DOC

Syllabus - MIS 5403-900

By Frederick Willis,2014-12-29 14:22
7 views 0
Syllabus - MIS 5403-900

    MIS 5403-900

    Michael F. Price College of Business

    IT-Enabled E-Commerce

    Fall 2001

Instructor:

Robert W. Zmud

    307c Adams Hall

    rzmud@ou.edu

    405-325-0791 (phone)

    405-325-7482 (fax)

    http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/Z/Robert.W.Zmud-1/ (personal website)

    http://www.ou.edu/zmud/MIS5403/ (course website)

Office Hours:

Office Hours: Mondays, 5:30-6:30 p.m.

    I operate under an “open door” policy and am usually in my office (unless I am out of town or in a meeting) throughout most of the day. I am most readily accessible via e-mail; I check my e-mail throughout the day and try to respond immediately.

Course Objective:

    In the Internet-enabled world of business, most organizations are actively implementing strategies of connecting themselves with customers, suppliers and others in their extended supply chains. Two of the “solutions” most talked about today involve e-marketplaces

    and B2B application integration. We will examine both of these phenomena, invoking perspectives that are both highly strategic and highly technical. At the end of the course, you should understand the key issues and trends regarding both of these phenomena, such that you could be able to contribute to the resolution of associated strategic and tactical decisions.

Textbooks:

    There will be two books for this course, both of which should be purchased from an on-line bookstore.

    L David S. Linthicum, B2B Application Integration: E-Business-Enable

    Your Enterprise, Addison-Wesley, 2001, ISBN 0-201-70936-8

    (paperback)

    R Warren D. Raisch, The eMarketplace: Strategies for Success in B2B

    eCommerce, McGraw-Hill, 2001, ISBN 0-07-136123-5

    I certainly understand that students are coming into this course with varied technical backgrounds. As a consequence, I am using as secondary materials for this course the content at the following website: http://digitalenterprise.org/

    This is a fully digitized, graduate-level introductory course on e-business operated out of North Carolina State University. Some of the content on this site will be assigned as readings for particular days. In addition, I expect everyone to do the following:

    ; Become familiar with the content available from the site

    ; Refer to this content each week to see what is relevant.to the materials being

    covered in the assigned chapters, and then access and utilize this content. I will

    be doing this and I expect everyone else to be doing it as well. Some of the

    content from this site is very likely to appear on the course examinations.

    ; The content on the site does change on a regular basis; you should review the site

    on an on-going basis.

    A second web site that we will be using for this course is a site on EDI and exchanges developed by a number of MIS faculty members for our research center (CMISS) members:

     www.ou.edu/edi/

    The primary purpose of this site is to provide background information on basic EDI concepts. It also has some very early materials on electronic exchanges.

    Finally, as we will be talking about topics and technologies which will likely be new (to varying degrees) to everyone, I expect you to utilize Internet search engines in order to find definitions and explanations when you run up against unfamiliar terms that are important. The NC State site has a topic, „Navigating the Web,‟ which among other things overviews search engines and search strategies. A very good search engine to use, if you are not already familiar with it, is: www.google.com

Grading:

     Exam 1 30%

     Exam 2 30%

     Group Book Report 15%

     Group Industry eMarketplace Analysis 25%

Dealing with the "Free-Loader" Problem:

    As 40% of your grade in this course is linked to group projects, the potential for "free-loading" to become a problem does exist. If it does arise, the following steps should (and will) be taken:

    ; Groups must directly and openly confront instances of such behavior as early as

    possible. Ideally, once confronted, the behavior will cease and no further steps

    are required.

    ; If early group efforts to confront the problem fail, the team members must let me

    know that a problem exists. I will schedule a meeting with all group members to

    discuss the problem and its causes. Hopefully, the behavior will then cease and

    no further steps are required.

    If "free-loading" persists after Steps 1 & 2, I reserve the right to further downgrade the "group" portion of an individual's overall performance for those group members whose behavior has caused the problem

Group Book Report:

    Each group must select one of the following books and prepare both a presentation and a report.

    Don Cohen & Laurence Prusak, In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes

    Organizations Work, Harvard Business School Press, 2001, ISBN 0-87584-913-

    X

    Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Evolve: Succeeding in the Digital Culture of Tomorrow,

     Harvard Business School Press, 2001, ISBN 1-57851-439-8

    Thomas M. Siebel, Taking Care of eBusiness, Doubleday, 2001, ISBN 0-385-

    50227-3

    James D. Underwood, Thriving in E-Chaos, Prima Publishing, 2001, ISBN 0-

    7615-3117-3

    Chris Zook, Profit from the Core, Harvard Business School Press, 2001, ISBN 1-

    57851-230-1

    A given book can not be assigned to more than two groups and all books must be assigned before a book will be assigned to a second group; books will be assigned to groups on a first-come, first-served basis (send me an email listing both the group members and the selected book). To be safe, provide a second choice in your email message.

    The book report/presentation must do the following (and, doing more will not be given any credit)

    ; State and then describe what you believe are the main messages from the selected

    book. You should have identified at least five (5) but no more than ten (10) of

    these „messages.‟

    ; Interpret these messages from the perspective of a company participating (or

    considering participating) in an eMarketplace.

    ; Interpret these messages from the perspective of an eMarketplace, i.e., an

    organization formed to provide eMarketplace services within an industry value

    chain.

    The report should be between five and 10 double-spaced, typed pages. The presentation should take between 15 and 20 minutes.

Group Industry eMarketplace Analysis:

    Each group is to select an industry and then prepare a report and presentation that accomplishes the following:

    ; Identifies and describes the major eMarketplaces serving the industry (between 3

    and 5 emarketplaces):

    o Name and URL

    o Mission/Strategy

    o Major Participants

    o Governance

    o Portfolio of Services

    o Technology Architecture

    ; Your Assessment of How Successful these eMarketplaces Have Been

    o Relative Success of Each

    o Collective Impact on Industry

    ; Efficiency

    ; Effectiveness

    o Existence of Gaps, i.e., industry eMarketplace opportunities that have not

    yet been recognized

    ; Your Assessment of the Future of eMarketplaces in the Industry

    o Which eMarketplaces Will Dominate (and Why)

    o How the Industry Will LikelyEvolve as a Result of these Dominating

    eMarketplaces

    The report should be about 20 double-spaced, typed pages. The presentation should take between 15 and 20 minutes.

Peer Evaluations

    Toward the end of semester, I will provide peer evaluation forms for assessments of individual contributions to group work. These peer evaluations will be used to adjust each individual‟s overall grade on group assignments as explained below.

    You will be asked to evaluate your group members using the following process. You will allocate 100 points among your group‟s members including yourself. Each team member will then have a new group work score computed based on these peer assessments.

    Following is a hypothetical example. Assume that you (Pat) are a member of a group with 5 members. If you are assigned scores, you have 100 points to allocate to 5 people. You could give the following points and justification (these are fictional names).

Pat 20

    Judy 20

Richard 25

    Hanna 30

    George 5

    Comments: “Hanna really took the lead on our team projects and organized a lot of the work. She had some insights into data gathering and analysis that I don‟t think everyone else noticed and did a great job in interpreting these for the final report. Richard also did a lot and really worked to edit the final reports and provide some great graphical analysis of our final results. George missed many group meetings, and caused us some major headaches because he was supposed to finalize our interview guide but kept forgetting to do it. He also was rarely prepared when he did attend team meetings so he did not contribute much to our group discussion of issues. Judy was a good solid contributor.”

Now, suppose that, as a result of this process, your (Pat‟s) average score assigned by your

    group came out to be 28. An expected (equal contribution) score would be 20 for this group. Thus your score is 28/20= 1.4. Now assume that your overall group work „grade‟ turns out to be an 80. Your final group work grade would be 80*1.4 = 112. On the other hand if George ended up with a score of, say, 12, then his chapter leadership grade would be 12/20= .6 * 80 = 48. Thus, the team participation can have a huge impact on someone‟s grade in this course if their group mates rate the person as being exceptionally

    strong or weak. If I believe that team members are unfair in allocating points I reserve the right to adjust the percentage. However, for this to occur, I must be informed of the potential for such a problem well ahead of the peer evaluation data gathering. While there might be unusual circumstances in particular cases, it is unlikely that exceptionally poor peer evaluations are a surprise to anyone.

Weekly Schedule:

Day Topic Assignment

August 20 Course Introduction R (1,2), L18)

    E-Business Overview NCSU (DIGITAL MARKETS, “The

    Emerging Role of Electronic Markets,”

    Yanos Bakos)

     OU EDI website

     Reading:

     * Internet Indicators (January 2001)

August 27 Content, Community, R (3,4,7,10)

     Knowledge & Customer NCSU (DIGITAL DESIGN, “Customer

    Strategies Effective Websites,” Jodie Dalgleish)

September 3 No Class Labor Day

    September 10 E-Marketplace Strategies R (5,6)

     NCSU (MODELS and AUCTIONS pages)

     Readings:

     “Understanding e-Markets,” Accenture

     Research Note, April 14, 2000

    “B2B eMarket Survey Summary of

    Findings,” Accenture, January 2001

    Case:

    “Thinking Out of the BoXX,” The

    McKinsey Quarterly, 2001, Number 2, 43-

    53

    September 17 E-Marketplace Business R (8,9,11)

     Models “ASP 101: Understanding the Application

    Service Provider Model,” Booz-Allen &

    Hamilton

    September 24 In-Class Book Report Presentations

October 1 Exam 1

    October 8 Types of B2B Application L (1-6)

     Integration

October 15 Types (Cont.) L (1-6)

    October 22 Middleware Approaches L (7-13)

October 29 NO CLASS

    November 5 Middleware (Cont.) L (7-13)

    November 12 Application Standards L (14-17)

November 19 Exam 2

    November 26 Governance Issues R (11), L (19)

     Future of B2B Marketplaces

    December 3 Industry E-Marketplace Analyses Presentations

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com