Presented to:Dr. Jay F. Nunamaker Jr.University of ArizonaManagement Information SystemsMIS696a Research MethodologiesFall 2001

The MIS Disciplines Founding Papers, Current Research, and Future

Direction

Averill CateSabah Currim

Fred KeersByron Marshall

Daniel McDonaldJialun Qin

Tiantian QinJochen Reb

Doug TwitchellHarry WangGang Wang

Yiwen ZhangYilu Zhou

Table of Content

INTRODUCTION________________________________________________________1

MIS DEFINED__________________________________________________________1A MODEL FOR CLASSIFYING MIS RESEARCH_________________________________2

Description__________________________________________________________2A FEW EXAMPLES_______________________________________________________6MIS TIMELINE__________________________________________________________8

COLLABORATION / COMMUNICATION_________________________________9

DATABASE / SYSTEMS ANALYSIS______________________________________12

WATERSHED__________________________________________________________13CURRENT_____________________________________________________________13CURRENT/FUTURE______________________________________________________13CLOSING THOUGHTS____________________________________________________14KEY REFERENCES______________________________________________________15

ECONOMICS OF IT____________________________________________________16

KEY AREA: IT PRODUCTIVITY PARADOX____________________________________16Watershed papers__________________________________________________16Current & Future___________________________________________________16

KEY AREA: DIFFERENTIATION OF PRODUCTS AND PRICES______________________17Watershed papers__________________________________________________17Current & Future___________________________________________________17

KEY AREA: STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING_____________________________________17Watershed Papers__________________________________________________17Current & Future___________________________________________________17

KEY AREA: SWITCHING COSTS AND LOCK-IN________________________________18Watershed Paper___________________________________________________18

KEY AREA: ECONOMICS OF E-COMMERCE___________________________________18Watershed Paper___________________________________________________18Current & Future___________________________________________________18

FUTURE KEY AREA: INFORMATIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS_______________________18Watershed Papers__________________________________________________18Current & Future___________________________________________________18

HCI / PSYCHOLOGY___________________________________________________19

OVERVIEW____________________________________________________________19THEORY______________________________________________________________20WATERSHED AND CURRENT______________________________________________20FUTURE______________________________________________________________22

KM / AI / IR___________________________________________________________23

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT KM/AI/IR__________________________________23CONFERENCES_________________________________________________________23

I

WATERSHED__________________________________________________________23CURRENT_____________________________________________________________24

Herbert A. Simon (1916-2001)________________________________________24Allen Newell (1927-1992)___________________________________________24John McCarty_____________________________________________________24Edward Feigenbaum________________________________________________24Marvin Minsky____________________________________________________25Dr. Gerard Salton (1927-1995)________________________________________25

PUBLICATIONS/ENCYCLOPEDIAS___________________________________________25FUTURE______________________________________________________________26

OPERATIONS RESEARCH______________________________________________27

OVERVIEW____________________________________________________________27WATERSHED__________________________________________________________28MAIN THEME__________________________________________________________28FUTURE______________________________________________________________29

POLICY, ETHICS & SOCIAL ISSUES____________________________________29

WATERSHED PAPERS/BOOK______________________________________________30CURRENT RESEARCH____________________________________________________31FUTURE DIRECTION_____________________________________________________33

WORKFLOW__________________________________________________________34

WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT DESCRIPTION:__________________________________35WORKFLOW FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS:________________________________35

Workflow Management Systems Architecture____________________________35Workflow Modeling________________________________________________35Inter-Organizational Workflows_______________________________________35

APPENDIX____________________________________________________________37

ANALYSIS & DESIGN / DATABASE_________________________________________37Peter Pin-Shan Chen________________________________________________37E.F.Codd_________________________________________________________37Michael Stonebraker________________________________________________38Kim Won________________________________________________________39Grady Booch______________________________________________________39

COLLABORATION / COMMUNICATIONS______________________________________40Dr. Jay F. Nunamaker; University of Arizona____________________________40Dr. Douglas Vogel; City University of Hong Kong________________________40Dr. Geraldine DeSanctis; Duke University______________________________41Dr. Starr Roxanne Hiltz; New Jersey Institute of Technology________________41Dr. Wanda J. Orlikowski; MIT Sloan School of Management_______________42Dr. Robert Kraut; Carnegie Mellon University___________________________43Dr. Sarah Kiesler; Carnegie Mellon University___________________________43Dr. Murray Turoff; New Jersey Institute of Technology____________________44Dr. Alain Pinsonneault; McGill University______________________________44Dr. Brent Gallupe; Queen’s School of Business, Canada___________________45

II

Tim Berners-Lee; previously of CERN_________________________________45ECONOMICS OF IT______________________________________________________45

Lynda M. Applegate, Harvard University_______________________________45Yannis Bakos, New York University___________________________________46Erik Brynjolfsson, MIT_____________________________________________46Eric K. Clemons, University of Pennsylvania____________________________47Thomas W. Malone, MIT____________________________________________47Haim Mendelson, Stanford University__________________________________47Carl Shapiro, University of California at Berkeley________________________48Hal R. Varian, University of Berkeley__________________________________48Andrew B. Whinston, University of Texas at Austin_______________________49

HCI / PSYCHOLOGY____________________________________________________50Donald Norman___________________________________________________50Ben Shneiderman__________________________________________________51Dr. Jakob Nielsen__________________________________________________51Dr. George Furnas_________________________________________________52Edward Tufte_____________________________________________________53Stuart K. Card_____________________________________________________53Izak Benbasat_____________________________________________________54Daniel P. Siewiorek________________________________________________55Frank Biocca______________________________________________________55

KM / AI / IR__________________________________________________________56Herbert A. Simon (1916-2001)________________________________________56Allen Newell (1927-1992)___________________________________________56John McCarty_____________________________________________________57Edward Feigenbaum________________________________________________57 Marvin Minsky___________________________________________________57Dr. Gerard Salton (1927-1995)________________________________________58

OPERATIONS RESEARCH_________________________________________________58Dr. Russell L. Ackoff_______________________________________________58Dr. George Dantzig_________________________________________________59Dr. Ward Whitt____________________________________________________59Dr. Hau Lee______________________________________________________60Dr. Marshall L. Fisher______________________________________________61

POLICY & SOCIAL ISSUES________________________________________________62Mary J. Culnan____________________________________________________62Sara Kiesler_______________________________________________________62Robert Kling______________________________________________________62Lee Sproull_______________________________________________________63Peter G. Neumann__________________________________________________63Seymour E. Goodman_______________________________________________63Eli M. Noam______________________________________________________64Richard Mason____________________________________________________64Dorothy E. Denning________________________________________________65Pamela Samuelson_________________________________________________65

WORKFLOW___________________________________________________________66

III

Clarence Ellis_____________________________________________________66Professor Sheth____________________________________________________67Dr. Jablonski______________________________________________________67Dr. Christoph Bussler_______________________________________________68

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA________________________________________________69Hsinchun Chen____________________________________________________69Moshe Dror_______________________________________________________69Kurt D. Fenstermacher______________________________________________70Mark Ginsburg:____________________________________________________70James F. LaSalle___________________________________________________70Therani Madhusudan_______________________________________________71David E. Pingry___________________________________________________71Sudha Ram_______________________________________________________71Olivia Sheng______________________________________________________72Pamela Slaten_____________________________________________________72Matt Thatcher_____________________________________________________72Sherry Thatcher___________________________________________________73Suzie Weisband___________________________________________________73Daniel Zeng______________________________________________________73J. Leon Zhao______________________________________________________74

IV

Table of FiguresFigure 1—Functions…………………………………………………………….….……..4Figure 2—Model Examples….………………………………………………….….……..5Table 1----Colors……………………………………………………………..…….……..5Figure 3— Model Examples…….………………………………………………….……..6Figure 4— Model Examples……….…………………………………………….………..7Figure 5— Model Examples……….…………………………………………….………..7Figure 6— Model Examples…….……………………………………………….………..8Figure 7—Timeline……………………………………………………………..………..10Figure 8—Workflow in INSPEC Titles………………………………………..………...34

V

IntroductionIn order to provide a comprehensive view of the research field of MIS, we have divided the field into seven main research categories. The seven categories we chose are as follows:

1. Collaboration / Communication2. Database / System Analysis3. Economics of IT4. KM / AI / IR5. HCI / Psychology6. Operations Research7. Policy, Ethics, & Social Issues8. Workflow

The main sections of the paper are divided into these seven categories. Within each sub discipline, we have further divided the research into categories of 1) founding or watershed papers of events that have defined the sub discipline 2) current research in the sub discipline and finally 3) the researchers’ views of where the sub discipline is going in the future. The research papers that we present will be placed within this categorization scheme.

MIS DefinedMIS is an applied discipline which focuses on how information and information technology is used by, is managed by and affects organizations. This broad definition leads to a couple of difficulties in establishing boundaries. One problem involves relationships to reference disciplines. This definition also does little to clarify the methodologies used by MIS researchers. Because the pervasive inclusion of computers in nearly every facet of organizational operations is a relatively new phenomenon, and because computer technology has affected the operation of organizations so fundamentally, this problem of scope definition is inevitable, especially for these early years of the discipline’s development.

MIS overlaps other disciplines on all sides. Since organizations are made up of people who use information, psychology and education have a stake in our research. Because so much of what we study and apply is related to computer technology, computer science issues continually intersect with MIS issues. Because the very nature of information is cognitive and related to knowledge representation, and because human beings trade knowledge primarily as language, linguistic research intertwines itself with MIS research repeatedly. Because nearly every human endeavor is being enhanced (hopefully) by the interaction of humans and computers, many disciplines are extending their efforts into areas in the MIS domain. For example, the application of computer technology holds such promise to increase effectiveness for health practitioners that a new area of study, bio-informatics has sprung up in the medical field. This “discipline” could be considered

1

a subset of MIS, yet the value of domain knowledge in medicine is so vital to success in this area that many of those who strive in this area of study are medical-researchers first and information engineers second. This overlapping does not trouble us. It is simply a fact, not a reduction in the prestige of the MIS field. Even though others may question MIS as unique discipline, we are satisfied with MIS as an extremely important and useful discipline.

The wide reach of MIS study also leads to a wide range of methodologies embraced, sometimes reluctantly, by the MIS community. Many more traditional fields use specific methodologies that lend themselves to the nature of the research domain. MIS is going to have a problem limiting its methodological approaches because it has people, organizations and computers to deal with and a goal of increasing organizational effectiveness. People are very different from computers. Computers are precise and measurable. People are amazingly complex and surprising difficult to predict. Organizations are formed for so many different purposes that effectiveness can have a huge range of definitions. For these reasons, MIS researchers will continue to struggle to achieve empirically provable results whenever possible yet they must branch out into measures which are less discrete and more subjective if the goals of people and organizations are to be addressed.

A Model For Classifying MIS ResearchDescriptionThe purpose of this model is to help us understand and classify MIS research. We drew from our own creativity as well as taking elements from MIS Legitimacy and the Proposition of a New Multi-dimensional Model of MIS by Lowry et al. and Build and Learn, Evaluate and Learn by Dr. Nunamaker. We chose to model 4 attributes of each piece of MIS research: function, area of focus, technicality and rigor. We would have liked to model reference disciplines and methodology, but we decided that those were less crucial and more difficult to express. We will leave those to some future model.

We have chosen to express the functional attribute with icons and the area of focus by color. The technicality and rigor dimensions are shown vertically and horizontally.

MIS Research can be described as being either technical or behavioral. Technical research in MIS attempts to describe how a computer-based system behaves. Examples of technical research include database design and artificial intelligence algorithms. Behavioral research in MIS attempts to describe how systems and people interact with each other. Examples of behavioral research include the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and MIS Policy. We have included the spectrum of technical vs. behavioral as the vertical axis in our model.

Another axis we use to classify research is rigor vs. descriptive. Rigorous research is performed using proven methodologies in a controlled environment. Precise statistical

2

1methods are also employed to ensure accurate hypotheses and conclusions. Rigorous research is usually performed in the laboratory or other controlled setting. Descriptive research, on the other hand, usually involves observation and field study. In field studies, a researcher cannot control all of the variables necessary to make a definitive conclusion; instead the researcher can make general conclusions about trends.

Previous models, such as the model proposed by Lowry et al, classify research using Rigor vs. Relevance as a dimension. We decided to use descriptive instead of relevance for two reasons. First, if we were to use rigor vs. relevance, and we classified a piece of research as being rigorous, we would be implying that the research is irrelevant. Most researchers whose research is considered rigorous would probably be offended if their research was deemed irrelevant. Furthermore, rigorous research need not be irrelevant. E. F. Codd’s relational model was very mathematically rigorous, yet was relevant enough to be found in almost every database system used today.

Another research feature we model is the function. Figure 1 shows how we understand the function icons in our model. We view research as a cyclical process that involves academia and managed organizations. The target of MIS research is managed organizations. These organizations, often with the help of academics, apply methods and techniques in an attempt to accomplish business goals. We place this kind of research in the domain of managed organizations in the model. We refer to that process as “apply” and chart this kind or research using a hammer icon. Observation of the organizational processes leads to new insights into how organizational goals can be better accomplished. A researcher envisions new ways of looking at issues, methods or techniques. Research that expresses this kind of contribution is classified with the term “conceptualize”. We denote conceptualization research with a thought cloud icon. Theories, (formal and informal) are derived which can lead to new ways of addressing important issues. MIS theories (as in most all disciplines) can be based on work done in other disciplines. For example, Kohonen’s Self-Organizing Map was not designed for the visualization of topics from large bodies of documents. Hypothesizing that its use to cluster documents would assist in browsing large collections of documents captured a kind of theory which could be developed and tested. Research which presents this kind of thought is denoted in our model by a formula (E=MC squared) icon. These theories are developed through experimentation. Development oriented research shows on our model as a microscope icon. Of course, many research projects cover one or more area of our functional chart. Thus, the research space on the model can contain more than one icon.

1 Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). "Build and Learn, Evaluate and Learn." Informatica --- TheJournal of Management Information Systems Development 1(1): 1--6. P. B. Lowry, W. H. Anderson, D. C. Wilson, G. Leroy, and L. Lin, ;MIS legitimacy and the proposition of a new, multi-dimensional model of MIS,; 3rd Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, GA, 2000.

3

Dr. Nunamaker’s model as presented in Build and Learn, Evaluate and Learn and shown in Figure 2 captures several similar ideas to what is in our model. We think that elements of the “Theory Building” node are similar to notions in our “Theorize” and “Conceptualize” nodes. His “Observation” node and “Experimentation” nodes have some comparability to our “develop” notion. Since our model is partially attempting to describe academic functions apart from organizational functions, we split “apply” apart as its own functional area. This is somewhat like the Systems Development node in the Nunamaker model. The pictorial depiction of our model may imply that developed ideas do not lead to new conceptualizations with out actual implementation in an organizational setting. But this is not always how it works. In short, our model does not attempt to replace or improve the other one. It emphasizes the role of academia vs. managed organizations, it shows some sources of input to the research cycle and it charts the general flow of the research process.

ApplyTheorize

Conceptualize

Develop

New Technologies

Other Academic Fields

Needs Identified in Organizations

ACADEMIA

MANAGED ORGANIZATIONS

Techniques and Methods

Figure 1

4

Another important function in classifying research is to group it together with other topically-similar research. This can be problematic because much research in MIS is interrelated. In addition, there are many notions of how to categorize research. We have chosen to group research by area of focus using a structure with 6 groupings. These groupings should change with time. The function icon or icons representing a piece of research are places on a circle in the appropriate place to represent its technical and rigor characteristics. That circle is color coded to represent the area of focus. Each of the focus areas are has its own color, as shown in Table 1. Since some research spans topic areas, the circle can be partitioned into several color segments.

Table 1

Area of Focus ColorEconomics/Policy GreenKnowledge Management/AI RedHCI PinkCommunication/Collaboration OrangeSystem Design/Data Base YellowOperations Management BlueWorkflow Purple

Figure 2

5

A Few ExamplesSalton, Wong and Yang’s A Vector Space Model for Automatic Indexing2 paper is quite technical in that it explores a detailed and complex algorithm which describes a document based on a set of vectors. It is quite rigorous in that it compares results to results from previous experiments. The paper proposes a new model for segmenting documents, this theoretical contribution is marked by a formula icon. It also develops the model with some experimentation, that function is represented by the microscope. The circular space is colored red to represent the Knowledge Management/Artificial Intelligence area of focus.

A recent paper by Bruce C. Hartman and Moshe Dror , Cost Allocation in Continuous-Review Inventory Models 3proposes 3 criteria for selection of a cost allocation method in certain inventory systems. Several methods of allocation are considered and analyzed. Computational complexity and correctness are considered. This paper is quite technical and quite rigorous in that allocations are evaluated using mathematical analysis. The paper suggests theory in that it proposes criteria which have not been used in this context before. It is in the domain of operations research and so the circle is represented in blue.

2 Salton, Gerald ... et al. A vector space model for automatic indexing. - S. 273-280. - I: Readings in information retrieval / edited by Karen Sparck Jones and Peter Willett. - San Francisco : Morgan Kaufman, 1997 3 Hartman, Bruce C. and Dror, Moshe 1996. Cost Allocation in Continuous-Review Inventory Models Naval Research Logistics. Vol. 43. Pp 549-561

Figure 3

Technical

Behavioral

Rigorous Descriptive

6

E. F. Codd’s landmark paper A relational model of data for large shared data banks4 proposes the theory now widely used in relational databases could be applied to our model. His research would appear high on the technical scale and rigorous (mathematically) on the rigorous vs. descriptive scale. The paper seems to be both

conceptualizing and theory building, and, since it is the foundation for relational databases fits very well in the system design/database category.

DeSanctis and Gallupe laid the foundation of collaboration with their paper titled A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems.5 The paper is very

4 Codd, E. F. 1970. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM. 13, 6.5 DeSanctis, G.; Gallupe, B. – Management Science Vol. 33 No. 5 1987. Pp.589-609.

Figure 5

Technical

Behavioral

Rigorous Descriptive

Figure 4

Technical

Behavioral

Rigorous Descriptive

7

Technical

Behavioral

Rigorous Descriptive

Figure 6

theoretically rigorous and describes the behavior of people using group decision support systems.

MIS Timeline

The following timeline shows some of the important events that have occurred in the last 60 years. These events have made MIS the field it is today.

8

MIS Timeline

Collaboration / Communication

Collaboration is the process of individuals working together. Collaborative technologies and Computer Mediated Communications facilitate this process by providing avenues of communication between individuals while recognizing the interaction dynamics of the process. Collaboration can be organized on two primary planes – formal collaboration and informal collaboration. Formal collaboration occurs within a structured setting with the objective of problem solving. The process is well defined, in many aspects formalized and coordinated. Informal collaboration is an ad hoc process often occurring within an unstructured social environment.

Group Support Systems (GSS) are the backbone of formal collaborative methodologies. GSS supports the planning, brainstorming, negotiating, problem solving and creative tasks of a group through the utilization of a multitude of technologies. Some common characteristics of GSS are: diminished communication barriers between group members, structured group activities, the support of varied intellectual capabilities within the group and a strong emphasis on the social dynamics of the collaborative process.

A result of the broad reach of GSS, research in this area extends into the social and technological interaction of the system and the user. GSS research typically encompasses the relationship among the following components: task, group dynamics, technological capabilities, decision outcomes and process outcomes.

1993

Bryn

jolfss

on’s

Produc

tivity

Parado

x

1940

1950

2000

1990

1980

1970

1960

1944

ENIA

C

1988

Nun

amak

er’s Elec

tronic

Mee

tings

1987

DeS

ancti

s’sCon

tinge

ncy T

heory

1957

New

el, S

haw, a

nd S

imon

’s Gen

eral P

urpos

e Solv

er

1970

E. F

. Cod

d’sRela

tiona

l Mod

el

Worl

d-Wide

-Web

1967

The D

endra

l Prog

ram 1

st Knowled

ge-B

ased

Prog

ram

1960

Geo

rge D

antzi

g’sLin

ear P

rogram

ming

1976

Pete

r Che

n’s E

ntity

Relatio

nship

Mod

el

1979

Rus

sell A

ckoff

’sFutu

re of

Operat

ions R

esea

rch

Figure 7

9

A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems6, authored by Drs. DeSanctis and Gallupe, establishes taxonomy, incorporating a contingency perspective, for formal collaboration, specifically GSS. This contingency perspective builds a research framework based on the GSS design level. Three specific levels are identified: 1) technical GSS – focused on the removal of communication barriers, 2) automated GDSS – focused on removing uncertainty or noise within the decision making process and 3) machine induced GDSS – focused on machine created expert advice. Once the GSS design has been established, the contingency perspective expands the decision making process to consider support needs of the group depending on group size and proximity. Finally, Drs. DeSanctis and Gallupe consider the role of task within the group dynamic.

Dr. Nunamaker, et al, provides the foundation of the formal collaborative methodology in two groundbreaking research papers: Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings 7 and Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work. 8 Dr. Nunamaker, et al outlined the structure and design of Electronic Meeting Systems – the precursor of Group Support Systems (GSS). The interplay of technology, the group dynamic and the environment where technology and people interact is recognized as a cohesive unit generating its own dynamic. The basis of these interactions is the focus of continued research in collaboration. Dr. Nunamaker, et al provides research conclusions on varying GSS structural designs: Local Area Decision Nets and Decision rooms; and the effectiveness of these designs in comparison to each other, in comparison to non-computer aided decision rooms and in comparison to differing design configurations. Finally, Dr. Nunamaker, et al address the group decision making process itself and the effect Electronic Meeting Systems have on the process: from technology specific setups to human interaction.

Informal collaborative methodologies are funneled through the World Wide Web. Although Mr. Tim Berners-Lee is credited with creating the World Wide Web, the informal collaborative environment is a component of e-mail, ftp, chat-rooms and web surfing; individual components of the web and the users ability to accept the technology for the purposes of group interaction. Dr. Fred Davis developed the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)9 in his pioneering paper Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, correlating the users initial exposure to the technology to the transitional integration of the technology. This paper establishes how people accept technology and perceive its usefulness – something so evident with the explosion of the Internet and the World Wide Web.

Having a foundation from which to build, research strengthened the usefulness of collaborative technologies and further defined the dynamics of computer-mediated communications. Drs. Pinsonneault and Kraemer have shown that collaborative technologies, specifically GSS, increases consensus reaching, task orientated communication, confidence on decision by group, satisfaction with decision process, and

6 DeSanctis, G.; Gallupe, B. – Management Science Vol. 33 No. 5 1987. Pp.589-609.7 Dennis, A.; George, J; Jessup, L.; Nunamaker, J.; Vogel, D. - MIS Quarterly Vol. 12 No. 4 1988. Pp.591-624.8 Nunamaker, J.; Dennis, A.; Valacich, J.; Vogel, D.; George, J. - Communications of the ACM Vol. 34 No. 7 1991 pp.40-62.9 Davis, F. MIS Quarterly Vol. 13 No. 3 1989. Pp.319-340.

10

satisfaction with decision and decreases decision time in their paper The Effects of Electronic Meetings on Group Processes and Outcomes: an Assessment of the Empirical Research10. Furthermore, Drs. Hiltz and Turnoff showed how computer mediated communication allows for the group to gain a greater comprehension of the problem (task definition) and the determination of a range of solutions in their paper Computer Support for Group versus Individual Decisions.11

Additional studies have been the evaluation of earlier theories through experiments and observation. Consequently the Technology Transition Model (TTM) has been proposed in a paper, A Technology Transition Model Derived from Field Investigation of GSS Use Aboard the U.S.S. Coronado12, by Dr. Briggs, et al. Here, TTM extends TAM by establishing a theoretical algorithm explaining the user’s self-sustaining acceptance and level of acceptance regarding the technology. Pertinent considering technologies influence on current social culture. Moreover, Drs. Galegher and Kraut, Computer Mediated Communication for Intellectual Teamwork: An Experiment in Group Writing13, further establish the validity of the contingency theory through experiments on sixty-seven three-person writing groups. These experiments, however, do highlight the limited predictability of the theory when multiple outcomes and their temporal patterns are considered.

Initial research established a strong foundation for collaborative technologies and computer mediated communications. Further research verified the significance of the technology with the interaction of the users. However, collaborative technologies and computer-mediated communications are still in their infancy. As these components extend into the new millennium, new areas of research must be examined – particularly the GSS and World Wide Web interaction with other MIS areas such as HCI, virtual environments, knowledge communities and process reengineering.

As Dr. Briggs, et al point out in 1001 Unanswered Research Questions in GSS14, GSS is branching into various new areas: e-commerce, modeling & simulation, software architecture, crisis response, virtual workspaces, team interface design and the classroom. With these extensions, further broadened analysis of the collaboration and computer mediated framework is needed – analysis of organizational implications, goal congruence, process gains & losses, team telework ideologies, cross-cultural issues, process reengineering, leadership structure issues and the ethics of GSS. Still in its infancy, – like MIS overall, GSS has just begun to show its potential and GSS research has just begun to identify and explain its impact.

Finally, Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations15, authored by Dr. Orlikowski, addresses the issue of

10 Pinsonneault, A; Kraemer, K. European Journal of Operational Research Vol. 46 1990 pp.143-16111 Turoff, M.; Hiltz R IEEE Transactions on Communications Vol. Com-30 No. 1 Jan. 82 pp.82-91.12 Briggs, R.; Adkins, M.; Mittleman, D.; Kruse, J.; Miller, S.; and Nunmaker, J. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1999 Vol. 15, No.3, pp. 151-19513 Galegher, J; Kraut, R. – Information Systems Research Vol. 5 No. 2 1994. Pp.110-138.14 Briggs, R.; Nunamaker, J.; Sprague, R. Journal of Management Information Systems. Vol. 14 No. 3 1998. Pp.3-21.15 Orlikowski, W. Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science. Vol. 11 No. 4 2000. Pp.404-428

11

technology-in-practice. Technologies-in-practice are not fixed but comprised of the practices of workers employing technologies to adhere to their particular circumstances. Using technologies in this manner results in the emergence, improvisation, and change of work patterns as people reconfigure their technologies-in-practice to meets their individual needs or change their habits of use. This, in turn, alters the technology-in-practice. The papers proposes to augment the existing structural perspective of technology with a practice of orientation focused specifically on people’s recurring use of technology and how that use alters the technology structure.

Database / Systems AnalysisDatabase systems have a long history in the realm of MIS. Some may consider databases and database systems to be a core element in MIS. The database industry generated approximately $7 billion dollars in revenue in 1994 and is estimated to be growing at the rate of 35% every year16. In the 1960’s companies began automating their office bookkeeping by using programming languages like COBOL. COBOL and its record-oriented file model were the primary tools during this time period.

The emergence of the “relational” data model in the 1970’s proved to be a major advance over COBOL and the record-oriented file model. The relational model unified data and meta-data and it also spawned a non-procedural data access language. Research later into the 1970’s lead to the development of the Structured Query Language (SQL) and by the 1990’s almost all relational database systems were standardized on SQL. Research in the latter half of the 1980’s lead to the development of geographically distributed databases and parallel data access17.

WatershedA Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks18 authored by E.F. Codd in 1970 provided a pivotal moment in database history. Codd’s model was based on two important points:

It provides a means of describing data with its natural structure only--that is, without superimposing any additional structure for machine representation purposes. Accordingly, it provides a basis for a high level data language, which will yield maximal independence between programs on the one hand and machine representation on the other.19

At first the model was perceived as too simple and not robust enough to provide adequate performance. IBM Research decided to take a chance and developed System R based on Codd’s model. System R eventually evolved in DB2, which is a current DBMS system used in industry. SQL emerged from Codd’s model and System R.16 Gray, Dr. James N., http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/lazowska/cra/database.html17 Gray, Dr. James N., http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/lazowska/cra/database.html18 E.F. Codd. A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6):377--387, 1970.19 http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/far/ch6.html

12

Peter Pin-Shan Chen’s The Entity-Relationship model---toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database provided another important moment in database system history. The ER model was used to establish a variety of different design methods and case tools. The ER model also helped establish structured system and database analysis.

CurrentInspired by Codd’s work, several faculty members at UC Berkley began working on a project called INGRES. In The design and implementation of INGRES Michael Stonebraker et al. describe the development of a relational database system based on Codd’s work. The Ingres project was the foundation for the Ingres product which is now owned by Computer Associates. In the mid-1980’s the Ingres project started research on a new project called Postgres. Postgres expanded on Ingres by including effective execution on multiprocessors. Postgres has also become the basis of digital libraries and scientific database works within the University of California system.

Current/FutureDatabase systems continue to be key component of computer science and information systems today. The future issues of database systems include representing knowledge within a computer. Also, there is also significant interest in indexing data, adding inference to data search, compiling queries more efficiently, executing queries in parallel, integrating data from heterogeneous data sources, and analyzing performance. Another key area is combining object-oriented concepts with the relational model. Kim Won’s Integrating an object-oriented programming system with a database system. The paper discusses issues related to integrating a database system with an object oriented programming language. The two key issues are:

1. An object-oriented programming language must be augmented with semantic data modeling concepts to provide a robust set of data modeling concepts to allow modeling of entities for important real-world applications.

2. The computational-model issue: application programmers should be able to access and manipulate objects as though the objects are in an infinite virtual memory; in other words, they should not have to be aware of the existence of a database system in their computations with the data structures the programming language allows.20

Finally, software architecture, engineering, and design could have significant influence on the future of database systems and MIS. Grady Booch, who is internationally renowned for his work in software architecture. In his article Developing the Future he discusses the importance of software development and its relationship to automating

20 ACM SIGPLAN Notices , Conference proceedings on Object-oriented programming systems, languages and applications January 1988 Volume 23 Issue 11

13

business process, its power for connecting people, and its impact on current and future business. Also, in his earlier work Object-Oriented Development, Grady Booch introduces the object-oriented paradigm and systems and application development.

Closing Thoughts1. Why did we put database together with software system? (The relationship between database and software system in general):

Database technology and software engineering are related in many ways. First, software engineering methods and tools have to be used for the construction of software providing database functionality and for the development of database applications. Second, database technology can be used to support activities; tools and techniques involved in software development processes.

2. Current:Different types of software systems can provide database functionality. Database management systems (DBMS) are general-purpose software systems specifically designed to manage large quantities of data in a consistent manner. While in the past database systems have been large, monolithic software systems, a research trend has emerged in recent years towards their componentization. This trend is necessary in order to efficiently provide database functionality within today’s distributed object and component architectures.

For example, implementations are reaching the limitations of file-based storage and experiencing the shortcomings of contemporary mainstream database technology. Various special-purpose systems have been developed to satisfy requirements that were not covered. For instance, object-relational DBs are designed to better support object-oriented data modeling.

Some other special-purpose software database:Adele-DB is a structurally object-oriented object management system.( Barkhatir, N., Estublier, J., and Melo, W. Adele-Tempo: an environment to support process modeling and enaction (1994)GRAS is a graph-based active database management system. (Kiesel,N., Schurr, A., and Westfechtel, B. Gras: A graph-oriented software Engineering Database system.(1996))

3. Future: The future and the trend directions included: Querying heterogeneous data sources;Support for flexible cooperation schemes and creative work;Unbundling and re-bundling database components;(Klaus Dittrich, Dimitrios Tombros & Andreas Geppert: Databases in software engineering (2000))

14

Key ReferencesMichael StonebrakerStonebraker, M. Operating System Support for Database Management. Commun. ACM 24, (July 1981), pp. 412-418.

E.F. CoddE.F. Codd. A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6):377-387, 1970.

Peter Pin-Shan ChenPeter Pin-Shan Chen. The Entity-Relationship Model: Toward a unified view of data. TODS, 1(1):9--36, 1976.

Michael StonebrakerMichael Stonebraker. The design and implementation of INGRES. ACM, 1(3):189-122, 1976

Kim WonKim Won, Integrating an object-oriented programming system with a database system, ACM Conference Proceedings, 142-152, 1988

Grady BoochDeveloping the future, Communications of the ACM, Volume 44, Number 3, March 2001OBJECT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering,12 (2): 211-221 Feb 1986

Economics of ITUnder the heading “Economics of Information Technology”, we subsumed research that takes a perspective on the effects and efficiency of IT from a perspective grounded in economic theory. By this, we don’t mean that the work is necessarily “only” an application of economic theory to a new field, but can as well be an extension of existing theory or a new theoretical approach grounded in the economic theory tradition.

As economics is a very wide field, there are also several categories in the area of economics of IT, and there will probably even more in the future, since the field is relatively new. In the following, we present several key areas that either have been, are or are believed to be in the future a major area of research in this field. Under each area, we give cite the watershed paper(s), key researchers as well as the predicted future importance and direction of the area. To write this section we relied on the information of MIS faculty members as well as published articles. A good overview over current issues is given in the following working paper: Varian, Hal, R. (2001). Economics of Information Technology. Working Paper: University of California, Berkeley, revised: Nov 18, 2001.

15

Key Area: IT Productivity ParadoxThe information technology (IT) productivity paradox consists in empirical findings that suggest that although IT use is increasing, contrary to expectations, productivity is not. Or as major researchers in the area put it: “The ‘productivity paradox’ of information systems (IS) is that, despite enormous improvements in the underlying technology, the benefits of IS spending have not been found in aggregate output statistics.” (Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L., 1996). Also, the question arises, if it is true that IT doesn’t increase productivity, why do we see an increase in IT use?

Watershed papersBrynjolfsson, E. (1993). “The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology.” Communications of the ACM 35(12): 66-77.

Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. (1996). Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management Science, 42(4), 541-558.

Current & FutureFuture importance is considered high. Theory is still evolving and new empirical evidence is collected. According to one source there is a shift taking place towards a broadening of the theoretical perspective from an investigation of the relation between IT use and economic productivity towards the relation between IT and firm-specific profits, firm productivity, market value, among others.

Key Area: Differentiation of Products and Prices“Information technology allows for fine-grained observation and analysis of consumer behavior. This allows for various kinds of marketing strategies that were previously extremely difficult to carry out, at least on a large scale. For example, a seller can offer prices and goods that are differentiated by individual behavior and/or characteristics.” (Varian, 2001). Sub areas include for example different forms of price discrimination, bundling of information goods and versioning.

Watershed papersBakos, Y., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1999). “Bundling information goods: Prices, profits, and efficiency.” Management Science, 45(12).

Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Versioning: The smart way to sell information. Harvard Business Review, November-December.

Current & Future Future importance is considered high. As information gathered on consumers continues to increase, finer forms of price and product discrimination become possible. Theoretical research will have to investigate the effects on firm, consumer and social welfare of these developments.

16

Key Area: Strategic OutsourcingThe underlying question here is about the optimal boundaries of an organization. What part of the production process should be internalized and what should be externalized? And if production is outsourced, what are less and more effective ways to do so?

Watershed PapersMalone, T. W., Yates, J. and Benjamin, R. I. "Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies: Effects of Information Technology on Market Structure and Corporate Strategies." Communications of the ACM, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1987, pp. 484-497.

Clemons, E.K., Reddy, S.P., Row, M.C. (1993). The impact of information technology in the organization of economic activity: The ‘move to the middle’ hypothesis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2): 9-35.

Current & Future Future importance is considered relatively low. The area is not as popular as it was in the late 80s among researchers.

Key Area: Switching Costs and Lock-InSwitching costs are endemic in high-technology industries and can be so large that switching suppliers is virtually unthinkable, a situation known as ``lock-in.'' For example, one study found that the total cost of installing an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system such as SAP was eleven times greater than the purchase price of the software due to the cost of infrastructure upgrades, consultants, retraining programs, and the like. (Varian, 2001).

Watershed PaperFarrell, J., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Dynamic competition with switching costs. Rand Journal of Economics, 19: 123-137.

Key Area: Economics of E-commerceOne gets a good idea of the importance of electronic commerce from the following citation: “We are on the brink of changes that are projected to rival in impact the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Much more than making entirely new knowledge-based products possible, it is clear that electronic commerce will lead to a fundamental redefinition of the way business is conducted. All participants in the business community need to wake up to, understand and adapt to electronic commerce. They need to redefine their business philosophies and approaches so as to position their organizations to rise with the tide.” (Applegate et al. 1996).

17

Watershed Paper Applegate, L. M., Holsapple, C. W., Kalakota, R., Radermacher, F. J., and Whinston, A. B. (1996). Electronic commerce: building blocks of new business opportunity. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 1-10.

Current & FutureFuture importance is considered as very high, as the introductory quotation makes clear.

Future Key Area: Informational Property RightsWatershed Papers No watershed paper could be found. For a recent review, see David, P. Economic forces in the coevolution of information technology and intellectual property institutions. Technical report, Stanford University, 2001.

Current & FutureA very popular a highly regarded current book on the topic is The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World by Lawrence Lessig. It has been named one of Amazon.com’s Best of 2001. Their review describes it in the following way: If The Future of Ideas is bleak, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Author Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford law professor and keen observer of emerging technologies, makes a strong case that large corporations are staging an innovation-stifling power grab while we watch idly. The changes in copyright and other forms of intellectual property protection demanded by the media and software industries have the potential to choke off publicly held material, which Lessig sees as a kind of intellectual commons. He eloquently and persuasively decries this lopsided control of ideas and suggests practical solutions that consider the rights of both creators and consumers, while acknowledging the serious impact of new technologies on old ways of doing business. His proposals would let existing companies make money without using the tremendous advantages of incumbency to eliminate new killer apps before they can threaten the status quo. Readers who want a fair intellectual marketplace would do well to absorb the lessons in The Future of Ideas. (Rob Lightner)

The future importance is considered high. See, for example the ongoing competition between Microsoft’s operating system and the open Linux system, and the surrounding theoretical debate.

HCI / PsychologyOverviewHuman Computer Interaction (HCI) research is concerned with the design, evaluation and implementation of interactive computer systems for human use. Furthermore, HCI studies the interactivity between the computer system and the user. Consequently, HCI

18

draws supporting knowledge from the computer science discipline and the social sciences. Within the computer sciences realm, techniques in computer graphics, operating systems, programming languages, and development environments are relevant to HCI. Furthermore, Communication Theory, graphic and industrial design disciplines, linguistics, social sciences, cognitive psychology, and human performance are relevant to the study of HCI. Finally, engineering and design methods play a substantial role in HCI research. Over the last 15-20 years, HCI has emerged as a focus research area with

specialist organizations: The ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction The British Computer Society Specialist Group on HCI The IFIP Technical Committee (TC 13) on Human-Computer Interaction The Human Factors Society Computer Systems Technical Group The European Association for Cognitive Ergonomics

specialist journals: Human-Computer Interaction International Journal of Man-Machine Studies Behavior and Information Technology International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction Interacting with Computers

specialist conferences: ACM CHI Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference ACM User Interface Software Technology Conference BCS HCI SG Human-Computer Interaction Conference European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics IFIP INTERACT Human Factors in Computing Conference International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

TheoryActivity Theory provides a broad conceptual framework for describing the structure, development, and context of computer-supported activities. Developed by the Russian psychologists Vygotsky, Rubinshtein, Leont'ev and others in the 1920s, there is a thriving Activity Theory tradition within HCI studies. Activity Theory is a set of basic principles that constitute a general conceptual system, rather than a highly predictive theory. The basic principles of Activity Theory include the hierarchical structure of activity, object-orientedness, internalization/externalization, and tool mediation and development.

Other related theory and model include: Computational Theory of Working Memory, Interactivity Model, The Postrepresentational Model (HCS), Artificial Morality, SIDE Theory

19

Watershed and CurrentAs human computer interaction is a field which the application can provide more strong support to evaluate the research result. Here are many books which is very important to popularize the concept and application of HCI as well as research paper. As HCI just has a history no more than 20 years, we can’t identify watershed here, so to be consistant with other part, we find the most important paper recommended by the expert in this field and list them as watershed and current.

Card, Stuart K, Thomas P Moran, and Allen Newell, “The psychology of human-computer interaction,” Hillsdale, N.J., L. Erlbaum Associates, 1983This book contains much essential material that is unknown to many practitioners in the field. Designing human-computer interfaces is still an art, learned best by creating many interfaces and carefully observing how real users interact with them. However, there are many tools from cognitive psychology that, if understood and applied, can yeild at least two benefits. First, by learning what is known about how humans operate, you can avoid many pitfalls in design. Second, you can make quantitative design decisions. This book can never go out of date as long as humans use keyboards and mice with their hands and scan the screen with their eyes.

Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. (Eds.), (1986). User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum This is an early set of readings that defined the idea of designing systems for users first.Associates

Ben Shneiderman. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison Wesley, 1986. Published 1987; Based on 20 years experience, Shneiderman offers practical techniques and guidelines for interface design. He discusses underlying issues and supports conclusions with empirical results. This new edition features new chapters on the WWW, information visualization, and computer-supported cooperative work; expanded coverage of evaluation techniques and user-interface-building tools; and a discussion of speech input-output, natural-language interaction, anthropomorphic design, virtual environments, and agents. An associated booksite on the Web additional illustrations and links to useful resources.)

Furnas, G. W. Generalized fisheye views, In Proceedings of CHI '86: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Software, pages 16-23. Association for Computing Machinery. In many contexts, humans often represent their own "neighborhood" in great detail, yet only major landmarks further away. This suggests that such views ("fisheye views") might be useful for the computer display of large information structures like programs, data bases, online text, etc. This paper explores fisheye views presenting, in turn, naturalistic studies, a general formalism, a specific instantiation, a resulting computer program, example displays and an evaluation.

Norman, D. A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. (Reissued in 1989 as The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.)

20

Donald Norman was, when he wrote this book, a professor of cognitive science at UC San Diego, and The Psychology of Everyday Things nicely does three things at once: introduce the new knowledge gained by his discipline, document our inability to make good gadgets, and show how the first can help fix the second.

Frank Biocca, Mark Levy, Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality , Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995The book was selected as a Choice Outstanding Academic Book for 1995. It was the first volume to explore the communication applications and implications of virtual reality.

Stuart K. Card, Jock D. Mackinlay, and Ben Shneiderman, Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think, 1999, Morgan Kaufmann PublishersThis groundbreaking book defines the emerging field of information visualization and offers the first-ever collection of 47 classic papers of the discipline, with introductions and analytical discussions of each topic and paper. The authors' intention is to present papers that focus on the use of visualization to discover relationships, using interactive graphics to amplify thought. This book is intended for research professionals in academia and industry; new graduate students and professors who want to begin work in this burgeoning field; professionals involved in financial data analysis, statistics, and information design; scientific data managers; and professionals involved in medical, bioinformatics, and other areas.

FutureHCI is, however, fundamentally different simply because of the key role of the human in the area, a factor that makes predictability and characterization so challenging. Good HCI research requires understanding how people work just as much, if not more, than how computers work. Most important issue in future HCI research will be how to assist people to accessing, managing, and understanding the vast amount of data and information that is available to them. The Internet, the Web, and computers in general have helped to facilitate an information explosion that threatens to inundate us all.

Three areas of research will drive future HCI work: Better interface navigation -- Although GUI and WIMP interfaces are a big step past line-oriented terminals, they still have a learning curve and they can be awkward to use. HCI research must develop improved interfaces that are more natural to use and more simple to learn than current interfaces. Interfaces using voice input (speech recognition) harbor great potential here. Voice input technology, both hardware and software, is improving.

Visualization tools for understanding -- Vast amounts of useful information are becoming available and accessible through electronic means. Providing people with a way to digest all this information and extract the relevant parts for their individual objectives is a key challenge facing HCI researchers. Sophisticated information visualization tools present complex or large quantities of data to people in comprehensible, accessible ways.

21

A number of examples of this type of work exist: Ben Shneiderman's information visualization tools, the SAGE project at CMU, recent work from Xerox PARC, and hopefully John T. Stasko’s work on software visualization systems, just to name a few. A dramatic step forward will be frameworks that allow people to easily construct their own visualizations for information sources unique to a domain of interest to them.

Agents or automated task managers -- This category simply refers to computational tools that aid people in time-consuming, relatively uninteresting, but important tasks. Consider the following example. For example, Learner-centered System Design.

Researchers from Vision Technology Group at Microsoft Research recommend Perceptual user interfaces(PUI) as a fundamental change for HCI from the interaction by typing, pointing, clicking. PUI is expected to require integration at multiple levels of technologies such as speech and sound recognition and generation, computer vision, graphical animation and visualization, language understanding, couch-base sensing and feedback(haptics), learning, user modeling, and dialogue management.

Reference:John T. Stasko, Future Research Directions in Human-Computer Interaction, ACM Computing Surveys 28A(4), December 1996

Mark Guzdial, John B. Carrol, Beneiderman, etc, DIS 95 Ann Arbor MI, ACM 1995, Learner-centered System Design: HCI Perspective for the future

Matthew Turk, George Robertson, Perceptual user interfaces, communications of the ACM, march 2000, vol. 43, No.3.

KM / AI / IRGeneral Information about KM/AI/IRKnowledge management is an audit of "intellectual assets" that highlights unique sources, critical functions and potential bottlenecks which hinder knowledge flows to the point of use. It protects intellectual assets from decay, seeks opportunities to enhance decisions, services and products through adding intelligence, increasing value and providing flexibility [1].AI is about natural information processing systems as well as artificial systems, and not just about how they perceive learn and think, but also about what they want and how they feel. It has already had a profound impact on the study of human minds.[2]One of the big questions in science is "What is intelligence?" Artificial intelligence researchers study intelligence--in machines and, through computers, in people. Much of the general information listed in this section is concerned with the nature of this science and the question of whether computers can think.

The applications of AI include: game playing, speech recognition, understanding natural language, computer vision, expert systems, heuristic classification. [3]

22

Conferences AAAI: National Conference of the American Association of Artificial Intelligence

(AAAI). First held at Stanford in 1980.

Watershed 1956. John McCarthy coined the term "artificial intelligence" as the topic of the

Dartmouth Conference, the first conference devoted to the subject [4]. 1957. The General Problem Solver (GPS) demonstrated by Newell, Shaw & Simon. 1958. John McCarthy (MIT) invented the Lisp language. 1967. Dendral program (Edward Feigenbaum, Joshua Lederberg, Bruce Buchanan,

Georgia Sutherland at Stanford) demonstrated to interpret mass spectra on organic chemical compounds. First successful knowledge-based program for scientific reasoning.

1975. Marvin Minsky published his widely-read and influential article on Frames as a representation of knowledge, in which many ideas about schemas and semantic links are brought together.

1978. Herb Simon wins the Nobel Prize in Economics for his theory of bounded rationality, one of the cornerstones of AI known as "satisficing".

1997. The Deep Blue chess program beats the current world chess champion, Garry Kasparov, in a widely followed match.

CurrentHerbert A. Simon (1916-2001)Richard King Mellon University Professor, Computer Science Department, Psychology Department, Carnegie-Mellon University. Ph.D.: University of Chicago.

Simon has backed up much of his work with numerous studies on decision-making in business enterprise. Of notable importance was his 1949 article unveiling the "Hawkins-Simon" conditions for non- negative square matrices. Since the 1950s, Simon has focused much of his attention on the issue of decision-making - and has come up with a behavioral theory based on "bounded rationality".

Allen Newell (1927-1992)U.A. and Helen Whitaker University Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. Ph.D.: Industrial Administration, Carnegie Institute of Technology.

With Herbert Simon, he proposed the Physical Symbol System hypothesis in 1957. His work has centered on SOAR, an architecture for intelligent problem solving and learning.

He is the winner of 1978 Nobel Laureate in Economics for his pioneering research into the decision-making process within economic organizations.

23

John McCartyJohn McCarthy. Computer Science Department, Stanford University. One of the founders of the field of AI. Ph.D. Princeton, 1951.

A pioneer in artificial intelligence, McCarthy invented LISP, the preeminent AI programming language, and first proposed general-purpose time sharing of computers. He identifies common-sense rules that determine the consequences of events and codifies these rules, along with other information, as sentences in the symbolic languages of AI databases.

Edward FeigenbaumEdward Feigenbaum. Kumagai, Professor of Computer Science, Stanford University. Ph.D.: Carnegie-Mellon (1960).

Feigenbaum is currently serving as Chief Scientist of the Air Force. Feigenbaum is studying the structure, dynamics, and the technology and industry trends in the software segement of the computer industry, as part of the Stanford computer Industry Project. He continues his long-term research in the representation of knowledge for use by programs that reason, and his work on advanced applications of expert systems.

Marvin Minsky Toshiba Professor of Media Arts and Sciences, Professor of E.E. and C.S., M.I.T. Ph.D.: Princeton Univ.

His research has contributed to advances in artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, neural networks (he built the first neural-network simulator in 1951), and the theory of Turing machines. A pioneer in robotics, he built some of the first mechanical hands with tactile sensors, visual scanners, and accompanying software and computer interfaces. He influenced many robotic projects outside MIT and has worked to build into machines the human capacity for commonsense reasoning. In his The Society of Mind (1987), 270 interconnected one-page ideas reflect the structure of his theory. He has participated in many studies of advanced technologies for space exploration. He received the Turing Award in 1969.

Dr. Gerard Salton (1927-1995)Professor PhD Harvard University, 1958 Salton developed SMART (System for the Mechanical Analysis and Retrieval of Text). From his evaluations/tests of SMART, he formulated general rules for automatic language processing (Bellardo & Bourne). According to Bellardo and Bourne, Salton's retrieval experiments of the 1980's "greatly contributed to the knowledge base of computerized information indexing, storage and retrieval." He advocated system design at the 1965 ADI conference. See obituary notice in JASIS, February 1996.

24

There are other researchers involved in Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Management and Information Retrieval area. These people includes Jaime Carbonell (CMU), Raj Reddy(CMU), Roger C. Schank (Northwestern University), Gary Marchionini (UNC-CH) and so forth.

Publications/Encyclopedias Feigenbaum, Edward, and Julian Feldman. 1995. Computers and Thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Originally published in 1963 by McGraw Hill.) A collection of early articles., including many "classics." The general public may be particularly interested in the section introductions , the introductory article by Turing, and the summary articles by Minsky and Armer. Articles by Newell and Simon provide an early articulation of the information processing model of intelligent behavior.

Simon, Herbert. 1996. Sciences of the Artificial. 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. A classic book, originally published in 1969, that examines several presuppositions of AI. Updates throughout the book take into account advances in cognitive science and the science of design.

Computer Machinery and Intelligence, A. M. TuringThis paper address the question of “Can machine think?” Turing takes a behavioristic posture relative to the question. The question is to be decided by an unprejudiced comparison of the alleged “thinking behavior” of the machine with normal “think behavior” of human beings. hw propose an experiment-commonly called “Turing test”-in which the unprejudiced comparison could be made. Though the test has flaws, it is the best that has been proposed to date.

Herbert A. Simon. Understanding The Natural and the Artificial Worlds,. The Science of Artificial Intelligence, 1996, pp 1-24.

Understanding the natural and the artificial worlds, the psychology of thinking: embedding artifice in nature, The science of design: creating the artificial, The architecture of complexity. "Artificial" denotes systems that have a given form and behavior because they adapt to their environment in reference to goals or purposes.

Barr, Avron, Paul R. Cohen, and Edward A. Feigenbaum, editors. 1989. The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. IV, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc. Other volumes published separately. (A. Barr and E.A. Feigenbaum, editors, Vol. I, Stanford and Los Altos, CA.: HeurisTech Press and William Kaufmann, 1981; Vol. II, Barr and Feigenbaum, 1982; Vol. III, Cohen and Feigenbaum, 1982.)

Gabbay, D. M., C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors. 1993. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. 5 vols. Volume Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Shapiro, Stuart C., editor. 1992. Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. (1st edition, 1987.) Several hundred entries define and explain key terms in AI. Many entries are quite technical.

25

FutureNext ten years, I think the real focus of most AI you'll see is on the Internet, speech recognition, language translation, better search, and much more. There's also some work in robotics that you'll be seeing in your kid's toys. --Dr. James Hendler[4]

As companies continue to initiate new knowledge management projects, new knowledge manager jobs continue to be advertised, and virtually every major software vendor (including IBM and Microsoft) continues to offer and advertise knowledge management technologies. Knowledge management is headed toward becoming a permanent fixture in the business landscape.-- Tom Davenport[5]

References:[1]: "An Open Discussion of Knowledge Management", Brian (Bo) Newman, 1991.[2]:“What is Artificial Intelligence? ”By Aaron Sloman. Computer Science Department, University of Birmingham, UK.[2]: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, www.aaai.org[3]: “Brief History of Artificial Intelligence,” Bruce G. Buchanan, University of Pittsburgh [4]: AI's Greatest Trends and Controversies. IEEE Intelligent Systems (January/February 2000)[5]: Nov.1,1999, Issue of CIO Magazine

Operations ResearchOverviewOperations Research (OR) is the science of helping people and organizations make better decisions. One of the definitions is to provide executive departments with a quantitative basis for decisions regarding operations under their control. Specifically, it is the development and application of mathematical models, statistical analysis, simulations, analytical reasoning and common sense to the understanding and improvement of real-world operations [Giancatarino]. Improvements are usually measured by the cost reduction, increase of efficiency, or any other measures of optimization on effectiveness.

OR originated during World War II as a solution to tactical problems related to the optimal operations of military forces. By 1942, it had become common in the British military to deploy teams of mathematicians, physicists, and officers to test equipment and study the effectiveness of weapons and radar under operating conditions. Operations research activities were brought to the U.S. in 1942 to the Naval Ordinance Laboratory. In 1948, Massachusetts Institute of Technology offered studies in Operations Research, but it was not until 1950 that industry in the U.S. began to use the techniques. Then, OR developed along with the growth of computers as a business planning and management tool [Wayne]. As it evolved, the core of OR moved away from interdisciplinary teams to

26

a focus on the development of mathematical models used to model, improve, and optimize real-world systems [Wayne]. Mathematical models in OR include mathematical programming, network flows like queueing theory, simulation and decision trees.

Basically, OR topics can be divided into two big categories: deterministic topic and stochastic topic. Deterministic topics include integer programming, linear programming, nonlinear programming, data envelopment analysis, facility layout and location, graph theory, inventory control, Just-in-time, production scheduling, MRP, network analysis, vehicle routing, etc. Stochastic topics include decision trees, forecasting, Markov processes, quality control, simulation, and stochastic programming.

Major journals for OR are listed below:Operations ResearchManagement ScienceEuropean Journal of Operational ResearchJournal of the Operational Research SocietyMathematical ProgrammingNetworksNaval Research LogisticsInterfaces

WatershedDr. Russell Ackoff is a former President of the Operations Research Society of America. He clarifies the differences between conventional thinking and systems thinking, with which he gave great impact on the direction where OR developed. In two of his papers [Ackoff, 1979], Dr. Ackoff argued a comprehensive reconsideration of the OR field, the methodology, they way it is practiced and the nature of OR education. Ackoff discussed the increasing inappropriateness of OR's methodology, arguing for decision-making systems that could learn and adept effectively rather than optimize. These highly detailed articles have come to be regarded as classic papers which reinforced OR's move from the hard to the soft approach.

Dr. George Dantzig is a professor in Stanford University. His main contribution to Operations Research is the introduction of Linear Programming, a simplex method of optimization invented in 1947. He was awarded Von Neumann Theory Prize in Operational Research in 1975. Linear programming and its offspring, such as nonlinear programming and integer programming, have come of age and have demonstrably passed the test. They are fundamentally affecting the economic practice of organizations and management. Eugene Lawler from Berkeley commented that, linear programming is used to allocate resources, plan production, schedule workers, plan investment portfolios and formulate marketing (and military) strategies. The versatility and economic impact of linear programming in today’s industrial world is awesome.

Main ThemeStochastic topic:

27

Dr. Ward Whitt has been contributing in applied probability, queueing theory, performance analysis, and stochastic models of telecommunication systems. He has published over 200 articles in top scientific journals. During the course of his illustrious career, he has served on the Editorial Boards of such journals as Operations Research, Management Science, Mathematics of Operations Research, Journal of Applied Probability, Queueing Systems, not to mention various others. He was also elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1996.

Along with Donald Iglehart, Dr. Whitt published a sequence of three pioneering papers in 1970, 1974, and 1980 on the analysis of queuing systems through asymptotic approximations. Much of the most outstanding research in stochastic OR of the past 25 years was built on the foundation established by Whitt’s groundbreaking work.

Deterministic topic:Dr. Hau Lee is widely recognized as a leading authority on supply chain integration and coordination, and has been widely published and quoted on the subject of supply chain improvements. Currently a professor at Stanford University, Dr. Lee has consulted on supply chain management and global logistics strategy for companies in the computer, pharmaceutical, automobile, telecommunications, grocery, and semiconductor industries. His consulting projects include strategic analysis of worldwide logistic systems, development of inventory control systems for filed service supports, integrated control of manufacturing and distribution, global manufacturing strategy, and integration of the product design process with on-line quality control and servicing [Integral].

Dr. Marshall Fisher developed systems for agile supply chains linked to customer demand that have significantly reduced costs of overproduction and underproduction in apparel and other industries. One of those is the Accurate Response, an integrated framework linking operational changes and planning approaches to improve a firm’s ability to match supply with the demand for new products. Accurate Response was initially implemented at Sport Obermeyer, a leading fashion skiwear firm that credits the approach with doubling profits and significantly improving customer service [Integral].

FutureArthur M. Geoffrion and Ramayya Krishnan, "Introduction: Operations Research in the e-Business Era," Interfaces, Vol. 30, No. 2

F.J. Rademacher, “Challenges for Operations Research as a Scientific Discipline at the Beginning of the 21st Century”, International Conference on Operations Researchand annual meeting of GOR, 31 August - 3 September 1998

ReferenceMike Giancatarino, Operations Analysis, http://web.nps.navy.mil/~ofcinst/code360.htm

Industrial and Manufacturing Department, Wayne State University, Operations Research http://mie.eng.wayne.edu/faculty/chelst/informs/introduction/or.htm

28

Academic Affiliates, Integral, http://www.integral-inc.com/affiliates/lee_bio.html

Policy, Ethics & Social IssuesAs computers and the Internet become more pervasive in society, so does the related social and policy research. As the development of Internet policy is still in its infancy, policy, ethics, and social research take on a greater sense of relevance, especially considering the fast moving Internet adoption. Policy and social issues of MIS are somewhat diverse. Research can vary from having a behavioral focus, such as in “Social Psychological-Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication” [Kiesler, et al] to a very technical focus as in Cryptography and Data Security [Denning]. The backgrounds of policy researchers also vary greatly. Dr. Pamela Samuelson has a law degree from Cornell and Peter Neumann has a background in mathematics. The unifying thread in policy and social research are the issues. The following issues are salient in MIS social & policy research today:

1. Privacy and Information Security Issues1. Encryption and Cryptography2. E-Government, e-voting, and teledemocracy3. Intellectual property and patents4. Free Speech vs. regulating Internet content5. Social and Psychological issues of computer-mediated communication6. The Digital Divide

Watershed Papers/BookThere are not really any two or three papers that have defined the policy and social research as they relate to MIS. Each policy or social issue involves its own set of considerations and research approaches. However, there are some papers that standout by how many times they have been cited. These papers largely are from the early to mid 1980s as the MIS discipline was being formed. For lack of a better guide, we use the number of times a paper has been cited to define our watershed papers.

Watershed Papers1. Kiesler, Sara Siegel J, McGuire TW. “Social Psychological Aspects of Computer

Mediated Communication” American Psychologist 39 (10): 1123-1134 1984 (cited 271 times on Web of Science)

2. Kiesler, Sara & Sproull, Lee. “Reducing Social-Context Cues-Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication” Management Science 32 (11): 492-1512 NOV 1986 (cited 225 times on Web of Science)

Studies electronic mail in an organizational setting. Using ideas about how social context cues within a communication setting affect information exchange, the paper argues that electronic mail does not simply speed up the exchange of information but leads to the exchange of new information as well. The authors

29

explored effects of electronic communication related to self-absorption, status equalization, and uninhibited behaviour. Consistent with experimental studies, it was found that decreasing social context cues has a deregulating effects on communication, and that more information was share via the electronic medium than would have been in a face to face conversation.

3. Kling, Robert. “Social Analyses of Computing-Theoretical Perspectives in recent Empirical Research” 1980 Computing Surveys (cited 179 times on Web of Science)

Kling examines the use of computers in organizations and public life. “The roles of computer technologies in the workplace, in decision making, in altering power relationships, and in influencing personal privacy are examined.” (INSPEC) Kling also studies the social accountability of systems.. The studies make use of assumptions about the world in which the computers operate. Two main perspectives are contrasted. “Systems rationalism, a collection of approaches including management science, managerial rationalism, and the systems approach, is found to be most helpful in stable settings, when there is considerable consensus over important social values. Segmented-institutionalist analyses, which assume social conflict rather than consensus, are particularly powerful as the social world of computing use becomes more dynamic and as a wider variety of groups is involved.” (INSPEC)

4. Denning, Dorothy. Cryptography and Data Security. 1982 Addison-Wesley (cited 170 times on Web of Science)

Summary:One of the first books on the topic of cryptography in the field, it is heavily cited. The book deals with cryptography from an algorithms approach. Data security is also covered, especially for secure operating systems. Reviews on Amazon list the book as essential introduction into cryptopgraphy.

Current ResearchBecause there is so much breadth to the research area of policy and social issues, listing only a few papers is hard to do and still show research on the salient issues. We have included well-cited papers from long-standing researchers in the policy and social issues field. The papers represent discussion on issues including ethics, women in technology, global adoption of the Internet, information privacy, cryptography, fair use of copyrights, and social perspective of technology.

1. Mason, Richard. “4 Ethical Issues of The Information Age” MIS Quarterly 10 (1): 5-12 MAR 1986 (Web of Science 21)

Summary:The nature of information itself has inherent ethical issues. These issues are especially relevant considering growth in the use of information today. Four

30

ethical issues are summarized using the acronym PAPA, standing for privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility. Privacy deals with what information must be revealed about oneself or others and the circumstances in which the information is revealed. Accuracy deals with who is accountable for maintaining accurate information. Property addresses the issue of information ownership and accessibility who should have access to information.

2. Sproull, Lee. “Pool Halls, Chips, War Games Women in the Culture of Computing” Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1986 (Web of Science 39)

3. Goodman SE, Press LI, Ruth SR, Rutkowski AM The Global Diffusion of the Internet – Patterns and Problems Communications of the ACM 37 (8): 27-31 AUG 1994 (Web of Science 14)

Summary:The Internet has been growing at an incredible pace. Internet use, however, is varied greatly between countries and even within countries. Academic campuses in the United States, where the Internet is free, have some professors that do not use it at all. Four models are presented to explain Internet diffusion. The categories are 1) Building National Backbones 2) International and Regional Initiatives 3) Grass Root Nets and 4) Commercial Carriers and Resellers. Impediments to network diffusion are placed in three categories. The impediments include 1) government policies 2) technical impediments; and 3) local and cultural factors.

4. Noam, Eli. “Electronics and The Dim Future of the University” Science (234): 247-249 OCT 13 1995 (Web of Science 30)

Summary:The advances in computer networks have created the potential for great progress in our improved ability to communicate with researchers around the world. However, as new “communications technologies are likely to strengthen research, they will also weaken the traditional major institutions of learning, the universities.” Scholarly activity is made up of three primary activities, which include 1) the creation of knowledge and its evaluation 2) the preservation of information and 3) the sharing of this information to others. Noam’s argument is not that technology would provide better education, but that it would provide more affordable education by more efficiently fulfilling the three main scholarly activities.

5. Culnan, Mary. “The Dimensions of Accessibility to Online Information – Implications for Implementing Office Information Systems” ACM Transactions On Office Information Systems 2 (2): 141-150 1984 (Web of Science 43)

Presents studies that suggest that “(1) physical access to a terminal and access to the actual information system are independent dimensions; (2) that accessibility is

31

a multidimensional concept encompassing physical access to a terminal and the system, the command language and the ability to retrieve the desired information successfully; and (3) that perceptions of accessibility are a function of prior user experience with online systems. In order to facilitate the acceptance of office information systems, organizations need to provide extensive support and training when the system is introduced, as well as ready physical access to the system over the course of its useful life.” (INSPEC)

6. Landau S, Kent S, Brooks C, Charney S, Denning D, Diffie W, Lauck A, Miller D, Neumann P, Sobel D “Crypto Policy Perspectives” Communications of the ACM 37 (8): 115-121 AUG 1994 (Web of Science 4)

The following abstract comes from INSPEC, “Discusses the Escrowed Encryption Initiative announced by the White House on April 16, (1993). The initiative included a chip for encryption (Clipper), to be incorporated into telecommunications equipment, and a scheme under which secret encryption keys are escrowed with the government; keys will be available to law enforcement officers with legal authorization. The National Security Agency designed the system and the underlying cryptographic algorithm SKIPJACK, which is classified.”

7. Samuelson, Pamela. “Copyright’s Fair use Doctrine and Digital Data” Communications of the ACM 1994 (Web of Science 17)

Summary:Applies copyright’s fair use doctrine to digital media such as electronic messages or newsletters and digital images or sounds. There are four factors that are considered when determining whether a copyright infringement has taken place, “1) the purpose of the defendant’s use … 2) the nature of the copyrighted work … 3) the substantiality of the taking … and 4) the harm or potential for harm to the market for the copyrighted work arising from the defendant’s activities”. Precedents such as Sony’s creation of beta max recorders have set a precedent for copyright legal hearings. Also, publishing a work without notice of a copyright does not place the work in the public domain.

8. Kling, Robert, Sacchi W “The Web of Computing: Computing Technology as Social Organization” Advances in Computers 21: 1-90 1982 (Web of Science 54)

9. Sproull, Lee & Kiesler, Sara. “Managerial Response to Changing Environments: Perspectives on Problem Sensing From Social Cognition” Administrative Science Quarterly 27 (4): 548-570 1982 (Web of Science 209)

32

Future DirectionThe future certainly does not lack for policy and social issues to research. In fact information-related policy and social research will only grow as technology becomes more pervasive in our society. The following papers address future policy concerns.

1. Rezmierski, Virginia, Pinkerton, Tad, Stager, Susan. “’Heads Up’ For Information Technology Policies: Emerging Policy Issues for Universities and K-12”, ACM Special Interest Group on University and College Computing Services pg 21-24 1994

Future policies must clarify copyright issues, examine the monitoring and surveillance of electronic mail, and establish rights and responsibilities.

2. Grönlund, Åke “Democracy in an IT-Framed Society” Communications of the ACM Vol. 44, No. 1 (January 2001), Pages 22-26

“We predict many important changes in the functioning of the democratic systems due to the ongoing transformation of processes into the framework of the electronic medium.”

3. Armstrong, B. “The social impact of a national information superhighway” Computers & Society. Vol.25, no.3; Sept. 1995; p.10-14.

In this article, Armstrong makes an assessment of future social impact of broadband communication. Social problems considered include allowing equal access to rich and poor people, the linking of geographically separated people and organizations, and the issues of privacy and censorship. While these issues have existed since the inception of the World Wide Web, the growing adoption of the Internet makes them relevant.

33

Workflow

Figure 8 shows how Workflow researched has emerged in the 1990s. Workflow management is defined by the Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) as follows:

The automation of a business process, in whole or in part, during which documents, information, or tasks are passed from one participant to another for action, according to a set of procedural rules.

(The WfMC, which was founded in August 1993 and currently has 200 members, is an international coalition of workflow vendors, users, and industry groups. The coalition's goal is to promote the use of workflow and establish workflow management standards by establishing common terminology, reference models, and interoperability between workflow management products.)

Workflow Management Description:Workflow management deals with the specification and execution of business processes. Business process reengineering is often used synonymously to the specification of workflows. Workflow management systems execute business processes.

Figure 8

34

General workflow specifications include the actions to be performed, statements on control and data flow among these actions, agents allowed to execute actions, and policies that describe the organizational environment. New formal languages are required to capture all facets of business processes. Graphical user interfaces may alleviate the specification work.

Workflow Future Research Directions:Workflow Management Systems Architecture

1. How can WfMS be designed to serve as a component in a distributed system?2. Is workflow management an essential part of every distributed system, i.e. should

it be in its "kernel"? 3. Which parts of current WfMS can be stripped because they re-implement

common distributed system functionality ?4. What makes WfMS "special" by the fact that humans are among the performers of

a workflow?

Workflow Modeling1. How to provide different views of workflow models for different users? 2. How to effectively describe exception behavior of processes? 3. How can the modeling effort be reduced by using workflow patterns?4. Can workflow models be deduced from given process execution information? 5. How to validate workflow models?

Inter-Organizational Workflows1. How to describe work-to-do in a way that is understood by parties, service

providers and requesters? Does this entail modifications of the existing process definition languages?

2. How to find appropriate performers / prospective service customers? 3. How to manage that all necessary data is moved across to the service provider or

made available on request by the service requester? 4. How to monitor across the organizational boundary? 5. How to manage internal changes in one organization without impacting on the

other? 6. How to manage internal changes in one organization that impact on the

relationships to the others?

35

AppendixAnalysis & Design / DatabasePeter Pin-Shan Chen

Dr. Peter Chen's original paper on the Entity-Relationship model (ER model) is one of the most cited papers in the computer software field.  Dr. Peter Chen is also the Editor-in-Chief of Data & Knowledge Engineering, the Associate Editor for the Journal of Intelligent Robotic Systems and other journals. In the past,  he was the Associate Editor for IEEE Computer, Information Sciences and other journals. He is a member of the Airlie Software Council. He received the Data Resource Management Technology Award from the Data Administration Management Association (NYC) in 1990. Dr. Chen is a Fellow of the IEEE,  the ACM, and the AAAS.  Since 1994, Dr. Chen started to teach graduate seminars focusing on Internet/Web, Java, XML, and E-commerce (B2B and B2C).  He is also doing research in Information warfare, Information Assurance, Internet security, and Forensics Informatics. Dr. Chen was the recipient of Year 2000 Individual Achievement Award from DAMA International, an international professional organization of data management professionals, managers, and Chief Information Officers (CIO's).  He was also inducted into the Data Management Hall of Fame in 2000. He is the recipient of Stevens Award in Software Method Innovation in 2001.

E.F.Codd

From 1970s to 1980s, as an Oxford trained mathematician, Ted Codd first joined IBM in 1949. The first ideas on using a ‘Relational’ model of data were developed by Dr. Codd, while working for the IBM Research Laboratory in San Jose, California. He published the seminal work on relational database systems in an article entitled ‘A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks’ in the Communications of the ACM (Volume 13 / Number 6 / June 1970). The article provides a mathematical underpinning

36

for relational systems based on set theory. His original work and theories included the fundamental concepts of all future RDMS systems including Relational Integrity, Functional Dependency, and Normalization.

He developed the first relational language called ALPHA, which formed the basis for the subsequent development of SQL (originally SEQUEL) based on the relational calculus that Dr. Codd had developed. Other relational query languages, such as QBE, were based on the relational algebra that Dr. Codd defined.

In 1985, He Redefined the world of transaction processing by writing his "12 Laws" of relational database management. In 1993, He Redefined the world of decision support systems by publishing his "12 Laws" for Online Analytical Processing and coining the term "Online Analytical Processing (OLAP)".

Michael Stonebraker

Dr. Stonebraker is Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University of California at Berkeley, where he joined the faculty in 1971. He is widely recognized as one of the world's foremost experts in database technology and is noted for his insight in operating systems and expert systems.

He received a Bachelor of Science degree from Princeton University and Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from the University of Michigan. Dr. Stonebraker has held visiting professorships at the Pontifico Universitade Catholique (PUC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; the University of California, Santa Cruz; and the University of Grenoble, France.

Dr. Stonebraker founded Ingres Corp. in 1980 and served on the company's board of directors until 1993. (Ingres Corp. was purchased by Computer Associates in 1994.) INGRES, the company's primary product, was a commercialization of Dr. Stonebraker's INGRES research project into relational database management systems (RDBMS) at Berkeley. Ingres Corp. has been widely recognized as a leader in RDBMS technology.

More recently, Dr. Stonebraker has managed another research project known as POSTGRES, one of the most advanced such projects ever undertaken on the Berkeley campus. In August 1992, Dr. Stonebraker co-founded Illustra Information Technologies, Inc. in order to commercialize his research in object-relational database technology. He is a member of the company's board of directors and serves as its Chief Technology Officer.

37

Dr. Stonebraker is currently focusing on DBMS support for visualization environments and on next-generation distributed DBMSs. In addition, he leads a project, which is developing alternative data management strategies for NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS).

Kim WonDr. Won got his Ph.D form Dept. of Computer Science of University of Illinois; Master degree on Dept. of Physics in MIT and B.S. on Physics of MIT. Currently he is the president and CEO of Cyber Database Solutions, Inc.Dr. Kim’s research interests lie in object-oriented databases and modern database systems. He is a founder of UniSQL and recently published a white paper describing a framework with which to evaluate the completeness of a product's compliance with seven major categories of capabilities of object relational databases.

Grady BoochContact Information: Rational Software Corporation 18880 Homestead Rd Cupertino, CA 95014

Grady Booch received his BS in Engineering in United States Air Force Academy in 1977 and MS of EE in University of California, Santa Barbara in 1979. Grady Booch is one of the leading software development methodologists in the world. Along with Rational colleagues Ivar Jacobson and Jim Rumbaugh, Grady developed the Unified Modeling Language (UML), the industry-standard language for specifying, visualizing, constructing, and documenting the artifacts of software systems. The UML was officially adopted as a standard by the Object Management Group (OMG) in 1997. His work centers primarily around complex software systems. Booch is the author of four books, including "Object-Oriented Analysis and Design," and "Object Solutions: Managing the Object-Oriented Project." He is a member of AAAS, IEEE, and CPSR, and is both an ACM Fellow and Rational Fellow. Currently he is the chief scientist at Rational Software.

38

Collaboration / CommunicationsDr. Jay F. Nunamaker; University of Arizona

Dr. Jay F. Nunamaker is Regents Professor and Director of the Center for Management of Information at the University of Arizona. In 1996, Dr. Nunamaker received the DPMA EDSIG Distinguished IS Educator Award. Dr. Nunamaker received his Ph.D. in systems engineering and operations research from Case Institute of Technology, a M.S. and B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.S. from Carnegie Mellon University.

RESEARCH: Current research centers on computer supported collaboration and decision support that is directed toward improving productivity through the use of information technology. This approach to computer supported collaboration supports a new way of enabling individuals to work together, to communicate, share information, collaborate on writing, generate ideas, organize ideas, draft policies, share visions, build consensus and make decisions at anytime and any-place.Key Publications

Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work. Communications of the ACM Vol. 34 No. 7 1991 pp.40-62.

Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings. MIS Quarterly Vol. 12 No. 4 1988. Pp.591-624. 1001 Unanswered Research Questions in GSS. Journal of Management

Information Systems. Vol. 14 No. 3 1998. Pp.3-21

Dr. Douglas Vogel; City University of Hong Kong

Dr. Douglas Vogel is a professor at City University of Hong Kong. Dr. Vogel earned his Ph.D. in Business Administration/MIS from the University of Minnesota and a M.S. in Computer Science from U.C.L.A.

RESEARCH: Dr. Vogel’s current research interests include group support systems, business process improvement, executive support systems, technology support for learning environments, e-Commerce and virtual organizations. His research continues to build on the established platform of software development and empirical evaluation while extending out with an increasingly international emphasis. Specific research projects

39

include: process re-engineering through enterprise analysis for government, military, and industry groups; design and development of multi-media distributed support for groups; and research on effective facilitation and session leadership as a function of group, task, and technology characteristics crossing face-to-face and distributed group support.

Dr. Geraldine DeSanctis; Duke University

Dr. Gerry DeSanctis is Professor of Management in the Fuqua School. In 1998, Dr. DeSanctis received the NationsBank Award, which is an annual award given to a Fuqua faculty member for outstanding contributions to teaching, research, and service. Dr. DeSanctis received her Ph. D. in 1982 from Texas Tech University, College of Business Administration, Lubbock, Texas, M.A. from Fairleigh Dickinson University and B.A. from Villanova University.

RESEARCH: Her research focuses on the impacts of electronic communication systems and groupware on global teams and organizations. She has a particular interest in virtual organizations and recently published a Special Issue in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication on the topic of virtual teams and organizations. Her recent book, Shaping Organization Form: Communication, Connection, and Community (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), with co-author Janet Fulk of the University of Southern California, concerns the design and impacts of electronic communication systems within the dynamics of corporate life.

Key PublicationsA Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems. Management Science Vol. 33 No. 5 1987 pp.589-609.

Dr. Starr Roxanne Hiltz; New Jersey Institute of Technology

Dr. Starr Roxanne Hiltz is a professor at New Jersey Institute of Technology. Dr. Hiltz was named one of “New Jersey’s Women of the Millennium” by the Easter Seals

40

Foundation for “creating solutions and changing lives, in the field of educational Technology.” Dr. Hiltz earned a Ph. D. and M.A. in Sociology from Columbia U.RESEARCH: Current research interests include WebCenter for learning networks effectiveness research, studies of distributed multimedia support for Group Collaboration via the Web, virtual classroom to virtual university and coordination in distributed group support systems.

Key Publications Computer Support for Group versus Individual Decisions. IEEE Transactions on

Communications Vol. Com-30 No. 1 Jan. 82 pp.82-91. An assessment of Group Support Systems Experimental Research: Methodology

and Results. Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 3, 1999 7-150

Dr. Wanda J. Orlikowski; MIT Sloan School of Management

Dr. Wanda Orlikowski is an Associate Professor of Information Technologies and Organization Studies at MIT Sloan School of Management. She currently holds the Eaton-Peabody Chair of Communication Sciences at MIT. She received a Ph.D. from the Stern School of Business at New York University.

RESEARCH: Her primary research interests focus on the recursive interaction of organizations and information technology, with particular emphasis on structures, cultures, work practices, and change. She is currently exploring the organizational and technological aspects of working virtually.

Key Publications Genres of Organizational Communication – A Structural Approach to Studying

Communication and Media. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 17 No. 2 1992 Pp. 299-326

Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science. Vol. 11 No. 4 2000. Pp.404-428.

41

Dr. Robert Kraut; Carnegie Mellon University

Dr. Robert Kraut is the Herbert A. Simon Professor of Human Computer Interaction at Carnegie Mellon University, with joint appointments in the Human Computer Interaction Institute and the Graduate School of Industrial Administration.

RESEARCH: His current research interests include examining the challenges that groups face in performing intellectual tasks, designs new technology to meet some of these challenges and evaluates the usefulness of the new technology. Further research interests include examining the impact of the Internet on the average US family and understanding the role that nationwide computer networks have on the interrelationships among firms.

Key Publications Computer-Mediated Communication for Intellectual Teamwork: an Experiment in

Group Writing. Information Systems Research Vol.5 No. 2 Jun. 94 pp.110-137.

Dr. Sarah Kiesler; Carnegie Mellon University

Dr. Sarah Kiesler is currently a professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Computer Human Interaction Institute. She earned her PhD in Psychology from Ohio State University, MA in Psychology from Stamford and BS in Social Sciences from Simmons College.

RESEARCH: Social and behavioral aspects of computers and computer-based communication technologies. Specific projects include: Robotic Assistants for the Elderly, Multidisciplinary Collaboration (w/Dr. Weisband) and HomeNet.

42

Dr. Murray Turoff; New Jersey Institute of Technology

Dr. Murray Turoff is a professor at New Jersey Institute of Technology. Dr. Turoff introduced the concept of Computerized Conferencing and is responsible for the implementation, utilization and early evaluation work on this information and communication system. Dr. Turoff earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Brandies University and B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley.RESEARCH: Current research interests include the development of CMC systems with the Danish Institute of Technology, development of a CMC network for computer integrated manufacturing education, development and evaluation of CMC systems and design of a Collaborative System for the Standard Setting Process.

Key Publications Computer Support for Group versus Individual Decisions. IEEE Transactions on

Communications Vol. Com-30 No. 1 Jan. 82 pp.82-91.

Dr. Alain Pinsonneault; McGill University

Dr. Pinsonneault is the Imasco Professor of Information Systems in the Faculty of Management at McGill University. In 1997, he was awarded the CDROM-SNI Award for the best pedagogical material that used information technology at HEC. Dr. Pinsonneault earned his Ph.D from University of California, Irvine.

RESEARCH: His current research interests include the organizational and individual impacts of information technology, electronic commerce, the strategic alignment of information technology, group support systems and IT department management.

43

Dr. Brent Gallupe; Queen’s School of Business, Canada

Dr. Brent Gallupe is the founding Director of Canada's first electronic group-decision support laboratory at the Queen's Executive Decision Center. Dr. Brent Gallupe earned a Ph.D. in Business Administration at the University of Minnesota and an MBA at York University.

Tim Berners-Lee; previously of CERN

Mr. Tim Berners-Lee is currently working at the Laboratory for Computer Science (LCS) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 1999, he became the first holder of the 3Com Founders chair. He is Director of the World Wide Web Consortium, which coordinates Web development worldwide, with teams at MIT, at INRIA in France, and at Keio University in Japan. Mr. Berners-Lee earned his undergraduate degree from the Queen’s College at Oxford University.

Economics of ITLynda M. Applegate, Harvard UniversityLinda Applegate is at the Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

ResearchHer research focuses on the influence of information technology on markets and organizations. Her findings on the evolution of electronic commerce and on the role of information technology as an enabler of flexible and adaptive organizational designs and innovative management control systems have been widely published.

Key PublicationsApplegate, L. M., Holsapple, C. W., Kalakota, R., Radermacher, F. J., and Whinston, A. B. (1996). Electronic commerce: building blocks of new business opportunity. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 1-10.

44

Yannis Bakos, New York UniversityYannis Bakos is Associate Professor of Management at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business at New York University. He holds a Ph.D. from the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He also received a Masters in Management (Finance) from the MIT Sloan School, and a B.S. in Computer Engineering and a Masters in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT.

ResearchHe conducts research on the business impacts of information technology, and the Internet in particular. Professor Bakos pioneered research on the impact of information technology on markets, and in particular on how internet-based electronic marketplaces will affect pricing and competition. He is also currently studying pricing strategies for information goods.

Key PublicationsBakos, Y., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1999). “Bundling information goods: Prices, profits, and efficiency.” Management Science, 45(12).

Erik Brynjolfsson, MIT

Erik Brynjolfsson is the George and Sandi Schussel Professor of Management, MIT Sloan School of Management, the Co-director of the Center for eBusiness@MIT, and the Co-editor of the Ecommerce Research Forum.

ResearchHis research focuses on how businesses can effectively use information technology (IT) in general and the Internet in particular.

Key PublicationsBrynjolfsson, E. (1993). “The Productivity Paradox of Information Technology.” Communications of the ACM 35(12): 66-77.

Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. (1996). Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management Science, 42(4), 541-558.

Bakos, Y., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1999). “Bundling information goods: Prices, profits, and efficiency.” Management Science, 45(12).

45

Eric K. Clemons, University of Pennsylvania

Eric K. Clemons is Professor of Operations and Information Management and Management, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. He received his PhD and MS from Cornell University in 1976 (1974), and his SB from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970.

Research Information technology and business strategy; information technology and financial markets; making the decision to invest in strategic information technology ventures; managing the risk of strategic information technology implementations; strategic implications of electronic commerce for channel power and profitability

Key PublicationsClemons, E.K., Reddy, S.P., Row, M.C. (1993). The impact of information technology in the organization of economic activity: The ‘move to the middle’ hypothesis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2): 9-35.

Thomas W. Malone, MIT

Thomas W. Malone is the Patrick J. McGovern Professor of Information Systems at the MIT Sloan School of Management. His background includes a Ph.D. from Stanford University and degrees in applied mathematics, engineering, and psychology. He is also the founder and director of the MIT Center for Coordination Science and was one of two founding co-directors of the MIT Initiative on "Inventing the

Organizations of the 21st Century".

ResearchProfessor Malone's research focuses on how new organizations can be designed to take advantage of the possibilities provided by information technology.

Key PublicationsMalone, T. W., Yates, J. and Benjamin, R. I. "Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies: Effects of Information Technology on Market Structure and Corporate Strategies." Communications of the ACM, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1987, pp. 484-497.

Haim Mendelson, Stanford University

Haim Mendelson is Codirector, Center for electronic business and commerce, Stanford University.

46

ResearchIT and Time-Based Competition in Financial Markets, Information and Organization for Horizontal Multi-market Coordination, A New Approach to the Regulation of Trading Across Securities Markets, Information and Organization for Horizontal Multi-market Coordination, among others.

Carl Shapiro, University of California at Berkeley

Carl Shapiro is the Transamerica Professor of Business Strategy at the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley. He also is Director of the Institute of Business and Economic Research, and Professor of Economics in the Economics Department, at UC Berkeley. He earned his Ph.D. in Economics at M.I.T. in 1981, taught at Princeton University during the 1980s, and has been at Berkeley since 1990. He has been Editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced

Study in the Behavioral Sciences, among other honors.

ResearchProfessor Shapiro has published extensively in the areas of industrial organization, competition policy, the economics of innovation, and competitive strategy. His current research interests include antitrust economics, intellectual property and licensing, product standards and compatibility, and the economics of networks and interconnection.

Key PublicationsShapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Versioning: The smart way to sell information. Harvard Business Review, November-December.

Farrell, J., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Dynamic competition with switching costs. Rand Journal of Economics, 19: 123-137.

Hal R. Varian, University of Berkeley

Hal R. Varian is the Dean of the School of Information Management and Systems at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also a Professor in the Haas School of Business, a Professor in the Department of Economics, and holds the Class of 1944 Professorship. He received his S.B. degree from MIT in 1969 and his MA (mathematics) and Ph.D. (economics) from UC Berkeley in 1973. He has taught at MIT, Stanford, Oxford, Michigan and other universities around the world. Professor Varian is fellow of the

Guggenheim Foundation, the Econometric Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has served as Co-Editor of the American Economic Review and is on the editorial boards of several journals.

Research

47

Professor Varian is currently interested in various issues of the economics of information technology.

Key PublicationsShapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Versioning: The smart way to sell information. Harvard Business Review, November-December.

Andrew B. Whinston, University of Texas at Austin

Andrew B. Whinston is at the Center for Research in Electronic Commerce, College and the Hugh Roy Cullen Centennial Chair Professor in Information Systems at the Graduate School of Business in the University of Texas at Austin. He is a Professor in the departments of Economics and Computer Science as well.

ResearchThe hallmark of research under his guidance has been an integrated vision spanning cross- disciplinary efforts, thus bringing technological, business, economic, public policy, sociological, cryptographic and political concerns together in laying the theoretical and practical foundations of a digital economy. His current research spans various realms of Electronic Commerce, its impact on business protocols and processes, on organizational structure and corporate networks, electronic publishing, electronic education, complementarity of convergent computational paradigms and business value of IT. Through diverse initiatives, various aspects and consequences of the emergent economies over the Internet and corporate Intranets are studied.

Key PublicationsWhinston, A. B. The Design and Development of a Financial Cybermarket with a Bundle Trading Mechanism (with Jan Stallaert and Ming Fan), International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1999.  

Whinston, A. B. Frontiers of Electronic Commerce (with Ravi Kalakota) , Addison-Wesley , 1998.  

Whinston, A. B. Creating Electronic Markets (with Ming Fan and Jan Stallaert), Dr. Dobb's Journal, 1998.

Applegate, L. M., Holsapple, C. W., Kalakota, R., Radermacher, F. J., and Whinston, A. B. (1996). Electronic commerce: building blocks of new business opportunity. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 1-10.

48

HCI / PsychologyDonald Norman

Prof. of Computer Science. Northwestern University. Evanston

Phone: 408 862-5515 Fax: 408 255-7045 Email: dnorman@apple.com

Web Site: http://www.jnd.org/

Professional Background Dr. Norman is Professor of Computer Science at Northwestern University and cofounder of the Nielsen Norman Group, an executive consulting firm that helps companies produce human-centered products and services. Norman serves as advisor and board member to numerous companies in high technology and consumer products and to non-profit organizations in the area of policy and education

Norman received a B.S. degree from MIT and an MS degree from the University of Pennsylvania, both in Electrical Engineering. His doctorate, from the University of Pennsylvania, is in Psychology.

He has been a faculty member at Harvard University, Professor Emeritus at the University of California, San Diego where he was founding chair of the Department of Cognitive Science and chair of the Department of Psychology. He was one of the founders of the Cognitive Science Society and has been chair of the society and editor of its journal, Cognitive Science. He is a fellow of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, the American Psychological Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and has been appointed to the CHI Academy of ACM's SIGCHI, the professional organization for Computer-Human Interaction. He has been a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences (Stanford).

Important PublicationsNorman, D. A., & Draper, S. (Eds.), (1986). User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesNorman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday. (Paperback version of The psychology of everyday things, unchanged except for title.)

49

Ben Shneiderman Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Phone: (301) 405-2680Fax: (301) 405-6707

(http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/)

Professional BackgroundBen Shneiderman is a Professor in the Department of Computer Science, Founding Director (1983-2000) of the Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory, and Member of the Institute for Advanced Computer Studies and the Institute for Systems Research, all at the University of Maryland at College Park. He got his Ph.D., at State University of New York State University at Stony Brook, 1973.

He has taught previously at the State University of New York and at Indiana University. Dr. Shneiderman teaches popular short courses and organized an annual satellite television presentation on User Interface Strategies seen by thousands of professionals from 1987 to 1997. He was made a Fellow of the ACM in 1997, elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2001, and received the ACM CHI (Computer Human Interaction) Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001. He was the Co-Chair of the ACM Policy 98 Conference, May 1998 and is the Founding Chair of the ACM Conference on Universal Usability, November 16-17, 2000.

Important Publication:Ben Shneiderman. Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. Computer, 16(8):57-69, August 1983.

Ben Shneiderman. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison Wesley, 1986. Published 1987;

Dr. Jakob Nielsen Nielsen Norman Group 48921 Warm Springs Blvd. Fremont, CA 94539-7767 USA Email: Nielsen@nngroup.com Office: Luice Hwang, hwang@nngroup.com, tel. (650) 938-9188

(http://www.useit.com)

50

Professional Background

Dr. Nielsen was usability lead for several design and redesign rounds of Sun’s website and intranet (SunWeb), including the original SunWeb design in 1994. His earlier affiliations include Bellcore (Bell Communications Research), the Technical University of Denmark, and the IBM User Interface Institute at the T.J. Watson Research Center. He holds a Ph.D. in user interface design/computer science from the Technical University of Denmark.

Professional journal editorial board memberships: ACM interactions magazine, Behaviour & Information Technology, Interacting with Computers, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, World Wide Web. In June 2000, Dr. Nielsen was inducted into the Scandinavian Interactive Media Hall of Fame.

Important Publication:

Jakob Nielsen. Hypertext and hypermedia. Academic Press, Inc., 1990(citation 74)Jakob Nielsen, Usability Engineering, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1993.

Dr. George Furnas

School of Information University of Michigan 310 West Hall 550 East University Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092 313/763-0076 313/764-2475(fax) furnas@umich.edu http://www.si.umich.edu/~furnas/

Professional Backgroud

George Furnas joined the faculty of the University of Michigan in 1995, as a Professor in the School of Information, with additional appointments in Comptuer Science and Psychology. He came to Michigan from 15 years in research at Bell Labs and Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), where he was most recently Director of Computer Graphics and Interactive Media research in the Computer Science Research Department. He got his AB degree from Harvard ('74 summa) and his PhD from Stanford ('80), both in Cognitive Psychology. A principal focus of his research has been in human computer interaction, specializing in areas related to information access and visualization, but he has also published work in multivariate statistics and graphical reasoning. Some of his specific contributions include work on statistical semantics, adaptive indexing, latent semantic indexing, generalized fisheye views, purely graphical deduction systems, the

51

prosection method for high dimensional visualization, multitrees, space-scale diagrams and information navigation.

Important Publications

Furnas, G. W. Generalized fisheye views, In Proceedings of CHI '86: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Software, pages 16-23. Association for Computing Machinery. Furnas, G. W. Furnas, Effective view navigation, In Proceedings of CHI '97: Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia. Association for Computing Machinery.

Edward TufteGraphics Press at 203 272-9187,

Fax: 203 272-8600

Email: tufte@graphicspress.com

http://www.edwardtufte.com/1576494545/tufte/

Edward Tufte has written seven books, including Visual Explanations, Envisioning Information, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, and Data Analysis for Politics and Policy. He writes, designs, and self-publishes his books on information design, which have received more than 40 awards for content and design. He is Professor Emeritus at Yale University, where he taught courses in statistical evidence, information design, and interface design. His current work includes digital video, sculpture, printmaking, and a new book called Beautiful Evidence.

Important PublicationTufte, Edward. (1983) The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press. (206citation in citeseer)Tufte, Edward R. 1990. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.(144 citation in citeseer)

Stuart K. Card No photo Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

USA Professional Background:Stuart K. Card is a Xerox Research Fellow and manager of the User Interface Research Group at Xerox PARC. He received his A.B. in physics from Oberlin College in 1966 and his Ph.D. in psychology from Carnegie- Mellon University in 1978, where he

52

pursued an interdisciplinary program in psychology, artificial intelligence, and computer science.

Important Publication

Card, Stuart K, Thomas P Moran, and Allen Newell, “The psychology of human-computer interaction,” Hillsdale, N.J., L. Erlbaum Associates, 1983( citation 211)Stuart K. Card, Jock D. Mackinlay, and Ben Shneiderman, Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think, 1999, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers

Izak Benbasat CANADA Research Chair in Information Technology Management Faculty of Commerce and Business AdministrationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z2

E-Mail: izak.benbasat@ubc.caPhone: (604) 822-8396 Fax: (604) 822-0045

http://mis.commerce.ubc.ca/members/benbasat/home.htmProfessional Backgroud

Izak Benbasat is CANADA Research Chair in Information Technology Management, and he has published above 80 paper in top MIS journal since early 80th. He got Ph.D. in MIS, University of Minnesota, 1974.

His research interest includes: Evaluating human-computer interfaces, specifically how to design web-based interfaces to facilitate business-to-consumer electronic commerce; Investigating the role of explanations in intelligent support systems in improving user productivity and knowledge transfer to users; and measuring IT-related competencies, namely, IT knowledge in line managers and business competence in IT professionals, and their impact on the effective deployment of IT.

Important PublicationI. Benbasat and Lim, Lai-Huat, "Information technology Support for Debiasing Group Judgments: An Empirical Evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 83, No. 1, September 2000, pp. 167-183.

53

Daniel P. SiewiorekBuhl University Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science, CMU; Director of Human-Computer Interaction Institute Phone: 412-268-2570Fax NSH: 412-268-1266Fax WeH: 412-268-5576Office: 3519 Newell-Simon Hall

http://www.ece.cmu.edu/people/faculty/dps.shtmlDr. Daniel P. Siewiorek is Buhl University Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science; Director of Human-Computer Interaction Institute. He got his B.S. 1968, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor; M.S. 1969 and Ph.D. 1972, Stanford University. From 1972, he joined Carnegie Mellon Univerisy. His research interests include: Design Automation, reliable computing, mobile computing

Important PublicationSiewiorek, Daniel P.; and Swarz, Robert S. 1982: The Theory and Practice of Reliable System Design. Digital Press.

A. Smailagic and D.P. Siewiorek, "Modalities of Interaction with CMU Wearable Computers," IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 14-25, February 1996.

Frank BioccaAmeritech Professor404 Comm Arts Bldg.East Lansing, MI 48824-1212Tel: 517.355.5073Fax: 517.355.1292biocca@tcimet.net

(http://tc.msu.edu/people/dept/biocca.html)

Professional BackgroundDr. Biocca is the Ameritech Professor of Telecommunication and Director of the Media Interface and Network Design (M.I.N.D.) Lab. He got his Ph.D. in Mass Communication,University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dr. Biocca has lectured or been a researcher at Stanford University, the University of California-Berkeley, Duke University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and other universities. His research explores human-computer interaction in virtual environments.

54

Important PublicationFrank Biocca, Mark Levy, Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality , Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995

55

KM / AI / IRHerbert A. Simon (1916-2001)Richard King Mellon University Professor, Computer Science Department, Psychology Department, Carnegie-Mellon University. Ph.D.: University of Chicago.Simon has backed up much of his work with numerous studies on decision-making in business enterprise. Of notable importance was his 1949 article unveiling the "Hawkins-Simon" conditions for non- negative square matrices. Since the 1950s, Simon has focused much of his attention on the issue of decision-making - and has come up with a behavioral theory based on "bounded rationality".

Key PublicationsSimon, H.A. (1977) "Models of discovery: and other topics in the methods of science". Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1961). GPS: A program that simulates human thought. In H. Billings (Ed.), Lernende automaten (pp. 109-124). Munchen: R. Oldenbourg Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1956). The logic theory machine. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-2(3), 61-79

Allen Newell (1927-1992)U.A. and Helen Whitaker University Professor of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. Ph.D.: Industrial Administration, Carnegie Institute of Technology.With Herbert Simon, he proposed the Physical Symbol System hypothesis in 1957. His work has centered on SOAR, an architecture for intelligent problem solving and learning.He is the winner of 1978 Nobel Laureate in Economics for his pioneering research into the decision-making process within economic organizations.

Key PublicationsNewell, A., and H. A. Simon. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Newell, A., and H. A. Simon. 1956. The logic theory machine: A complex information processing system. IRE Trans. Inf. Theory IT-2:61-79

John McCartyJohn McCarthy. Computer Science Department, Stanford University. One of the founders of the field of AI. Ph.D. Princeton, 1951.

56

A pioneer in artificial intelligence, McCarthy invented LISP, the preeminent AI programming language, and first proposed general-purpose time sharing of computers. He identifies common-sense rules that determine the consequences of events and codifies these rules, along with other information, as sentences in the symbolic languages of AI databases.

Key PublicationsInversion of Functions Defined by Turing Machines was included in Automata Studies edited by Claude Shannon and myself and published by Princeton University Press in 1956 Programs with Common Sense was probably the first paper on logical AI, i.e. AI in which logic is the method of representing information in computer memory and not just the subject matter of the program. Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence by John McCarthy and Pat Hayes was published in 1969 in Machine Intelligence 4. It is the basic paper on situation calculus.

Edward FeigenbaumEdward Feigenbaum. Kumagai, Professor of Computer Science, Stanford University. Ph.D.: Carnegie-Mellon (1960).Feigenbaum is currently serving as Chief Scientist of the Air Force. Feigenbaum is studying the structure, dynamics, and the technology and industry trends in the software segement of the computer industry, as part of the Stanford computer Industry Project. He continues his long-term research in the representation of knowledge for use by programs that reason, and his work on advanced applications of expert systems. Key PublicationsFeigenbaum, Edward, and Julian Feldman . 1995. Computers and Thought . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Originally published in 1963 by McGraw Hill.) A collection of early articles., including many "classics."

Marvin Minsky Toshiba Professor of Media Arts and Sciences, Professor of E.E. and C.S., M.I.T. Ph.D.: Princeton Univ.His research has contributed to advances in artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, neural networks (he built the first neural-network simulator in 1951), and the theory of Turing machines. A pioneer in robotics, he built some of the first mechanical hands with tactile sensors, visual scanners, and accompanying software and computer interfaces. He influenced many robotic projects outside MIT and has worked to build into machines the human capacity for commonsense reasoning. In his The Society of Mind (1987), 270 interconnected one-page ideas reflect the structure of his theory. He has participated in many studies of advanced technologies for space exploration. He received the Turing Award in 1969.

Key PublicationsWHY PEOPLE THINK COMPUTERS CAN'T first published in AI Magazine, vol. 3 no. 4, Fall 1982

57

STEPS TOWARD ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE received by the IRE, October 24, 1960

Dr. Gerard Salton (1927-1995)Professor PhD Harvard University, 1958 Salton developed SMART (System for the Mechanical Analysis and Retrieval of Text). From his evaluations/tests of SMART, he formulated general rules for automatic language processing (Bellardo & Bourne). According to Bellardo and Bourne, Salton's retrieval experiments of the 1980's "greatly contributed to the knowledge base of computerized information indexing, storage and retrieval." He advocated system design at the 1965 ADI conference. See obituary notice in JASIS, February 1996.

Key PublicationsAutomatic analysis, theme generation and summarization of machine-readable texts. Science, 264, 3 (June 1994), 1421-1426 (with J. Allan, C. Buckley, and A. Singhal). (?)

Operations ResearchDr. Russell L. Ackoff

Professor Emeritus of Management Science at The Wharton School

Between 1964 and 1986, Dr. Ackoff chaired the Wharton School’s Departments of Statistics and Operations Research and Social Systems Sciences, and directed its Management Science Center and the Busch Center. Over the years, Dr. Ackoff’s dynamic and innovative techniques have helped numerous organizations and government agencies meet their strategic planning and systems design challenges. His work in research, consulting and education has involved more than 250 corporations and 50 governmental agencies in the U.S. and abroad. He has authored or co-authored 20 books and published over 200 articles in a wide variety of journals.

Key publications:Russell L. Ackoff, The future of OR is past, Journal of Operational Research Society, 1979, v30: 93-103. (Times cited: 199)

58

Russell L. Ackoff, Resurrecting the future of OR, Journal of Operational Research Society, 1979, v30: 189-199. (Times cited: 125)

Dr. George Dantzig

Professor of Operations Research and Computer Science, Stanford University

George Dantzig received his doctorate in mathematics from Berkeley in 1946. He worked for the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, served as Chief of the Combat Analysis Branch for USAF Headquarters Statistical Control and as Mathematical Advisor for USAF Headquarters, Research Mathematician for RAND Corporation, and Professor of Operations Research and Chairman of the Operations Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

Key Publications George Dantzig, P. Wolfe, Decomposition Principle for Linear-programs, Operations Research, 8 (1): 101-111, 1960 (Times cited: 354)George Dantzig, Discrete-Variable Extremum Problems, Operations Research, 5 (2): 266-277, 1957. (Times cited: 101)

Dr. Ward Whitt

AT&T Shannon Laboratory, Room A117180 Park AvenueFlorham Park, NJ 07932-0971

Dr. Whitt received an A.B. in mathematics from Dartmouth College in 1964 and a Ph.D. in operations research from Cornell University in 1969. On the faculty of the Department of Operations Research (now the Department of Management Science and Engineering) at Stanford University in 1968-69 and then on the faculty of the Department of Administrative Sciences,

59

with a joint appointment in the Department of Statistics, at Yale University from 1969 through 1977. Since 1977 at Bell, he started to work in the Operations Research Center in the Research Area (Center 171) in Holmdel, NJ, where the principal project was developing and applying the Queueing Network Analyzer (QNA) software tool. From 1987 through 1996, he worked in the Mathematical Sciences Research Center (Center 121) in Murray Hill, NJ (now part of Bell Labs, Lucent technologies). Since 1996 till now, he has been working in AT&T Labs - Research in Florham Park, NJ. His research topics concentrate on queuing theory, performance analysis, stochastic.

Key publicationsWard Whitt, Donald Iglehart, Multiple Channel Queues in Heavy Traffic, Advances in Applied Probability, vol.2 No.1:150-177, vol. 2, No. 2:355-369, vol.2, No. 2:370-375, 1970.K Sriram, Ward Whitt, Characterizing Superposition Arrival Processes in Packet Multiplexers for Voice and Data, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 4(6):833-846, Sep 1986. (Times cited: 161)

Dr. Hau Lee

Professor of Operations, Information, and Technology,School of Engineering, Stanford UniversityDirector of the Stanford Global Supply Chain Management Forum

Dr. Lee is a professor of Operations, Information, and Technology; Kleiner, Perkins, Mayfield, Sequoia Capital Professor of Engineering, School of Engineering; Director of The Stanford Global Supply Chain Management Forum; Director of Managing Your Supply Chain for Global Competitiveness Executive Program.

He received BS degree in Univ. of Hong Kong, 1974; MSc in London School of Economics, 1975; MIS in the Institute of Statisticians, 1976; MS in the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1979, PhD, 1983. He was a lecturer, Univ. of Hong Kong during 1975-77. He taught as a lecturer in the Univ. of Pennsylvania during 1982-83. He has served as an Asst. Prof.-Prof. in Stanford Univ. since 1983. He also worked as a Project Engineer in Hewlett-Packard Company during 1989-90.

His Research Interests includes Supply chain management, global logistic system design and control, multi-echelon inventory systems, manufacturing and distribution strategy, design for supply chain management

Key Publications

60

Material Management in Decentralized Supply Chains, Operations Research, vol. 41 1993Hewlett-Packard Gains Control of Inventory and Service Through Design for Localization, Interfaces, vol. 23 1993Supply Chain Inventory Management: Pitfalls and Opportunities, Sloan Management Review, vol. 33 1992

Dr. Marshall L. Fisher

Stephen J. Heyman Professor of Operations and Information Management,Co-Director of Fishman-Davidson Center for Service and Operations Management,The Wharton School,University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Fisher holds the UPS Transportation for the Public Sector Professorship (2001) and previously held the Stephen J. Heyman Professorship in Manufacturing and Logistics (1986-2001) at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He has three degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: a S.B. in Electrical Engineering, S.M. in Management, and a Ph.D. in Operations Research. He served as President of the Institute of Management Sciences during 1988-89 and as Departmental Editor of the journal Management Science during 1979-83. He is a recipient of the 1977 Lanchester Prize for outstanding published work in the field of operations research, the 1983 Institute of Management Science Practice Prize for his work in implementing a very large model used to schedule deliveries for an industrial gas firm, and the 1984 Council of Logistics Management E. Grosvenor Plowman award. In 1994 he was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has published widely in the professional literature on both practical and theoretical aspects of operations management and management science, and has been a consultant to many Fortune 500 companies.

Dr. Fisher has devoted his recent research to studying supply chain coordination, focusing particularly on environments with rapid introduction of new products and a high degree of demand uncertainty.

Key publicationsMarshall L. Fisher, The Lagrangian-Relaxation Method for Solving Integer Programming Problems, Manage Science, 27 (1):1-18 1981 (Times cited: 427)Marshall L. Fisher, R. Jaikumar, A Generalized Assignment Heuristic for Vehicle-Routing, Networks, 11 (2): 109-124, 1981 (Times cited: 160)

61

Gerard Cornuejols, Marshall L. Fisher, George L. Nemhauser, Location of Bank Accounts to Optimize Float: An Analytic Study of Exact and Approximate Algorithms, Management Science, April 1977.

Policy & Social IssuesMary J. CulnanContact InformationThe McDonough School of Business, Georgetown UniversityWashington D.C., 20057-1008(202) 687-3802;E-mail: culnanm@msb.eduResearch areas“Professor Culnan specializes in the social and public policy impacts of information technology. Her research focuses on information privacy. She is currently addressing consumer attitudes toward privacy and electronic marketing. She teaches courses on information systems, the impact of information technology on business strategy, and electronic commerce.” (http://www.gsb.georgetown.edu/faculty/culnanm/)

Sara KieslerContact Information3513 Newell-Simon HallCarnegie Mellon University5000 Forbes Ave.Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891(412) 268-2888; E-mail: kiesler@andrew.cmu.ecuResearch AreasProfessor Kiesler’s research interests include the social and behavioral aspects of computers and computer-based communication technologies. (http://www.hcii.cmu.edu/0_People/faculty.html)

Robert KlingContact InformationSchool of Library and Information ScienceIndiana University at Bloomington107 S. Indiana AvenueBloomington, IN 47405-7000(812) 855-9763, E-mail: kling@indiana.eduResearch areas“My research focuses upon the social consequences of computerization and the social choices that are available to people. … I believe that we have to understand information technologies in terms of their associated social structures and politics, and in meaningful social contexts -- not just as ‘information tools’…Currently, I'm focusing on electronic publishing and people's use of

62

digital libraries as a set of applications and social spaces for understanding IT and social change, and the possibilities of new technologies facilitating the restructuring of social life.” (http://www.slis.indiana.edu/kling/scholarly.html)

Lee SproullContact InformationLeonard N. Stern School of BusinessNew York UniversityNew York, New York Research areasProf. Sproull “has published more than fifty books and articles on the social and organizational implications of computing technology and is a member of the National Research Council Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. Her current research focuses on the dynamics and consequences of electronic groups and communities.” ( http://www.mentornet.net/Documents/Other/Bios/sproull.html)

Peter G. NeumannContact InformationPrincipal Scientist at SRI International Computer Science Laboratoryhttp://www.csl.sri.com/neumann/neumann.htmlE-mail: Neumann@csl.sri.comEducationHe spent eight years at Harvard (1950-58, with his A.B. in Math in 1954, S.M. in Applied Math in 1955, and PhD in 1961 after returning from his two-year Fulbright in Germany (1958-60), where he received the German Dr rerum naturarum in 1960. Research areasDr. Neumann’s “main research interests continue to involve security, crypto applications, overall system survivability, reliability, fault tolerance, safety, software-engineering methodology, systems in the large, applications of formal methods, and risk avoidance.” (http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/neumann.html).

Seymour E. GoodmanSeymour (Sy) E. Goodman has been Professor of MIS (1981) and a member of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Arizona, and Carnegie Science Fellow (1994) and head of the Program on the Information Technologies and International Security at the Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University. Earlier tenured and visiting appointments have been at the University of Virginia (Applied Mathematics and Computer Science), Princeton University (Mathematics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs), and the University of Chicago (Economics). Email: goodman@cc.gatech.edu Education

63

He did his undergraduate work at Columbia University, and obtained his Ph.D. from the California Institute of Technology. Research Areas“Professor Goodman's research interests include international developments in the information technologies (IT), technology diffusion, IT and national security, and related public policy issues. His areas of geographic interest include the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and parts of Africa.” (http://www.inta.gatech.edu/cistp/people/goodman.htm)

Eli M. Noam http://www.citi.columbia.edu/elinoamDirector, Columbia University Institute for Tele-Information; 1983-1987, 1991-presentProfessor of Finance and Economics, Columbia Business School; 1976-presentEmail: noam@columbia.eduEducationHarvard: A.B. 1970 (Phi Beta Kappa); A.M. 1972; J.D. 1975; Ph.D. Economics, 1975, Dissertation adviser: Martin Feldstein.Research Areas“Eli M. Noam is Professor of Finance and Economics at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business and Director of the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information…His publications include over a dozen books and about 200 articles on domestic and international telecommunications, television, information and regulation subjects.” (http://www.cpi.seas.gwu.edu/library/seminar_archive/95-96/feb96/noam.html)

Richard MasonContact Information:Carr P. Collins Distinguished Professor of ISOMDirector, Maguire Center for Ethics and Public ResponsibilityEdwin L Cox School Of BusinessSouthern Methodist UniversityDallas, Texas 75275E-mail: rmason@mail.cox.smu.eduAwards:Named among the top 35 MIS Consultants in Information Week's survey of the top 50 MIS Consultants (1988). Elected as a foreign member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences in the Information and Cybernetics section. Awarded a Fulbright Fellowship in 1993 to do research at Umea University in Sweden. Research Areas:Dr. Mason has many areas of expertise, including the following: Business Ethics and Philosophy, Management Information Systems, Strategy and Policy, Organization Theory, Digital Economy,

64

Electronic Commerce, Information Management, IS Ethics, and Internet and Culture.” (http://faculty.cox.smu.edu/rmason.html)

Dorothy E. DenningProfessor of Computer Science at Georgetown UniversityDirector of the Georgetown Institute for Information Assurance. Also affiliated with the Communication, Culture and Technology program and the Science and Technology in International Affairs program. Email denning@georgetown.eduhttp://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/

EducationB.A. and M.A. degrees in mathematics from the University of Michigan, Ph.D. degree in computer science from Purdue UniversityResearch AreasDr. Denning’s “current work encompasses the areas of cyber crime and cyber terrorism, information warfare and security, and the impact of technology on society. She has published 120 articles and four books, her most recent being Information Warfare and Security.” (http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/bio.html)

Pamela Samuelson Professor at the University of California at BerkeleyJoint appointment in the School of Information Management and Systems and the School of Law. Co-Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology.Website: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/Email: pam@sims.berkeley.eduEducationYale Law School: J. D. 1976, University of Hawaii at Honolulu: M. A. 1972, Political Science, B. A. 1971, HistoryResearch AreasProf Samuelson’s “principal area of expertise is intellectual property law. She has written and spoken extensively about the challenges that new information technologies are posing for public policy and traditional legal regimes and is an advisor for the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic.” (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/)

WorkflowClarence Ellis

65

Clarence (Skip) Ellis, Professor

Contact Information:Office: ECOT 747 Dept of Computer ScienceUniversity of Colorado, BoulderCO 80309-0430

Clarence Ellis is the first African American to receive a Ph.D. in Computer Science. During 1991, he was chief architect of the FlowPath workflow product of Bull S.A.He has published several books, and over 100 technical papers and reports, lectured in more than a dozen countries, and was an invited speaker on object oriented systems at the most recent IFIP World Computer Conference.

Education:BS degree, double major in math and Physics, Beloit College in WisconsinPh.D. Degree in Computer Science, the University of Illinois (1969)

Current Projects:Studies of Next Generation Workflow SystemsStudy of Architectures for Large Scale Workflow

Key Publication:A Workflow Architecture to Support Dynamic Change. Workshop on Distributed Systems, Multimedia, and Infrastructure, March 1995. 23-30.

Goal Based Workflow Systems. International Journal of Collaborative Computing, 1,no.1, 1994. pp.61-86.

Professor Sheth

Professor Sheth is one of the leaders in Workflow Coordination. He served in R&D groups at Bellcore (now Telcordia Technologies), Unisys, and Honeywell.  There he led projects on transactional workflows (METEOR). Prof. Sheth has given nine keynote talks at international conferences and meetings, over 100 invited talks, tutorials and professional courses. He has over

66

Amit P. Sheth, Professor

Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Georgia415 Graduate Studies Research CenterAthens  GA  30602-7404

100 publications, including two outstanding conference papers, and some of the most cited papers in federated databases, workflow management and semantic interoperability.

Education:B.E. B.I.T.S., Pilani, India,1981M.S.(1983) and Ph.D.(1985) ,Ohio State University

Key Publication:Webwork: Meteor2's web-based workflow management system. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 10(2):185--215, 1998. J. A. Miller, D. Palaniswami, K. J. Sheth, Amit P. Kochut, and H. Singh.

Workflow Management Systems and Interoperability, Dogac, Kalinichenko,Ozsu and Sheth, Eds., 1998. (Book)

"Workflow Process management and Enterprise Application Integration in Healthcare," Keynote Address, IEEE Workshop on Enterprise Networking and Computing in Healthcare Industry (Healthcom 99), Sydney Australia, January 11, 1999

Dr. Jablonski

Dr. Jablonski is a leading researcher in the usage and development of workflow management systems. He published hundreds of papers about workflow management systems. His papers and books are widely cited by other researchers.

Key Publication:

Workflow Management---Modeling Concepts, Architecture and Implementation. International Tompson Computer Press, 1996, Stefan Jablonski and Christoph Bussler.

A Comprehensive Approach to Flexibility in Workflow Management Systems. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Work Activities Coordination and Collaboration (WACC'99), Feb. 1999, San Francisco, Petra Heinl, Stefan Horn, Stefan Jablonski, Jens Neeb, Katrin Stein, and Michael Teschke.

67

Stefan Jablonski, Professor

Dept. of Computer SciencesVI (Database Systems)Friedrich-Alexander Universitaet Erlangen-NuernbergMartensstr. 3D-91058 Erlangen

"An Approach to Dynamic Instance Adaption in Workflow Management Applications". 1998. Stefan Horn, Stefan Jablonski

Dr. Christoph Bussler

Dr. Christoph Bussler is an Advanced Computing Technologist at The Boeing Company's Applied Research and Technology group based in Seattle, WA, USA. As project manager of the Workflow Management project he is responsible for conducting workflow research as well as transferring workflow technology into The Boeing Company. Previous to his current position he was faculty member at the Database Chair of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany, where he earned his Ph. D. degree in the area of workflow management.

Key Publications:

Workflow Management---Modeling Concepts, Architecture and Implementation. International Tompson Computer Press, 1996. Stefan Jablonski and Christoph Bussler.

An approach to integrate workflow modeling and organizational modeling in an enterprise. Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE) , MorganTown, West Virginia, USA, April 1994. Stefan Jablonski Christoph Bussler.

Analysis of the Organization Modeling Capability of Workflow Management -Systems. In: Proceedings of the PRIISM '96 Conference, Maui, Hawaii, and January 1996. Bussler, Christoph

Education:Ph.D., Computer Science, University of Erlangen-Nuernberg, Erlangen, Germany, 1997 M.S., Computer Science, University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 1990 B.A., Computer Science, University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 1987

68

Christoph Bussler

Advanced Computing Technologist at The Boeing Company's Applied Research and Technology group, Seattle, WA, USA.

University of ArizonaHsinchun ChenBackgroundProfessor, MIS Department. University of ArizonaHe received the Ph.D. degree in Information Systems from New York University in 1989. Research InterestsHe is interested in: Digital Libraries, Knowledge Management, Multi-lingual and Distributed Information RetrievalKey Paper(s)Chen H., Shankaranarayanan G., Iyer A., and She L. “A Machine Learning Approach to Inductive Query by Examples: An Experiment Using Relevance Feedback, ID3, Genetic Algorithms, and Simulated Annealing,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 49, Number 8, Pages 693-705, June 1998.

Moshe DrorBackgroundProfessor, MIS Department, The University of ArizonaHe received his Ph.D. degree from University of Maryland College Park Campus in 1983Research InterestsHe is interested in: Combinatorial Optimization In Logistics And Manufacturing Systems; Cooperative Game Theory And Cost Allocation In Inventory And Combinatorial Problems; Agent Theory And Applications In Operations Management.Key Paper(s)Dror, M. and Trudeau P. “Inventory Routing: Operational Design”. Journa; of Business Logistics 9(2); 165-183Knotts, G., Dror, M. and Hartman, B. “Agent-based project scheduling”. IIE Transactions 32; 387-401; 2000.

Kurt D. FenstermacherBackground Assistant Professor, MIS Department, The University of ArizonaHe received his Ph.D. degree in Artificial Intelligence from University of Chicago in 1999

Research InterestsHe is interested in: Construction of scaleable tools for managing knowledge in organizations; Impact of information technology on organizational structure; Role of information technology in corporate strategy; Societal impact of computerization

69

Key paper(s)Fenstermacher, K. and Marlow, C. “Supporting Consultants with Task-Specific Information Retrieval”. Presented at the AAAI 1999 Workshop on Intelligent Information Retrieval. July 22-23, 1999. Orlando, Florida

Mark Ginsburg:BackgroundAssistant Professor, MIS Department. University of ArizonaHe received the Ph.D. degree in Information Systems from New York University in 1998. Research InterestsHe is interested in the following Internet issues: evolution of standards, collaborative software, and the roles of data and metadata in search and retrieval Key paper(s)

1. Kambil, A. and Ginsburg, M. "Public Access Web Information Systems: Lessons from the Internet EDGAR Project", Communications of the ACM, July 1998, Vol. 41, No. 7, pp. 91-97.

James F. LaSalleBackgroundUniversity Distinguished Professor, MIS Department, The University of Arizona.He received the Ph.D. degree in Business Administration from Pennsylvania State University in 1963. Research Interests:Application of decision-making techniques to strategy development and executive simulation.

Therani MadhusudanBackground Assistant Professor, MIS Department, The University of ArizonaHe received his Ph.D. degree in GSIA and Robotics from Carnegie-Mellon in 1998Research InterestsHis area of interest is the study of properties of complex, socio-technical systems to enable their analysis, design and management. Key paper(s)

70

Madhusudan, T.N, Sycara, Katia and D Navinchandra " On Synthesis of Electromechanical Assemblies”, ASME, Design Engineering Technical Conference, August 1996, UC Irvine, CA.

David E. PingryBackground Professor, MIS Department; Professor, Economics, The University of ArizonaHe received his Ph.D. degree in Economics from Purdue University in 1971. Research InterestsResearch interests include the economics of the design process, production theory and water resource economics. Key paper(s)Issac, M. and Pingry, D. “Managing J. Pierrepont Finch: Should he be given a PC?”, Information and Management, Volume 21, Pages 269-277, 1991Pingry D. “Theory of Decision Support Systems portfolio evaluation”

Sudha RamBackground Professor, MIS Department, The University of ArizonaShe received his Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignResearch AreasHer research deals with modeling and analysis of database and knowledge based systems for manufacturing, scientific and business applications. Specifically, the research deals with interoperability among distributed and heterogeneous database systems, semantic modeling, data allocation, schema and view integration, intelligent agents and digital libraries for data management, and automated tools for database design. E-Business infrastructure and strategy is also one of her favored areas.Key paper(s):Ram, S. (1991). Heterogeneous Distributed Database Systems. IEEE Computer, 24(12), 7-11.

Olivia ShengBackgroundDepartment Head and McCoy-Rogers Professor, MIS Department. University of ArizonaShe received the Ph.D. degree in Computers and Information Systems from University of Rochester in 1986. Research interests:

71

Her Research interest fields include global information technology and management for telemedicine, electronic commerce, manufacturing and service industries, telework and learning. Key paper(s)Zeng D., Sheng O., and Wilson. B. “The Design and Experimentation of Agent-based Procurement Systems”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Telecommunications and Electronic Commerce, November, 2000.

Pamela SlatenBackgroundAssistant Department Head, MIS Department. University of Arizona. She received the Ph.D. degree in Operations Management from University of Texas at Austin. Research interestsHer interests include the design of manufacturing systems, Japanese manufacturing systems, management of service operations.

Matt ThatcherBackgroundAssistant Professor, MIS Department. University of Arizona.He received his Ph.D. in Managerial Science and Applied Economics from University of Pennsylvania in 1998. Research interestsHis research interests include the economics of international privacy, IT design and implementation and strategic planning under uncertainty. Key paper(s)Thatcher, M. and Clemons, E. “Managing the Costs of Informational Privacy: Bundling as a Strategy in the Individual Health Insurance Market”. HICSS 2000Thatcher, M. and Oliver J. “The Impact of Information Technology on Quality Improvement, Productivity, and Profits: An Analytical Model of a Monopolist”. HICSS 2001

Sherry ThatcherBackgroundAssistant Professor, MIS Department. University of Arizona.She received her Ph.D. from University of Pennsylvania in 2000Research areas Her research interests include effects of diversity on the working environment and the social impacts of technology on different groups and cultures.Key paper(s)Thatcher, S. and Foster, W. “Cracks in Diversity Research: The Effects of Diversity Faultliness on Conflict and Performance”

72

Thatcher, S., Jehn, K. and Zanutto, E. “B2B e-commerce adoption decisions in Taiwan: The role of industry, government and culture”

Suzie WeisbandBackground Associate Professor, MIS Department. University of Arizona. She received the Ph.D. degree in Social and Decision Sciences from Carnegie Mellon University in 1989. Research areasDr. Weisband’s research includes social and behavioral impacts of technology on group decision making, and in organizational issues related to computer use. She has participated in research involving communication among groups using various technological platforms and interactivity. Dr. Weisband has also been involved in GSS research, F-t-F interactions, and melding disciplines such as MIS, Communication, Sociology, and Psychology into her research.

Daniel ZengBackground Assistant Professor, MIS Department. University of Arizona. He received the Ph.D. degree in Industrial Administration from Carnegie Mellon University in 1998Research interests:Software Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Collaborative Information and Knowledge Management; Digital Economic Institutions, Automated Negotiation and Auction Contracting, Process Management and Learning; Distributed Transaction Management, Web Caching; Supply Chain Network Configuration, Distributed Optimization Key paper(s)Zeng, D. “ Managing Flexibility for Inter-organizational Electronic Commerce”, Electronic Commerce Research Journal, Vol 1, No. 2, pp. 33-51, 2001.Zeng, D. and Sycara, K. “Benefits of Learning in Negotiation”, International Journal of Human Computer Systems, Vol. 48, pp. 125-141, 1998.Zeng, D. and Sycara, K. “Coordination of Multiple Intelligent Software Agents”, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 181-211; 1996

J. Leon ZhaoBackground Associate Professor, MIS Department. University of Arizona.He received the Ph.D. degree in Business Administration from University of California, Berkeley in 1992

73

Research areas He is interested in: Development of database and workflow technologies and their applications in electronic commerce, knowledge management, and organizational process automation. Key paper(s)Stohr, E. and Zhao, L. "Workflow Automation: Overview and Research Issues", Information Systems Frontiers: Special Issue on Workflow Automation and Business Process Integration, Volume 3, Issue 3, September 2001.Kumar, A. and Zhao, A. "Dynamic Routing and Operational Controls in Workflow Management Systems", Management Science, Volume 45, No. 2, February 1999, pp 253-272.

74