Academic Program Review

Department of Information Technology and Decision Sciences

College of Business
University of North Texas

A Collaborative Review Report

by

Lakshmi Iyer
Director of ISSCM Graduate Programs
Information Systems and Supply Chain Management (ISSCM) Department
Bryan School of Business and Economics
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG)
Email: Lsiyer@uncg.edu

Bin Jiang
Professor of Management
DePaul University
Email: BJIANG@depaul.edu

Site Visit: April 27 to 29, 2016

Report Finalized: May 27, 2016

Purpose and Scope of the Report

The purpose of this report is to provide a candid and comprehensive assessment of the
graduate programs administered by the Department of Information Technology and Decision
Sciences (ITDS) at the University of North Texas. We were charged with evaluating the status
of graduate programs within a University whose stated goal is to become a Tier-1 university in
Texas. We were asked to pursue our analysis in each of the following five areas:

1. Curriculum
2. Faculty
3. Students
4. Administration Structure
5. Capacity

Our review, analysis and report is based on the departments self-assessment reports (given to
us prior to the review visit), follow-up documents received from the department chair on
evaluation of teaching, research & service, tour of the facilities, and several meetings with the
following groups of people during our site visit held April 27 to 29th, 2016:

1. Dr. Joseph Oppong, Graduate Dean

2. Dr. Marilyn Wiley, Dean of College of Business
3. Dr. Victor Prybutok, Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Programs
4. Dr. Audhesh Paswan, Associate Dean for Curriculum and Instruction
5. Dr. Mary Jones, ITDS Department Chair
6. Dr. Robert Pavur, Ph.D. Program Coordinator
7. Dr. Shailesh Kulkarni, <asters Program Coordinator
8. Dr. John Windsor, Chair of Curriculum Committee
9. Dr. Andy Wu, Assessment Coordinator
10. Several Faculty of the ITDS Department
11. Members of the ITDS Advisory Board
12. Several Ph.D. students in ITDS

In the next section we provide our Executive Summary which is based on the detailed analysis
of each of the above five categories presented later in the report. While we have
recommendations in each of the five categories, in the Executive Summary section, we provide
the overall recommendations in the order of priority that we feel will help improve the positioning
of the department within the CoB and University and help achieve some of the goals that are a
priority to help UNT achieve Tier-1 status in Texas.
Executive Summary
a. General Observations
A top priority for the University, College and ITDS Department is to find ways to accomplish
the Tier-1 status in Texas.
The department and college are housed in the relatively new Business Leadership Building
which has necessary infrastructure to meet the demands for research and teaching.
In general the ITDS Department is seen as a very productive group in terms of research and
teaching by the University administration.
The ITDS department is offering courses at the new Frisco location.
UNT has a trailing spouse program that can be appealing to potential future faculty hires.
Many companies in the vicinity as well as the Dallas metropolitan area with connections to
the University, College and Department.
Lack of commuter train options late in the evening affects enrollments as students do not
have transportation options after evening classes.
The reports provided to the review team were based on the MS in ITDS program which has
been phased out and replaced by the new MS in Business Analytics program.

b. Program Strengths
The faculty in the department seems to come across as highly collegial and is supportive of
each others teaching and research activities.
Both graduate school and the department offer professional development workshops and
seminars for graduate students.
Department has good connections with local companies and an involved advisory board.
Advisory board sees graduate students possessing necessary skills for the market place
and are actively hiring ITDS graduate students along with undergraduate students.
Offering of the new MS in Business Analytics has potential to grow the enrollment as there
is significant industry demand for students with those skills.

c. Program Weaknesses
Lack of STEM designation for Masters programs has negative impact on ability to get
external funding by faculty and in the departments ability to recruit quality international
students.
Uneven faculty seniority spread
The financial package for doctoral students currently offered is not very competitive.
There is minimal to no funding for Masters students.

d. Opportunities and threats

Potential loss of external funding due to the lack of STEM designation of graduate
programs.
Losing faculty with key expertise in the near future.
Lack of sufficient financial funding for graduate students resulting in low enrollments, lack of
research assistants, inability to attract quality students, having to share RAs among
research active faculty. While Ph.D. students do receive funding, the amount is not
 competitive and hence the department is not competitive in recruiting quality Ph.D. students.
There is little to no support for Masters students as priority for funding is the Ph.D. program.
This impacts the departments ability to recruit quality students to MS programs who might
select peer institutions offering a better financial package.
While not under their control, the lack of commuter train options late in the evening affects
enrollments as students do not have transportation options late in the evening.
Advisory board is desired to make contributions on both research oriented and commercial
oriented projects.
Advisory board recommended use of alumni to assist with recruiting new students or help
publicize new initiatives by the department. Basically, they suggested more aggressive and
efficient use of alumni.

e. Recommendations (in order of priority)

1. Apply for STEM designation for the Masters programs. This is very critical as it increases the
facultys ability to apply for external funding, much of which requires faculty to be involved in
STEM designated programs.
2. Strategic hiring of at least two new tenure-track faculty to ensure there is appropriate training
for the highly technical courses currently taught by senior faculty planning for retirement. The
skills taught in those courses are in high demand by companies. The department is uniquely
positioned in offering these courses that to our knowledge are not offered, by their peer
institutions in the state.
3. Increase graduate assistantship funds to attract quality Ph.D. and Masters students.
Searching for financial resources from either inside or outside. Hiring junior faculty to keep the
department momentum on research.
4. The application details for Ph.D. program should be made available to department in advance
so they can follow-up with quality applicants in a timely manner.
5. The department could consider, in the near future, offering a thesis option for Masters
program to give them a flavor for conducting research and potentially recruiting top talent to
Ph.D. program (especially if those students do not already have an undergraduate degree from
UNT). This would also depend on overall resource structure of the department and if it will be
amenable to do so.
B. Program Review Evaluation
This section contains the review teams detailed findings, evaluations and recommendations.
Recommendations are prioritized in order of importance within each of the five categories.

1. Curriculum
We took into account, the following factors in the analysis of the curriculum and have
provided our general observations and recommendations below:
i. Consistency with the academic philosophy of the field
ii. Consistency with the needs and goals of the related professions
iii. Structural arrangements
iv. Balance between breadth and depth
v. Distinction between graduate and undergraduate levels
vi. Degree of rigor at both levels

a. General Observations
Based on our meeting with the Curriculum Committee of ITDS and doctoral students in ITDS,
we had the following observations:
They have well-established process on devising new courses;
They intentionally make curriculum content available to future instructors;
They set up metrics for assessment of learning;
They differentiate learning outcomes for courses cross-listed, i.e, undergraduate and
graduate;
They update curriculum based on input from advisory board members;
They update curriculum based on changes in their faculty expertise and job market
trends.
Some faculty members were not very informed of the process for curriculum
development/changes.

b. Recommendations:
While processes seem to be in place for developing new courses, having clear
documentation on how requests can be processed for changes to curriculum and/or
establishment of new courses would be useful.
There is no process for elimination of courses that are no longer taught. This seems to
be due to the cumbersome process of establishing new courses. Hence courses no
longer taught are parked and not listed in the course offerings. At some point this may
lead to issues with new course offerings (lack of numbering options) especially given the
changing nature of the ITDS area.

2. Faculty
i. Quality of teaching and advising
The departments teaching load for research faculty is 2-2, which is comparable to its
peer institutions. For faculty whose majority responsibility is teaching, the load can
go up to 3-3 courses, or they should teach combined larger classes for a 2-2 load.
 Junior faculty can easily get senior facultys support (e.g., sit in junior facultys
classes, hand over well-established teaching materials, etc.) to improve their
teaching skills.
Every year, the department runs faculty activity evaluation, which includes each
facultys teaching performance. Faculty not meeting minimum criteria or with
deficiencies in certain areas can clearly see the gap between their performance and
others.

ii. Scholarly productivity, research, and funding

The departments journal list is comparable to its peer institutions. Their minimum
requirement on research is one journal paper per three years. According to faculty
resumes the department chair sent to us, many faculty members are productive,
especially for Dr. Victor Prybutok.

iii. Service to the field

According to the Advisory Abroad, some professors work closely with local industries
to carry out research or consulting projects.
Faculty CVs indicate that research faculty are involved in professional service such
as involvement in professional associations, reviewers for PRJs and conferences.

iv. Faculty/student ratios and FTE ratios

Based on the report shared with the review team, the department has 20 faculty
members.
The report indicated 1:34 as the ratio of FTE Faculty to Student ration. It was not
clear to us if the numbers only represent ITDS graduate students or students from
MBA and other graduate programs.
FTE ratio of doctoral programs are comparable to doctoral granting institutions.

v. Morale
An immediate impression was that of a highly collegial department, and that collegiality
was ubiquitous amongst all factions of people interviewed. To maintain such a sense of
community, cohesiveness, and shared common goals for the greater good of all, speaks
to a culture that expects respect for others as decisions are made. This is particularly
important when limited resources force tough decisions. The department is remarkable
in this apparent harmony and solidarity.

vi. Areas of concern

Lack of STEM designation of the departments Masters program has detrimental effect
on the facultys ability to apply for external funding: Agencies that require STEM
designation are automatically eliminated. Given that Information Technology and
Decision Science falls under STEM areas in most agencies this precludes from applying
to grants or collaborating with other schools who see this as a drawback.
The spread of ranks in this department is not ideal. Among of the current faculty, 11 of
them are full professors, six are associate professors, two are assistant professors, and
others are lecturers. A few professors are nearing retirement and the department should
 focus on hiring faculty with skill sets to ensure smooth transition for courses that have
been traditionally taught by the faculty expected to retire.
The department is diverse in ethnicity and culture, but not in gender. There are only
three positions occupied by women.
Due to freeze in hiring, the department has not been able to hire faculty where skill sets
are lacking or will soon be with senior faculty who plan to retire in the near future. This
does not provide an opportunity for senior faculty to nurture new hires to be able to teach
the highly technical courses (for example: Mainframe environments, COBOL, Java
Programming) that are desired by the companies which hire their graduates.
Lack of formal policies that incentivizes grant activities. Applying for external grants are
risky and given the yield % is low, faculty would rather spend their time in writing journal
articles. Unfunded grant work is not amenable for peer-reviewed journal publication.

vii. Recommendations
Having more formal policies that incentivizes grant activities by faculty. Since applying for
external grants are risky and given the yield rate is low, faculty would rather spend their time in
writing journal articles. Unfunded grant work is not amenable for peer-reviewed journal
publication.

Freezing of hiring has contributed to a higher ranking faculty, with few young professors poised
to take the place of senior faculty if they retire. If the department still cannot hire new
tenured/tenure-track faculty, they may consider to use non-tenure faculty to teach highly
technical courses.

3. Students
We had the opportunity to interact with several doctoral students but not Masters level students.

i. Quality
The average GMAT score of new doctoral students is 615, which is not a desired sign of
high quality students. Likewise, the average GMAT score of enrolled Masters students
is 513 which indicate potential room for improvement.
The graduate school offers several workshops for professional development that is
availed by most graduate students. Likewise, the ITDS department offers seminars that
include both internal and external speakers on a regular basis. These are important to
maintain the professional growth of graduate students.

ii. Performance and Success

The doctoral program benefits greatly from an experienced faculty who are enthusiastic
about developing the depth of the research experience of the students. Most doctoral
students have one or more peer-reviewed journal articles in addition to conference
presentations/proceedings before they graduate which make them competitive in the
market place. This is reflected in the 100% placement rate of graduating doctoral
students.
Many doctoral students had the opportunity to review papers for conferences and
journals. This reflects their understanding of what it takes to publish quality papers.
 Most Masters students (almost 80%) have prior work experience. The report did not
have information on their placement or salary data upon graduation to comment on the
impact.

iii. Retention and degree completion (especially at doctoral level)

The department seems to have a good track on both retention and degree completion of
doctoral students. While the numbers were not as explicit in the data reported to us,
during our conversation with faculty and students, we were told that doctoral students
graduate in about 4 years on an average.

iv. Opportunities/placement
The advisory board members commented on the quality of Masters students and hence
their desire to hire them. The department can capitalize on the alumni network to
increase placement opportunities.
At the doctoral level, the department has a 100% placement rate. The report did not
have details on where the doctoral students are placed.

v. Morale, attitude toward faculty/university

The review team was impressed with the doctoral students that we met. They were
enthusiastic about their research and appreciative of their advisors. All students at the
department are oriented towards academic careers, which is the goal of most doctoral
programs. Students spoke highly of faculty involvement in their research and
professional development. Students were well informed of the need to publish PRJs
from the very first semester.

vi. Areas of concern

Lack of STEM designation of Masters program impacts the departments ability to
attract quality international students. Without STEM designation, international students
do not get 29 months of Optional Practical Training (OPT). Hence, they would choose
other similar programs that has STEM designation.
The stipends provided for doctoral students are not competitive. Most programs offer on
an average $22K for 9 months (guaranteed for 4 years of study based on satisfactory
progress) with both in-state and out-of-state waivers as applicable (not limited by hours
registered, i.e. 6 or 9 hours/academic semester).
There seems to be no funding for Masters students as the doctoral program takes
funding priority. This may affect their ability to attract quality Masters students who
expect some level of funding an may be attracted by competing schools.
The number of doctoral students is currently 15, which gives about a 1:1 ratio of
students to faculty. Given that the average time to the Ph.D. is around 4 years, this
number of students is a bare minimum to maintain continuity within a research group.
Some doctoral students commented in the lack of flexibility in taking Master's level
classes due to scheduling constraints. While there seems to be a process in
communicating their plan of study when admitted by their Ph.D. coordinator, we are
unsure if schedules change due to demand or resource constraints.
 While students are appreciative of facultys support for doctoral students placement;
they would like to see more opportunities for networking or exposure to networking
opportunities at conferences.

vii. Recommendations
Obtaining STEM designation for its Masters programs should be a top priority.
Have a proactive plan to hire new faculty that have the skills sets or be trained to teach
the specialized technical courses in demand by industry.
Increase funding support to the department to increase their ability to attract quality
graduate students, both at the Masters and doctoral levels.
Faculty can increase their involvement in doctoral consortium or other professional
activities at conferences that exposes the doctoral students to network among their
peers.
For the Master programs, the department can capitalize on the alumni network to
increase placement opportunities.

4. Administrative Structure
i. Appropriateness of size
The department has strong leadership support through its department chair, director of
Ph.D. program and coordinator of Masters program.
There is only one half-time faculty to assist with advising.

ii. Effectiveness
There were no specific measures of effectiveness in the reports but based on conversation with
faculty and students, appropriate and timely help is provided for administrative needs.
The admission to the Ph.D. program is stated to be a 3 step process:
1. Admission to the University through the Toulouse Graduate School

2. Admission to the College of Business

3. Departmental Admission

This does not seem to be the most effective way as the department would not be able to pursue
good candidates until the first two steps are completed.

iii. Support staff

The department has two full time staff to assist in their administrative needs who seem to be
providing adequate support.

iv. Facilities/laboratories
The college seems to have adequate lab space for the students needs. They also have a
dedicated lab for the security program/courses. Faculty expressed concern that the classroom
podium computer does not have access to needed software when the classes are not in the
BLB building. While some of the needed software can be accessed through VPN, the speed is
lower and it is not as effective in the classroom environment.
v. Recommendations
Expanding the advising support to full time from the current half-time support.

5. Capacity
i. Adequacy of space for educational and research/creative activities
Immensely impressive is the Business Leadership Building that places state of the art
instrumentation within the College of Business, to be used by researchers in various
disciplines as well as in the teaching of Information Technology and Decision Sciences
to students. This multi-million dollar facility should be an attractive recruiting tool for
doctoral students and new faculty. Each doctoral student has an office space that is
shared by one other peer. One professor said that he is still excited with his office even
today.

ii. Adequacy of resources, including faculty

The biggest concern is the upcoming retirements of some senior faculty who teach
specialized technical courses. As recommended before, there has to be some proactive
measures in recruiting new faculty who can be trained to teach the specialized courses
to ensure the market demand is met.

iii. Opportunities for increasing enrollments

The department has enough quality research faculty to mentor more doctoral students.
They believe they can double their doctoral students size if they have necessary
budgets.