THE CURRENT STATUS OF
INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH CENTERS:
CIRCA 1993

Over eighty University-based Information Systems Research Centers (ISRCs) have been established worldwide since 1968. Most of these were established since 1983. To date very little research has been done to study this phenomenon. The purpose of this research was to survey the current activity and role of the University-based Information Systems Research Centers (ISRCs). The long-range goal of this research program is to determine the factors contributing to the effectiveness and the success of ISRCs, and to develop an instrument for evaluating the performance of an ISRC from the perspective of both its intra-university audience and its external sponsors.

A pilot survey of six University-based ISRCs was first performed to formulate a research model and an experimental survey instruments. The demographic characteristics of 71 research centers located in twelve countries are discussed. The operating budgets of the ISRCs and their primary income sources are also described. Finally, the wide range of center activities, including research articles, seminars, workshops, annual student placement programs and research laboratories are discussed in detail.

1. Introduction
2. Preliminary Field Study
3. Experimental Framework
4. Results
5. Summary
6. List of References

1. INTRODUCTION

   The last decade witnessed a sudden increase in the number of University-based Information Systems Research Centers (ISRCs) in the United States and abroad [Becker and Hassan 1992, and Becker and Maples, 1994]. By December, 1993 over eighty ISRCs were identified worldwide. What functions and activities are these centers performing? What are the relationships between the research center, the academic institution, and industry? How are these centers organized and operated?

   The objective of this research project was to survey the current activity and role of the Information Systems Research Center (ISRCs). However, the long-range goal of this research is to determine the factors contributing to the effectiveness and the success of ISRCs and to develop an instrument for evaluating the performance of an ISRC from the perspectives of both its university audience and its external sponsors. Separate survey instruments will need to be developed for each phase of the project. This paper reports on only the findings of the first phase of this project. These findings were based on the responses of seventy-one (71) ISRCs world- wide. Approximately twenty additional ISRCs were known to be in various stages of development and have indicated a willingness to participate in future surveys.
   
   

2. PRELIMINARY FIELD STUDY

   Six ISRCs were selected and visited during the Summer of 1992. At each location a semi-structured interview lasting approximately 2 hours was held with the director or with the principle associate director. Directors were asked to comment on their center's mission and objectives, its organization structure, its sources of funding, their center's major deliverables, and the types of research projects their centers were conducting. Center directors were also asked to comment on the benefits of their centers both to the educational institution and to their sponsors, where appropriate. Finally, the directors were asked to comment on any problems they encountered in managing their ISRCs. The findings of the pilot study were integrated into the basis for the research framework section which follows. While we wish to gratefully acknowledge the cooperation and support of these centers, in the interest of confidentiality, their specific experiences are not reported separately. The following six ISRCs participated in our pilot study: Center for Management of Information (CMI), University of Arizona; Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations (CRITO), University of California, Irvine; Information Systems Research Program, University of California, Los Angeles; Institute for Studies of Organization Automation, Texas Tech University; Information Systems Research Center, University of North Texas; and Center for Research in Creativity and Innovation, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs.
   
   

3. EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK

   Based on our pilot study of six ISRCs, past research studies, and our own experiences in managing and operating an ISRC, a research framework was developed. . The primary external interactions were hypothesized to occur among the following entities: (1) Industrial sponsors; (2) Government sponsors; (3) Other profit and not-for-profit organizations in society; and (4) Faculty colleagues from other academic institutions. Recent grants offered by the Lattanze Center for Executive Studies in Information Systems at Loyola College in Maryland provide evidence that even external monetary support may be obtained from other academic institutions.

   The "strategic alliance" between the university and industry is formed as a result of the interactions among industrial/ government sponsors, the academic institution (in the form of the research center), and the societal environment (research sites, community). The strategic alliance may be managed by a formal joint advisory board, a research contract, or even an informal agreement between two individuals. Another kind of strategic alliance may be set up between the research center at that institution with research centers from another institution. The research center must also interact with potential sponsors it wishes to recruit into the strategic alliances. Since one of the critical problems facing directors of ISRCs is securing new sponsors, the Potential Sponsor entity is shown as a separate entity. Sponsor turnover at several organizations was reported to be as high as 20% per year.

   The ISRC must interact with the IS department or its equivalent academic unit, IS faculty and students, other research centers at the academic institution, and other academic departments. Many research centers have developed information technology research and education laboratories for their IS faculty and students, as well as their external constituency's use.

   Because of the complex nature of internal and external interactions and the many differences in terminology between academic institutions, the survey instrument was pilot tested by several research centers and redesigned to remove as much ambiguity as possible from each question. The survey instrument was divided into seven sections, (1) demographics, (2) mission statement, (3) organizational and management issues, (4) deliverables, (5) research issues, (6) faculty and student support, and (7) cooperation with other units. This paper will deal with only those issues that pertain to current status of research centers.

   Center deliverables were defined as:

   1. Publications (working papers, journal articles or books);
   2. Programs (roundtables, seminars, colloquia, and conferences);
   3. On-going training (executive education programs, professional development programs);
   4. Social-type programs like banquets and dinners for corporate sponsors;
   5. Achievements (grants and gifts obtained);
   6. Academic courses supported by the center (these refer to courses that students take to get academic credit);
   7. Student placement activities (programs and resume books); and
   8. Research library facilities.

   Deliverables were further divided into two categories, (1) Deliverables credited directly to the center or supported wholly by the center and (2) deliverables that are supported partly by the center (e.g. research sponsored partly by the center's funds or seminars underwritten in conjunction with the center). Research projects that make extensive use of the center's facilities, such as computers and office equipment, but are not monetarily funded by the center were categorized as only partial support.

   Centers were asked to identify their major research themes and whether or not the center has a one or more research laboratories along with a description of the research laboratory. Respondents were asked to itemize the center's research projects during the period (1991-1993) and to categorize their research projects according to the classification adapted from MIS Quarterly's reviewer sheet. The respondents were asked to itemize research projects instead of stating research interests so that the survey would get a more accurate reading of actual research work being performed at the research center. The MIS Quarterly reviewer sheet classification was used because it offered a classification that was more manageable to respondents than the ACM or Barki's IS classification system.

   The questions on faculty and student support were designed to capture information concerning faculty and students that were involved in the day-to-day research work of the center. The questions on cooperation with other units were designed to capture information concerning joint projects, or joint research with other departments within the same university as well as with research centers in other universities.
   
   

4. RESULTS

   This section reports the results from seventy-one ISRC's that completed the detailed first survey instrument for their annual reporting periods ending in 1992-1993. The operating budgets of the ISRCs and their primary income sources are also described. Finally, the wide range of center activities, including research articles, seminars, workshops, annual student placement programs and research laboratories are discussed in detail. Most of the raw data is reported in Becker and Hassan [1992] and Becker and Maples [1994].

   General Demographics

   There was a predominant North American bias in this sample with fifty-six ISRCs in the US (49) or Canada (7), twelve in Europe, and one each in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Naturally, there was a tendency for ISRC's to be located at the junctures of research universities and concentrations of high technology firms. Clusters of research centers were found in four locations: The high-technology corridor reaching from Boston to Washington, DC; Silicon Valley (south of San Francisco, CA); Los Angeles, CA and its surrounding area; and the State of Texas.

   The Amoroso [1985] study cited the existence of only ten ISRCs. Four of those centers are now inactive, non-existent, or they have undergone a name change and reorganization. The MIRC at Purdue University and the ISRC at University of South Carolina are no longer in existence. While the ISRC at Boston University went out of existence and returned in 1991 as the Systems Research Center. A fourth center, the Human/Computer Interaction Laboratory at University of Michigan, is now known as the Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Laboratory. No additional data was collected for other centers that may have existed and gone out of existence prior to 1993.

   Although the first center, the MISRC at University of Minnesota, began in 1968, the majority (55) of the ISRCs have come into existence within the span of just the last 10 years. Beginning in 1983, there was a somewhat explosive increase in the number of new ISRC start- ups. The number of centers more than doubled from twelve to twenty-nine in the 1983-1985 time frame alone. Coincidentally, this sudden growth in ISRCs may have resulted from the intense interest in the management of information systems research, which was stimulated by the $25 million IBM University Grant Program in 1984-1985.

   While the data clearly indicates an increase in research center start-ups since 1983, there was no significant difference detected between the start-up rates of the fifty-six North American Centers and the fifteen non-North American ISRCs (Figure 4). This would indicate that forces other than the IBM Grant were contributing to the increased interest in ISRCs. The need for this form of research partnerships may be dictated by the common environment of rapid technological change.

   Center Mission and Objectives

   Based upon these studies, a list of twelve (12) frequently stated objectives for ISRCs were identified:

   1. Conduct research on the development, implementation, and utilization of information systems in organizations
   2. Perform applied, multi-disciplinary IS research.
   3. Facilitate interaction among practitioners and academicians.
   4. Exploit economies of scale at the academic institution and the sponsors.
   5. Provide a research environment/laboratory for students and class projects.
   6. Provide research support for information systems faculty and students.
   7. Educate, develop, and train MIS professionals and educators.
   8. Disseminate significant research findings to the MIS community.
   9. Expand financial support for MIS research and instruction at the academic institution.
   10. Develop research projects to attract top MIS faculty and students.
   11. Help to underwrite the expenses of other academic activities, such as faculty and student attendance at conferences and seminars, career fairs, resume books, etc.
   12. Enhance the quality of instruction at the academic institution.

   Center Income

   Membership dues and grants accounted for the majority of external funding support for ISRC's. Eighteen (of the fifty-six centers that provided income information) reported income from corporate sponsors in the form of dues or membership fees. The average corporate membership fee for these 18 centers was $11,610 (see Table 2). Annual membership fees ranged from $2,500 to $70,000. Seven centers had multiple categories of memberships. The membership fee for the second level membership ranged from $2,500 to $5,000. Only one center, ISRI at Virginia Commonwealth University, reported three levels of membership fees ($500, $3,000, and $6,000).
   
   Table 2

   Center Summary Statistics

   	No. of Centers Reporting	Average Figures
   INCOME
   First Level Annual Dues	18	$11,610
   Second Level Annual Dues	7	$3,643
   Third Level Annual Dues	1	$500
   Operating Budget Level	56	$196,928
   Number of Grants	39	7
   Volume of Grants	36	$225,493
   ACTIVITIES
   Seminars/Workshops	48	12.69
   Conferences	33	2.15
   Executive Training Programs	36	18.61
   Academic Courses Supported	22	8.59
   Social Programs	20	3.15
   Student Placement Programs	23	8.13
   OTHER DELIVERABLES
   Working Papers	48	12.33
   Articles Published	54	12.39
   Books/Scholarly Texts Published	24	3.25
   RESEARCH LABORATORIES	27

   Grants represented a significant portion of the operating income of thirty-nine (39) of the centers (see Table 2). These thirty-nine centers reported an average of $225,493 in grant income. On average, these centers received about seven grants, each grant representing more than $30,000 in income.

   The operating costs of research centers was found to vary widely, but in general their budgets are quite substantial by academic budget standards. Fifty-eight centers reported an average operating budget of approximately $200,000 (see Table 4). Annual budget estimates ranged from under $50,000 to more than $500,000.

   Center Activities and Other Deliverables

   There is a wide diversity in the mix of other center deliverables. Amoroso et al. [1985] identified nine different categories of center activities or deliverables (research articles and reports, programs, workshops, working paper series, executive training programs, resume books, etc.). The current study found centers continuing to be involved in those activities as well as one new activity¾research laboratories. Twenty-seven centers reported the existence of an information systems/technology research laboratory.

   The contribution to IS/T research by ISRC appeared to be quite significant. Forty-eight of the centers reported working paper series with an average of more than 12 contributed papers. Fifty-four ISRCs reported an average of 12 scholarly published, while twenty-four centers contributed an average of 3 books/scholarly texts.

   ISRCs also conducted many non-research oriented programs. Forty-eight centers reported an average of 12 days of seminars and workshops per year. Thirty-six centers conducted an average of 19 days of executive training programs. Twenty-three of the centers also reported an average of 8 days per year devoted to student placement programs. The number of centers reporting involvement in these various activities as well as the level of their involvement is reported in Table 2.

   Research Issues

   Table 3 shows a ranking of research issues addressed by ISRCs. The first column shows the titles of research project according to the MIS Quarterly review classification. The second column shows the number of projects that are being conducted categorized by research issue. A research project that falls into multiple areas of research is counted as many times as the number of research areas it falls into. So, a project concerning systems analysis and design of an expert system product will fall into both the categories of General MIS Analysis and Design [C] and, Expert Systems and AI [N]. The respondents were asked to categorize each project according to the classification given. The third column shows the number of universities involved in a particular research area. The fourth column shows the number of universities in a research area as reported by Amoroso, et al. [1985] eight years ago.

   The emphases of the research work conducted at these research centers have shifted from the hardware/software research areas (such as DSS, Systems Analysis and design) to the management of the IS function. Social aspects of IS were not reported by Amoroso, et al. in their study, and behavioral issues were not as popular then as they are now. However, in general the research issues considered important at the time of Amoroso's [1985] study remain important issues today.

   Organizational Structure

   Amoroso, et al. [1985] described the organizational structure of a typical ISRC. The basic structure consisting of a director, one or more associate/assistant directors, part-time/full- time research associates, and administrative staff, has not changed over the years for most of the larger research centers. Smaller centers would usually not have an associate director or a full- time administrative staff. Only forty-eight of the seventy-one participating centers reported sufficient data for inclusion in this portion of the analysis. Table 4 shows the categorization of directors/associate directors by operating budget. Full-time directors are directors that do not perform any other teaching or administrative functions at the university. The same definition is used for associate/assistant directors. Most centers are led by a part-time director (40 out of 48), only 17 centers have part-time associate directors, and only two have full-time associate directors. Finally, the data indicated that centers with annual operating budgets of over $100,000 were more likely to have full-time directors and associate directors than part-time directors/assistant directors.
   
   Table 4

   Full-time/Part-time Categorization

   Budget	Part-time Director	Full-time Director	Part-time Assoc. Director	Full-time Assoc. Director
   = > $100,000	23	7	10	2
   < $100,000	17	1	7	0
   Totals	40	8	17	2

   
   
   
5. SUMMARY

   The growth in the number, size, and variety of ISRCs since 1968 has been quite remarkable. In spite of the variety of ISRCs uncovered, the paper has proposed a theoretical model for research centers, which examines the relationships and linkages between the information systems research center, the academic institution (college and department) and the external sponsors. Over seventy actual ISRCs were identified and surveyed from around the world. The conclusions of this study are based upon the examination of the seventy-one centers which responded to our questionnaire.

   This was the first major study of ISRCs since the 1985 study Amoroso et al. which examined only 10 ISRCs. Several interesting conclusions have emerged. First, a significant growth in the number of ISRCs began around 1983 and has continued at an average annual growth rate of approximately five new centers each year. Perhaps, not surprisingly this rapid growth began at the time of the famous $25 million IBM University Grant Program for the Study of the Management of Information Systems.

   Second, budgets for ISRCs are quite substantial in relative academic terms. The average research center budget was reported to be approximately $200,000. The primary sources of income continue to be corporate membership fees and external research grants from both public and private sources. ISRCs report a significant level of success in obtaining grants; thirty-six centers reporting grant income averaged $225,000 in 1992-1993.

   Third, centers also report a high level of sponsorship for seminars, workshops, conferences, executive training programs, and student placement activities. Significantly, the research productivity remains quite high; centers (40) reported an average of 12 working papers, 12 scholarly publications (average of 40 centers), and 3 books (averaga of 40 centers) which were produced in academic years ending in 1992-1993.

   Fourth, the general research directions observed at 10 of the earliest research centers appeared to set a trend for those that followed. A comparison of the research projects in 1985 and in 1992, reveals a similarity in general focus. Managing the IS function, behavioral topics, decision support systems, and general MIS analysis and design topics remain popular across this time frame. However, there appears to be a slight decrease in the volume of research in the software and hardware areas, while the social aspects of MIS has been added as a new research thrust of the 1990's.

   Finally, as the size of centers has increased management of the centers appears to be changing. Eight centers reported full-time directors, while two centers reported having a full- time associate director. However, most ISRCs are still directed by a part-time senior faculty member.
   
   

6. LIST OF REFERENCES

   Amoroso, Donald L., Houston H. Carr, Paul H. Cheney and Robert Mann. "Information Research Centers: An Initial Survey." Information and Management, 9, (1985): 153-160.

   Becker, Jack D. and Hassan, Nik R., 1993 International Directory of Information Systems/Technology Research Centers, Publisher: UNT Information Systems Research Center, 1992.

   Becker, Jack D. and Maples, Glenn E., Supplement to the 1993 International Directory of Information Systems/Technology Research Centers, Publisher: UNT Information Systems Research Center, 1994

   Davenport, Thomas, Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1993.

   Dickson, Gary W. and Rockart, John F., "The Role of the Information Systems Research Center," Working Paper No. 1158-80. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980.

   Emmett, Arielle, "Making the Grade," CIO Magazine, (January 1992): 56-61.

   Forrest, Janet E. "Strategic Alliances and the Small Technology-Based Firm." Journal of Small Business Management, (July 1990): 37-45.

   National Science Board and National Science Foundation. University-Industry Research Relationships. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1983.

   Olson, Margrethe H. and Stohr, Edward A., "Research Progress in MIS: The Center for Research on Information Systems, New York University," working paper, New York University, 1989.

   Porter, Michael E. and Victor E. Millar. "How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage." Harvard Business Review (July-August 1985): 149-160.

   Powers, David R., Mary F. Powers, Frederick Betz and Carol B. Aslanian. Higher Education in Partnership with Industry, San Francisco: Josey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1988.

   Scott, James and William Perkins. "Infostructures: How to Survive and Prosper Through the Information Revolution." in Research Issues in Information Systems: An Agenda for the 1990's, Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1990.

   Schimank, Uwe. "The Contribution of University Research to the Technological Innovation of the German Economy: Societal Auto-Dynamic and Political Guidance." Research Policy, 17 (1988): 329-340. 0