STAKEHOLDER IMPACT ON THE IT CURRICULUM

Thomas A. Pollack
A.J. Palumbo School of Business Administration
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh, PA 15282
(412) 396-1639
pollack@duq.edu

ABSTRACT

Faculty responsible for maintaining Information Technology (IT) curricula in higher education are faced with the never-ending task of assessing and modifying curricular offerings. More so than other disciplines, various stakeholders, both external and internal, influence the IT curriculum. These stakeholders range from computer and software manufacturers to prospective employers on the external side and from resource providers to faculty on the internal side.

This paper will identify the range of stakeholders who influence IT curricula and discuss their impact on our programs. The paper will also suggest ways to solicit meaningful feedback and advice from the identified stakeholders. Finally, the paper will discuss how information gathered should then be incorporated as we analyze, modify and maintain a state of quality and currency within our curricula.

INTRODUCTION

Depending on our institutional history, we are likely to refer to our computer and systems-related academic programs as Computer Science, Computer Information Systems, Information Systems Management, Management Information Systems, or Information Technology. In this paper, the term Information Technology (IT) will be used as the generic reference to computer and systems-related educational programs. Some programs may have a technical focus while others may have a more systems-related emphasis. Although each program may have a slightly different content emphasis, prevailing concerns common to all programs include the need to change and the need to maintain a state of relevant currency in what we deliver to our students. More so than nearly any other discipline, today's Information Technology curriculum in higher education is subject to the rapidly evolving climate of change that prevails in today's technology-driven world. As early as 1965, G. E. Moore, one of the founders of Intel Corporation, suggested that the power of an integrated circuit would double every year while the cost remained constant (Moore, 1965). Moore (1995) later revised his estimate to a doubling of computing power every 18 months. This theory came to be known as Moore's Law. Moore (1997) then applied the law to the Web, electronic commerce and supply chain management. If we accept Moore's Law as at least partially credible, it serves to substantiate the notion that rapid technological change and technological developments can have a significant impact on our educational programs. This rapid rate of technological change adds pressure to our role as educators and indeed does have curricular implications. As educators, the author contends that we must concede that part of our role is to monitor developments and revise educational programs as appropriate and economically feasible.

Of course, there are some who will contend that we should not teach technology; we should teach people to think and to problem-solve. There is much merit to this reasoning; however, the tools that we use for teaching need to be relevant. Obsolescent tools will lead to obsolescence in what we deliver, and will not serve either our students or our external stakeholders well. Obviously, we all want to build a solid foundation that lends itself to further learning. The question, then, is how do we maintain a respectable and relevant state of currency?

CURRICULUM CURRENCY

Curriculum evaluation and alteration can be a controversial subject. Many faculty strongly maintain that curriculum design and delivery is the sole responsibility of the faculty. Outside input is not needed (Pearce, 1999). This attitude is easily supported so long as it is not done in a vacuum. A close-minded approach and resistance to change will doom today's IT programs, as well as many of our other programs, to failure and obsolescence. Our responsibility in Information Technology is quite different from that of our colleagues teaching in disciplines not subject to modern day changes or developments. Our discipline is rapidly changing and evolving as we speak. As educators, the author contends that we must react to change. This statement should not be interpreted as advocating the teaching of technology or adopting a "trade school" approach. Instead, the author is an advocate of being aware of developments, being receptive to change and reacting on a timely basis and within financial means.

Two major dilemmas serve as sources of frustration for many who are responsible for the design and delivery of technology-related academic programs. The first dilemma that the academic community frequently faces is a lack of exposure to the rapid changes and developments in the communities that we serve ­ today's organizations and businesses. When we are busy teaching our classes and tending to our everyday regimens, the technology world continues to advance. Can we or should we attempt to correlate our educational delivery with the needs of the communities we serve? Should we develop a spirit of dialogue and cooperation with our communities? The author contends that it is important not only to identify our stakeholders, but also to partner with them and understand their needs. The second dilemma, of course, is the availability of financial resources. It is relatively safe to say that everyone who uses technology would do a number of things differently if additional financial support was available. Most of our institutions cannot provide funds for every state of the art tool available, and therefore we must be innovative and effective in using what we have. Frequently, with technology education, there is an expressed desire and willingness to forge ahead and be innovative, but financial resources to support progressive initiatives are simply not available.

The effective implementation of technology in our programs is not limited to programs in Information Technology. Although this paper has focused on the IT curriculum and the many dynamics that can affect it, meaningful integration of IT into the overall curriculum with the goal of providing all students with the requisite skills to make an impact is also of paramount importance. The primary goal for many of us is getting both faculty and students to be as information technology aware as their organizational counterparts (Faculty, Money,, 2000).

This paper will not venture into an exercise on how to identify key stakeholders. That is always an introspective exercise to be carried out by the faculty of a given program. This paper will focus on several key stakeholders that, in the view of the author, can make a difference. Included among the stakeholders will be the faculty, professional advisory boards, internship providers, and employers of our graduates. This paper will also present general areas of content coverage in today's IT curriculum. Simply put, what does it take to maintain a state of currency with our educational offerings? Perhaps more importantly, how should we alter our curricular offerings to best serve our student population?

FACULTY AND CURRICULUM

Faculty responsible for the delivery of academic programs in IT, in addition to the normal required teaching, research and service activities, can add significant value by participating in the following additional activities: (Davis, 1997)

1. Technology assessment for maintaining currency of hardware and software;
2. Serving as a computing resource for other faculty;
3. Developing partnerships with hardware and software suppliers;
4. High-level participation in academic and professional societies; and
5. Willingness and readiness to constantly retool.

Familiarity with the curriculum recommendations of the academic professional subcommittees of professional organizations is also important. Although growing somewhat obsolete, the IS'97 Model Curriculum and Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems can serve as a very useful and valuable resource. The model curriculum, a joint effort of subcommittees from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the Association for Information Systems (AIS), and the Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP) provides valuable guidelines for general topical coverage (Davis, 1997).

The Model Curriculum advocates that IT, as an academic discipline, should encompass two broad areas, namely the information systems function and the system development function. Within the former, acquisition, deployment and management of information technology and services are included, while the latter includes the development and evolution of technology infrastructures and systems for use in organization processes (Ibid.). Further decomposition of the curriculum architecture reveals five curriculum presentation areas. Included are information systems fundamentals, information systems theory and practice, information technology, information systems development, and information systems deployment and management processes. The curriculum presentation areas are further subdivided into ten courses that are depicted in the following chart (Ibid.):

Levels	Presentation Areas	Courses
1 General	IS Fundamentals	Fundamentals of IS Personal Productivity with IS Technology
	Information Systems Theory And Practice	Information Systems Theory and Practice
2 Major and Minor	Information Technology	Information Technology Hardware and Software Programming, Data, File, and Object Structures Networks and Telecommunications
		Analysis and Logical Design
3 Major	Information Systems Development	Physical Design and Implementation with a DBMS Physical Design and Implementation with a Programming Environment
	Information System Deployment And Management Processes	Project Management and Practice

The Model Curriculum also provides course descriptions and resource recommendations for a degree program. Appendices provide the basis for customizing courses while maintaining the basics proposed by the curriculum. The means for ongoing curriculum adaptations and updates is also included (Ibid.).

Of course, there are other model curricula that educators can access and examine. The model presented above, although popular, is shown as an example rather than an exclusive, one of a kind publication. The primary problem with heavy reliance on a model curriculum is that the particulars of the model may be obsolete before the finished work is published and distributed. However, the model presented above presents an architecture and a conceptual framework that allows for significant adaptations and changes.

Other faculty issues to consider include an honest assessment of areas of faculty strengths and deficiencies. There are times that program design and offerings will be dictated by the abilities of the faculty to deliver. Closely related to this issue is the willingness of the faculty to retool and accept new challenges. New developments frequently dictate a need for formal training and course pilots and refinements. That willingness to continue with lifelong learning, referred to earlier in this paper, becomes increasingly important, as the technology world continues to evolve and change

In some cases, where strong partnerships exist between higher education and community businesses and organizations, faculty externship opportunities have been developed. This is usually a "win-win" situation in that the faculty member is the recipient of a valuable work-related learning experience, and the organization receives the benefits of having a bright, mature and dedicated individual for little or nominal compensation. Faculty who participate in such programs are then able to apply the first-hand experience gained in their classroom settings.

One final idea for faculty is to develop a sense of awareness through best practice benchmarking. It is always helpful to know what the best programs are doing and certainly what one's closest competitors are doing. Developing familiarity with the successful practices of others frequently generates ideas for improvement and results in positive changes.

EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER IMPACT

Advisory board members can play a very significant role in influencing the programs of study of the schools they serve. They are in an excellent position to provide constant feedback on the product the schools turn out, namely the graduates who are expected to be immediately productive as they venture into the "real world." "The business world has never been more competitive and volatile than it is today. And it has never moved so fast." Business schools readily admit that they are unable to keep pace without valuable direct links to the business world ("Business Schools," Newsline, Summer 2000). Business educators frequently seek valuable input from executives in the form of knowledge and skills desirable in graduates (Pearce, 1999).

School / advisory board partnerships are mutually beneficial. Board members have an opportunity to recruit top graduates, and they are relatively familiar with the content of the educational program in question. Being in a position to influence the content of the educational program being served also motivates active participation in the process ("Business Schools," Newsline). However, in recent years, the attitude of advisory board members has changed. They used to be content to listen, but now they want to be involved and have an impact. They want to focus on projects, make meaningful recommendations, and follow-up on their recommendations. They are high-level people willing to give their time, but they are also very results-oriented. Because of their many commitments, the time of these board members must be respected. Meetings must be kept very crisp and focused, starting and ending on time (Ibid.).

Board members, in addition to being sounding boards, financial supporters, friends, public relations agents, employers, internship sources, and faculty research site providers have become working partners with administration, faculty, and students. Some serve as adjunct faculty offering their experience and expertise with students in a classroom setting. Others assist faculty in course delivery, serving as guest speakers or delivering live case studies and simulating work experiences (Gilbreath, 2001). Typically, their classroom behavior will be different than that of faculty, usually acting more like managers. They tend not to mince words when students do not perform well and are sometimes perceived as less tolerant of excuses (Ibid.).

It has been demonstrated that advisory boards can become a very valuable information source. Their value increases as they become increasingly familiar with the School's programs and students. Pearce (1999), optimistically reports in The Academy of Management Executive that executives and educators are developing genuine collaboration. Genuine efforts are being made by advisory board members to better understand the inner workings of a collegiate environment while faculty and school administrators learn more about the needs and current experience of the communities they serve. There is a general sense that any effort to increase the quantity and quality of dialogue between faculty and executives is beneficial to both parties.

Despite all the optimism, enthusiasm, and cooperation, six core issues have been identified as somewhat contentious. They include: (Ibid.)

1. Technology-assisted pedagogy pertains to the reluctance of faculty to embrace new technology-rich teaching technologies to the extent that student skills exceed professor skills.



2. The faculty tenure issue centers on decreased flexibility and, at times, incompetence.



3. Globalization refers to the development of student understanding of diverse cultures and obtaining information (usually through technology) for the development of effective strategies.



4. Linkages to business practice pertain to meaningful references to business practice through examples, analogies and metaphors. Collaborative research is encouraged as the best remedy.

1. Academic research is challenged as not being pertinent to improved organizational practices.



2. Institutional competition for tuition dollars refers to the entrant of new non-traditional educational suppliers to the marketplace.

Several of the points identified above have significant implications for the IT curriculum as well as technology-related pedagogy and education as it pertains to the entire curriculum. Three points in particular are relevant to IT and to developing the notion that continuous improvement and receptiveness to change are competitive issues. First, current and relevant technology is very important, not only to those majoring in our IT programs, but also to our general student population. Second, the effective use of available technology can improve our teaching. It can enable us to provide convenient information sources that, in the past, simply were not readily available. Third, if we refuse to change and adapt to the needs of our stakeholders, there are many for profit institutions that will customize educational programs and will play the role of new entrants to the educational marketplace. Thus, we too, are faced with the ever-increasing threat of global competition. The philosophy of the for-profit schools that offer associate, bachelor's, and master's degrees is that they learn what the employers need, design programs to meet the needs and then run their school like a business (Hodges, 1999).

CONCLUSION

A number of issues have been introduced into the mix of considerations that are important in the IT curriculum assessment and revision process. Employers and graduates have expressed a desire to experience coursework and be exposed to skills that bridge the gap between theory and practice (Mirabella, 1999). An expressed willingness on the part of employers and schools to collaborate and cooperate has become commonplace (Pearce). Key success ingredients include faculty who are receptive to change, ongoing external stakeholder participation, and effective communication and delivery. Desirable faculty attributes include a desire for lifelong learning, knowledge of the outside world, a willingness to consider and manage change, and the ability to retool and adapt. Information gathering and synthesis must be an ongoing process, and it must manifest itself in the form of curriculum modifications and changes. External stakeholders must understand what is important to those in higher education and the implications of resource constraints, be willing to assist with the change process, and be proactive in helping the institutions with whom they are affiliated. In the Information Technology field, change is truly a constant that we cannot escape.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Business Schools Look to Their Advisory Boards for Reality Check. (Summer 2000). Volume 30, Number 4. Newsline.

Changes In Business Education Add Air Of Urgency To Blue Ribbon Committee's Accreditation Review. (Fall 2000). Volume 31, Number 1. Newsline.

Davis, Gordon B., J. Daniel Couger, David L Feinstein, John T. Gorgone & Herbert E. Longenecker Jr. (1997). Model Curriculum and Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems. Association for Information Systems (AIS), Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP). http://www.is-97.org

Faculty, Money, Curriculum, Management, Facilities Space and Technology are Recurring Issues for Business Schools. (Winter 2000). Volume 30. Newsline.

Gilbreath, Brad, Michael R. Manning, O'Neill Burchett, & C David Wieters, et al. (February 2001).

Using Management Advisory Boards in the Classroom. Journal of Management Education.

Hodges, Jane. (June, 1999). If Education Is Supposed to Be an Investment A BA is Just Another Product. Fortune. [On-line], http://www.eCompany.com.

Mirabella, Roseanne, & Naomi B. Wish. (Spring 1999). Educational impact graduate nonprofit degree programs: Perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Nonprofit Management and Leadership.

Moore, G.E., "Cramming More Components on Integrated Circuits," Electronics, April 19, 1965.

Moore, G.E., Inside the Tornado, New York: Harper Collins, 1995.

Moore, G.E., "Moore's Law," CIO, January 1, 1997.

Pearce, John A. II. (May 1999). Faculty Survey on Business Education Reform. The Academy of Management Executive.