The results from a five-part Delphi survey of chief IS executives and corporate general managers indicate the most critical information systems management issues and consensus on their importance. The research project is the second in a series of such studies conducted by the Society for Information Management and the MIS Research Center at the University of Minnesota. The research confirmed the expected in some areas and revealed surprises in other areas. While strategic planning continued to top all issues in importance, many changes have occurred since 1983. Three new issues have joined the top ten issues in importance. Also, the rank order of several issues in the top ten has shifted. Survey results are discussed in terms of the differing views of IS executives and corporate general managers. A review of how these views have changed over time is also presented. A number of conclusions are drawn about managing information systems and about the changing nature of the IS executive’s job.

Several years ago Donald Ball and Wendell McCulloch carried out an opinion survey of members of the Academy of International Business as to the ranking of international programs in U.S. business schools (JIBS, Spring/Summer 1984). It included 79 schools in the results.

The sphere of modern financial economics encompases finance, micro investment theory and much of the economics of uncertainty.As is evident from its influence on other branches of economics including public finance, industrial organization and monetary theory, the boundaries of this sphere are both permeable and flexible.The complex interactions of time and uncertainty guarantee intellectual challenge and intrinsic excitement to the study of financial economics.Indeed, the mathematics of the subject contain some of the most interesting applications of probability and optimization theory.But for all its mathematical refinement, the research has nevertheless had a direct and significant influence on practice.It was not always thus.Thirty years ago, finance theory was little more than a collection of anecdotes, rules of thumb, and manipulations of accounting data with an almost exclusive focus on corporate financial management.There is no need in this meeting of the guild to recount the subsequent evolution from this conceptual potpourri to a rigorous economic theory subjected to systematic empirical examination.1 Nor is there a need III -2on this occasion to document the wide-ranging impact of the research on 2 finance practice.I simply note that the conjoining of intrinsic intellectual interest with extrinsic application is a prevailing theme of research in financial economics.The later stages of this successful evolution has however been marked by a substantial accumulation of empirical anomalies; discoveries of theoretical inconsistencies; and a well-founded concern about the statistical power of many of the test methodologies.3Finance, thus finds itself today in the seemingly-paradoxical position of having more questions and empirical puzzles than at the start of its modern development.To be sure, some of the empirical anomalies will eventually be shown to be mere statistical artifacts.However, just as surely, others will not be so easily dismissed.I see this new-found ignorance in finance as mostly of the useful type that reflects our "...express recognition of what is not yet known, but needs to be known in order to lay the foundation for still more knowledge." 5Anomalous empirical evidence has indeed stimulated wide-ranging research efforts to make explicit the theoretical and empirical limitations of the basic finance model with its frictionless markets, complete information, and rational, optimizing economic behavior.Although much has been done, this research line is far from closure.Some hold that the paradigm of rational and optimal behavior must be largely discarded if knowledge in finance is to significantly advance.Others believe that most of the important empirical anomalies surrounding the current theory can be resolved within that traditional paradigm.Whichever view emerges as the dominant theme in finance, our understanding of the subject promises to be greatly enriched by these research programs.

This note reviews the results of four surveys related to the efforts of the AACSB to internationalize the curriculum of the business schools. The first, a survey of the 1071 participants in the 30 workshop/seminars which have been organized by the AACSB, showed that the workshops have been very beneficial for the participants and affected the courses they teach. The second survey, of all AACSB member schools, showed that most of them plan to internationalize their curriculums by introducing an international dimension into the core courses. But this raises the question of whether the faculty members are trained or prepared to do this. The third survey found that only 64 out of 564 AACSB member schools have one or more exchange programs with foreign business schools, and that only about 125 professors go overseas each year under the aegis of these programs. Finally, a fourth survey, of the 53 largest doctoral programs, indicated that only 17% of the graduates of our doctoral programs study any international courses during their graduate (masters and doctoral) studies. Thus, the next generation of faculty members will have difficulty in introducing any international content into the courses they teach.

The primary objective of this paper is to derive a multi-factor equilibrium model using a mean-variance approach. The results of this derivation provide greater insight into the nature of the resulting factors than does APT. There are several important implications for empirical tests of any a priori defined multi-factor model.

Abstract ABSTRACT: Critics allege that audit committees often fail to mitigate management pressure on auditors when disputes arise during an audit. The objective of this study is to investigate factors that may affect the likelihood that audit committees will support auditors, rather than management, in audit disputes. A repeated measures experiment was conducted using 179 audit committee members as subjects. Analysis of variance results show that backgrounds of audit committee members may be predictive of their willingness to support auditors involved in disputes with client management. Also, two contextual variables seem important--whether the relevant professional standards are objective and the relative financial condition of the audited firm.