Shared Courses with Other Computing Disciplines
From IS Curriculum
As explained earlier in the report, there is a close relationship between the academic fields of Information Systems and other computing disciplines, and there are also very significant differences. The context for Information Systems is a real-world domain, such as an organization and its systems. In contrast, the context for Computer Science is algorithmic processes for information processing and associated technical and technology issues. There are complementary strengths for these academic units in preparing graduates for information systems work in organizations.
An Information Systems academic unit is typically strong in preparing students for the organizational environment. This advantage is especially strong when the Information Systems program is within or closely tied to organizational or business studies. The challenge for an IS unit may be in maintaining adequate depth of instruction in some technology subjects. On the other hand, a Computer Science program sometimes reverses the comparative position of an IS unit. It is typically strong in teaching technology and related algorithmic processes, but organizational functions and systems may not be an area of emphasis for them.
Of course, there is so much variety in the actual organization of academic units that these remarks cannot be taken too literally. Even in the case of a single academic unit that covers multiple computing curricula, one often sees these complementary strengths among programs.
This high level perspective of complementary strengths suggests that there may be opportunities for courses taught by any computing area that also meets the needs of IS majors; similarly for courses taught by IS for students desiring more IS knowledge from other areas. It is also possible to conceptualize a common core for multiple programs, and in fact, such shared core courses are taught at a number of institutions. This report has not attempted a formal definition of such a course sequence because there is no fixed organizational model of the relationship between the varied programs to which such a definition could be addressed. If a common core sequence appears to be useful for an institution, a useful approach is for the institution to take the core requirements for IS as described in this report and, considering the local situation in terms of organization of academic units and distribution of strengths of faculty and laboratory resources, to design a common core sequence.
