Engineering Management Curriculum: New Linkage With Industry At BGSU

1. Engineering Management Curriculum: New Linkage With Industry At BGSU NAIT Conference, Louisville KY, Fall, 2004 • Topics: • Some background • Focus on work at CMSU • General program assessment model • Course curricular assessment system • Course loads frequency analysis • What does the future hold? • Dr. Ron Woolsey, Central Missouri State University • Dr. John W. Sinn, Bowling Green State University

2. Some Background…… • Initial assessment systems developed at CMSU • Based on work with advisory committee, 2000 • Basis for design, validation of masters curriculum • CMSU faculty did in-depth assessment process • Nationwide study benchmarked similar programs • Preliminary study identified program goals • Delphi, ranking system by advisory committee • Ranked goals provided further analysis, outcomes • Advisory committee input integrated into courses

3. Basis for design, validation of masters curriculum • Graduate program review survey • Identified the primary courses and topics most used by current graduates in industry • Advisory board developed program goals, outcomes, competency matrix for alignment with course objectives, descriptions, and topic outlines. • Assessment and course activities aligned with program outcomes and course objectives in student program of study exit portfolio.

4. Benchmark Institutions

5. Nationwide Benchmarking Study – Philosophical Pillars • College, School, Division, Department with Similar Mission Statements • Enrollment and Graduation Requirements • Program of Study Requirements • Course Titles, Descriptions, and Topics • Textbook and Syllabus

6. Program Goals • To provide students with professional and technical knowledge and skills necessary for entering and continuing in Industrial Management careers. • To continue the effort to improve the quality of the management science and related activities. • To improve public awareness of the career “Industrial Organization Manager - 189.117-022”, as defined by the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. • To enhance faculty professional and technical development in the field of industrial management. • To encourage faculty research and creative endeavors, grant writing and consulting for the management sciences.

7. Occupational Title –operational definition of Industrial Manager MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION - 189.117-022, alternate titles: general manager, industrial organization; manager, general; plant superintendent, industrial organization Directs and coordinates activities of industrial organization to obtain optimum efficiency and economy of operations and maximize profits: Plans and develops organization policies and goals, and implements goals through subordinate administrative personnel. Coordinates activities of divisions or departments, such as operating, manufacturing, engineering, planning, sales, maintenance, or research and development, to effect operational efficiency and economy.

8. Program Outcomes • Management Skills Outcome - Apply management skills and concepts to specific situations. • Project Management Outcome - Plan and implement a project. • Human Resources Outcome - Analyze and develop a human relations strategy. • Communications Skills Outcome - Demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively. • Industrial Economy Outcome - Explain and apply the basic concepts of an Industrial Economy. • Technical Skills Outcome - Introduce and adapted technical expertise to a given process or product. • Research Skills Outcome - Perform, interpret, and explain research.

9. Management Skills Industry Struc.& Strategies 45 Leadership 51 Managing a Team 47 Manager Etiquette 46 History of Industry 25 Project Management Production and Operations 53 Supervising People 45 Team Building 47 Transportations & Logistics 27 Human Resources Labor Relations 46 Legal Issues 51 Ethical issues 46 Sexual harassment 35 Motivation 47 Careers 18 Communications Group Dynamics 49 Presentations 51 Ideation & Creativity 45 Information Systems 49 Entrepreneurship 29 Industrial Economy Managing Internationally 46 Facility Mgt 46 Environmental & Waste Mgt 46 Energy and Power Mgt 27 City Planning 24 ISO 9000 & QS 9000 Audits 47 Technical Design Mechanical Systems 27 Drafting, CAD/CAM 25 Constructions Materials 19 Structural Elements 23 Design Failures 25 Geo-technical Survey 19 QC & Process Control 47 Research & Development Measurement & Statistics 39 Experimental Design 29 Delphi Priority Rating System of refined outcomes, core competencies, and key skills

10. Sample Cross-Referenced Ratingof single course for program linkage Benchmark Outcomes Exit Score Delphi Rating Management Skills 113 45 Project Management 115 80 Human Resources 57 0 Communications 46 100 Industrial Economy 68 120 Technical 91 72 Research 28 68 Note: Three outcome areas need assignment revisions for this course. The sample is taken from a student program of study exit portfolio cross-referencing each course. Benchmark Outcomes Exit Score Delphi Rating Management Skills 113 45 Project Management 115 80 Human Resources 57 0 Communications 46 100 Industrial Economy 68 120 Technical 91 72 Research 28 68 Note: Three outcome areas need assignment revisions for this course. The sample is taken from a student program of study exit portfolio cross-referencing each course.

11. Summary of design and validation process of masters curriculum • Nationwide benchmarking review of graduate programs revealed 116 similar programs in 4 major areas, with 12 being Industrial Management. • Revised program goals, outcomes and identified occupational title and definition. • Developed Industrial Management core competency and key skills priority matrix. • Outcome linkage of course activities and advisory board priority rating to trigger revision cycle needs.

12. Some Background, Context • Initial assessment systems developed at CMSU • Based on work with advisory committee, 2000 • Basis for design, validation of masters curriculum • CMSU work provided base for BGSU work • Ongoing, long term assessment by GPAM • Faculty driven, in-depth assessment process • First identified, updated outcomes • Second, reviewed all courses against new outcomes • Further developed via Engineering Management

13. Some Background, Context • Based on multi-year assessment……… • Systems to work with advisory committee resulted • General program assessment model developed • General Program Assessment Model (GPAM) • Various forms, matrices to assist in GPAM • POTC, CCAS, OCLM, CLFA • Designed to “flush out” current status, plan • GPAM is all about customer satisfaction • GPAM helps suppliers meet customer demands • Systematic way to objectively do assessment

14. General Program Assessment Model Advisory Committee, Strategic Planning Various Inputs, Internal And External Administrative, University Initiatives Program Outcomes, Continuous Improve-ment Course Assessment, Are Outcomes Being Met? Assess Program, Curriculum, Holistically Faculty Expertise, Professional Bodies Professional Bodies, Accreditation Faculty, Student, Alumni Success General Program Assessment Model (GPAM)

15. General Program Assessment Model Multiple Forms, Matrices Do GPAM, Mechanics POTC Done In Various Ways CCAS, Faculty Assess Courses OCLM, What Courses Do Outcomes? CLFA, Planning Tool POTC CCAS OCLM CLFA Course Curricular Assessment System Program Outcomes Technical Objectives Objectives, Course Listing Matrix Course Loads Frequency Analysis GPAM generally moves from left to right, but may vary

16. General Program Assessment Model General Program Assessment Model……… • GPAM infrastructure assumes……. • Advisory committee in place, functioning • Advisory committee well selected, governed • Matured, alumni, friends of program • Must move from political to objective • Administration, advisory committee, faculty…… • Dialogue, communicate, same agenda • Built a respectful working relationship, in place • Disciplined systems in place, robust approach

17. General Program Assessment Model • GPAM derives learning outcomes, examples…. • Advanced design • Engineering economy • Quality systems • Culture, service • Technical communication • Applied research • Technical projects • Materials, processes • Outcomes have 3-5 technical characteristics • GPAM sets stage, provides infrastructure • Assess, rethink outcomes, dialogue for future • Advisory committee is key, iterative process

18. Program Outcomes Technical Characteristics • EM learning outcomes use a POTC format of “technical characteristics” to further define.

19. Program Outcomes Technical Characteristics POTC identifies specific outcomes, characteristics • POTC relates, connects many program issues • Alumnus may be important feedback • Review of literature • Various university, educational initiatives • Accreditation issues, opportunities, challenges • POTC may be an annual, ongoing process • Timing, logistics may be critical • Advisory committee is pivotal…….

20. Course, Curricular Assessment System • CCAS, course analysis, faculty self assessment • CCAS provides supplier information in GPAM

21. Course, Curricular Assessment System • CCAS is faculty driven, supplier information • CCAS does critical function in GPAM • Cannot proceed if faculty resist, do not cooperate • May respond if handled via advisory committee • This part of GPAM holds many opportunities • Communication enhancement for faculty • Set standards for syllabi, format agreements • Flush out actual work in courses • Seeking duplication, areas of outcome deficiency • Baseline to improve, as CCAS comes into being • Reflects change in defining “academic freedom”

22. Outcomes, Course Listing Matrix Outcomes, course listing matrix (OCLM) • Supplied CCAS, POTC customer demands…… • Merged CCAS, POTC provides OCLM results • OCLM is supplier courses addressing outcomes • Key question, do we meet customer demands?

23. Course Loads Frequency Analysis Course loads, frequency analysis (CLFA) • CLFA is derived from overall GPAM work • CLFA, a planning tool, strategic base for future

24. Course Loads Frequency Analysis Course loads, frequency analysis (CLFA) • CLFA helps all plan for future, strategize • Must be able to deliver on customer demands • Do labs match course delivery? • Do we have faculty needed to deliver? • Capacity planning, other key issues……. • Frequency of offerings, by whom • New product development, program launches • Key communication tool with all in GPAM

25. …….Other Comments, Relationships How best to review courses………..program? • Faculty have key responsibility, authority • Must understand customer demands • How to assure objectivity? • Use alumni surveys, survey industry, customers • Listen to current customers, do consulting, projects • Collect data, document for routine analysis • Course drops, grades awarded • Frequency of course changes, updates • Systematically, objectively, who does, how?

26. …….Other Comments, Relationships How best to review courses………..program? • Look at products produced in courses • Ultimate test of course, outcomes in products • Portfolios of projects, student applied research work • Have industrial practitioners review products • Students, faculty publish, present work • Shared at conferences • Published in journals, traditional, creative websites • Certifications via professional groups • Are we maximizing on student organizations? • Reflections of mature, robust programs, systems

27. …….Other Comments, Relationships How best to review courses………..program? • Recruitment data may be useful • Quality of incoming students, numbers turned away • Satisfaction of students recruited, graduating • Understanding where students come from, and not • Faculty reputations, scholarship, funded sources • Students seek out our programs? How are we found? • Are we well published, leaders in our fields? • How are we engaged in professional groups? • What donations are we attracting? How, why? • Who, how tracks, systematically, routinely?