The focus of this paper is on the differences and similarities between undergraduate information systems (IS) and information technology (IT) programs, and the extent to which the content of one degree program might enrich the other. It will be important reading for anyone trying to understand the differences between IS and IT programs.

A sample list of Bachelor of Science in Information Systems (BSIS) degree requirements and required courses, taken from the author’s institution, is presented early in the paper. However, there is no comparable presentation for a BSIT, although there are references made to such a degree in the paper. The reader is unfortunately hampered throughout the discussion, due to the unbalanced nature of the presentation.

The comparative analysis between IS and IT programs is segmented into topical areas, such as life cycle phases; applications versus theory; the use of specific technologies versus broader coverage of more generic concepts; hands-on learning; faculty experience; lab components; math, science, and business requirements; system administration issues; and reliance on laboratories.

In the beginning of the paper, the author discusses issues related to academic disciplines in general, how new disciplines emerge, and how discipline boundaries help define the separation between new and old areas of study and research. It is claimed that most proponents of models of emerging disciplines make clean breaks from existing areas of study, and establish their own instructional and research domains. I think these models are artifacts of their creators, who are often concerned with turf issues, credit hours, numbers of majors, and program justification.

Several things seem clear. First, whatever distinctions may emerge between IS and IT may be forced by external considerations, such as accreditation. This is unfortunate, for at least in the year 2003, it appears as though the choice of name (IS versus IT) is far less important than a clear definition of the goals and objectives of a new program, as they pertain to university students and overall mission. As the author points out, whatever differences exist among degree programs across US institutions are most likely differences in content emphasis. There is considerable room for synergy and dual-purpose courses that would serve the needs of both programs.

The delineation of the differences between IS and IT is useful in that it provides a survey of topics that could be included in either program. It also provides some insights as to how these topics might be distinguished, based primarily on emphases in the practice. What would be far more useful is a fuller discussion of the range of emphases possible in each of the dozen or so areas of study outlined in the paper, without trying to assign names to one set of topics or another.