Welcome to the IS2020 model curriculum site

Please work with us as the ACM-AIS IS2020 Taskforce develops the next model curriculum. We will use this site to communicate our activities and collect feedback.

The Draft IS2020 report is available here – Please take the time to preview our draft report, this is a work-in-progress and contains both typos, errors, and is missing some content.  Regardless we welcome your feedback.

Further questions and answers from the panel discussion AMCIS 2020 can be found here.

Information Request

we are gathering information from various institutions regarding their Information Systems majors. Please take a moment to visit the following Google Sheet link and fill in any information pertaining to your specific institution.


Please refer to our post Information Request for further information. If you have any questions please contact Greg Anderson at profganderson@byu.edu


  1. Dear colleagues Hannu, Paul,
    Thanks for updates! I will fill the survey. Regarding the core topic on Digital Transformation, I suggest kindly to review the Forbes 2018 list of the most innovative companies. #1 ServiceNow.com and #2 WorkDay.com are companies totally based on Cloud IT services and deserve to be analyzed.


    The other topics missed by our IT community, I estimate by a wrong old-fashion way to see the world (i.e. Checkland’s Weltanschauung concept), are:

    Design Thinking – Service Design
    VUCA world (volatile, uncertainty, complex and ambiguous world)

    However, these two topics fit more for the next MSIS graduate curriculum than for undergraduate curriculum.
    Ok thanks! Manuel

  2. Since we are moving to competencies, how about we also setup a place to securely share competency tests. This can lead to larger capability at assessing efficacy as well as easier continuous improvement and assessment of learning.

    • Dominic:

      Like your idea of sharing competency tests in a secure area. Plus, still hoping to get a rough idea of when a version of the IS2020 is released so as to better relate it to upcoming curriculum changes.

  3. As I read through the draft, I think the overall approach makes sense and is forming up in line with our discussions last year as well as what we have heard from industry here at KSU as we are rebuilding our IS program now. One significant issue I see appears in Figure 3 – 3. It appears there that a given competency can map to only one class. I would like to see us address a bit more pedagogy in this curriculum guideline. Best practice is scaffolding. Mastery is unlikely to happen in a single class. Rather, I believe we need a section that talks about how these competencies may map multiple times at different levels of mastery from introductory to proficiency to mastery or something like that. Certain schools may only address lower levels of proficiency or try to get mastery from one course, but this change I am proposing would also enable mapping multiple courses to a given competency. Thus, I would expect an N to N relationship between course and competency.

    • Your observation that the competency – class relationship should N:N is well founded. In all the discussions of the taskforce that has been out intent. But figure 3-3 doesn’t reflect that. This will be discussed and addressed.

  4. I agree. The report is written on the basis that focusing on competencies gives more flexibility – programs can choose different approaches to linking competency areas to courses. Against this background, figure 3-3 and 1:n relationship indeed looks like not being aligned with this. I’ll send your comment to our “architect”. Also the idea of explaining better how consequtive courses can add to different levels of mastery is something that we have discussed and I think we have also written something about it, but perhaps we should highlight it more – it is indeed an important part of the guidelines. For adding more pedagogy… we have followed the 9th principle from IS2010 (p. 6) that “model curriculum does not focus on specific issues related to pedagogy”. After working with the revision, I agree with their argument that there are limits on how much can be addressed within a single document.

Leave a comment