

2012 UPPER CIS 3300

9.0 253 28.1

2012 UPPER CIS 3310

2.0 27 13.5

2012 UPPER CIS 3320

2.0 70 35.0

2012 UPPER CIS 3730

9.0 259 28.8

2012 UPPER CIS 4000

5.0 122 24.4

2012 UPPER CIS 4120

4.0 102 25.5

2012 UPPER CIS 4140

1.0 19 19.0

2012 UPPER CIS 4190

1.0 15 15.0

2012 UPPER CIS 4389

2.0 2 1.0

2012 UPPER CIS 4620

1.0 18 18.0

2012 UPPER CIS 4680

6.0 145 24.2

2012 UPPER CIS 4700

1.0 26 26.0

2012 UPPER CIS 4970

3.0 51 17.0

2012 UPPER CIS 4980

3.0 106 35.3

2012 GRADUATE

ACCT 8680 CIS 8080 1.1 33 29.4


2.0 51 25.5


3.0 58 19.3


1.0 28 28.0


1.0 26 26.0


1.0 24 24.0

35


WITH

NUMBER OF

SECTIONS

NUMBER OF

STUDENTS

AVG. NUMBER

OF STUDENTS


1.0 24 24.0


1.0 23 23.0


1.0 29 29.0


1.0 1 1.0



1.0 8 8.0


1.0 11 11.0


2.0 13 6.5


1.0 16 16.0

2012 GRADUATE CIS 8220 IB 8710 0.6 9 16.0


1.0 26 26.0


3.0 8 2.7


3.0 24 8.0


1.0 18 18.0


1.0 26 26.0


1.0 6 6.0


2.0 24 12.0


1.0 42 42.0


1.0 17 17.0


1.0 17 17.0

2012 GRADUATE IB 8710 CIS 8220 0.4 7 16.0


7.0 184 26.3


1.0 34 34.0


1.0 34 34.0


1.0 34 34.0


1.0 23 23.0


1.0 34 34.0


1.0 34 34.0


1.0 34 34.0


2.0 57 28.5


1.0 34 34.0


4.0 68 17.0


4.0 145 36.3

2013 LOWER CIS 2010

20.0 1513 75.7

2013 UPPER CIS 3001

13.0 359 27.6

2013 UPPER CIS 3260

9.0 232 25.8

2013 UPPER CIS 3270

3.0 48 16.0

2013 UPPER CIS 3300

11.0 296 26.9

2013 UPPER CIS 3320

3.0 85 28.3

2013 UPPER CIS 3730

11.0 265 24.1

2013 UPPER CIS 4000

4.0 87 21.8

36


WITH

NUMBER OF

SECTIONS

NUMBER OF

STUDENTS

AVG. NUMBER

OF STUDENTS

2013 UPPER CIS 4120

4.0 108 27.0

2013 UPPER CIS 4140

1.0 7 7.0

2013 UPPER CIS 4190

1.0 22 22.0

2013 UPPER CIS 4300

1.0 10 10.0

2013 UPPER CIS 4389

1.0 1 1.0

2013 UPPER CIS 4620

1.0 13 13.0

2013 UPPER CIS 4680

7.0 170 24.3

2013 UPPER CIS 4700

1.0 27 27.0

2013 UPPER CIS 4970

3.0 52 17.3

2013 UPPER CIS 4980

3.0 119 39.7

2013 GRADUATE

ACCT 8680 CIS 8080 0.9 24 27.0


3.0 74 24.7


2.0 41 20.5


1.0 24 24.0


2.0 38 19.0


2.0 36 18.0


2.0 37 18.5


1.0 15 15.0


1.0 22 22.0



1.0 20 20.0


1.0 10 10.0


1.0 14 14.0


1.0 8 8.0

2013 GRADUATE CIS 8220 IB 8710 0.6 7 12.0


1.0 26 26.0


3.0 8 2.7


4.0 54 13.5


2.0 44 22.0


1.0 33 33.0


1.0 21 21.0


1.0 7 7.0


1.0 7 7.0


1.0 6 6.0


2.0 18 9.0


1.0 50 50.0


1.0 22 22.0


1.0 22 22.0

2013 GRADUATE IB 8710 CIS 8220 0.4 5 12.0


5.0 146 29.2


1.0 20 20.0


1.0 20 20.0

37


WITH

NUMBER OF

SECTIONS

NUMBER OF

STUDENTS

AVG. NUMBER

OF STUDENTS


1.0 20 20.0


1.0 34 34.0


1.0 34 34.0


1.0 24 24.0


1.0 20 20.0


1.0 20 20.0


1.0 20 20.0


1.0 20 20.0


2.0 40 20.0


5.0 148 29.6

6 Appendix B: Refereed journal publications by CIS faculty for the past three years.

6.1 Refereed Scholarly

Ahluwalia, Punit, G. Gimpel U. and U. Varshney. “Why People aren’t Using Wireless Internet: A

Behavioral Economics Approach to Technology Preferences.” International Journals of Services and

Standards 6, no. 3/4 (2010): 271-294.

Baskerville, Richard L. and J. Pries-Heje. "Erklärende Designtheorie (a German language

translation/reprint of "Explanatory Design Theory")." Wirtschaftsinformatik 52, no. 5 (2010): 259-271.

Baskerville, Richard L. and Jan Pries-Heje. "Explanatory Design Theory." Business & Information

Systems Engineering 2, no. 5 (2010): 271-282.

Baskerville, Richard L. "Knowledge lost and found: a commentary on Allen Lee's ‘retrospect and

prospect’." Journal of Information Technology 25, no. 4 (2010): 350-351.

Baskerville, Richard L., M. Cavallari, K. Hjort-Madsen, J. Pries-Heje, M. Sorrentino and F. Virili. "The

strategic value of SOA: A comparative case study in the banking sector." International Journal of

Information Technology and Management 9, no. 1 (2010): 31-53.

Baskerville, Richard L., Jan Pries-Heje and Sabine Madsen. "Post-agility: What follows a decade of

agility?" Information and Software Technology 53, no. 5 (2011): 543-555.

Baskerville, Richard L., K Lyytinen, V Sambamurthy and Detmar W. Straub. "A Response to the

Design-oriented Information Systems Research Memorandum." European Journal of Information

Systems 20, no. 1 (January 2011): 11-15.

Baskerville, Richard L. "Making Better Choices: A Response to Walsham." Journal of Information

Technology 27, no. 2 (2012): 94-95.

38

Bidan, Marc, Frantz Rowe and Duane P. Truex. "An empirical study of is architectures in french SMEs :

Integration approaches." European Journal of Information Systems 21, no. 3 (March 2012): 287-302.

Bush, Ashley, T. Amrit, and A. Rai. “Complementarities Between Product Design Modularity and IT

Infrastructure Flexibility in IT-Enabled Supply Chains.” IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management

57, no. 2(2010): 240-255. Checchi, Ricardo M., Karen D. Loch, Detmar W. Straub, Galen R. Sevcik and Peter N. Meso. "National

ICT Policies and Development: A Stage Model and Stakeholder Theory Perspective." Journal of Global

Information Management 20, no. 1, January-March (January 2012): 57-79.

Chen, H., R. H. L. Chiang, and V. Storey. “Business Intelligence and Analytics: From Big Data to Big

Impact.” MIS Quarterly 36, no. 4 (Dec. 2012): 1165-1188.

Chua, C. E. H., V. Storey, and R. H. L. Chiang. “Deriving Knowledge Representation Guidelines by

Analyzing the Behavior of Knowledge Engineers.” Decision Support Systems 54, no. 1 (2012): 304-315.

Chua, C. E. H., V. Storey, and R. H. L. Chiang. “Knowledge Representation: A Conceptual Modeling

Approach.” Journal of Database Management 23, no. 1 (2012): 30 pp.

Cao, L., Balasubramaniam Ramesh, and T. Abdel-Hamid, “Modeling Dynamics in Agile Software

Development”, ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, (Nov/Dec 2010), 1-26. Cao, L., K. Mohan, Balasubramaniam Ramesh and S. Sarkar, “Adapting Funding Processes for Agile IT Projects:

An Empirical Investigation, European Journal of Information Systems, 22, (2012), 191-205.

Cao, L., K. Mohan, Balasubramaniam Ramesh and S. Sarkar, “Evolution of Governance: Achieving

Ambidexterity in IT Outsourcing”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 2013.

Elie-dit-cosaque, C. and D. Straub. “Opening the Black Box of System Usage: User Adaptation to

Disruptive IS.” European Journal of Information Systems 20, no. 5 (2011): 589-607.

French, A., and J. P. Shim. “Multinational diversity in IS research: the effects of education on publication

outlets.” Journal of Information Technology 26, no. 4 (December 2011): 313-322.

Aaron French and J. P. Shim, "Influence of American Institutions on Information Systems Research within

Asia," Pacific Asia Journal of Association for Information Systems (PAJAIS), Vol. 4, No. 4, 2012, pp.

43-59.

Gefen, David, Edward E. Rigdon and Detmar W. Straub. "An Update and Extension to SEM Guidelines

for Administrative and Social Science Research." MIS Quarterly 35, no. 2 (June 2011): iii-A7.

C. Guo, J. P. Shim, and R. Otondo, "Social Network Services in China: An Integrated Model of Centrality,

Trust, and Technology Acceptance," Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 13,

No. 2, 2010, pp. 76-199.

Hsieh, J.J. Po-An, Arun Rai and Mark Keil. "Addressing Digital Inequality through Government

Initiatives: Forms of Capital that Affect ICT Utilization." Information Systems Research 22, no. 2 (June

2011): 233-253.

Hsieh, j, Arun Rai and S Xu. "Extracting Business Value from IT: A Sensemaking Perspective of Post-

Adoptive Use." Management Science 57, no. 11 (November 2011): 2018-2039.

Hsieh, J.J. Po-An and Arun Rai. "Impact of User Satisfaction with Mandated CRM Use on Employee

Service Quality." MIS Quarterly 36, no. 4 (December 2012): 1065-1080.

Hsu, Carol, Jae-Nam Lee and Detmar W. Straub. "Institutional Influences on Information Security

Innovations." Information Systems Research 23, no. 2 (June 2012): 918-939.

Ilipinar, Gursel and Duane P. Truex. "Design Thinking In the Postmodern Organization." China-USA

Business Review 10, no. 11 (October 2011): 1203-1212.

Jung, P., L. Jungwoo, L. Huynh, D. Truex. “Exploring the impact of communication effectiveness on

service quality, trust and relationship commitment in it services.” International Journal of Information

Management 32, no. 5 (2012): 459-468.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/905644041/1417AF509DF379ADAF8/17?accountid=11226

http://search.proquest.com/docview/905644041/1417AF509DF379ADAF8/17?accountid=11226

39

Keil, Mark and Magnus Mähring. "Is your project turning into a black hole?." California Management

Review 53, no. 1 (Fall 2010): 6-31.

Keil, Mark and ChongWoo Park. "Bad News Reporting on Troubled IT Projects: Reassessing the

Mediating Role of Responsibility in the Basic Whistleblowing Model." Journal of Systems and Software

83, no. 11 (2010): 2305–2316.

Keil, Mark, Amrit Tiwana, Robert Sainsbury and Sweta Sneha. "Towards a Theory of Whistleblowing

Intentions: A Benefit-to-cost Differential Perspective." Decision Sciences 41, no. 4 (2010): 787-812.

Keil, Mark, Arun Rai and Shan Liu. "How User Risk and Requirements Risk Moderate the Effects of

Formal and Informal Control on the Process Performance of IT Projects." European Journal of

Information Systems 22 (September 2012): 650-672.

J. Kim, J. P. Shim, and K. Ahn, "Social Networking Service: Motivation, Pleasure, and Behavioral

Intention to Use," Journal of Computer Information Systems, Summer 2011, pp. 92-101.

Kuechler, Bill and Vijay K. Vaishnavi. "Promoting Relevance in IS Research: An Informing System for

Design Science Research." Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline

14 (2011): 125-138.

Kuechler, William and Vijay K. Vaishnavi. "A Framework for Theory Development in Design Science

Research: Multiple Perspectives." Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13, no. 6 (June

2012): 395-423.

Lee, Allen S. and Richard L. Baskerville. "Conceptualizing Generalizability: New Contributions and a

Reply." MIS Quarterly 36, no. 3 (September 2012): 144-153.

Lee, Jong Seok, Mark Keil and Vijay Kasi. "The Effect of an Initial Budget and Schedule Goal on

Software Project Escalation." Journal of Management Information Systems 29, no. 1 (2012): 53-77.

Lewis, M., L. Mathiassen and A. Rai. "Scalable growth in IT-enabled service provisioning: A sensemaking

perspective." European Journal of Information Systems 20 (2011): 285-302.

Li, Lei, Vijay K. Vaishnavi and Art Vandenberg. "SOM Clustering to Promote Interoperability of

Directory Metadata: A Grid-Enabled Genetic Algorithm Approach." Journal of Universal Computer

Science (2010): 23 pages.

Li, Lei, Vijay K. Vaishnavi, Art Vandenberg and Seema Metikurke. "A Systematic Approach for VSM-

based Web Page Classification." Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal 15, no. 2

(2012): 107-122.

Liu, Shan, J. Zhang, Mark Keil and T. Chen. "Comparing Senior Executive and Project Manager

Perceptions of IT Project Risk: A Chinese Delphi Study." Information Systems Journal 20, no. 4

(2010): 319-355.

X. Luo, H. Li, J. Zhang, and J. P. Shim, "Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial

acceptance of emerging technologies: An empirical study of mobile banking services," Decision Support

Systems, Vo. 49, 2010, pp. 222-234.

X. Luo, J. P. Shim, and A. Gurung, "Understanding the Determinants of User Acceptance of Enterprise

Instant Messaging: An Empirical Study," Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic

Commerce,", Vol. 20, 2010, pp. 155-181.

Maass, Wolfgang and Upkar Varshney. "Design and evaluation of Ubiquitous Information Systems and

use in healthcare." Decision Support Systems 54, no. 1 (December 2012): 597-609.

Mathiassen, Lars and H. Tscherning. "Early adoption of mobile devices: A social network perspective."

Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 11, no. 1 (2010): 23-42.

Mathiassen, Lars and G. Tjornehoj. "Improvisation during process-technology adoption: A longitudinal

study of a software firm." Journal of Information Technology 25, no. 1 (2010): 20-34.

40

Mathiassen, Lars and A. Sandberg. "How a professionally qualified doctoral student bridged the practice-

research gap: A confessional account of collaborative practice research." European Journal of

Information Systems 22 (July 2012): 475-492.

Mathiassen, Lars, M. Chiasson and M. Germonprez. "Style Composition in Action Research Publication."

MIS Quarterly 32, no. 2 (June 2012): 347-363.

McDonald, David S. "Text Questioning System (TQS) –An Experiment In Co-opting SMS Technology In

The Classroom." Ubiquitious Learning: An International Journal 4, no. 1 (January 2010): 1-7.

Mohan,K., Balasubramaniam Ramesh, and V. Sugumaran, “Integrating Software Product Line

Engineering and Agile Development”, IEEE Software, 27, 2, (2010), pp. 48-55.

Mohan, K., Balasubramaniam Ramesh, L. Cao and S. Sarkar, “Managing Disruptive and Sustaining

Innovations in Green IT”, IEEE IT Professional, Volume 14, 6, (2012)

Muller, S. D., Lars Mathiassen and H. H. Balshoj. "Software process improvement as organizational

change: A metaphorical analysis of the literature." Journal of Systems and Software 83 (2010): 2128-

2146.

Napier, N., Lars Mathiassen and D. Robey. "Building contextual ambidexterity in a software company to

improve firm-level coordination." European Journal of Information Systems 20 (2011): 674-690.

Nickerson, Rob, Upkar Varshney and Jan Muntermann. "A method for taxonomy development and its

application in information systems." European Journal of Information Systems 22 (June 2012): 336-359.

Park, Sang C., Mark Keil, Jong U. Kim and Gee W. Bock. "Understanding overbidding behavior in C2C

auctions: an escalation theory perspective." European Journal of Information Systems 21, no. 6

(November 2012): 643-663.

Pearson, J. and L. Mathiassen. “A process for managing risk in distributed teams.” IEEE Software 27, no. 1

(2010): 20-29.

Persson, J., Lars Mathiassen and I. Aaen. "Agile distributed software development: Enacting control

through media and context." Information Systems Journal 22, no. 6 (2012): 411-433.

Petter, Stacie, Arun Rai and Detmar W. Straub. "The Critical Importance of Construct Measurement

Specification: A Response to Aguirre-Urreta and Marakas." MIS Quarterly 36, no. 1 (March 2012): 147-

155.

Rai, Arun and Xinlin Tang. "Leveraging IT Capabilities and Competitive Process Capabilities for

Interorganizational Relationship Portfolios." Information Systems Research 21, no. 3 (September 2010):

516-542.

Rai, Arun, Mark Keil, Robert Hornyak and Kim Wullenweber. "Hybrid Relational-Contractual

Governance for Business Process Outsourcing." Journal of Management Information Systems 29, no. 2

(Fall 2012): 213-256.

Rai, Arun, P Pavlou, G IM and R Hornyak. "Inter-firm IT Capabilities and Communications for Co-

Creating Relational Value: Evidence from the Logistics Industry." MIS Quarterly 36, no. 1 (March

2012): 233-262.

Ramesh, Balasubraman I., Lan Cao and Richard L. Baskerville. "Agile Requirements Engineering

Practices and Challenges: An Empirical Study." Information Systems Journal 20, no. 5 (2010): 449-480.

Ramesh, Balasubraman I., K. Mohan and Lan Cao. "Ambidexterity in Agile Distributed Development: An

Empirical Investigation." Information Systems Research 23, no. 2 (June 2012): 323-339.

Robinson, William N. "Measuring open source quality: A literature review." International Journal of Open

Source Software and Processes 3, no. 3 (2011): 48-65.

Romanow, D., L. Mathiassen, G. Landers and C. Parker. "Development of IT-enabled chronic care

management for the medically underserved: A contextualist framework." Journal of Information

Technology Theory and Application 12, no. 4 (2011): 27-50.

41

J. P. Shim, S. Dekleva, G., C. Guo, and D. Mittleman, "Twitter, Google, iPhone/iPad, and Facebook and

Smart Technology Environments," Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol.

29, No. 1, 2011, pp. 654-671

Singh, R., Lars Mathiassen, E. Astapova and M. Stachura. "Sustainable rural tele health innovation: A

public health case study." Health Services Research 45, no. 4 (2010): 985-1004.

Singh, R., Lars Mathiassen, E. Astapova and M. Stachura. "Dynamic capabilities in home health: IT-

enabled transformation of post-acute care." Journal of the Association for Information Systems 12

(2011): 163-188.

Storey, Veda. “Usability of Upper Level Ontologies: The Case of ResearchCyc.” Data Knowledge &

Engineering 69, no. 4(2010): 343-356.

Storey, Veda. “Construction of Domain Ontologies: Sourcing the World Wide Web.” International Journal

of Intelligent Information Technologies 7, no. 2 (2011): 24 pp.

Storey, V., R. M. Dewan, and M. Freimer. “Data Quality: Setting Organizational Policies.” Decision

Support Systems 54, no. 1 (2012): 434-442.

Sun, Yongqiang, Yulin Fang, Kai H. Lim and Detmar W. Straub. "User Satisfaction with IT Service

Delivery: A Social Capital Perspective." Information Systems Research 23, no. 4 (December 2012):

1195-1211.

Susarla, A., Jeong-ha Oh and Y. Tan. "Social networks and the diffusion of user-generated content:

Evidence for YouTube." Information Systems Research 23, no. 1 (March 2012): 23-41.

Sykes, T., V. Venkatesh, and A. Rai. “Explaining physicians' use of EMR systems and performance in the

shakedown phase.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 18, no. 2 (2011): 125-130.

Takeda, Hirotoshi, Duane P. Truex, Micheal Cullear and Richard Vidgen. "Scholarly influence research

(SIR): Augmenting ideational influence with social influence." The International Journal of Social and

Organizational Dynamics in Information Technology (SODIT) 2, no. 1 (January 2012): 17-31.

Tang, Xinlin, Arun Rai and J. Wareham. "Bridging and Bonding in Exchange Networks: A Structural

Embeddedness Perspective of B2B Digital Intermediation." IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management 58, no. 1 (February 2011): 4-20.

Tang, Xinlin and Arun Rai. "The Moderating Effects of Supplier Portfolio Characteristics on the

Competitive Performance Impacts of Supplier-Facing Process Capabilities." Journal of Operations

Management 30, no. 1 (January 2012): 85-98.

Tanriverdi, Hüseyin, Arun Rai and N. Venkatraman. "Research Commentary - Reframing the Dominant

Quests of Information Systems Strategy Research for Complex Adaptive Business Systems."

Information Systems Research 21, no. 4 (December 2010): 822-834.

Tiwana, Amrit and Mark Keil. "Control in Internal and Outsourced Systems Development Projects."

Journal of Management Information Systems 26, no. 3 (2010): 9-44.

Truex, Duane P., Michael Cullear, Hirotoshi Takeda and Richard Vidgen. "The Scholarly Influence of

Heinz Klein: ideational and social measures of his impact on IS Research and IS Scholars." European

Journal of Information Systems 20, no. 4 (July 2011): 1-18.

Venable, John and Richard L. Baskerville. "Eating our own Cooking: Toward a More Rigorous Design

Science of Research Methods." Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 10, no. 2 (2012):

144-153.

Vlas, R. and William N. Robinson. "Two rule-based natural language strategies for requirements discovery

and classification in open source software development projects." Journal of Management Information

Systems 28, no. 4 (Spring 2012): 11-38.

Walsh, Isabelle and Richard L. Baskerville. "Managing Culture Creep: Toward a Strategic Model of User

IT Culture." Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19, no. 4 (2010): 257-280.

42

Wei, Yujie J., Amit Poddar and Detmar W. Straub. “Power of Many: An Assessment of Internet Group

Purchasing." Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 12, no. 1 (February 2011): 19-43.

Zheng, Guangzhi and Vijay K. Vaishnavi. "A Multidimensional Perceptual Map Approach to Project

Prioritization and Selection." AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction 3, no. 2 (2011): 82-

103.

Zablah, Alex R., Danny N. Bellenger, Detmar W. Straub and Wesley J. Johnston. "Performance

Implications of CRM Technology Use: A Multi-Level Field Study of Business Customers and their

Providers in the Telecommunications Industry." Information Systems Research 23, no. 2 (June 2012):

418-435.

6.2 Refereed Professional/Practitioner

Dhar, Subhankar and Upkar Varshney. "Challenges and Business Models for Mobile Location-based

Services and Advertising." Communications of the ACM 54, no. 5 (May 2011): 121-129.

Hansen, A. M., P. Kraemmergaard and Lars Mathiassen. "Rapid adaptation in digital transformation: A

participatory process for engaging IS and business leaders." MIS Quarterly Executive 10, no. 4 (2011):

175-185.

Hirschheim, Rudy, Richard J. Welke and Andrew Schwarz. "Service Oriented Architecture Maturity."

IEEE Computer 44, no. 2 (2011): 61-67.

Hirschheim, Rudy, Richard J. Welke and Andrew Schwarz. "Service Oriented Architecture: Myths,

Realities, and a Maturity Model." MIS Quarterly Executive 9, no. 1 (March 2010): 203-213.

Myers, Michael D., Richard L. Baskerville, Grandon Gill and Neil Ramiller. "Setting Our Research

Agendas: Institutional Ecology, Informing Sciences, or Management Fashion Theory?" Communications

of the Association for Information Systems 28, no. 23 (2011): 1-18.

Rai, Arun, Venkatesh Viswanath, Hillol Bala, Mark Lewis. "Transitioning to Enterprise Modular

Architecture: Drivers, Constraints and Actions." MIS Quarterly Executive 9, no. 2 (June 2010): 83-95.

Reidl, Rene, Rajiv D. Banker, Izak Benbasat, Fred D. Davis, Allan R. Dennis, Angelika Dimoka, David

Gefen, Alok Gupta, Anya Ischebeck, Peter Kenning, Paul A. Pavlou, Gernot Müller-Putz, Detmar W.

Straub, Jan vom Brocke and Bernd Weber. "On the Foundations of NeuroIS: Reflections on the

Gmunden Retreat 2009." Communications of the Association for Information Systems 27, no. 1, Article

15 (January 2010): 243-264.

Truex, Duane P. and Jonny Holmström. "Dropping Your Tools: Exploring when and how theories can

serve as blinders in IS research." Communications of the Association for Information Systems 28, no. 1

(January 2011): 1-15.

Tuunanen, T. and Lars Mathiassen. "Requirements risk management." IEEE IT Professional 13, no. 6

(2011): 40-47.

43

7 Appendix C: Undergraduate Student Survey Findings Comparisons

ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT SURVEY FINDINGS COMPARISONS November 2013

Department N = 87 University N (5 Departments) = 380 Dept. response rate = 11% University response rate average = 15% Table C1. General Learning Outcomes

To what degree is your major program of study contributing to your doing or achieving the following:

Dept. M(SD) Univ. M(SD)

Writing clearly and effectively 4.34(1.44) 4.94(1.24)

Speaking clearly and effectively 4.49(1.37) 4.73(1.26)

Locating and organizing information from multiple sources 4.88(1.10) 4.92(1.16)

Integrating new information with past knowledge 5.00(1.10) 5.19(1.07)

Analyzing problems from various points of view 4.87(1.16) 5.24(1.05)

Developing original ideas 4.69(1.31) 4.86(1.21)

Understanding ethical standards 4.66(1.20) 4.87(1.35)

Note. Mean scale: 1=No contribution to 6=Significant contribution.

Table C2. Program Preparation/Challenge

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:

Dept. M(SD) Univ.

M(SD) My program of study is preparing me for my career or future educational goals. 4.93(1.47) 4.98(1.22)

My experience in the department has fostered my interest in my program of study. 4.82(1.36) 4.93(1.310

My program of study is academically challenging. 5.07(1.20) 5.18(1.03)

Overall, instructors in the department stress high quality work from students. 4.94(1.32) 5.29(.98)

Note. Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree.

Table C3. Program Quality

Please rate the following items: Dept. M(SD) Univ. M(SD)

Overall quality of undergraduate courses in the department 4.70(1.21) 5.03(1.06)

Availability of undergraduate courses in the department 4.05(1.66) 4.32(1.41)

Overall quality of undergraduate instruction in the department 4.64(1.25) 5.01(1.10)

44

Procedures used to evaluate student performance 4.72(1.10) 4.74(1.21)

Note. Mean scale: 1=Poor to 6=Excellent.

Table C4. Faculty Interaction



In my department, students have opportunities to do research-related activities with faculty.

3.66(1.33) 4.04(1.46)

In my department, faculty are available to answer questions or discuss my concerns about my program of study.

4.91(1.18) 5.02(1.18)

In general, faculty in my department are appropriately prepared for the courses they teach.

4.99(1.09) 5.31(.99)

In general, faculty in the department motivate me to do my best. 4.79(1.29) 5.07(1.16)

My department promotes an environment of inclusiveness and respect. 4.90(1.18) 5.25(.99)

I would recommend my department to other students like myself. 4.93(1.25) 5.22(1.13)


8 Appendix D: Graduate Student Survey Findings Comparisons

ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS GRADUATE STUDENT SURVEY FINDINGS COMPARISONS

November 2013

Department N = 22 University N (7 Departments) = 352 Dept. response rate = 18% University response rate average = 42% Table D1. General Learning Outcomes



Writing clearly and effectively 4.64(1.50) 5.01(1.18)

Speaking clearly and effectively 5.05(0.72) 4.79(1.28)

Locating and organizing information from multiple sources 5.09(0.97) 5.01(1.17)

Awareness of historical contexts surrounding your area of study 5.09(1.06) 5.01(1.22)

45

Demonstrating competence in specific research methods appropriate to your area of specialization

4.95(1.13) 4.95(1.22)

Effectively evaluate implications and applications of research in your field 5.05(1.05) 4.93(1.20)

Collaborating effectively with colleagues (e.g., other students, researchers, faculty)

5.18(1.10) 4.75(1.42)

Knowledge about the tenets of ethical practice 4.95(0.95) 5.18(1.13)


Table D2. Program Preparation/Challenge


Dept. M(SD) Univ.

M(SD) My program of study is academically challenging. 5.50(0.60) 5.17(1.07)

My program requirements are clear to me. 5.32(1.13) 5.06(1.22)

There are sufficient research opportunities available to me in the department. 4.76(1.30) 4.28(1.61)

My program's curriculum is broad enough to prepare me for my career choice. 5.32(1.17) 4.69(1.39)

Overall, instructors in the department stress high quality work from students. 5.45(0.67) 5.18(1.14)


Table D3.

Please rate the following items: Dept. M(SD) Univ. M(SD)

Overall quality of graduate courses in the department 5.32(0.84) 5.00(1.04)

Availability of graduate courses in the department 4.95(1.43) 4.46(1.37)

Overall quality of graduate instruction in the department 5.27(0.77) 5.08(1.07)

Academic advisement available in the department 4.73(1.20) 4.63(1.48)

Career preparation and guidance available in the department 4.50(1.54) 4.36(1.50)

Availability of graduate research/teaching assistantships 4.67(1.39) 4.36(1.58)

Support for student conference presentations and publications 4.48(1.03) 4.38(1.41)


Table D4. Faculty Interaction




5.59(0.50) 5.32(1.00)

46

In general, faculty are up-to-date in emerging trends and information in my field of study.

5.55(0.74) 5.33(0.98)


5.64(0.73) 5.22(1.05)

In general, faculty in the department motivate me to do my best. 5.45(0.74) 5.19(1.19)

Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of students in my graduate program.

5.68(0.78) 4.90(1.43)

Administrative staff in the department are helpful to me. 5.27(0.88) 5.24(1.10)

My department promotes an environment of inclusiveness and respect. 5.59(0.67) 5.10(1.25)

I would recommend my department to other students like myself. 5.59(0.67) 4.94(1.41)


9 Appendix E: Faculty Survey Findings Comparisons


DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS FACULTY COMPARISONS

November 2013

Department N = 11 University N (7 Departments) = 143 Dept. response rate = 55% University response rate average = 84% Table E1. University/Department Engagement



I feel involved in the process of setting departmental objectives. 3.91(1.92) 4.62(1.62)

I have adequate opportunities to influence decisions made in the department about our programs.

4.09(2.02) 4.62(1.61)

I feel comfortable expressing my views in departmental meetings. 4.36(2.11) 4.90(1.51)

I am proud of my department's standing in the national academic community. 5.55(0.93) 4.76(1.44)

I find my involvement in university committee work to be a constructive use of my time.

3.67(1.32) 4.08(1.35)


Table E2. Career Goals


Dept. M(SD) Univ.

M(SD) My professional career goals are consistent with the department's expectations. 5.18(1.08) 5.04(1.28)

47

My department has reasonable requirements for achieving tenure and promotion.

3.55(1.51) 4.93(1.39)

I feel the promotion and tenure process has been clearly explained to me. 3.67(2.12) 4.87(1.40)

I feel adequate support and assistance are available to me to achieve tenure and promotion.

3.50(2.07) 4.70(1.55)


Table E3. Career Goals My plans for career development include possible employment in another university than Georgia State.

Dept. N = 11

Univ. N = 140

Dept. % Univ. %

Yes 54.5 27.9 No 18.2 30.0

Not sure 27.3 42.1 Table E4. Research



I have adequate support in securing funding for research. 3.91(1.51) 4.13(1.44)

I have adequate resources (e.g., library, labs, technology) to do my research. 4.64(1.21) 4.80(1.23)

I have adequate time for scholarly research. 3.91(1.45) 4.02(1.47)

I have sufficient opportunities to collaborate with other researchers at Georgia State.

4.36(1.69) 4.76(1.34)

My colleagues value my research/scholarship. 3.90(1.66) 4.67(1.47)


Table E5. Department Climate



My department actively supports a shared and inclusive understanding of diversity.

4.45(1.51) 5.01(1.48)

My department encourages teamwork and collegiality. 4.27(1.56) 4.98(1.48)

I have developed close relationships with colleagues in my department. 4.36(1.75) 4.88(1.38)

48

I believe my workload is reasonable. 4.09(1.51) 4.54(1.52)

My department enables me to achieve a good balance between work and my personal life.

3.91(1.70) 4.66(1.40)


Table E6. Mentoring Do you have someone in the department who mentors you?

Dept. N = 11

Univ. N = 141

Dept. % Univ. %

Yes 36.4 36.9 No 63.6 63.1

Table E7. Mentoring

How helpful has your mentor been in the following areas?


Publishing opportunities 4.25(1.71) 5.10(1.39)

Grant/funding opportunities 3.50(1.29) 4.77(1.44)

Collaborating in research 3.75(1.26) 4.84(1.61)

Networking/developing professional contacts 5.00(0.00) 5.13(1.30)

Navigating the promotion and tenure process 4.00(-) 5.13(1.22)

Navigating departmental politics 4.25(0.96) 5.28(1.13)

Expanding your leadership opportunities 4.33(0.56) 5.27(1.17)

Teaching and classroom matters 4.25(0.50) 5.29(1.19)

Service/committee work 4.75(0.50) 5.26(1.05)

Note. Mean scale: 1=Not at all helpful to 6=Very helpful; “NA” excluded from analysis.

Table E8. Program

Please rate the quality of the department’s program. Dept. M(SD) Univ. M(SD)

In general, how would you rate the academic rigor associated with the department's undergraduate program(s)?

4.56(1.42) 4.41(1.15)

In general, how would you rate the academic rigor associated with the department's graduate program(s)?

4.80(1.13) 4.87(1.20)

49

How would you rate the academic quality of undergraduate student majors in your department?

4.40(1.17) 4.35(1.18)

How would you rate the academic quality of graduate student majors in your department?

4.64(1.12) 4.83(1.16)


10 Appendix F: Undergraduate Student Survey Findings


UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS November 2013

N = 87 Response rate = 11% Table F1. General Learning Outcomes


No contributi

on 2 3 4 5

Significant

contribution

% % % % % % N M(SD) Writing clearly and effectively 5.7 5.7 12.6 26.4 23.0 26.4 87 4.34(1.44)

Speaking clearly and effectively 2.3 6.9 13.8 25.3 19.5 32.2 87 4.49(1.37)

Locating and organizing information from multiple sources

1.2 2.3 7.0 19.8 36.0 33.7 86 4.88(1.10)

Integrating new information with past knowledge

1.2 2.4 5.9 16.5 34.1 40.0 85 5.00(1.10)

Analyzing problems from various points of view

2.3 2.3 3.4 26.4 28.7 36.8 87 4.87(1.16)

Developing original ideas 2.3 4.6 10.3 23.0 24.1 35.6 87 4.69(1.31)

Understanding ethical standards 1.1 4.6 9.2 27.6 27.6 29.9 87 4.66(1.20)


Table F2. Program Preparation/Challenge


Strongly

disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

% % % % % % N M(SD)

50

My program of study is preparing me for my career or future educational goals.

4.6 5.7 4.6 16.1 14.9 54.0 87 4.93(1.47)

My experience in the department has fostered my interest in my program of study.

2.3 4.6 12.6 13.8 23.0 43.7 87 4.82(1.36)

My program of study is academically challenging.

1.1 3.4 6.9 14.9 23.0 50.6 87 5.07(1.20)

Overall, instructors in the department stress high quality work from students.

3.4 4.6 3.4 17.2 25.3 46.0 87 4.94(1.32)


Table F3. Program Quality

Please rate the following items: Poor 2 3 4 5 Excellen

t

% % % % % % N M(SD) Overall quality of undergraduate courses in the department

1.1 5.7 8.0 21.8 33.3 29.9 87 4.70(1.21)

Availability of undergraduate courses in the department

8.0 16.1 11.5 18.4 19.5 26.4 87 4.05(1.66)

Overall quality of undergraduate instruction in the department

2.3 3.4 11.5 23.0 29.9 29.9 87 4.64(1.25)

Procedures used to evaluate student performance

1.1 2.3 10.3 20.7 40.2 25.3 87 4.72(1.10)


Table F4. Faculty Interaction


Strongly

disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) In my department, students have opportunities to do research-related activities with faculty.

5.7 16.1 18.4 35.6 14.9 9.2 87 3.66(1.33)


1.1 3.4 8.0 17.2 31.0 39.1 87 4.91(1.18)


0.0 3.4 9.2 11.5 36.8 39.1 87 4.99(1.09)

51

In general, faculty in the department motivate me to do my best.

2.3 4.7 7.0 23.3 23.3 39.5 86 4.79(1.29)

My department promotes an environment of inclusiveness and respect.

1.1 3.4 6.9 21.8 26.4 40.2 87 4.90(1.18)

I would recommend my department to other students like myself.

2.3 3.4 5.7 19.5 25.3 43.7 87 4.93(1.25)


Table F5. The following items were developed by the Department of Computer Information Systems

Please rate the following items: Poor 2 3 4 5 Excellent

% % % % % % N M(SD) Opportunities for internship/co-op available through the department

6.9 8.0 9.2 20.7 17.2 37.9 87 4.47(1.59)

Career/placement services provided by the department

8.0 6.9 10.3 25.3 24.1 25.3 87 4.26(1.52)

Qualitative Data The following statements are in response to the comment sections in the online questionnaire. All responses are exported directly into a Word document without any changes to wording, punctuation, or grammar. Please note: Each paragraph denotes an individual response. General Comments: Some professors of the department are uncaring and only interested in teaching with no care for the learning. Not willing to work with students different learning skills. (1 Count) There is no program for data analysis, data miming, reporting. Just one sad database class. You are better off leaning SQL on w3schools.com. The online classes are pretty sad. Great if I you want just blow throw a topic. GPC does a better job conducting these type of courses. They are very well laid out. Instructors don't use D2L effectively. I have had only two instructors who had really good D2L sites that were worth really using (1 Count) I don't love the 2.5 hours class block. It makes for a really long, drawn out class. Also, that length makes it hard to stay focused and makes material taught at the end of the class less likely to be retained. (1 Count) I think every year the qualifications and pre-reqs become more stringent. It's turning a 4-year degree into 5-years because if I opt to full time @15 semester credits and average at a c+ I would still have to average at a b- in my business or I'm completely locked out of classes . I know many students like myself have been full time workers and full time students simultaneously since sophomore year. I understand the department wants to be its best and make its degree competitive. But the changes are costly. (1 Count) The internship process is terrible. There is no thought given to the kinds of internships that are out there. A lot of internships will not be the exact match for GSU's description. And the people at the company don't want any extra work. GSU needs to seriously examine how their curriculum matches what is out there. Most internships want people with a CS degree. My skills are practically non-existant if I had to bring them up in interviews. GSU's internship class expects you to have some sort of IT internship and that is not what I did. And I still got credit for it. My internship was in the digital

52

media dept. at a publication. The process required me to report to two different supervisors. The one who was the CTW person had me do an assignment that was unnecessary and predictable. (1 Count) I enjoy being a part of the CIS department and believe it's a great opportunity for those who are interested in such a field. So far, I feel like some of the classes I am taking through the RCB aren't relevant towards my CIS major. I also believe since some of the classes are somewhat "insignificant", I am not doing as well in these classes which is dropping my GPA. (1 Count) Please offer more online courses! Several of the undergraduate courses I have taken so far would be easily adapted to an online format. Online formats are infinitely preferable. I would also like to see more of the CIS courses available at earlier in the day. This seems entirely doable since every one I have enrolled in meets only once a week. I hate being downtown after dark especially since I have a two hour commute afterwards. (1 Count) 1. I think more online availability or availability of classes at the Alpharetta center for CIS courses. 2. Say for CIS majors especially those in with the Information Security, you offer no classes in Linux, either introduction to linux or applications to information security. 3. More different programming classes say in Python or C++. 4. for IS specializing in it, a more in depth class in Information Security,using tools of the trade and application of them in real world scenarios. (1 Count) Most classes were full and unavailable during registration. Also, I think it would be helpful for the department to hold seminars or videos explaining different CIS career paths, and how the course offerings will help facilitate students academic and career decisions. (1 Count) Need more opportunities and classes for various career tracks. (1 Count) I'd like to have more internship and part- time job opportunities. (1 Count) Make CIS classes earlier! Students need morning classes, not late evening. (1 Count) The CIS program is too shallow on the technical side and too much focus is placed on the business side. Why have so many mandatory business related classes?(1 Count) It has been incredibly difficult for me to find courses in my major during daycare hours. I would discourage other mothers from this major unless they have significant interest in the degree. Scheduling has been difficult and has put a strain on my marriage as my husband does not feel he should have to babysit our child. I know that is not the school's fault but it is common in our society. I do think the schedule contributes to the gender disparity in the major. (1 Count) instructors can only answer questions related to their field. it would be nice to have someone within the program that could answer basic questions or detailed questions with feedback related to courses and career path. right now it seems that students are left to fend for themselves with no involvement from staff or department heads. (1 Count) Spring of 2014 is my last semester here at GSU before I graduate with a BBA in CIS. I was very excited to take these two courses that were supposed to be offered in the spring, but were not being offered this time around. I wasn't going to delay my graduation so I decided to just take a couple of other CIS courses, but they weren't in line with the management/business proces route I was trying to take. Other than that, GSU's CIS program has really impressed me with the quality of professors and the content. (1 Count) The CIS department is the BEST department hands down in RCB. Dr. Stucke and McLean are great department heads and great advisers for students in the department. (1 Count) Provide more classes during the day instead of night classes. Not fair for regular traditional students. (1 Count) I don't feel prepared to go out into the work force. I don't feel like I qualify for any of the jobs in the IT field. I would have changed my major if I wasn't so far through. Once you chose Robinson College it's hard to change to other majors because only the core will transfer. The one thing I do like is the Co-Op opportunity I got. I still don't feel prepared for the workforce but it gives me the slightest bit of hope that I can get an IT job. (1 Count) There are some teachers who are excellent teachers and communicate the material effectively. Then there are some

53

teachers that might know the material but who cannot communicate the material effectively. Half of my Cis teacher have english as their second language and that could be why. Another problem is communication between myself and some teachers. If I send an email I expect a response in a day or two especially if I am taking an online course. Every teacher should having due dates for projects and homework on d2l. Most of the classes end up moving dates around so the syllabus becomes inaccurate. There are some professors who are soft when it comes to grading and explaining course material and then there are some professor who are hard. The problem with the two teaching styles is that if I take a prerequisite course from a soft teacher and make an A+ I expect as a student that i am prepared to take the next course. That is not the case from experience. The cis department should start preparing students for specific jobs at the beginning so they know what area to focus on and what additional certificates to obtain through college so they can stand out when searching for jobs. CIS 2010 might show us what kind of jobs are out there but not necessarily what jobs a cis graduate can obtain out of college and how to create a competitive strategy to obtain that job. Cis is one the broadest it majors available and we learn about all 5 components of the information system and form my research a student has to pick a specific component of the information system as a future career. The CIS department must bring more it recruiters to the career expo. Not more help desk positions. (1 Count) I got a full-time job in my field from a Georgia State CIS department email. Amazing program. Amazing professors. Thank you so much! (1 Count) I do not feel like I've been well prepared for the real world. The CIS department does not require students to take any programming classes nor does it require the students to learn the technical aspects of the field which, I feel, is hindering my abilities of getting an internship. (1 Count) I wish more of the CIS classes were offered in the morning because I work the night shift full time. (1 Count) Availability for courses needs to improve, for some of us that have a family and are unable to attend late evening classes this is EXTREMELY inconvenient. More classes should be offered throughout the day hours to make it more accessible for some of us that are already on campus for those hours. We are paying high tuition rates to obtain course availability and I am sure we are also covering some of the expense that is paid to professors, THEREFORE, INVEST On the students and what will benefit us NOT THE SCHOOL! (1 Count) In regards to the internship/co-ops available, the vast majority of these tend to be for web development/social media/marketing. Cyber-security seems to be a distant last. This appears to be especially true of the listings coming through the RBC. There are more opportunities listed in relation to this area with the Panther Career Center and even then they are very few. One would think that, in our current environment, there would be a much higher demand and more offerings for entry level positions. (1 Count) I am in the CIS program and I love it but every semester I am frustrated because the courses that I desire to sign up for are either no longer offered(even though the catalogs say they are) or there is only one or two sections of that class available which is really frustrating because classes are OFTEN filled to capacity before I can enroll, no matter how hard I try to get in. (1 Count)

11 Appendix G: Undergraduate Alumni Survey Findings


GRADUATE ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS November 2013

N = 11 Response rate = 10% General Outcomes Table G1.

54


Strongly disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) My program of study has made a positive contribution to the quality of my life.

0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 11 5.18(0.75)

I have applied the skills I learned in my program to help resolve issues I’ve faced in my professional life.

0.0 0.0 9.1 9.1 45.5 36.4 11 5.09(0.94)

Overall, I was satisfied with my degree program.

0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 70.0 20.0 10 5.00(0.82)


Employment Table G2. Table G3. Are you currently employed? Have you been employed at any time over the last year?

N = 11 % Yes 90.

9 No 9.1 Table G4. Please indicate the general area of employment.

N = 11 % Agriculture/Natural Resources 0.0 Arts 0.0 Business/Finance 36.4 College Faculty/Administration 9.1 Counseling/Mental Health 0.0 Education K-12 0.0 Government/Public

Administration 9.1

Hospitality/Tourism 0.0 Journalism/Publication 0.0 Law 0.0 Library Work 0.0 Manufacturing/Construction 0.0 Marketing 0.0 Media/Communication 9.1 Medicine/Nursing 0.0 Non-Profit or Community Org. 0.0 Religious Organization 0.0

N =1 % Yes 100.

0 No 0.0

55

Transportation 0.0 Other 36.4

Other: N = 3 Energy Information Security Consulting Public Accounting - Professional Services Table G5. Skills and Employment The following questions focus on the skills you may have learned in your degree program at Georgia State and whether you listed them on your resume, discussed them during your job interview, or use(used) them in your job.

N = 11

List on resume Discuss in job

interview

Using(used) on job

Yes No Yes No Yes No % % % % % %

Research skills 63.6 36.4 45.5 54.5 81.8 18.2

Communication skills (writing and speaking) 90.9 9.1 90.9 9.1 100.0 0.0

Ability to interpret data/information in a critical manner. 90.9 9.1 90.9 9.1 100.0 0.0

Ability to analyze problems from different perspectives

90.9 9.1 90.9 9.1 100.0 0.0

Ability to work with diverse populations 81.8 18.2 90.9 9.1 100.0 0.0

Further Education Table G6. Table G7. Are you currently enrolled in a graduate program? What degree are you seeking?

N = 11 % Yes 0.0 No 100.

0

56

Table G8. Since graduating from Georgia State, have you earned an additional degree(s)?

N = 11 % Yes 9.1 No 90.

9 Please tell us what additional degree you earned, the program of study, and the degree-granting institution. (N = 1) Doctor of Computer Science from Colorado Technical University The following items were developed by the Department of Computer Information Systems Table G9



Strongly agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) My program has prepared me to be successful in achieving my career goals.

9.1 9.1 0.0 18.2 27.3 36.4 11 4.55(1.69)

The department offers adequate opportunities for me to further my education (e.g., through short courses, workshops, etc.)

0.0 0.0 36.4 9.1 18.2 36.4 11 4.55(1.37)

The following statements are in response to the comment sections in the online questionnaire. All responses are exported directly into a Word document without any changes to wording, punctuation, or grammar. Please note that each paragraph represents one respondent’s comments.

N = % Ed.D. J.D. M.A. M.B.A. M.D. M.Div. M.F.A. M.S. M.S.W. M.S.L.S. M.T.S. Ph.D. Th.D. Other

57

Looking back, what aspects of your program do you believe were the most valuable in contributing to your earning a degree at Georgia State? capability of the staff members, introduction to advanced concepts (1 Count) Relevant IT issues. (1 Count) -Teaming aspects (group projects) -Case Studies and Class Discussions -Guest Speakers (1 Count) Very interesting curriculum; good selection of concentrations; very good professors; very flexible environment to accommodate working professionals with a good balance of downtown, Alpharetta, online classes (1 Count) Professors who encouraged hard work, creative thinking and intelligent discussions. And access to research and professionals in the industry who were part time students and helped us understand what employers are looking for. And the 2 year Masters program gave us perfect balance of class and research time in addition to industry experience during our summer breaks in the form of internships. (1 Count) Every graduate course I took helped me immensely at some point in my life. Ranging from Software Requirements Management or Global System sourcing. The best course I took was Process Innovation which I use EVERYDAY in my professional life. Elements of Communication and Research were inherently present in the whole program, which goes a long way with you. MS IS program changed my life. (1 Count) What kinds of improvements would you suggest the Institute make in order to enhance the educational experience of current students in the program? more research and data oriented, more meaningful case studies (1 Count) -Simulation type exercises - (1 Count) more classes in Alpharetta campus; stronger alumni programs, esp satellite programs in the suburbs (it's hard to get downtown for events) (1 Count) I would suggest reconsidering the fast track masters. I do not think it provides the opportunities I think are valuable. And I hear most of the professors who I worked with during my Masters in CIS don't teach in the department anymore. I hear they are asked to teach Exec MBA & DBA programs. I think the student community is at a huge loss due to this change. (1 Count) Maintain the elite staff of professors, they are the biggest asset to the department. Some professors brought industry specialists to the class to speak with students, it would be great to have it in ALL classes. (1 Count) General Comments: Unble to make switch into management/leadership roles despite MBA with IS concentration+ years of experience. Would help to have career opportunities like in Finance. Looks like industry requires technologist than IT managers. (1 Count) Overall it was a great experience and I miss the camaraderie and interaction with the wide cross section of colleagues from other companies, industries, and backgrounds. I find myself frequently recommending the program to others. (1 Count) I am in a versatile role at my job, so this program helped me immensely. I wear different hats at my company and this program prepared me to do it well. I wish if Alumni program was a little bigger and I would love to have opportunities to meet fellow program mates. I know it's hard because most students were already working full-time or part-time and didn't got attached as much, but I think it could be improved. (1 Count)

58

12 Appendix H: Graduate Student Survey Findings


DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS GRADUATE STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS

November 2013

N = 22 Response rate = 18 % Table H1. General Learning Outcomes


No contributi

on 2 3 4 5

Significant

contribution

% % % % % % N M(SD) Writing clearly and effectively 0.0 13.6 13.6 9.1 22.7 40.9 22 4.64(1.50)

Speaking clearly and effectively 0.0 0.0 4.5 9.1 63.6 22.7 22 5.05(0.72)

Locating and organizing information from multiple sources

0.0 0.0 9.1 13.6 36.4 40.9 22 5.09(0.97)

Awareness of historical contexts surrounding your area of study

0.0 0.0 13.6 9.1 31.8 45.5 22 5.09(1.06)

Demonstrating competence in specific research methods appropriate to your area of specialization

0.0 4.5 4.5 22.7 27.3 40.9 22 4.95(1.13)

Effectively evaluate implications and applications of research in your field

0.0 4.5 4.5 9.1 45.5 36.4 22 5.05(1.05)

Collaborating effectively with colleagues (e.g., other students, researchers, faculty)

0.0 4.5 4.5 9.1 31.8 50.0 22 5.18(1.10)

Knowledge about the tenets of ethical practice

0.0 0.0 9.1 18.2 40.9 31.8 22 4.95(0.95)


Table H2. Program Preparation/Challenge


Strongly

disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) My program of study is academically challenging.

0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 40.9 54.5 22 5.50(0.60)

59

My program requirements are clear to me. 0.0 4.5 4.5 9.1 18.2 63.6 22 5.32(1.13)

There are sufficient research opportunities available to me in the department.

4.8 0.0 9.5 19.0 33.3 33.3 21 4.76(1.30)

My program's curriculum is broad enough to prepare me for my career choice.

4.5 0.0 0.0 9.1 27.3 59.1 22 5.32(1.17)

Overall, instructors in the department stress high quality work from students.

0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 22 5.45(0.67)


Table H3. Program Quality


t

% % % % % % N M(SD) Overall quality of graduate courses in the department

0.0 0.0 4.5 9.1 36.4 50.0 22 5.32(0.84)

Availability of graduate courses in the department

4.5 4.5 4.5 13.6 22.7 50.0 22 4.95(1.43)

Overall quality of graduate instruction in the department

0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 36.4 45.5 22 5.27(0.77)

Academic advisement available in the department

0.0 9.1 4.5 18.2 40.9 27.3 22 4.73(1.20)

Career preparation and guidance available in the department

4.5 9.1 9.1 22.7 18.2 36.4 22 4.50(1.54)

Availability of graduate research/teaching assistantships

4.8 0.0 14.3 23.8 19.0 38.1 21 4.67(1.39)

Support for student conference presentations and publications

0.0 4.8 9.5 33.3 38.1 14.3 21 4.48(1.03)


Table H4. Faculty Interaction


Strongly

disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) In general, faculty in my department are appropriately prepared for the courses they teach.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 22 5.59(0.50)

60

In general, faculty are up-to-date in emerging trends and information in my field of study.

0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 18.2 68.2 22 5.55(0.74)


0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 22.7 72.7 22 5.64(0.73)

In general, faculty in the department motivate me to do my best.

0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 27.3 59.1 22 5.45(0.74)

Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of students in my graduate program.

0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 9.1 81.8 22 5.68(0.78)

Administrative staff in the department are helpful to me.

0.0 0.0 4.5 13.6 31.8 50.0 22 5.27(0.88)

My department promotes an environment of inclusiveness and respect.

0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 22.7 68.2 22 5.59(0.67)

I would recommend my department to other students like myself.

0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 22.7 68.2 22 5.59(0.67)


Table H5. The following items were developed by the Department of Computer Information Systems


t

% % % % % % NA N M(SD) Opportunities for internship/co-op available through the department

4.5 4.5 9.1 13.6 40.9 27.3 0.0 22 4.64(1.36)

Career/placement services provided by the department

4.5 18.2 4.5 31.8 18.2 22.7 0.0 22 4.09(1.54)


Table H6. Graduate assistant stipends are adequate compared with similar departments at comparable institutions

N = 22 % Strongly disagree 4.5 2 9.1

3 4.5

4 4.5

5 22.7

Strongly agree 4.5

61

NA 50.0

Mean(SD) 3.91(1.64) Note. Mean scale: 1=Strongly disagree to 6=Strongly agree. NA excluded from analysis.

Qualitative Data The following statements are in response to the comment sections in the online questionnaire. All responses are exported directly into a Word document without any changes to wording, punctuation, or grammar. Please note: Each paragraph denotes an individual response. General Comments: Fees, which are unpaid by the dept but required for registration, have increased rather significantly over the past few years. Health insurance too. Financial coverage is very important, but insufficiently provided. (1 Count) It would be better to have a survey for individual faculty rather than as a whole. It wouldn't be fair to rate one low even if they are good just because the others deserve a different rating. (1 Count) In regards to collaboration with colleagues i.e. fellow students, one point of dissatisfaction is that prior to start of the program, the groups were assigned by the department for the entire length of the program. Personally, I would like the opportunity to rotate teams and work with a broad spectrum of colleagues throughout the program duration. (1 Count) In regards to the career services, the services I have finally received have been great but it took over three months of me calling and emailing and pestering. I had no advisor and my uploaded resume never got looked at. I receives no notice of the career fairs and was basically left floundering. (1 Count) The professors are very impressive and with their the real-world experience which brings credibility and help to ensure applicability to the coursework. I have not been in the program at GSU for long, so I am not in a position to provide answers to some of the questions. While I have seen a number of emails/ communications about assistance and opportunities for students, there just hasn't been time to follow up on a number of these. However, there are others that I have gone through an initial review or discussion. I answered the questions in these areas, however, I will once again qualify this with the fact that I have only been in the Master's program at GSU for a very brief timeframe. (1 Count) I have enjoyed and experienced immense growth during this program. (1 Count) 1. GRA working hours should be established and audited. 2. Course selection is limited 3. Masters students should be encouraged to participate in paper presentations too. 4. A class outing or field trip would be nice. (1 Count)

13 Appendix I: Graduate Alumni Survey Findings


GRADUATE ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS November 2013

N = 11

62

Response rate = 10% General Outcomes Table I1.



Strongly agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) My program of study has made a positive contribution to the quality of my life.

0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 11 5.18(0.75)

I have applied the skills I learned in my program to help resolve issues I’ve faced in my professional life.

0.0 0.0 9.1 9.1 45.5 36.4 11 5.09(0.94)

Overall, I was satisfied with my degree program.

0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 70.0 20.0 10 5.00(0.82)


Employment Table I2. Table I3. Are you currently employed? Have you been employed at any time over the last year?

N = 11 % Yes 90.

9 No 9.1 Table I4. Please indicate the general area of employment.

N = 11 % Agriculture/Natural Resources 0.0 Arts 0.0 Business/Finance 36.4 College Faculty/Administration 9.1 Counseling/Mental Health 0.0 Education K-12 0.0 Government/Public

Administration 9.1

Hospitality/Tourism 0.0 Journalism/Publication 0.0 Law 0.0 Library Work 0.0 Manufacturing/Construction 0.0

N =1 % Yes 100.

0 No 0.0

63

Marketing 0.0 Media/Communication 9.1 Medicine/Nursing 0.0 Non-Profit or Community Org. 0.0 Religious Organization 0.0 Transportation 0.0 Other 36.4

Other: N = 3 Energy Information Security Consulting Public Accounting - Professional Services TableI 5. Skills and Employment The following questions focus on the skills you may have learned in your degree program at Georgia State and whether you listed them on your resume, discussed them during your job interview, or use(used) them in your job.

N = 11

List on resume Discuss in job

interview

Using(used) on job

Yes No Yes No Yes No % % % % % %

Research skills 63.6 36.4 45.5 54.5 81.8 18.2

Communication skills (writing and speaking) 90.9 9.1 90.9 9.1 100.0 0.0

Ability to interpret data/information in a critical manner. 90.9 9.1 90.9 9.1 100.0 0.0

Ability to analyze problems from different perspectives

90.9 9.1 90.9 9.1 100.0 0.0

Ability to work with diverse populations 81.8 18.2 90.9 9.1 100.0 0.0

Further Education Table I6. Table I7. Are you currently enrolled in a graduate program? What degree are you seeking?

N = 11 % Yes 0.0 No 100.

0

64

Table I8. Since graduating from Georgia State, have you earned an additional degree(s)?

N = 11 % Yes 9.1 No 90.

9 Please tell us what additional degree you earned, the program of study, and the degree-granting institution. (N = 1) Doctor of Computer Science from Colorado Technical University The following items were developed by the Department of Computer Information Systems Table I9



Strongly agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) My program has prepared me to be successful in achieving my career goals.

9.1 9.1 0.0 18.2 27.3 36.4 11 4.55(1.69)

The department offers adequate opportunities for me to further my education (e.g., through short courses, workshops, etc.)

0.0 0.0 36.4 9.1 18.2 36.4 11 4.55(1.37)

The following statements are in response to the comment sections in the online questionnaire. All responses are exported directly into a Word document without any changes to wording, punctuation, or grammar. Please note that each paragraph represents one respondent’s comments.

N = % Ed.D. J.D. M.A. M.B.A. M.D. M.Div. M.F.A. M.S. M.S.W. M.S.L.S. M.T.S. Ph.D. Th.D. Other

65

Looking back, what aspects of your program do you believe were the most valuable in contributing to your earning a degree at Georgia State? capability of the staff members, introduction to advanced concepts (1 Count) Relevant IT issues. (1 Count) -Teaming aspects (group projects) -Case Studies and Class Discussions -Guest Speakers (1 Count) Very interesting curriculum; good selection of concentrations; very good professors; very flexible environment to accommodate working professionals with a good balance of downtown, Alpharetta, online classes (1 Count) Professors who encouraged hard work, creative thinking and intelligent discussions. And access to research and professionals in the industry who were part time students and helped us understand what employers are looking for. And the 2 year Masters program gave us perfect balance of class and research time in addition to industry experience during our summer breaks in the form of internships. (1 Count) Every graduate course I took helped me immensely at some point in my life. Ranging from Software Requirements Management or Global System sourcing. The best course I took was Process Innovation which I use EVERYDAY in my professional life. Elements of Communication and Research were inherently present in the whole program, which goes a long way with you. MS IS program changed my life. (1 Count) What kinds of improvements would you suggest the Institute make in order to enhance the educational experience of current students in the program? more research and data oriented, more meaningful case studies (1 Count) -Simulation type exercises - (1 Count) more classes in Alpharetta campus; stronger alumni programs, esp satellite programs in the suburbs (it's hard to get downtown for events) (1 Count) I would suggest reconsidering the fast track masters. I do not think it provides the opportunities I think are valuable. And I hear most of the professors who I worked with during my Masters in CIS don't teach in the department anymore. I hear they are asked to teach Exec MBA & DBA programs. I think the student community is at a huge loss due to this change. (1 Count) Maintain the elite staff of professors, they are the biggest asset to the department. Some professors brought industry specialists to the class to speak with students, it would be great to have it in ALL classes. (1 Count) General Comments: Unble to make switch into management/leadership roles despite MBA with IS concentration+ years of experience. Would help to have career opportunities like in Finance. Looks like industry requires technologist than IT managers. (1 Count) Overall it was a great experience and I miss the camaraderie and interaction with the wide cross section of colleagues from other companies, industries, and backgrounds. I find myself frequently recommending the program to others. (1 Count) I am in a versatile role at my job, so this program helped me immensely. I wear different hats at my company and this program prepared me to do it well. I wish if Alumni program was a little bigger and I would love to have opportunities to meet fellow program mates. I know it's hard because most students were already working full-time or part-time and didn't got attached as much, but I think it could be improved. (1 Count)

66

14 Appendix J: Faculty Survey Findings


DEPARTMENT OF FACULTY SURVEY RESULTS

November 2013

N = 11 Response rate = 55% Table J1. University/Department Engagement


Strongly

disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly Agree NA

% % % % % % % N M(SD) I feel involved in the process of setting departmental objectives.

18.2 9.1 9.1 18.2 18.2 27.3 0.0 11 3.91(1.92)

I have adequate opportunities to influence decisions made in the department about our programs.

18.2 9.1 9.1 9.1 18.2 36.4 0.0 11 4.09(2.02)

I feel comfortable expressing my views in departmental meetings.

18.2 9.1 0.0 18.2 0.0 54.5 0.0 11 4.36(2.11)

I am proud of my department's standing in the national academic community.

0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 18.2 72.7 0.0 11 5.55(0.93)

I find my involvement in university committee work to be a constructive use of my time.

10.0 10.0 0.0 50.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 10 3.67(1.32)


Table J2. Career Goals


Strongly

disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree NA

% % % % % % % N M(SD) My professional career goals are consistent with the department's expectations.

0.0 0.0 9.1 18.2 18.2 54.5 0.0 11 5.18(1.08)

My department has reasonable requirements for achieving tenure and promotion.

9.1 18.2 18.2 27.3 18.2 9.1 0.0 11 3.55(1.51)

I feel the promotion and tenure process has been clearly explained to me.

18.2 18.2 0.0 0.0 27.3 18.2 18.2 11 3.67(2.12)

67

I feel adequate support and assistance are available to me to achieve tenure and promotion.

18.2 0.0 0.0 18.2 9.1 9.1 45.5 11 3.50(2.07)


Table J3. Career Goals My plans for career development include possible employment in another university than Georgia State.

N = 11 % Yes 54.5 No 18.2 Not sure 27.3

Table J4. Research


Strongly

disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) I have adequate support in securing funding for research.

9.1 9.1 18.2 18.2 36.4 9.1 11 3.91(1.51)

I have adequate resources (e.g., library, labs, technology) to do my research.

0.0 0.0 27.3 9.1 36.4 27.3 11 4.64(1.21)

I have adequate time for scholarly research. 9.1 9.1 9.1 36.4 27.3 9.1 11 3.91(1.45)

I have sufficient opportunities to collaborate with other researchers at Georgia State.

9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 36.4 27.3 11 4.36(1.69)

My colleagues value my research/scholarship.

10.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 10.0 10 3.90(1.66)


Table J5. Department Climate


Strongly

disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) My department actively supports a shared and inclusive understanding of diversity.

9.1 0.0 9.1 27.3 27.3 27.3 11 4.45(1.51)

My department encourages teamwork and collegiality.

9.1 0.0 18.2 27.3 18.2 27.3 11 4.27(1.56)

68

I have developed close relationships with colleagues in my department.

9.1 9.1 9.1 18.2 18.2 36.4 11 4.36(1.75)

I believe my workload is reasonable. 9.1 9.1 9.1 18.2 45.5 9.1 11 4.09(1.51)

My department enables me to achieve a good balance between work and my personal life.

9.1 9.1 27.3 18.2 9.1 27.3 11 3.91(1.70)


Table J6. Mentoring Do you have someone in the department who mentors you?

N = 11 % Yes 36.4 No 63.6

Table J7. Mentoring

How helpful has your mentor been in the following areas?

Not at all

helpful 2 3 4 5

Very helpfu

l NA

% % % % % %

N M(SD) Publishing opportunities 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 4 4.25(1.71)

Grant/funding opportunities 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 4 3.50(1.29)

Collaborating in research 0.0 25.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 4 3.75(1.26)

Networking/developing professional contacts

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 25.0 4 5.00(0.00)

Navigating the promotion and tenure process

0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 4 4.00(-)

Navigating departmental politics 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 4 4.25(0.96)

Expanding your leadership opportunities 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 4 4.33(0.56)

Teaching and classroom matters 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 4 4.25(0.50)

Service/committee work 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 4 4.75(0.50)

Note. Mean scale: 1=Not at all helpful to 6=Very helpful; “NA” excluded from analysis.

Table J8. Program

Please rate the quality of the department’s program. Poor 2 3 4 5

Excellent

% % % % % % N M(SD)

69

In general, how would you rate the academic rigor associated with the department's undergraduate program(s)?

0.0 11.1 11.1 22.2 22.2 33.3 9 4.56(1.42)

In general, how would you rate the academic rigor associated with the department's graduate program(s)?

0.0 0.0 10.0 40.0 10.0 40.0 10 4.80(1.13)

How would you rate the academic quality of undergraduate student majors in your department?

0.0 0.0 30.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 10 4.40(1.17)

How would you rate the academic quality of graduate student majors in your department?

0.0 0.0 18.2 27.3 27.3 27.3 11 4.64(1.12)


Table J9. The following items were developed by the Department of Computer Information Systems.


Strongly

disagree 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Agree

% % % % % % N M(SD) Faculty salaries are adequate compared with similar departments at comparable institutions.

20.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 10 3.20(1.81)

My department’s requirements for achieving tenure and promotion have been clearly explained to me.

18.2 9.1 18.2 0.0 27.3 27.3 11 3.91(1.97)

Qualitative Data The following statements are in response to the comment sections in the online questionnaire. All responses are exported directly into a Word document without any changes to wording, punctuation, or grammar. Please note: Each paragraph denotes an individual response. General Comments: Six consecutive years w. a salary freeze plus the inflation rate means I earn far less at GSU than I could earn at other institutions. The governor of this state says he is for education, but his actions demonstrate the exact opposite. There is only so much faculty at the three major research institutions are willing to sacrifice before moving to greener pastures. (1 Count) I don't know the answers to some questions -- so have left them blank. I don't know if our departmental salaries are competitive or not. I have been told, in the past, that the RCB tries to have its salaries in the "Top 25%" however our department is ranked far better nationally than merely the "Top 25%" (more like, being int he "Top 2%"), so perhaps this should be the salary goal. It is interesting that the survey asks about faculty decision-making in departmental matters. The CIS department averages about 1.3 departmental meetings per year -- based on the fact that for 2 of the past 3 years, we

70

had just one single faculty meeting per year (so frequently, no such meeting in a given semester). This can make it difficult for faculty to have a sense of involvement in decisions and programs. The CIS department "does" have departmental UPC and GPC committees, however, the departmental GPC has not met in 3 or 4 years -- probably spring 2010 was the last meeting (when we were battling Dean Mutchler over her attempt to remove CIS as a core core for the PMBA program). It's not clear whether departmental votes or decision-making have much influence anyway, as or College Deans often make their own decisions, in conflict with departmental votes. In spring 2011, the CIS faculty voted to approve creation of a "Fast Track" M.S. in CIS program, but also to retain the existing "flex" M.S. program. The latter faculty vote was ignored by the RCB Dean(s) in the rush to make more and more revenues from "Fast Track" programs. Unfortunately, there is no longer a part-time M.S. program option, which presents a hardship to many of our program's international students. In summary, there is relatively little role for faculty input, and when faculty "do" provide clear input, our voice is ignored. Clearly, there is an enormous amount of money at stake with the "Fast Track" and other premium-price programs; however, these programs can be a way for RCB to make a quick buck, while slowly watching its reputation for quality erode over time. (1 Count) The level and quality of technology and the support of technology for teaching and research within the CIS Department have plummeted (!) in the last four years. While the department is top-ranked in terms of research, we are sadly lacking in information technology support and would not qualify as a first-rate department based on that support. The retraction of staff and funds by the Office of the Dean and the removal of decision making capabilities for our department are unacceptable and unexplainable. The department has been stripped of college-provided resources. All technology decisions are now made by staff members who do not have adequate background, training, or involvement with the mission of the CIS Department. It's time to move on to a better institution. (1 Count)

1 Current Status of the Department - Georgia State … Table 4. Junior Student Retention Rates Fall...

Documents

Transcript of 1 Current Status of the Department - Georgia State … Table 4. Junior Student Retention Rates Fall...