Purpose Librarians in higher education have adopted curriculum mapping in an effort to determine where effective information literacy instruction can help fill gaps in the curriculum and prepare students for both coursework and future research demands. While curriculum mapping has been used widely across academia, few studies have considered business curriculum and the development of information literacy instruction. This paper aims to provide an overview of the current landscape of curriculum mapping across business courses at two institutions and a replicable methodology for other institutions. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the authors will examine two case studies at large research universities that evaluate curriculum mapping against the BRASS Business Research Competencies at the undergraduate and the graduate business levels. Findings This study found that the Business Research Competencies are a valid method to evaluate in both case studies. Curriculum mapping also uncovered various gaps in business education across the curricula at both institutions and led to open discussions with faculty in an effort to improve the success of students both during their degree programs and into their careers. Originality/value This study provides a framework and methodology for evaluating business curriculums against robust standards to improve student success. With examples from undergraduate and graduate programs, the results of this project promise to have long-lasting implications on the development of curriculums across business programs, including the value of librarian support in developing Business Research Competencies.

The documentation provided with an automated system should outline all necessary procedures; answer questions; help with staff training; and provide a comprehensive and detailed view of the purchased system. Good documentation does not offer irrelevant information, nor does it present too much detail when inappropriate, or too little when required. The hazards of inadequate documentation are many—it can be misleading, erroneous, and confusing. Good documentation cannot make up for a poor system; and poor documentation is not likely to result in a good system being rejected by a potential purchaser. However, in addition to training staff and end‐users to effectively use a new system, good documentation can help decision‐makers understand the features, functionality, and advantages of a good system.