Achieving Academic-Industry Collaboration with Departmental Advisory Boards

Abstract

Industry-academic collaboration is a strategic necessity in today's fragmented and turbulent economy. Advisory boards offer an effective way to achieve mutually beneficial and sustained collaboration. This article is based on in-depth case studies and comparisons of four advisory boards in U.S. colleges that offer IS programs. It provides archetypes that encapsulate different models for implementing advisory boards and best practices that summarize the key insights from the cases.

Full text

Achieving Academic-Industry Collaboration with Departmental Advisory Boards
Munir Mandviwalla
Temple University
munir.mandviwalla@temple.edu
Bruce Fadem
Temple University
Michael Goul
Arizona State University
Joey F. George
Iowa State University
David P. Hale
University of Alabama
January 2015
This paper is a preprint of the following article scheduled to appear in MISQ Executive
Mandviwalla, M., Fadem, B., Goul, M., George, J. F., & Hale, D. P. (2015). Achieving
Academic-Industry Collaboration with Departmental Advisory Boards. MIS Quarterly Executive,
14(1).

2
Achieving Academic-Industry Collaboration with
Departmental Advisory Boards
Industry-academic collaboration is a strategic necessity in today’s fragmented and turbulent
economy. Advisory boards offer an effective way to achieve mutually beneficial and sustained
collaboration. This article is based on in-depth case studies and comparisons of four advisory
boards in U.S. colleges that offer IS programs. It provides archetypes that encapsulate different
models for implementing advisory boards and best practices that summarize the key insights
from the cases.
Munir Mandviwalla
Temple University (U.S.)
Bruce Fadem
Temple University (U.S.)
Michael Goul
Arizona State University (U.S.)
Joey F. George
Iowa State University (U.S.)
David P. Hale
University of Alabama (U.S.)

3
Challenges of Bridging the IS Academic-Industry Divide
Information systems (IS) academics and practitioners live and work in an unprecedented era
of technology-enabled change and opportunity. Almost every industry is being transformed by
digital business models, resulting in vast new areas of research and the emergence of new career
paths (e.g., IT auditing, digital marketing, analytics).
The influence of corporate chief information and technology officers (CIOs and CTOs), the
traditional practitioner counterpart to IS academics, is threatened by new functions managed by
chief innovation or chief data officers, and by functional managers who focus on strategic IT,
relegating “keeping the lights on” to CIOs. On Wall Street, the term CIO now means Chief
Investment Officer. Similarly, IS academics in business schools, who are the natural counterpart
to corporate CIOs, face questions about their role as business disciplines are increasingly
influenced by digital content, media and business models. IS academics have also found it
difficult to absorb and rationalize the massive growth their institutions experienced in the
dot.com era, and the subsequent reduction in interest and enrollment after the dot.com bubble
burst.
Corporate IT practitioners and academics rarely meaningfully engage with each other except
at conferences and through occasional thought-piece articles. Practitioners seldom apply, or are
even aware of IS, research and worry instead about the quantity and skill level of available talent.
Academics find it difficult to sustain systematic conversations about the knowledge needs of the
next generation with practitioners focused on short-term concerns.
Establishing the importance of IS and bridging the academic-industry divide are hard
problems. There are no simple solutions. But IS academics and practitioners respectively
produce and consume the talent and knowledge that has much to gain (or lose) from technology-
enabled change. Given this, it seems that both groups should help each other. This goal is even
more relevant today because it is no longer just academia or well-funded industry that can take
advantage of radical technology advances; the innovative spark is just as likely to come from
“digital natives.” Nonetheless, industry and academia share the goal of creating institutional
structures that will encourage innovation. Partnerships that include the new generation of digital
natives can catalyze new opportunities.
One route to addressing the above challenges and opportunities is to create structural linkages
between IT practitioners and academics. Linkages that are sustained and deep can enable the
complex conversations required to exchange knowledge and produce human capital. In this
article, we focus on university advisory boards as a key enabler of systematic industry-academic
engagement with IS programs in the United States. The article’s purpose is to provide advice for
academics and industry partners on forming and managing advisory boards, and generating
sustained strategic value.
Advisory Boards
According to BusinessDictionary.com, an advisory board of directors comprises “Individuals
appointed to offer expert advice to the elected board of directors. Neither they are bound by the
legal duties imposed on the elected board members, nor the elected board is bound by their

4
recommendations.”
1
The same distinction applies in academia, where advisory boards are
different from “governing boards” in that they do not have a fiduciary, governance or legal
responsibility and typically focus on offering advice, fundraising, program development and
institutional engagement. Further, according to the Association of Governing Boards, “Their
roles, activities, and responsibilities also vary widely from one institution to another. Some have
fairly clear responsibilities to help with fundraising while others are asked primarily to give
advice on curriculum, help with specialized accreditation, and connect faculty and students with
industry. Still others help with recruitment and retention.”
2
This article focuses on departmental
advisory boards also known as advisory councils, boards of visitors, and industry roundtables.
In a 1996 study of advisory boards in hospitality management, Conroy et al.
3
noted that the
principle of colleges drawing on industry practitioners dates from the earliest days of American
education. They found that 42 out of 50 surveyed academic institutions had advisory boards
ranging in size from 8 to 46 members with a mean of 27. These boards focused primarily on
reputation development, advocacy, resources and curriculum improvement. Advisory boards for
IS date back to the 1960s.
4
More recently, Watson
5
provides important insights from creating and
managing the University of Georgia’s MIS board.
We define a [college] departmental board as a group of qualified volunteers who provide
direction, content and resources to develop knowledge and human capital through a formal
structure termed an advisory board. Board activities include, but are not limited to, professional
development, research, curriculum, resources and influencing the strategic direction of the
department.
This article builds on Watson’s work to identify best practices for creating and managing
advisory boards. It is based on a comparative analysis of departmental advisory boards in four
U.S. universities: Temple University, University of Alabama, Arizona State University and
Florida State University. First, we discuss advisory board value propositions and related
downsides. Next, we describe four board archetypes and then use this archetype framework to
compare the four case advisory boards. This is followed by detailed insights on creating and
managing boards. The article concludes with ten best practices for creating and managing
advisory boards.
Advisory Board Value Propositions
Departmental advisory boards often do much more than just advise; they provide a structured,
easy to understand and sustainable model for industry-academic collaboration. Boards both
provide input on knowledge and talent development (e.g., research questions, human capital
priorities) and consume the results (e.g., applying the research, hiring students). Table 1 lists
1
Source: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/advisory-board-of-directors.html
2
Source: http://agb.org/knowledge-center/faq/advisory-board-same-advisory-council-what-advisory-
board%E2%80%99s-purpose
3
Conroy, P. A., Lefever, M. M., and Withiam, G., op.cit., 1996. “The value of college advisory boards,” The
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly (37:4), 1996, pp. 85-89.
4
The University of Minnesota’s, Management Information Systems Research Center (MISRC) started in 1968.
5
Watson, H. J. “Reflections from a Senior Scholar: Creating and Sustaining a MIS Advisory Board,” SIGMIS
Database (43:4), 2012, pp. 8-11.

5
value propositions identified by advisory board members in the four cases, in response to the
following questions: Why do you stay on the board? Why did you join? What is the value
proposition for you personally and for your firm?
Table 1: Board Members’ Value Propositions
No.
Value Proposition
1
All of us can go to the Microsoft’s, Intel’s of the world to see what is coming (roadmaps of
products) but it does not give a sense of how it might be implemented and used. This is
one of the biggest reasons I like the Advisory board. Especially with the new generation.
2
a) Ability to shape student’s learning experience
b) Recruitment opportunity
c) Give back to local community
d) Energizing experience
Set myself up for a teaching job when I retire.
3
It has been a great way to stay connected with the University and ensure that students are
getting educated with the skills we need at our company. I joined to give back to the
University, I stayed because it has been such a great way to keep my company connected
with students and professors. I enjoy networking with the other board members as well as
with the students. I always learn something new at every board meeting.
4
The value proposition for me is in shaping the program to produce students I want to hire.
5
1. Interactions with the new generations of students (firm and personally)
2. Discovering and addressing existing and emerging issues (Firm and Personal)
3. Ability to help students problem solve and broaden their perspectives (personal)
4. Stay current with education industry and the evolution (personal)
6
One reason why I joined, and why I stay, is very personal. I myself came from a
socioeconomic background very similar to that of most of the XX students. I would not
have had the success in the business world that I did if I had not had a quality, affordable
college education. That was my springboard.
7
The value proposition for me is having a program that listens to market needs and
develops and executes the curriculum to produce graduates that we want for the long-
term.
8
We actively hire 10-15 local college grads each year and I want to stay in touch with what
they’re being taught to ensure there’s a demand in the market for them. I joined to give
back whenever possible and I get energized being around the university. The value
proposition is simple, it gives us an opportunity to compete for the best and brightest new
graduates in the valley. This allows us to continue to bring new ideas and value
propositions through these innovative young professionals to our clients.
9
I forget to mention I enjoy working with the guy in charge of the program.

6
What is striking in these responses is the diversity of perspectives and interests. It is clear that
at the macro level, advisory boards can provide the direction, content and resources to develop
knowledge and talent, but at the micro individual level, for each board, board member and
institution, the specific roads to realizing this vision vary. Tables 2 and 3 list the key value
propositions that influence academic institutions, advisory boards, individual members and their
firms.
Table 2: Key Value Propositions for Academic Institutions
Value Proposition
Description
Develop Faculty and
Students
Access the latest industry best practices to inform research and
curriculum. Develop students, access to projects, internships and
placement.
Validate Plans
Informally or formally validate curriculum and research plans.
Conduct Research
Build contact networks, resources and gain data to perform research.
Generate Resources
Gain funding or other resources such as expertise or in-kind
contributions.
Increase Reputation
Gain the endorsement of high-profile executives and their firms.
Increase Influence
Leverage the status and knowledge of board members to advance
departmental needs within the university.
Table 3: Key Value Propositions for Firms
Value Proposition
Description
Develop Talent
Recruit and maintain close ties with students, alumni, and faculty.
Develop Insights
Gain knowledge from research and by engaging with young people.
Network
Connect with other board members.
Sustain Strategic
Relationships
Fulfill corporate commitment to a university Partner.
Influence Higher
Education
Influence the direction of research and curriculum.
Give Back
Give back to higher learning in general or as an alumni. Fulfill social
responsibility requirements of employer.
These value propositions are the drivers that can start, maintain, or expand engagement with
advisory boards or lead to loss of interest. It is only through regular careful alignment of these
drivers that boards can generate value for IS practitioners and academics. It is important to note
that the value propositions are not mutually exclusive. Nor is it practical to assume that every
value proposition is achievable. Further, as shown in Table 1, some or all of them may apply to
different individuals and in different contexts. It is also important to note that industry and
academic value propositions rarely match. For example, a mismatch will occur when academics
are interested only in research, while executives are interested only in recruiting. The challenge
is in finding common ground and setting up structures so that academics and practitioners can
both realize some of their value propositions.

7
To summarize, value propositions vary greatly within and across boards. Acceptance of this
variation and the need to carefully move toward alignment is the key to gaining value from an
advisory board.
A poorly aligned board may provide little value, or worse, end up damaging the reputation of
the university. Conversely, a well aligned board that accommodates differing contexts and
follows through on its value propositions is a major step toward the ideal of knowledge and
talent development. For example, the board of a college with a good record of placing students
can focus on applying research to strategic problems to visibly increase the value of a firm’s IS
function. Similarly, some senior executives in the same board who are less motivated by firm
visibility and more on giving back may gain more value from Mentoring. A formal and visible
student Mentoring program involving senior executives can increase the footprint and value of IS
in the college.
In summary, to realize sustained value from a departmental advisory board, it is crucial to
identify, integrate, and continuously refine the value proposition(s). This is a challenging task.
The four advisory boards we studied and analyzed provide insights on how to create and manage
such boards to generate value.
The Four Departmental Advisory Boards
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the four universities studied and their respective IS advisory
boards. Each of the authors was directly involved in founding and managing the boards detailed
in Table 5. The board members as of November 2014 are listed in Appendix A.
Table 4: The Four Universities
Temple
University
University of
Alabama
Arizona State
University
Florida State
University
Public/private
Public*
Public
Public
Public
Size of
institution
(number of
students)
38,000
36,000
76,000
41,000
Number of
students
associated with
IS
746
464
680
110+
Location
Northeast U.S. –
easily accessible
urban location in
large city with many
businesses and
universities
Southeast U.S. –
difficult to access
small college town
in rural location
Western U.S. -
easily accessible
urban location in
large city with many
businesses
Southern U.S. –
difficult to access
small city
* Commonwealth of Pennsylvania institution which gets a small portion of its funding from the state

8
Table 5: Overview of Each Advisory Board
Temple
University
University of
Alabama
Arizona State
University
Florida
State
University
Board Name
Fox School of
Business IT Advisory
Board
Culverhouse College of
Commerce MIS
Executive Forum
W.P. Carey School
of Business IS
Executive Advisory
Board
Industry
Advisory
Council
Founded
2005
1996
2003
1998
Mission Focus
Research, Programs
Research, Programs
Curriculum,
Programs
Research,
Programs
Number of
Members
17
35
60
11
Size of Firms
57% Very large
29% Medium
14% Small
24 firms: Fortune 500,
global consulting firms,
State CIO, and small
consulting firms
60% Very Large
30% Medium
10% Start-ups
50% Very
large
30% Medium
20% Small
% alumni
44%
10%
15%
About 50%
Formal Stated
Goals?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Management
Relationship
With University
Annual report
Yearly meeting with the
dean
Annual report
No
relationship
Leadership
External appointed
chair
Internal appointed chair
Internal appointed
chair
Internal
appointed
chair
Type of
Influence
Advise only
Advise only
Advise on strategy,
improve curriculum
Advise only
Selection of
Members
Board chair and
department chair
Chair and board vetting
of nominee
Department chair
and faculty
Department
chair
Membership
Criteria
Senior executive with
decision authority
(e.g., VP, CIO, editor,
Partner) and
membership in
associated institute.
CIOs, VPs, consulting
Partner/principals or
above
Senior executive
with decision
authority (e.g., VP,
CIO, CTO, director,
Partner)
Recruiting
Partner at
university
Subcommittee
Structure
Yes
(scholarship, awards
and conferences)
Yes
(curriculum review and
endowments)
No
Yes
Term of
Members
3 years
Open
Open
Open
Criteria for
Continued
Membership
Regular participation
and specific
contribution
Regular participation
and specific
contribution
Regular
participation
Open
Annual
Commitment
Three 2.5 hour evening
meetings plus
individual meetings
with chair and
participation in
activities
Two 1.5 day meetings
plus annual meeting
with director and
subcommittee meetings
Two half-day
meetings
Two half-day
meetings

9
Financial
contribution
$5,000 or $1,000
contribution to annual
scholarship. Institute
membership is
separate.
$10,000
Voluntary
$1,000
Temple University. The Information Technology Advisory Board of the Department of
Management Information Systems and Institute for Business and Information Technology at the
Fox School of Business, Temple University, was co-founded in 2005 by the department chair
and a senior industry executive. The department was established in 2000 and forming the board
was seen as a natural step in its evolution. Philadelphia is a major metropolitan area with
significant industry presence and there are more than 80 universities within 50 miles of the city
that compete for industry attention. After some time spent recruiting members, the board was
founded with seven individuals representing local firms, with an industry executive as chairman.
University of Alabama. The University of Alabama advisory board was founded in 1996 by
the faculty managing the IS programs of the Information Systems, Statistics, and Management
Science Department of the Culverhouse College of Commerce in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The
original vision for the board was to improve the curriculum and more quickly gain needed
resources for the IS program. Tuscaloosa is a small college town of less than 100,000 in west
central Alabama. There are only a few major regional businesses and the town is served by
Birmingham (50+ miles) or Atlanta (200+ miles) airports. The majority of board members fly in
for a 1.5 days meeting.
Arizona State University. The Arizona State University advisory board was founded in 2003
by the chair of the Information Management department of the W. P. Carey School of Business
in Phoenix, Arizona. The formation of the board coincided with the splitting of the accounting
and IS groups and the start of a new master’s in IS program. Phoenix is a major metropolitan
area and many of the board members represent major industries in Arizona.
Florida State University. The Florida State University advisory board was started in 1998 by
the department chair for the then College of Business, Management Information Systems
department, in Tallahassee, Florida. As he was leaving the college, the previous department chair
transferred management of several industry contacts to the chair. In addition, at that time, the
department was receiving significant industry interest in recruiting its MIS students. The board
was created to systemize recruiting relationships and create additional opportunities for the
department. Tallahassee is a college town and state capital of about 250,000 that hosts many
legal, lobbying, and trade firms. It is served by a regional airport, with Tampa about 200 miles
away.
Four Advisory Board Archetypes
The four boards introduced above differ in context, such as location, and structure and
function, such as size and role. We define four broad advisory board archetypes: Ceremonial,
Forum, Mentor and Partner (see Table 6). These archetypes provide a framework for analyzing
the evolution and management of each of the four boards. The archetypes are not ideal types nor
do they exist in pure form; instead they serve as a discussion reference – “canonical form” – for

10
creating and managing boards across different contexts, structures and functions, and with
unique value propositions.
Table 6: Four Advisory Board Archetypes
Ceremonial
Forum
Mentor
Partner
Benefits
• Easier to manage
• Members have a
lower time
requirement
• Can generate
resources
• Exciting and
topical
• Ideal for limited
focused projects
• Generates long
term commitment
• Role and impact is
visible to all
stakeholders
• High levels of
engagement and
support
• Less susceptible
to turnover
Drawbacks
• Lower
commitment
• Substitution of
members is likely
• May not generate
resources
• Harder to manage
due to size and
turnover
• High time
requirement for
members
• Requires
extensive
administrative
support
• Requires
continuous active
management
• Turnovers can
cause major
setback
Member Level
High
Mixed
Mid
Mixed
Member Firm
Size
Mixed
Large
Mixed
Mixed
Size of board
Varies
Large
Large
Small
Engagement
Low
High (in meetings)
High (one-to-one)
High
Value
Proposition
Compatibility
Unknown
Mixed
High
High
Time
Commitment
Low
Mid
High (individual)
High (institutional)
Ceremonial
The Ceremonial advisory board archetype structures relationships with high-profile
individuals who can invest funds in the university. Meetings are formal and informational rather
than discussion-oriented. The shared value proposition focuses on creating and sustaining the
board structure–there is less focus on operations. The Ceremonial archetype is also relevant
when the stakeholders do not have the time to contribute significantly, to actively manage the
board and to align value propositions. However, Ceremonial boards do not last unless there is an
external driver because engagement levels are lower. Institutions in transition can leverage
Ceremonial boards as a holding model. The following quote from a board member highlights the
benefits and downsides: “While the interaction with Deans, Provosts and Presidents may provide
benefits to the department, this interaction seems much more staged and has not moved the
partnerships forward.”
Temple University started with a Ceremonial board with high-profile executives to legitimize
the creation of the new department. Expectations were low and centered on meeting attendance.
Florida State also started with a Ceremonial board, but the impetus was different. At the time, the
dot.com hiring boom was in full swing, and there was less concern with high-profile executives

11
and more interest in creating a structure to routinize recruiting relationships that could later lead
to other benefits.
Forum
The Forum archetype facilitates knowledge and human capital exchange. The board is a
platform for sharing ideas and networking. Board members’ firms often have a multi-layered
relationship with the university (e.g., financial support or contractual research projects), but this
is typically handled separately. This means the Forum archetype accommodates diverse value
propositions. Forums tend to attract members from larger firms with recruitment of students
often being the initial justification for participating. Forum boards are larger in size, exhibit
frequent turnover, and discussion and networking provide the key value proposition for most
members. The following quotes from board members illustrate different aspects of the Forum
archetype:
• “The forum allows the executives to interact in an informal environment and we gain
insights from one another. There is not the pressure that occurs in other business
settings.”
• “I have been consistently impressed and appreciative of how much the XX professors
listen and act on the input from the board.”
• “The value is …discussion around new innovations with like-minded people.”
• “There is a great openness to the meetings, there is a genuine goal to make the program,
and therefore the students, better.”
Coinciding with the launch of a master’s program, the Arizona State IS Executive Advisory
Board started as a Forum. Members provided input on the curriculum and helped recruit students
especially by sending employees to the new program. The Alabama board also started as a
Forum focusing on curriculum. However, a subset of members was more aligned with the value
proposition of the Mentor archetype and this later expanded to encompass the majority of the
board (see below).
Mentor
The Mentor archetype values engagement with students and faculty members. For example,
board members work with students on professional development such as interview skills,
participate in course and program design, and engage in research projects. A Mentor board
actively reviews program proposals and may even vote on and “approve” curricula. Members are
committed and aligned with institutional goals but need help coordinating all the activities. The
following quotes from board members illustrate the Mentor archetype:
• “Direct interaction with the students, provides a great understanding of their capabilities
and their motivations. Both help us in recruiting and onboarding.”
• “The faculty work in a highly collaborative manner with us in the XX to continue to
tweak the program to drive continuous improvement.”
• “The faculty work tirelessly, coaching and mentoring the students and driving the
projects they undertake with us in the IT business community.”

12
The Alabama board started as a Forum but has evolved into the Mentor archetype as members
coalesced on the value of aligning curriculum to industry needs and developing students. Board
members participated in program redesign and directly supporting professional development by
performing student behavioral interviews. Overall, the Alabama board frequently engages in
student activities involving sophomores, seniors and master’s students.
Partner
The Partner board archetype has the highest level of collaboration. The board is a trusted
entity that actively leads or engages in multiple activities, including program design, co-chairing
events, research and professional development. Partner boards, however, require constant
coordination. When board members lead rather than provide input, the work styles of business
executives and universities will collide: senior executives expect immediate top-down
implementation, whereas universities operate more slowly and often by consensus. Coping with
such misalignments requires decisive management. Value proposition alignment will increase
over time as the board successfully works through differences in work styles and goals, building
a sense of community and shared vision. However, the loss of a few key members can cause a
major setback, especially if there is a small number of board members. The following quotes by
board members illustrate the Partner archetype:
• “There is a true partnership between the XX program and the XX members.”
• “Biggest positive is that members are committed to the success and ongoing improvement
of the institution.”
• “I’d summarize it as XX demonstrating it wanted partnership with industry. In
partnership there is give and take. I find the partnership intent genuine in both regards.”
• “I think that the group today is substantially different from the group seven or eight years
ago, and all to the better. There is much more direct engagement with the students and
with the critical endeavors of the department, such as the technology conferences.”
The Temple board now operates as a Partner with members engaged at many different levels
such as planning conferences together and other activities (see below). The board has overcome
several challenges including differences in research perspectives and project management style.
The Four Boards Today
Temple University. Temple’s IT Advisory Board started as the Ceremonial archetype and
evolved into the Partner archetype. Three factors played a role in the evolution:
1. The board chair’s insistence on high degrees of involvement created a participative culture
2. The “start-up” orientation of the new MIS department generated new engagement
opportunities
3. The associated Institute for Business and Information Technology structured the
opportunities so that they were relevant for industry.
As a consequence, the board has improved the curriculum, created opportunities for faculty
and students, generated resources including scholarships, periodically engaged in research, and
increased the visibility and status of the department. Another department recently recruited the
chair to help restructure their advisory board. The IT Advisory Board has also helped create

13
advisory councils for new master’s programs and research centers. Overall, the impact has been
positive and board members are vocal about their pride in the department. However, even though
there are a few success stories of members participating in research, Temple’s IT Advisory
Board has not fully realized the vision of generating and sharing knowledge.
Alabama University. Alabama’s advisory board now most closely resembles the Mentor
archetype. A few members Partner extensively with the program on conferences and training
programs, and some have sustained participation over a long period (10+ yrs.). Board members
are heavily involved in networking events such as lunches and banquets and in formal student
projects. Further, like the University of Georgia
6
, board membership fees partly fund
scholarships. The value propositions are aligned and members and other stakeholders at the
college and university level see direct and visible benefit to students. Overall, the Alabama board
is centered on talent and knowledge dissemination; there is little activity on research.
Arizona State University. The Arizona State advisory board is evolving into the Partner
archetype–a new executive council includes a subset of board members who contribute resources
and collaborate on specific initiatives. The full board includes members who bring value
independent of financial resources, and members from small startups who contribute
entrepreneurship and innovation perspectives. The board has played a major role in shaping the
IS department’s faculty members’ research impact on industry. Arizona State aspires to the
“New American University” model,
7
which means engaging with the community and conducting
research that impacts local problems with global implications. The council’s structure better
aligns departmental research initiatives with the university’s tenets.
Florida State University. Florida State’s advisory board started in 1998 as the Ceremonial
archetype but could not sustain the initial momentum. Interest fell off considerably around 2001
when the dot.com bubble burst. A few members remained, but it became increasingly difficult to
get them engaged because they had been recruited by a chair who was no longer there. In 2009,
the MIS department was restructured into the Management department and the board became
dormant. Florida State demonstrates the challenge of sustaining boards that focus on only one or
two value propositions–in this case the need for talent during the dot.com boom and the personal
relationships of the chair. When the original value propositions are no longer relevant, it is
difficult to sustain the board, especially with the Ceremonial archetype.
The above summaries show that advisory boards and their archetypes evolve over time. There
are multiple ways in which universities and businesses can cooperate to generate value.
Moreover, the four cases are very different in terms of demographics, type of location (rural vs.
urban), region of the country, board member interests and value propositions. However, the
archetype framework successfully explains the start and evolution of each board. The framework
will thus be useful for other institutions as they set about creating or restructuring advisory
boards. We acknowledge that smaller programs may face challenges of scale and critical mass.
6
Watson, H. J., op. cit., 2012.
7
The New American University design includes for example, measuring success by the success of the people
admitted rather the focusing on percentage of rejections, and pursuing research directly for the public good.
Moreover, the institution assumes responsibility for the well-being of the surrounding communities. For more
information, see: http://newamericanuniversity.asu.edu.

14
Creating Advisory Boards
Defining Board Mission and Objectives
Mission and objective statements are important for setting the direction of an advisory board.
Table 7 lists the mission and objectives statements from each of the four cases. These statements
are general and leave significant room for interpretation. However, they do illustrate the
differing orientations of each board. The Mission and objectives statements provide an important
tool for structuring conversations about value propositions within the department and school,
especially when creating a new board or revitalizing an existing one. Yet, the process of creating
the statements can easily become a distraction when the underlying value propositions have not
yet surfaced. Once the utility of defining the mission and objectives starts to plateau, we
recommend stopping the process and adopting the current version, even if it is imperfect. The
process of (re)defining the mission and objectives can restart after several years when value
propositions are clearer and more in alignment.
Table 7: Board Mission and Objectives Statements
Institution
Mission and Objectives Statement
Temple
University
… will assist the … department and associated Institute for Business and
Information Technology (IBIT) in realizing its vision of becoming a nationally
ranked premier provider of integrative business and technology education and
research.
The
University
of Alabama
To ensure The University of Alabama MIS program continues to prepare and
graduate successful IS solution providers and to assist MIS faculty in the
development of knowledge.
Arizona
State
University
… is comprised of local and national professional business leaders who are
current and potential employers of our students. The main objective of the
Advisory Board is to provide advice on curriculum development along with
general business advice.
Florida
State
University
A way to formalize contacts between the firms and the … Department:
• To provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas and concerns between the
firms and IMS
• To enable IMS to keep its technological infrastructure up-to-date through
regular financial contributions from the member firms
• To establish research contacts in the firms for IMS faculty.
Mission statements can include objectives that encompass educational goals such as
curriculum design, professional development, research goals (e.g., facilitating data collection),
funding (e.g., scholarships) and reputational activities (e.g., bringing in high-profile speakers).
With Partner and Mentor boards, which typically exhibit high levels of engagement, the
mission and vision is reaffirmed through interaction and may not require detailed elaboration.
Conversely, Ceremonial and Forum boards need clear and detailed statements that serve as a
reference point and organizational memory, especially for new or infrequent members.

15
Recruiting and Selecting Board Members
Most academic institutions strive to recruit the highest level industry executives as advisory
board members, whereas firms and prospective members prefer to be associated with the best
academic programs. The following six factors play a major role in achieving the above goals:
1. Local Constraints and History. Existing contacts can both constrain and enhance the
recruitment and selection process. If the department has a positive relationship and history with a
local recruiter, then that recruiter would seem an obvious candidate for board membership. Yet it
may make sense to select a different executive because the local recruiter may not have the
interest or clout to expand the relationship beyond human capital. However, given the value to
the university of a long established recruiting relationship, there is often internal resistance to
appointing someone else to the board.
At Florida State, recruiting relationships were the primary reason for forming the board. After
the dot.com bust it was hard to sustain the board because jobs were scarce, and the relationships
had never evolved beyond interest in human capital. It is therefore important to carefully review
the long-term pros and cons of selecting individuals with whom the university or department has
existing relationships. Consider whether short-term expediency justifies having the “wrong”
person on the board. Moreover, it is harder to evolve a board from one archetype to another if the
members are focused on one single issue.
2. The Challenge of Status. Boards are status symbols for the members and the academic
institution. Executives often list board membership on resumes and value their board network,
while academic institutions proudly proclaim the achievements, seniority and names of board
members and their firms. Status is an important tool when recruiting board members but it can
also lead to problems:
• Executives value board membership and will go to considerable lengths to prevent “removal”
from the board. But as boards evolve from one archetype to another, some members will no
longer fit the new direction.
• Executives will calibrate seniority of other members and will opt out or avoid joining if they
are not at a similar level.
• As the board becomes known, prospective members will directly contact the chair about
membership. These contacts include individuals interested in a new position or making a sale
to another member. Furthermore, members will enthusiastically recommend others–often as a
courtesy rather than a systematically evaluating their fit. Evaluating fit is as difficult as it is to
say no to members who recommend others or to reject influential individuals.
Because of the above problems, it is crucial that the first few board members reflect the
institution’s aspirations. We also recommend taking the long view on board member fit over
short-term expediency.
3. Board Member Diversity. IS programs naturally align with corporate CIOs, yet diversity
among advisory board members is highly desirable. First, the importance of CIOs is questionable
in firms where significant IT decisions are made by functional managers. Second, the IT

16
ecosystem is diverse and includes CIOs, CTOs, chief innovation or data officers, as well as IT
vendors, infrastructure providers, small entrepreneurial digital businesses, consultants,
outsourcers, and large firms where IT is critical. Third, diverse membership is a tool for
recruiting and retaining members, as stated by one board member: “Another positive is that many
different aspects of business and industry are represented, which brings a welcome diversity of
thought and experience.”
The advisory boards at Temple, Arizona State, and Alabama include CIOs, consultants, vendors,
recruiters, and technology entrepreneurs, as well as managers from key tech-centric industries
(e.g., media). At Florida State, board members were mostly recruiters or consulting firm
Partners.
Including vendors, consultants, large corporations and other types of individuals in an
advisory board raises significant management challenges:
Vendors bring resources (e.g., sponsorships, in-kind technology donation), industry pulse and
name recognition. Including household brands such as Microsoft, Apple and Amazon will meet
stakeholder (e.g., alumni, parents, deans) expectations for association with the technology
industry. Local vendors are also important as they can sponsor regional conferences, hire
students, and provide at-cost (or no-cost) consulting services (e.g., to set up a complex software
package). But vendors create challenges if they try to use the advisory board to market or
evangelize their products. Any hard selling will turn off corporate members, especially those that
have strict vendor interaction policies. On balance, vendors add value to an advisory board, and
setting ground rules for interaction among members will lessen the downsides.
Consultants bring industry best practices relevant for curriculum design and research.
Consulting firms, especially “The Big Four” follow a rigid recruiting cycle that is aggressive and
different from many corporate HR practices. If not managed, this can result in an imbalance
where corporate board members do not get access to the best students.
Corporate members are more interested than other types of board members in student
development and faculty knowledge exchange. They often serve longer than vendors or
consultants, and they are better at meeting their commitments (e.g., attending meetings).
Therefore, long term relationships are possible with both the executive and the sponsoring firm.
The dual relationship provides continuity when executives change roles.
Retired executives bring experience and personal networks and have time for board activities.
Networks, however, do atrophy and retirees typically cannot commit corporate resources.
Committed retirees add significant value whey they apply their experience to develop and sustain
the board. For example, at Arizona State, retirees maintain close ties with prior employers and
are instrumental in recruiting new high level board members.
Overall, vendors think in terms of solutions and “the next best thing.” Their timeline is
usually short. This perspective has value but is different from academics–who have a more long-
term and abstract focus. Corporate members and retired executives are more problem- and
process-focused, and consultants are more focused on planning. These differences in mindset
requires active management. Managed well, the diversity of board membership generates
leading-edge conversations and initiatives. If the diversity is poorly managed, board meetings

17
will likely degenerate to superficial pleasantries if the members perceive a large gap in interests
and motivations.
Given the above discussion, we recommend a three-stage strategy for board membership:
1. Start with a core of corporate members from a few well-known firms.
2. Add influential recently retired executives.
3. Add vendors and consultants to balance the portfolio.
All things being equal, the seniority of an executive recruited as a board member will play an
important role in generating long-term value. Titles are one indicator of seniority, but they vary
significantly among industries. Financial services industry titles are incompatible with other
service industries, while consulting firms follow a completely different model. Decision
authority is a much more important indicator of influence as measured by dollar signing
authority or number of direct reports.
Finally, the size and type of firms represented on a board is an important factor. The needs
and orientation of large and small firms are different. It may seem advantageous to recruit board
members from large firms because they have more resources and a greater need for human
capital. However, small firms can bring dynamism and a readiness for experimentation that is
often missing in large firms. Therefore, it can be valuable to include visionary leaders from small
firms such as startups. Board members will value the opportunity to network with individuals
from a diverse set of firms. (Note that it is possible to include competing firms by positioning the
board as a neutral venue.)
4. Role of the dean and university administrators. The interests of university
administrators, including the dean and development personnel, will not always match the needs
of the department. For example, the dean’s office may advocate having board members who
support the overall college. Such dual, complementary, or even cross purpose goals represent the
normal give and take, and are only a problem if a large percentage of the board is not appointed
by the sponsoring department. In this situation, value proposition mismatches will become
significant, resulting in lack of cohesion and loss of interest. We recommend that the dean’s
office and university administrators play a consultative role and leave member selection and day-
to-day management of the board to the sponsoring department.
5. The importance of alumni. Advisory boards tend to include alumni. At Temple and
Alabama, the most committed members include both alumni and non-alumni. This is also the
case at Arizona State, but there is increasing interest in board membership from master’s
program graduates who have advanced in their careers. At Florida State, alumni comprised
about half the founding members even though there was no formal alumni requirement. Overall,
alumni members are important because they have an intrinsic interest in the institution and are
more likely to join. However, we see little correlation between contribution and whether a board
member is an alumni. What matters are the value propositions: when they align, the relationship
is successful, regardless of whether the member is an alumni. We therefore recommend
recruiting board members on the basis of their accomplishments, stature and interest regardless
of whether they are alumni of the university.

18
6. Board size. If a board is small, it lacks critical mass and is vulnerable to the departure of
even one member. But if it is too large, it is difficult to hear everyone when dealing with
complex issues such as curriculum. Smaller boards are more efficient in decision making and
achieving consensus, while larger boards can bring more resources. At Alabama, the board is
large and diverse enough to ensure participation and support, yet small enough so that each
member can track contributions. Maintaining board cohesion is important as noted by one
member: “I would also just offer as a caution that it is probably wise not to add too many
members all at once. One of the reasons the group works well is the comradery and working
relationships that develop over time, and too many too soon may compromise that outcome.”
Board size depends on the desired archetype. Ceremonial, Forum, and Mentor boards can
accommodate large sizes (20+), while it is difficult to manage a Partner board with more than 20
individuals. The Ceremonial and Forum archetypes require less coordination so they are better
suited for larger boards than the Mentor or Partner approach. In sum, large boards bring
resources, have greater reach and provide more members to support activities such as student
Mentoring, while smaller boards are effective in collaborative and intense activities such as
curriculum revision.
Managing Advisory Boards
Governance
At Arizona State and Florida State, the department chair is the chair of the advisory board and
is responsible for its operation. At Temple, the board chair is an external appointee, while at
Alabama, the chair is an externally facing center director. All these arrangements can lead to
success. Having the departmental chair as the board chair is efficient because it provides ready
access to resources (e.g., department’s administrative coordinator) and alignment with academic
goals. In contrast, external chairs with significant industry experience will likely gain greater and
quicker rapport with likeminded executives, activate personal networks and deploy corporate
resources. External chairs are also less likely to succumb to internal academic pressures. A
significant downside is the need to continually coordinate value propositions between the
external chair and the university. Additionally, some advisory boards have academic and
industry co-chairs.
The board chair normally manages the board’s operations, including:
• Selecting and renewing members
• Scheduling meetings
• Setting the meeting agenda
• Managing scope
• Establishing and managing sub-committees.
Sub-committees are effective in large Forum or Mentor boards but require significant
coordination and leadership to achieve timely success. More generally, Partner and Mentor

19
boards require continuous governance and management, while Ceremonial and Forum boards are
slightly less demanding.
All the board archetypes will take several years before they become fully effective and begin
to produce value. Therefore, regardless of the governance model and archetype, the time and
management skill of the chair is by far the most important critical success factor of any board.
The board chair will need incentives to sustain his or her participation, as well as a structure
and model for evaluating performance.
When the board chair is a faculty member or department head, the university can offer course
releases and stipends that are tied to annual performance evaluations. For external chairs, the
employer will need to approve the time commitment. Increasingly, firms (especially large ones)
require employees to spend a documented percentage of time on community service. At Temple,
the time spent by the external board chair counts as community service. Regardless of whether
the board chair is internal or external, he or she and the department chair should review the
board’s performance annually with the dean.
Meetings: Agendas, Action Items and Participation
Attendance at advisory board meetings demonstrates the commitment of board members.
Meetings, therefore, above and beyond specific agenda items are an important symbolic
showcase of the effectiveness of an advisory board and provide members with an opportunity for
social contact and mutual-affirmation. Meeting frequency and duration range from 2.5 hour
evening sessions three times a year at Temple to bi-annual 1.5 day retreats at Alabama.
Setting board meeting agendas and following-up on the resulting action items is challenging.
For example, some academics will push to discuss a new research initiative, while others will
want to propose a new student Mentoring program. Industry executives, facing short-term hiring
challenges may be pressured by HR to increase their firm’s visibility with students, even though
they may likely be more interested in discussing IT strategies with other board members. And the
development office may want the board to discuss donations for a scholarship fund. These
contrasting and sometimes conflicting interests illustrate the difficulty of optimizing the advisory
board value proposition for all the stakeholders. We recommend clearly establishing the line of
authority for setting agendas. The board chair is the most logical authority. At Alabama,
however, the board itself collaboratively sets meeting agendas.
The following six principles will ensure the success of advisory board meetings:
1. Regular meetings are important for maintaining continuity. Establish firm dates a year in
advance.
2. Create a culture of adhering to the agenda. Members will appreciate the discipline
involved in moving to the next topic even when they are intensely discussing the current
item.
3. Discuss the status of action items from the previous meeting. It is important that
members know that their contributions have been acted on.

20
4. Senior executives are by definition articulate individuals with strong opinions. To retain
their interest, meetings should primarily focus on discussions involving all members and
avoid lengthy structured presentations. This is particularly important for Partner and
Mentor boards, whose members have an intrinsic interest in engagement.
5. Distribute the minutes and action items soon after the meeting to ensure follow-through
and retain mindshare. The board chair should be responsible for the minutes because the
content will likely be too nuanced to delegate minute-taking to an administrative
assistant.
6. Establish policies and strategies on the following common issues:
a. Attendance by conference calls: We recommend physical attendance because the
social and informal aspects are just as important as the formal goals. Allowing one
member to dial-in at the last minute will “open the dam” for others. Ceremonial boards
are most likely to face this challenge.
b. Permissible number of missed meetings: We recommend a “2 out of 3” policy—i.e., a
member can miss one out of three consecutive meetings. Such a policy balances
schedule challenges with the need for continuity. Forum boards, however, can relax
this policy since they tend to have a large number of members.
c. Substitutes: Given the above missed-meeting policy, some board members may “solve
the problem” by sending a substitute. But allowing a substitute can adversely affect
meeting dynamics and lead to others doing the same. We recommend allowing
substitutes only if they are at the same level.
The board member and their employer
The achievements, influence, and stature of individual board members are important criteria
for the long-term success of an advisory board. Moreover, it is normal to expect that a board
member’s firm will be an important contributor and beneficiary (e.g., providing resources,
employing graduates, etc.). Most members expect this duality, as illustrated by this quote: “As a
practitioner, I enjoy providing insight from industry that influences curriculum, research,
programs, and ultimately the capability and marketability of our graduates. My company
benefits from insights I gain from the exposure to new ideas, research, and student projects.”
The size of board members’ firms is another important factor: Larger firms have more
resources, tend to follow through on commitments and may even formally support board
memberships. Smaller firms have fewer resources, often need to respond to last-minute
challenges but make decisions faster, and are more willing to try out new things, including
sharing knowledge and working on research projects. In contrast, the decision-making processes
of larger firms can rival university bureaucracies. It is also harder to scope out and manage
projects with large firms, and personnel changes are frequent.
The HR function in large firms plays a major role in university relationships. HR is usually
the only unit that has a budget for university support. Even senior executives with multi-million
dollar signature authority may need HR’s support to finance or justify their involvement in the

21
advisory board. HR involvement can also provide access to personnel dedicated to servicing
university relationships. However, the relationship with HR may not always be positive. For
example, if the firm already has a relationship with another university, then HR may resist
adding a new institution, regardless of the benefits from the new relationship. Another drawback
is that a HR supported relationship inevitably focuses on tactical recruiting rather than on
strategic issues such as career paths.
The above discussion points to a larger question: Is advisory board membership an individual
or firm-level commitment? Resources are easier to allocate with firm level relationships and such
relationships are more likely to survive personnel turnover. But individual commitment is a pre-
requisite for success because academic-industry relationships are not contractual and require
regular executive championship. Corporate commitment is however, important for sustaining and
enhancing the relationship.
Relationship management of executives and their firms varied across the four case studies:
Temple. The Temple advisory board has a mix of corporate “sponsored” members and
individual appointments. The associated Institute for Business and Information Technology
(IBIT) offers fee-based corporate membership, which includes the opportunity to nominate
members and, other benefits such as event sponsorship, corporate training, student or research
projects, and recruiting assistance. The board chair retains final authority for approving nominees
and selecting members. Individuals are also appointed directly by the chair; such members are
typically selected for a specific valuable attribute (e.g., an IT news editor who brings value
through his broad understanding of the industry).
Alabama. Alabama’s advisory board is directly focused on firms. Membership is offered
exclusively to firms with IS hiring needs matching the program’s focus. An executive from the
firm must commit to the board for at least two years. Current members vet candidates to ensure
there is a common mindset.
Arizona State. The Arizona State board also follows a mixed approach. The associated
Center for Advancing Business through Information Technology (CABIT) offers fee-based
corporate membership which includes sponsored student projects. The center also focuses on
research projects. With the shift to the Partner archetype, individuals can serve on both CABIT
and the advisory board. The leaders of regional information systems professional associations
are also invited to sit on the board. For example, the presidents of the Arizona chapter of the
Society for Information Management (SIM), the Arizona chapter of the Project Management
Association (PMA) and the Arizona Information Systems Audit and Control Association
(ISACA) are members.
Florida State. Membership in the Florida State advisory board was relationship based; each
member already had a connection with the chair. Creating the board creation formalized the
relationships with executives who had been engaged for many years with the department. The
goal was also to eventually involve the firm of each member.

22
The mixed Temple and Arizona models expand the pool of potential board members.
However, significant coordination is needed to align all the value propositions. A full-time
director at Temple manages IBIT membership. A mixed model, however, can dilute the board if
members of different stature are selected, and confuse and even irritate prospective members,
especially ones who are not selected. In contrast, Alabama provides clear policies for selecting
and involving firms and individuals.
Turnover and Renewal of Advisory Board Members
Membership of advisory boards inevitably changes: members move, retire, change career
paths, get too busy or hand-off membership to a colleague. As part of governance, boards should
have policies for managing membership turnover. For example, the chair could be tasked to
evaluate replacements to ensure value proposition alignment.
Board members looking for a new job can present challenges if they try to use board meetings
for self-promotion. It is not in the best interest of the institution to offend a member who has
contributed in the past and may later join a high-profile firm. It is important, therefore, to address
such cases quickly and with sensitivity to the individual and the board culture. One strategy is to
offer a temporary break from attending board meetings and to assign one or two other members
to act as Mentors.
The length of advisory board membership and the renewal process are also a delicate
balancing act. Universities can formally document expectations, size, term, board composition,
the review process, and even create bylaws.
8
Formality, however, may mitigate against
achieving a balance between extenuating circumstances (e.g., retaining a very valuable member)
and realizing that volunteers expect a certain level of flexibility as recognition for their services.
We recommend avoiding over-formalization during the early days of an advisory board, and over
time establishing turnover and renewal practices that are mutually agreed and reinforced through
peer pressure.
Best Practices for Creating and Managing Advisory Boards
Based on the experiences of the four cases described in this article, we provide ten best
practices for creating and managing advisory boards. These best practices are described below
and summarized in Table 8 roughly in the order of creating, managing and generating value.
Table 8: Ten Best Practices
No.
Best Practice
1
Create a simple mission statement and select the most obvious archetype
2
Delegate authority to the chair for selecting board members
3
Tell the story about the board to stakeholders
4
Plan regular meetings with interesting topics
5
Provide opportunities to socialize
6
Act on advice that is sought and given to sustain interest and commitment
7
Manage differences in perspectives between faculty and board members
8
Conroy, P. A., Lefever, M. M. and Withiam, G., op. cit., 1996.

23
8
Make transparent the expectations and use of board-generated resources
9
Address at least one specific value proposition for each member
10
Engage students
1. Create a Simple Mission Statement and Select the Most Obvious Archetype
Keep the mission statement simple to allow the advisory board room to mutually align value
propositions over time. Use the most obvious and comfortable archetype to initially set
membership, size, and board structure. The Ceremonial archetype is a good first choice because
the board can evolve organically; there is little to gain in trying to select the perfect archetype at
the outset. The process of aligning value propositions is itself a critical step in coalescing board
identity.
2. Delegate Authority to the Chair for Selecting Board Members
For prospective members, job titles and their firms’ prestige are important criteria to consider.
In the long run, however, personal relationships are critical for success. The ideal board member
brings both organizational and personal commitment. Without the first, programs are left with
great ideas that are difficult to implement with limited resources. Without the second, programs
suffer from resource-rich boards that have no direction. Committees or others (e.g., the dean’s
office) that are not directly engaged with prospective members will find it difficult to assess
commitment and it is therefore important for chairs to have the final say on member selection.
3. Tell the Story about the Board to Stakeholders
Promote and publicize the work of the board on the department’s website, and in college
publications and other media. This establishes the value of the board and the importance of each
member’s contribution to the sponsoring firm and college. It is also important to tell the story
frequently to affirm agreed-on value propositions.
4. Plan Regular Meetings with Interesting Topics
Regular planned meetings with vibrant discussion topics are important for aligning value
propositions. Facilitate regular attendance and increase pressure on members to attend by setting
dates a year in advance.
5. Provide Opportunities to Socialize
Socialization is important to create goodwill and generate a sense of shared purpose so avoid
the temptation to pack meeting agendas. In addition, plan events such as student-centric
barbecues, or faculty oriented dinners to encourage socialization.
6. Act on Advice That Is Sought and Given to Sustain Interest and Commitment
Departments cannot always implement advisory board recommendations. For example,
members may insist on adding two courses into the curriculum when there is room for only one
because of university, general education, college or departmental constraints. Business
executives will tend to ignore such constraints. Even if it is difficult, the board should be kept
apprised of progress, the detailed constraints and the short-term actions that will partially address

24
the proposed changes. Doing this is important because if board members conclude that their
voices are not being heard, their participation and energy will quickly dissipate.
7. Manage Differences in Perspectives Between Faculty and Board Members
Faculty members should expect differences of opinion, especially when the topic is research.
The value system and traditions of evidence and justification are very different between
academia and industry. At some point in the discussion, it may become obvious that views are
set and will not change; it is the role of the chair to manage such differences. Resolving these
differences requires a multi-year mutual education process; there are no shortcuts.
8. Make Transparent the Expectations and Use of Board-Generated Resources
Resource allocation in a university is challenging given the differing goals of stakeholders
(e.g., undergraduate program chair, PhD advisor, dean’s office, development office). Allocating
board-generated resources transparently with clear expectations about their use will avoid later
conflict. For example, a board-generated scholarship fund is more likely to continue to receive
support if the allocation is transparent and involves input from board members. Transparency
will also insulate the chair from competing internal forces.
9. Address at Least One Specific Value Proposition for Each Member
The long-term success of an advisory board depends on each member having a personal stake
in the board and the associated programs. Addressing value propositions that are of direct
interest to each member is the best way to achieve such a stake. This will take several years, and
interests will change, so it is critical to persist and continue to align value propositions with each
board member. In addition, to sustain commitment, encourage members to identify their own
interests because they can bring exciting new initiatives to the table.
10. Engage Students
Interest in students was a constant in all four of the advisory boards. For practitioners, the
most tangible product of a university is the student; programs and research are important but they
are the “business” aspect of the relationship, and will always take second place to a smart,
personable digital native who represents the future and is perceived to be very different from the
current workforce. Interaction with students (e.g., Mentoring or project review) is therefore an
enduring incentive for active participation in an advisory board. Such interaction, however,
needs careful control to ensure that members are not overwhelmed. For example, at Temple
board members Mentor and evaluate students’ capstone projects, but there is no documented
review or written feedback. The member meets the students to provide instant verbal feedback
and follows-up with a one-line email “sign-off” to the instructor.
Concluding Comments
Industry-academic collaboration is a strategic necessity in today’s fragmented and turbulent
economy. These relationships can address the human capital and knowledge challenges facing IS
practitioners and academics, and both groups can likely do a better job demonstrating value to
their parent institutions by leveraging such relationships. Advisory boards can help achieve the
knowledge-creation, dissemination and human-capital mission of a modern university. Advisory

25
boards, however, are complex entities that require significant management. In this article, based
on the experiences of four different advisory boards, we have defined the departmental board,
outlined value proposition issues, presented four different board archetypes, discussed mission
and objectives, governance, recruitment, selection and the role of board members and employers,
and provided best practices. This article can be used by colleagues in academia and industry to
create and participate in sustained and valuable industry-academic collaborations.
Acknowledgements
We thank our respective board members for their support. Thanks to the editor-in-chief and
reviewers for their excellence guidance. Thanks also to Andrea Anania, Bob Trotter, Brunson
White, Craig Conway, Joe Spagnoletti, Margaret C. Mitchell, Niraj Patel, Ron Griffin, and Scott
P. Yost for their contributions to this paper.

26
Appendix A – List of Board Members
Temple University, Fox School of Business, IT Advisory Board
Andrea Anania, Retired VP & CIO, CIGNA
Atish Banerjea, SVP & CIO, NBCUniversal
Michael Bradshaw, VP & CIO, Lockheed Martin
Jonathan A. Brassington, CEO, LiquidHub, Inc.
Rich Cohen, Managing Director, Deloitte
Craig Conway, CTO, Livingston International
Larry Dignan, Editor-in-Chief, ZDnet & SmartPlanet
Bruce Fadem (Chair), Retired VP & CIO, Wyeth
Jeff Hamilton, SVP Business Technology, Pfizer
Ben-Saba Hasan, Senior VP, IT, Walmart
George Llado, VP - IT, Merck & Co.
Tim O’Rourke, VP & CIO, Temple University
Niraj Patel, Chief Strategy Officer, Elsag North America
Kent Seinfeld, Retired Senior VP & CIO, Commerce Bank
Joseph Spagnoletti, Senior VP & CIO, Campbell Soup Co.
Joe Weiss, Chairman, Electronic Ink
University of Alabama, Culverhouse College of Commerce, MIS Executive Forum
Mike Anderson, IT Executive, GM
Karl Bedwell, VP, Walmart
Zack Bishop, EVP & CIO, Renasant Bank
Linda Bohan, VP, Hewlett Packard
Danny Branch, CIO, Atlanta Falcons
Lance Cook. VP, Lowe’s
Brad Crandall, VP, Service Master
Sydney Crisp, VP, Unum
Cy Fenton, President, Books-a-Million.com
Ron Griffin, EVP and CIO, AutoZone
Ken Grodner, Managing Director, PWC
Monty Hamilton, CEO, Rural Sourcing
Steve Huth, VP, The Home Depot
Denise Jefferies,Sr. VP, Regions Financial Corp.
Pat Kern, Director, Procter and Gamble
Dale Langley, IT Executive, General Motors
Larry Lilley, CEO, CTS Consulting
Andy Lindsey, Partner, Accenture
Lynn Lovelady, VP & CIO, Energen
John McGowan, Vice Provost & CIO, UA
Laura Lee Nunnerley, Partner, Accenture
Carl Owen, EVP and CIO, SterneAgee
Tim Pennekamp, Director, dunnhumbyUSA
Dan Staley, Principal, PWC Advisory
George Tarbox, Managing Director, CGI
Diane Tarvardian, Director, Procter & Gamble
Robert Trotter, Managing Director, EY
Bernie Wedge, Partner, EY
Brunson White, Secretary of IT, State of Alabama
Rob Whitesell, Sr. VP, Bentley Systems
Jeff Wilgus, CEO. Workflow Health
Jim Wood, VP, AT&T
Arizona State University, W. P. Carey School of Business, IS Executive Advisory Board
Marit Ayers, Manager, Intel
Alex Baar, Director, Sogeti USA
Mark Becicka, Assistant VP, State Farm
Cindy Berger, CIO, APS
Thomas Buckingham, VP - IT, USAA
Ken De Blassie, Director, Derive
Aaron Carpenter, VP, Meridian Bank
Jaime Casap, Project Manager, Google
Marc Chesley, CTO, Infusionsoft
Bharat Chitnavis, VP, Business Analytics Partners, LLC
Todd Christy, VP, American Airlines
Steve Chenard, CIO, General Dynamics
George Colliat, Senior VP, Oracle
Aaron Cook, President, ISACA
Deborah DeCorrevont, IT Strategic Planner, SRP
Allan Dunn, Managing Director, MDI Group
Rakesh Duttagupta, Manager, Deloitte
Alex Deshuk, Manager, City of Mesa AZ
Chris Elliott, VP, ProNet Solutions
Jay Ennesser, VP, IBM
Bruce Erickson, VP of IT, TriVita
Chris Filandro, VP & CIO, Meritage Homes
Mark Geninatti, Former CIO (retired), JDA Software Group
Martin Goslar, Principal Investigative Analyst, GainVision
Cindy Grossman, VP, IBM
Rudy Hacker, Manager, Intel
Mary Harris, Manager, Intel
Peter Harries, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Kevin Haskew, CIO, On Semiconductor
Vaughn Hazen, CISO, Freeport-McRoRan
Eben Hewitt, CTO, Choice Hotels International
David Jarvis, VP & CIO, Honeywell
Nathan Johnson, Senior VP & CIO, PortsAmerica
Pete Jorgenson, VP - IS, PetSmart
Joe Killalea, Account Manager, ExxonMobil
Brian Knapp, EVP, MDI IT Workforce Solutions
Rebecca Knight, Project Manager, SkyTouch
Michele Landess, VP, Wells Fargo
Margaret Mitchell, VP, American Express
Paula Mattingly, CIO, Arizona Department of Health Services
David McEldowney, VP & CIO, The Evogi Group
Mark McKeever, COO, MicroAge
Kevin Nielson, CTO, SRP
Michael Nyman, Senior Manager, CliftonLarsonAllen
Chintan Patadia, National Director, Neudesic
Steve Phillips, CIO, Avnet

27
Howard Porche, Jr., Manager, Massively Parallel
Kamlesh Porwal, Director, Hardline Consulting
Mike Ruchensky, CIO, Swift Transportation
Seth Rudin, Director, TekLink Intl, Inc.
Gary Slama, VP, Eldorado Computing
Diane Smigel, President, Palladium IT Advisors
Michael Spandau, CIO, Fender
Michael Suba, Partner, KPMG LLP
Isabelle Theisen, CISO, Western Alliance Bancorp
Ron Thompson, Director, Kantar
Matt Towers, Senior Director, Avanade Inc.
Michael Warden, VP & CIO, Banner Health
Deanna Wise, EVP and CIO, Dignity Health
Chris Welch, Senior IT Manager, General Motors
Adam Wright, Senior Manager, Ernst & Young
Michael Wolf, President, Lobodos Ventures
Scott Yost, Geographic VP, Sogeti USA
Florida State University, Industry Advisory Council Founding Members
Amy Anderson, Keane Inc.
Chuck Davis, Keane Inc.
Glenda Diaz, Price Waterhouse
Greg Foster, The Summit Group
Samuel Gibson, Alltel
Jose Gonzalez, KnowledgeSource
Harold Gubnitzky, Cambridge Technology Partners
Al Horner, Florida Power & Light
Susan Marlow, Andersen Consulting
Richard McKnight, Price Waterhouse
Lowell Powell, Hewitt & Associates
Myron Prevatt, KnowledgeSource
Brian Roulstone, Arthur Andersen
Alyssa Snyder, Information Systems of Florida
Shannon Yost, Arthur Andersen
Note: The board member lists are dated November 2014. For Florida State, company names are
as they were in 1998.

28
About the Authors
Munir Mandviwalla
Munir Mandviwalla (mandviwa@temple.edu) is Associate Professor and founding chair of
the Management Information Systems department, and Executive Director, Institute for Business
and Information Technology, Fox School of Business, Temple University. He founded the Fox
School’s MIS department in 2000 which is consistently ranked in the top 15 by U.S. News and
World Report, and number 1 in the world for research by the Association for Information
Systems (AIS). He led the creation of AIS student chapters and is currently leading a nationwide
study on the IS job market. His research interests include design science, social media and
broadband policy.
Bruce Fadem
Bruce Fadem (fademb@comcast.net) is retired Senior Vice President and Chief Information
Officer, Wyeth. Prior to that, he held senior positions at BankAmerica Corporation and First
Pennsylvania Bank. He received the Society for Information Management (SIM) 1991 Partners
in Leadership Award for the implementation of the first microcomputer branch automation
system; Temple University Fox 2002 IT Leader of the Year; Project Management Institute 2004
Earl E. Feight Award; and selected as a ComputerWorld 2003 Premier 100 IT Leader. Under his
leadership, Wyeth was recognized by InformationWeek as a Top 100 IT Innovator and ranked
number one in the biotechnology and pharmaceuticals sector.
Michael Goul
Michael Goul (Michael.Goul@asu.edu) is Chair and Professor of Information Systems, W.P.
Carey School of Business, Arizona State University. U.S. News & World Report consistently
ranks the School’s IS programs in the nation’s top 20. Goul spearheaded a new interdisciplinary
MS in Business Analytics program, a BS in Business Data Analytics program, and he launched
the online version of the MS in Information Management program. His research interests
include predictive analytics and services computing. Goul authored cases and conducted
research at companies including American Express, eBay, Teradata and Intel. Michael recently
served as Vice President of Programs for SIM’s Arizona Chapter.
Joey F. George
Joey F. George (jfgeorge@iastate.edu) is Professor of Information Systems and the DeVries
Endowed Chair in Business in the College of Business at Iowa State University. He studies
deceptive computer-mediated communication. He was the Editor-in-Chief of Communications
of the Association for Information Systems and Senior Editor for MIS Quarterly and Information
Systems Research. He was Conference Co-Chair for the 2001 International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS) in New Orleans, LA, and Conference Chair for the 2012 ICIS in
Orlando, FL. He is a past President of the Association for Information Systems, an AIS Fellow,
and recipient of the AIS LEO award.
David P. Hale

29
David Hale (dhale@ua.edu) is Professor of Information Systems at the Culverhouse College
of Commerce, The University of Alabama. He co-developed and heads one of the top 10 MIS
programs, as ranked by Bloomberg-Businessweek. The program’s hallmark is experiential
learning that results in graduates ready-to-deliver value on day-one and a near 100% placement
rate since 1998. UA has honored him with its Outstanding Professor of the Year award and
Outstanding Commitment to Teaching award. Recently, he chaired the State of Alabama’s
Streamlining IT initiative. His research in IT modernization has been funded by NSF, DoD,
DoL, DoC, DoT, P&G, TI, GM and PWC, among others.