January 20, 2006 - NDSU - North Dakota State University · Web viewExplain the principles,...

Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Department

North Dakota State University

Assessment Report

Submitted to:Dr. Robert Harrold

University Assessment Committee

January 2007

Developed by: Kambiz FarahmandProfessor and Chair

Table of Contents

List of Tables.......................................................................................................................3List of Figures......................................................................................................................4Glossary of Terms................................................................................................................5Introduction..........................................................................................................................5

VISION............................................................................................................................6Mission............................................................................................................................6

IME’s Assessment Plan.......................................................................................................8Relationship of the Program Outcomes to Criterion 3 and Program Educational Objectives........................................................................................................................9

Assessment Feedback and Implementation.......................................................................13Assessment Methods.........................................................................................................15

What outcomes we assessed..........................................................................................16Results............................................................................................................................16

Graduating Seniors Exit Interview............................................................................16Fundamental of Engineering Exam (FE)...................................................................26Internship/Co-op Evaluation......................................................................................31Formative Assessment...............................................................................................32Faculty Course Assessment Report (FCAR) and Classroom Outcome Assessment.33Capstone Assessment.................................................................................................33IME Student Ratings of Instruction...........................................................................39

Conclusion and Recommendations....................................................................................39Appendix AA - IME Students Internship/Co-op Survey Results......................................41(Student Survey)................................................................................................................42Appendix BB - IME Employers Internship/Co-op Survey Results...................................61(Employer’s Survey)..........................................................................................................62Appendix CC – Faculty Courses Assessment Report (FCAR).........................................74Appendix DD – IME SRoI Results for Spring 2006.......................................................113

List of Tables

Table 1 - Assessment Calendar for IME Department..........................................................8Table 2 - IE&M Program Objectives, Outcomes, and ABET Criteria..............................10Table 3 - IE&M Program Objectives & Curricular Components......................................11Table 4 - MfgE Program Objectives, Outcomes, and ABET Criteria...............................12Table 5 - MfgE Program Objectives & Curricular Components.......................................13Table 6 - Program Outcomes Assessed Using Various Assessment Tools.......................16Table 7 - October 2005 FE (Industrial Exam) Results for IE&M Students......................27Table 8 - June 2006 FE (Industrial Exam) Results for IE&M Students............................28Table 9 - June 2006 FE (General Exam) Results for IE&M Students...............................29Table 10 - June 2006 (Manufacturing Exam) Results for MfgE Students........................31Table 11 - Summary of Formative Assessment Results....................................................32

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Continuous Improvement Model........................................................................7Figure 2 - Spring 2006 IE&M Exit Interview Results - Section 1....................................18Figure 3 - Spring 2006 IE&M Exit Interview Results - Section 2....................................18Figure 4 - Spring 2006 IE&M Exit Interview Results - Section 3....................................19Figure 5 - Fall 2006 IE&M Exit Interview Results - Section 1.........................................20Figure 6 - Fall 2006 IE&M Exit Interview Results - Section 2.........................................20Figure 7 - Fall 2006 IE&M Exit Interview Results - Section 3.........................................21Figure 8 - Spring 2006 MfgE Exit Interview Results - Section 1.....................................22Figure 9 - Spring 2006 MfgE Exit Interview Results - Section 2.....................................22Figure 10 - Spring 2006 MfgE Exit Interview Results - Section 3...................................23Figure 11 - Fall 2006 MfgE Exit Interview Results - Section 1........................................24Figure 12 - Fall 2006 MfgE Exit Interview Results - Section 2........................................24Figure 13 - Fall 2006 MfgE Exit Interview Results - Section 3........................................25Figure 14 - FE Results vs. National Results for IE&M Students......................................26Figure 15 - FE Results vs. National Results for MfgE Students.......................................30Figure 16 - Formative Assessment Results Shown Against Benchmark..........................33Figure 17 - Spring 2006 Capstone Projects Final Presentation Ratings............................35Figure 18 - Spring 2006 Capstone Client Project Ratings.................................................36Figure 19 - Spring 2006 Capstone Client's Evaluation......................................................38

Glossary of Terms

For the purpose of clarity, the department also met and decided on a hierarchy of Learning Objectives and a consistent set of vocabulary and definitions for the various processes of assessment and evaluation.

Program Objectives: Broadly stated set of capabilities of our graduates 5 years after graduation

Program Outcomes: Knowledge, skills and behavior of our gradates at the time of graduation

Performance Criteria: Measurable attributes that define each of the program outcomes

Student Learning Outcome: Demonstrable knowledge and skills learned by students from the curriculum taught in each class

Achievement: Student’s accomplishments that allow us to measure program objectives

Assessment: Processes that identify, collect, use and prepare data that can be used to evaluate achievement

Evaluation: Process of reviewing the result of data collection and analysis and making a determination of the value of findings and action to be taken

Introduction

The following is the Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering (IME) Department’s assessment reports for the academic year 2006-2007. This report contains the assessment efforts (information and data) for both programs housed at IME department: (1) the assessment report for the BS in Industrial Engineering and Management, and (2) the assessment report for the BS in Manufacturing Engineering. These two reports are combined in this document and summarize the assessment efforts of the department’s faculty as a group. Some of the assessment tools are targeting the evaluation of the department as one entity and are common between the two programs.

Great care was taken to ensure that the IME department’s vision and mission was in line and consistent with the mission of the university and the College of Engineering and Architecture (CEA). The vision and mission statement were presented to our advisory board. The advisory board consisted of alumni, students, and industry leaders from across the country. Feedback was solicited and incorporated into the vision and mission statement of the department after several rounds of discussion and deliberation. These statements are also published on our website for review of our constituents at http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/ime/htmls/Vision.htm.

The vision and mission statement of the Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering department is as follows:

VISION IME department will be a dynamic contributor to the local, regional, national, and international community through the development and dissemination of committed and advanced knowledge in the diverse field of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. We will create a nourishing environment that facilitates the growth of individuals through innovative teaching, imaginative research, and scholarship along with hands on applications and industry involvement.

MissionThe Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Department has a three-fold educational mission. The teaching mission is to provide high quality undergraduate and graduate programs in industrial engineering and management, and manufacturing engineering. The research mission is to advance knowledge of manufacturing and industrial engineering, strengthen and support industry, and enhance teaching. The service mission is to participate in faculty governance, in the broader community of the engineering profession and its disciplines, and in the land-grant mission of the university through engagement in state, regional and national affairs.

For the purposes of assessment, the constituents of the IME department include; alumni, alumni employers, graduating and current students, and faculty. Assessment instruments were developed to solicit feedback from each constituent group.

A Continuous Improvement Model as shown in Figure 1, which was adopted in 2005, is utilized in order to assist the department in implementing a formal assessment and evaluation process. The model outlines the process of assessment and evaluation and how feedback from the various constituents is incorporated into the educational process and curriculum. We now know that the model will insure a self correcting mechanism for improvement allowing for development of a time-frame for assessment and review of data and feedback into the overall process for the purpose of continuous improvement.

Figure 1 - Continuous Improvement Model

NDSU Mission

CEA Mission

IME Mission

Program Objectives

Program Outcomes

Educational Strategies Technique

Measurable Performances Criteria

Evaluation of Evidence/ Analysis of

Assessment data

Assessment: Collection of Evidence

Feedback from our Constituents

EducationalObjectives

Assess &Evaluate

Feedback forContinuous

Improvement

Department and College

Curriculum Committee

Relationship between PO & SLO

Relationship between P Objectives & Outcomes

IME’s Assessment PlanIME’s assessment plan or schedule is summarized in Table 1. During summer 2006, there were not any graduates from the department and therefore there were not any Exit Interviews to report. The Coop surveys were conducted for both students doing internships and coop and their employers. The results from summer 2006 are included in this report.

Table 1 - Assessment Calendar for IME DepartmentIE&M SPRING 2006-2012 SUMMER 2006-2012 Fall 2006-2012

IE&M Alumni Survey IE&M Alumni Employer Survey IE&M Exit Interview Internship/Coop Evaluation IE&M Student Evaluation IE&M Employer Evaluation Capstone Project Evaluation Company's Eval. of Project Presentation/Report Eval. FE Exam Results Industrial/General FCAR (Faculty Course Assessment Report) Formative Assessment IME 461/472/431 IME 430/480

Advisory Board Review Department Review of Findings

Formative Assessment is performed for IME 461, 472, and 431 during spring semesters and for IME 430 and 480 during fall semesters. These courses were selected since they will encompass most if not all of our junior and seniors in both programs. Formative assessment results from spring 2006 are included in this report. IME Capstone course is taught only one semester. The assessment results from the spring 2006 capstone are also provided and analyzed in this report. The latest FE results from June 2006 are presented and problem areas identified.

IME Program Outcomes which are common in both Industrial Engineering and Management and Manufacturing Engineering program are:

a. Applications of mathematics, science, and engineering b. Design, experimentation, analysis, and interpretation of data c. Design of system, component, and process d. Teamwork e. Engineering Problem Solving f. Professional and Ethical Responsibility g. Communications.h. Broad Education i. Life Long Learning j. Contemporary Issues k. Techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools

Relationship of the Program Outcomes to Criterion 3 and Program Educational Objectives

Table 2 summarizes the relationship between the IE&M Program Objectives, IE&M Program Outcomes, ABET Criterion 3, ABET program-specific requirements, and recommendations from the IME Advisory Board. Table 3 summarizes the IE&M Program Objectives & Curricular Components Supporting Program Criteria. Similar information is presented in Tables 4 and 5 for the MfgE program.

Table 2 - IE&M Program Objectives, Outcomes, and ABET Criteria

Program Objective Aspect

Program Outcome ABETCriterion 3

ABET Program

Criteria for IE Programs

Recommendations from Advisory

1. Apply statistical, operations research and simulation tools to solve problems relevant to modern production, commercial, social and/or governmental organizations, with principal emphasis on quality, productivity, continuous improvement and enterprise integration.

a. Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

Outcome a Develop systems using analytical & computational practice

e. Ability to identify, formulate, and solve industrial engineering problems

Outcome e Solve integrated problems

Analytical Skills

k. Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for industrial engineering practice

Outcome k Design, develop, and implement systems using analytical & computational practice

2. Design processes and systems to effectively and economically employ and integrate technology and people in organizational environments in industrial, healthcare, logistics, service and/or governmental settings, with appropriate consideration for environmental factors, health and safety, manufacturability and ethical, economic, social and political issues.

b. Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

Outcome b Design and develop integrated systems using experimental practice

Technical Skills

c. Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs

Outcome c Design integrated systems

Technical Skills

f. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

Outcome f Analytical Skills

j. Knowledge of contemporary issues

Outcome j Design, develop, and implement people and information systems

Technical Skills

3. Engage in effective life long learning in topics and areas relevant to professional advancement and to enhancing the quality of personal life in today’s global and social context.

h. Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in social and global context

Outcome h

i. Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning

Outcome i

4. Participate effectively in multi-disciplinary teams in both leadership and followership roles.

d. Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

Outcome d Implement integrated people systems

Team Building, Leadership and

Interpersonal Skills

5. Effectively communicate complex technological concepts, issues and professional details to a variety of audiences.

g. Ability to communicate effectively

Outcome g Implement integrated systems

Communication Skills

Table 3 - IE&M Program Objectives & Curricular ComponentsProgram Objective Relevant Required Curricular Components

1. Apply statistical, operations research and simulation tools to solve problems relevant to modern production, commercial, social and/or governmental organizations, with principal emphasis on quality, productivity, continuous improvement and enterprise integration.

Courses in which students apply analytical and computational skills to formulate and develop hypothesis, construct plan to investigate, and compare alternative design, and identify optimum solution: IME 111, 311, 330, 380, 440, 450, 456, 460, 461, 462, 470, 472, 480, 482, 485.

Supporting Coursework: Math 129, 165, 166, 259, 266, CHEM 121, 122, ME 221, 222, PHYS 252, Science and Engineering Electives.

Courses in which the students apply various productivity tools, techniques, and philosophies to investigate, design, and improve business/production systems, components, and processes that meet desired needs: IME 111, 112, 311, 330, 380, 450, 456, 460, 461, 462, 470, 472, 480, 482, 485.

2. Design processes and systems to effectively and economically employ and integrate technology and people in organizational environments in industrial, healthcare, logistics, service and/or governmental settings, with appropriate consideration for environmental factors, health and safety, manufacturability and ethical, economic, social and political issues.

Courses in which students use techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools design, develop, and improve enterprises using a system approach that includes people, materials, equipment, facilities, energy and information: IME 111, 112 311, 330, 380, 440, 450, 456, 460, 461, 462, 470, 472, 480, 482, 485.

Courses in which the students gain and apply the knowledge of contemporary issues including world events, emerging technologies, productivity tools and techniques, human and environmental safety and welfare, ethical responsibilities, and identify societal impact of engineering solutions: IME 111, 311, 330, 380, 440, 450, 456, 460, 461, 462, 470, 480, 482, 485,

Supporting Coursework: ENGR 402, Humanities and Social Sciences Electives.

3. Engage in effective life-long learning in topics and areas relevant to professional advancement and to enhancing the quality of personal life in today’s global and social context.

Courses in which the students (1) gain the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions on societies, including environmental, economical, humanitarian, and legal implications, (2) further recognize the need for, and an ability to engage in continuous professional self-improvement and lifelong learning: IME 111, 112, 311, 330, 440, 450, 456, 460, 461, 462, 470, 480, 482, and 485.

Supporting Coursework: ENGR 402, Humanities and Social Sciences Electives.

4. Participate effectively in multi-disciplinary teams in both leadership and followership roles.

Courses in which the students function on multi-disciplinary teams, manage projects, share responsibilities and duties, and accomplish major portions of the learning objectives in teams: IME 111, 112, 311, 330, 450, 456, 460, 461, 462, 470, 472, 480, 482, 485.

5. Effectively communicate complex technological concepts, issues and professional details to a variety of audiences.

Courses in which the students learn to communicate more effectively in oral and written forms: and IME 111, 112, 311, 330, 440, 450, 456*, 460, 461*, 462, 470 and 480*, 485*.* Indicates courses in which students write substantive engineering reports and deliver significant presentations.

Supporting Coursework: ENGL 100, 120, COMM 110.

Table 4 - MfgE Program Objectives, Outcomes, and ABET Criteria

Program Objective Aspect

Program Outcome ABETCriterion 3

ABET Program Criteria for MfgE

Programs

Recommendations from Advisory

1. solve problems relevant to modern manufacturing industries, with principal emphasis on process engineering and production engineering, as well as selected aspects of process science and the manufacturing enterprise.

a. Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

Outcome a Use statistical & calculus based methods

e. Ability to identify, formulate, and solve industrial engineering problems

Outcome e Measure mfg processes and influence process & assembly

Analytical Skills

k. Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for industrial engineering practice

Outcome k Understand analysis & synthesis & control operations; Use simulation & info. Tech.

2. design competitive manufacturing processes and production systems, integrating machinery, technology, people and money, with appropriate consideration for environmental factors, health and safety, sustainability and ethical, economic, social and political issues.

b. Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

Outcome b Understand operations of material; Design product & equipment; Measure process

Technical Skills

c. Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs

Outcome c Proficiency in material & mfg processes

Technical Skills

f. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

Outcome f Analytical Skills

j. Knowledge of contemporary issues

Outcome j Technical Skills

3. engage in effective life long learning in topics and areas relevant to professional advancement and to enhancing the quality of personal life in today’s global and social context.

h. Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in social and global context

Outcome h Manufacturing competitiveness

i. Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning

Outcome i

4. participate effectively in multi-disciplinary teams in both leadership and followership roles.

d. Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

Outcome d Team Building, Leadership and

Interpersonal Skills

5. effectively communicate complex technological concepts, issues and professional details to a variety of audiences.

g. Ability to communicate effectively

Outcome g Communication Skills

Table 5 - MfgE Program Objectives & Curricular Components

Assessment Feedback and ImplementationAs part of the feedback review process, the IME faculty reviewed the feedback from our constituents during the department fall retreat. For the purposes of assessment, the constituents of the IME department include; alumni, alumni employers, graduating and current students, Advisor Board members and faculty. The following are the recommendations that emerged from the meeting which are to be implemented during this academic year.

1. Include Vision, Mission, Objective, and Outcomes for each program as part of the syllabus, an assignment or in-class discussion.

This is an attempt to communicate these statements with our students. These statements are also published on our website for review at

http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/ime/htmls/Vision.htm. There were no recommended changes from our constituents to the Vision and Mission statement of the department. However, by communicating these statements to our students, they will have a better understanding of what it is the department is trying to accomplish and what are the educational goals and objectives of the department. They will also realize what outcomes are expected and what they should strive for. Students will also be more informed when completing surveys related to Program Objectives and Program Outcomes.

2. Even though our students take a formal class in Engineering Ethics (ENGR 402 – Engineering Ethics & Social Responsibility), we as a department need to include discussions about ethics in all classes.

Giving assignments to students about engineering Code of Ethics or providing www links to various professional engineering sites and code of ethics will be a good way to start discussions. Include ethics related topics and examples related to ethical dilemmas faced by today’s engineers during senior year would also be an excellent way of preparing students for the workforce.

3. The global perspective and Broad Education required as part of outcome (h) is already implemented and discussed frequently in various classes.

Topics related to understanding impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and social context must be identified to students as such. Therefore identify these topics in the course syllabus or before any discussions in class so students can relate these topics towards advancing Program Objectives and Outcomes.

4. Encourage students to take the Industrial or Manufacturing FE exam (Not the General Exam) and continue toward receiving their professional engineering license.

Students should meet with their advisor or department chair when considering the FE exam. Faculty should encourage the students to take the FE exam; however, they must also inform students as which test will be more useful and how to go about preparing for successful completion of the FE exam.

5. Allocate space in syllabus for contemporary issues and identify the topic as such when presented to the students.

Topics related to contemporary issues must be identified to students as such. Therefore identify these topics in the course syllabus or before any discussions in class so students can relate these topics towards advancing Program Objectives and Outcomes. Include links to CNN (science & Tech), Wall Street Journal, etc. in the course syllabus.

6. Include incentives such as T-shirts and Caps for surveys going out to our alumni and their employers during spring survey.

This is an attempt to improve the response rate of the Alumni Surveys and Alumni Employer Surveys. According to department assessment schedule, these surveys are conducted during the spring semester.

7. Advisory board council to meet during fall semester and the subcommittees meet during spring semester. Advisory board review takes place during the fall meeting only.

This will allow our advisory board subcommittees to utilize the spring meeting time to accomplish some of the tasks before them. The subcommittees will then report their accomplishments and progress back to the entire advisor board during the fall meeting.

Assessment MethodsIME faculty members understand that assessment is a critical element in the continuous improvement process of the department. The assessment methods used to assess program learning outcome vary somewhat from one outcome to another; however, a common set of methods were used in many cases. The methods include:

Senior Exit Survey/Interview and Surveys Alumni & Alumni Employer Surveys Formative Assessment of Students Faculty Course Assessment Reports FE Exam Results SRoI Results Student’s Portfolios Internship/Coop Evaluation surveys Capstone Project Evaluation Surveys Advisory Board Reviews

Program Outcomes a b c d e f g h i j kAssessment Tools Alumni Survey X X X X X X X X X X XAlumni Employer Survey X X X X X X X X X X XExit Interview X X X X X X X X X X XFormative Assessment X X X X X X X X X X XInternship/Coop Evaluation Student's Perf. Eval X X X X X X X X X X X Employer Evaluation X X X X X X X X X X XCapstone Project Evaluation

Company's Eval. of Project X X X X X X X X X X X Presentation/Report Eval. X X XFE Exam Results X X X X X XFCAR (Faculty Course Assessment Report) X X X X X X X X X X X

What outcomes we assessed

Table 6 shows the various assessment tools used to assess the eleven Program Outcomes. These outcomes are inline with the ABET outcomes and are marked from a-k.

Table 6 - Program Outcomes Assessed Using Various Assessment Tools

All eleven outcomes are assessed along with additional criteria which are important to gauge either as part of formative assessment or the program outcome assessment using Exit Interview tool.

ResultsEach set of data is examined for accuracy and verified for consistency. The raw data was summarized and combined in cases where two departments overlapped. Only the summary data or plot of the data is presented in this report. The analysis of the data included identifying key elements that show need for improvement or potential areas of opportunity for continuous improvement of the educational process at the department or classroom level.

Graduating Seniors Exit Interview The following Figures (2 -13) show the results of the new exit interview surveys for spring and fall 2006 semesters for each of the IME programs. Section 1 of this survey covers the prospect of jobs and job interviews for our students. Section 2 of the surveys addresses specific program outcomes which includes the qualifications and skills that our students must poses at the time of graduation. Section 3 of this survey addresses the program specific outcome which includes course objectives and specific knowledge in various topics.

On the average students that are looking for jobs are successful and are offered great competitive salaries. This actually is a very strong feedback from the employers as to the caliper of our students and what they are looking for at the time of hiring.

The Program Outcomes are gauged in Figures 3 and 6 (IE&M students) and Figures 9 and 12 (MfgE students). The IE&M student’s lowest rating of 3.4 was for “knowledge of contemporary issues” and “Design, experimentation, analysis, and interpretation of data” and the MfgE student’s lowest rating of 3.0 was for “broad education” and also “knowledge of contemporary issues.”

Figures 4 and 7 gauges the program specific for the Industrial Engineering and Management and figures 10 and 13 gauges the program specific for the Manufacturing Engineering program respectively. The lowest rating of 3.2 was given to “ability to design experiments…” by the IE&M students and the lowest rating of 2.0 was given by manufacturing students to “printed circuit board microelectronics design.” The elements rated low in these surveys will be addressed in the courses impacting these outcomes the most. The changes and improvements made will be tracked in the Faculty Courses Assessment Report (FCAR).

Industrial Engineering Exit Interview - S06

How many Jobinterview s you have

Do you have anyof fer(s)?

If yes, how many? Are you member of anyprofessional societies?

Questions

1 - Yes0 - No

Figure 2 - Spring 2006 IE&M Exit Interview Results - Section 1

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

IE Program Outcome Questions

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Program Specific Questions

Industrial Engineering Exit Interview - F06

How many Jobinterview s you have

Questions

1 - Yes0 - No

Figure 5 - Fall 2006 IE&M Exit Interview Results - Section 1

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

IE Program Outcome Questions

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Manufacturing Engineering Exit Interview - S06

How many Job interview syou have had?

Questions

1 - Yes0 - No

Figure 8 - Spring 2006 MfgE Exit Interview Results - Section 1

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

ME Program Outcome Questions

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Manufacturing Engineering Exit Interview - F06

How many Job interview syou have had?

Questions

1 - Yes0 - No

Figure 11 - Fall 2006 MfgE Exit Interview Results - Section 1

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

ME Program Outcome Questions

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Fundamental of Engineering Exam (FE)

The Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering (IME) department students are not required to take the FE exam; however, some students depending on the future employment goals are inclined to take the FE exam. From these students, some choose the discipline specific test and some the general test. The following is a summary of test results for IME students taking the FE exam. Figure 14 shows the FE results for IE&M students versus the national results. Since 2002, the IE&M students have performed much better then the national average. The IE&M students fell short of the national scores in June 2006.

Industrial FE Results vs. National Results(Industrial Exam)

October2000 (n=5)

April2001 (n=1)

April2002 (n=8)

October2003(n=1)

April2004 (n=6)

April2005 (n=3)

October2005 (n=4)

June2006 (n=3)

Figure 14 - FE Results vs. National Results for IE&M Students

Table 7 shows the actual results from the October 2005 testing cycle. Some of the areas where industrial engineering students scored less than the national average include: Engineering Probability & Statistics, Computers, Ethics & Business Practices, and Electricity & Magnetism.

Table 7 - October 2005 FE (Industrial Exam) Results for IE&M StudentsIndustrial Engineering Supporting Data - Fundamental of Engineering (FE) Exam

FE Industrial ExamOctober

2005 (n=4)

Questions IE/NDSU Nat'lCarnegie

1Carnegie

2Carnegie

3% Examinees Passing 100 70 72 61 55Avg. % Correct AM SUBJECTS Mathematics 19 62 55 55 53 60Engineering Probability & Statistics 8 56 66 68 63 58Chemistry 11 64 54 55 54 55Computers 8 62 66 69 62 65Ethics & Business Practices 8 66 79 82 65 66Engineering Economics 10 72 72 73 64 75Engr Mechanics ( Statics & Dynamics) 13 50 43 44 41 43Strength of Material 8 44 36 37 33 34Material Properties 8 59 44 43 44 45Fluid Mechanics 8 53 41 43 38 32Electricity & Magnetism 11 27 42 42 37 47Thermodynamics 8 53 44 44 48 45PM SUBJECTS Engineering Economics 9 64 59 60 59 51Probability & Statistics 9 61 55 56 59 49Modeling & Computation 7 68 61 62 60 51Industrial Management 6 71 65 65 62 64Manufacturing & Production Systems 8 81 68 69 66 62Facilities & Logistics 7 75 67 68 66 60Human Factors, Productivity, Ergonomics, & Work Study 7 57 51 52 49 45Quality 7 75 67 68 70 60

Table 8 shows the actual results from the June 2006 testing cycle. Some of the areas where industrial engineering students scored less than the national average include: Engineering Probability & Statistics, Chemistry, Computers, Ethics & Business Practices, Engineering Mechanics (Statics & Dynamics), Fluid Mechanics, Electricity & Magnetism, Thermodynamics, and Quality.

Table 9 shows the FE results for IE&M students taking the FE general exam. Our students are advised to take the general exam since traditionally they have been performing poorly in this exam. They are encouraged to take the discipline exam in Industrial Engineering or Manufacturing Engineering.

Table 8 - June 2006 FE (Industrial Exam) Results for IE&M Students

FE Industrial ExamJune 2006

1Carnegie

2Carnegie

Table 9 - June 2006 FE (General Exam) Results for IE&M Students

FE Industrial Exam-GeneralJune 2006

1Carnegie

2Carnegie

3% Examinees Passing 0 18 25 25 15Avg. % Correct AM SUBJECTS Mathematics 19 26 55 61 51 55Engineering Probability & Statistics 8 38 59 66 53 60Chemistry 11 45 50 50 57 47Computers 8 25 56 62 53 58Ethics & Business Practices 8 75 69 76 75 66Engineering Economics 10 90 56 64 72 49Engr Mechanics ( Statics & Dynamics) 13 62 41 52 40 30Strength of Material 8 25 41 48 47 38Material Properties 8 50 36 37 41 28Fluid Mechanics 8 62 38 42 44 34Electricity & Magnetism 11 27 38 37 45 44Thermodynamics 8 25 34 40 41 37PM SUBJECTS Advanced Engineering Mathematics 6 50 75 78 71 72Engineering Probability and Statistics 5 20 39 44 55 35Biology 3 33 31 35 25 36Engineering Economics 6 33 53 61 46 49Application of Engineering Mechanics 7 14 23 26 25 20Engineering of Materials 8 12 32 36 31 32Fluids 9 22 39 43 36 39Electricity and Magnetism 7 14 28 30 39 27Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer 9 33 39 48 39 32

Figure 15 depicts the FE results versus national results for manufacturing students. The data is available only for two students in 2002 and three students in June 2006 that took the exam. Table 10 shows the FE exam results for June 2006 and areas where manufacturing engineering student’s performance was less than that of national average.

Manufacturing FE Results vs. National Results(Manufacturing Exam)

April 2000(n=0)

April 2001(n=0)

April 2002(n=2)

October2003 (n=0)

April 2004(n=0)

April 2005(n=0)

June 2006(n=3)

Figure 15 - FE Results vs. National Results for MfgE Students

Some of the areas where Manufacturing Engineering students scored less than the national average include: Engineering Probability & Statistics, Engineering Mechanics (Statics & Dynamics), Material Properties, and Human Factors, Productivity, Ergonomics, & Work Study.

Table 10 - June 2006 (Manufacturing Exam) Results for MfgE Students

FE Manufacturing ExamJune 2006

1Carnegie

2Carnegie

Internship/Co-op Evaluation

As a result of on going and strong interaction between the IME department and local and regional industries, the internship and coop programs have flourished. Many of our students do short term and long term internship with companies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and other states as far as California. The survey instrument used before 2004 –2005 academic years is the instrument used by the NDSU Career center office. The department developed another instrument to be used starting Fall 2005. Student’s performance with respect to program outcomes and objectives were evaluated. IME student’s response was most positive and the Employer’s evaluation of our students was excellent. Appendix AA shows the summary of the student’s survey results and appendix BB shows the summary of the employer’s survey results.

Formative Assessment

Formative Assessment results for IME 431, 461, and 472 are shown in Table 11. The averages for each outcome is summarized and presented. The areas (outcomes) that were ranked below the benchmark of 3.70 are “Professional & Ethical Responsibility”, “Broad Education”, and “Life Long Learning” in IME 472. Figure 16 shows the program outcomes ranked against the benchmark.

Table 11 - Summary of Formative Assessment Results

Program OutcomesIME 472

IME 431

IME 461

a. Applications of mathematics, science, and engineering 4.15 3.8 4.1b. Design, experimentation, analysis, and interpretation of data 3.76 4.1 3.9c. Design of system, component, and process 3.88 4.0 4.0d. Teamwork 4.14 4.1 4.1e. Engineering Problem Solving 3.83 3.8 3.8f. Professional and Ethical Responsibility 3.35 3.9 3.8g. Communications 3.90 4.0 4.0h. Broad Education 3.68 3.9 3.8i. Life Long Learning 3.57 3.8 3.7j. Contemporary Issues 3.72 3.8 3.8k. Techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools 4.25 4.3 4.2Key:Excellent = 5Good = 4Average = 3Poor = 2No opinion = 1

Benchmark=3.70

Program Outcomes Assessment

IME 472 IME 431 IME 461Courses

a. Applications ofmathematics, science, andengineering b. Design, experimentation,analysis, and interpretation ofdata c. Design of system,component, and process

d. Teamw ork

e. Engineering ProblemSolving

f . Professional and EthicalResponsibility

g. Communications

h. Broad Education

i. Life Long Learning

j. Contemporary Issues

k. Techniques, skills, andmodern engineering tools

Bench Mark

Figure 16 - Formative Assessment Results Shown Against Benchmark

Faculty Course Assessment Report (FCAR) and Classroom Outcome Assessment

The Faculty Courses Assessment Report (FCAR) is used to provide faculty a mechanism for keeping track of classroom performance and to allow for reflection and self-assessment based on student’s feedback and to provide recommendation for future teaching of each class. FCAR is generated for each class taught in our department starting fall 2005.

Each faculty could choose to assess their individual classes based on the parameter they see important to their performance in class and teaching outcomes. These classroom assessments are for faculty purposes and recommendations are summarized and reported as part of FCAR. Copies of Course FCARs are presented in appendix CC.

Capstone Assessment The Capstone experience is used as a major assessment instrument in evaluating the program outcomes. The students take the Capstone class during the spring semester. The Industrial Engineering and Management Capstone requires concurrent enrollment in IME 485, Industrial and Manufacturing Facility Design and IME 456, Program and Project Management. Industrial Engineering and Management Capstone student learning outcomes are tied to The ABET a-k outcomes as is the case for all other courses. The assessment process for Capstone is not solely a self-assessment process.

The majority of Capstone learning outcomes are met through participation of students in in-class projects as well as real-life (Capstone) projects conducted on behalf of industry clients. The in-class projects are selected in a way so they can be helpful to students in conducting their Capstone projects.

The development of the Capstone project document is an ongoing process. The document is the final product that each student team produces. In addition to regularly scheduled class meetings, the instructor meets with each project team six times during the semester for 90 minutes. During each meeting, the instructor evaluates the project report and progress and provides feedback to the students. The final Capstone document grade will reflect not only the quality of the final document, but also meeting deadlines to complete various project-related tasks. At the end of the semester, the project teams evaluate and report the performance and contribution of their team members in developing the Capstone document. Capstone clients provide feedback on the quality and usefulness of the Capstone documents. A 70% benchmark is set for the client’s rating of the Capstone project.

During the semester, each project team makes three in-class presentations as well as a final presentation. The final presentation audience includes Capstone course members, IME faculty and students, project clients, IME Advisory Board members, other students, and invited members of business/industry community. Average ratings from the Capstone final presentations are shown in Figure 17. The first two presentations are evaluated and graded by the course instructor and all course participants that are not part of the team. The third presentation is evaluated by the course participants and only for the purpose of providing feedback to teams so they can improve their final presentations. Figures 18 and 19 depict the project ratings by the industry clients. The final presentation is evaluated by the same clients, Advisory Board members, faculty, and other guests who provide feedback about the projects and quality of presentations. A 75% benchmark is considered acceptable for the final presentation.

The students’ learning outcomes are also measured using quizzes and/or tests. The quizzes or tests cover material from the class lecture and handouts, textbook, supplementary readings, and in-class activities. The quizzes and tests are evaluated by the course instructor. A 75% benchmark for all quizzes, tests, and assignments is considered acceptable for achieving Educational Objectives for MfgE program.

Program and Project Management/Capstone - Spring 2006Project Clients

Criteria Average Ratings Received from Audience During the Final Presentations ( lowest=1 5=highest )Introduction – Explained who they are/what they are doing/the problems/and the need for the project.

4.10 4.13 3.91 4.50 3.88 3.88 4.09 4.27 4.09

Technical work – Sufficient quantity/quality of engineering work including why that work was done

3.70 3.44 3.45 4.25 2.75 3.88 3.75 4.18 3.67

Conclusion and recommendations – Usability of project work 3.80 3.94 4.00 4.25 2.88 3.88 3.75 4.18 3.83

Presentation organization – Overall flow 4.50 4.13 4.18 4.63 3.69 4.50 3.92 4.30 4.23

Presentation skills – Overall quality of the presentation 4.50 4.25 3.90 4.38 3.69 4.50 3.83 4.27 4.16

Q and A – Ability to answer questions 4.00 4.29 3.94 4.50 3.50 4.63 3.75 4.09 4.09

Rate the presentation for readability of the slides, figures, graphs. 4.63 4.40 4.30 4.50 3.80 4.33 4.25 4.11 4.29

Overall rating of the presentation 4.19 3.69 3.83 4.44 3.30 4.06 4.05 4.30 3.98

Figure 17 - Spring 2006 Capstone Projects Final Presentation Ratings

Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Program and Project Management/Capstone Spring 2006

Relationship of Project Presentation Evaluation Criteria Used by Constituents

to ABET a-k and Corresponding Ratings

ABET Criterion 3

Criteria used by project clients to evaluate project team performance a b c d e f g h i j k

Criteria Shaded areas show the evaluation criterion link to ABET a-k Average client ratings (5=highest ) are shown in the shaded areas

Introduction – Explained who they are/what they are doing/the problems/and the need for the project.

4.09 4.09 4.09 4.09

Technical work – Sufficient quantity/quality of engineering work including why that work was done

3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67 3.67

Conclusion and recommendations – Usability of project work 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83

Presentation organization – Overall flow 4.23 4.23 4.23 4.23

Presentation skills – Overall quality of the presentation 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16

Q and A – Ability to answer questions 4.09 4.09 4.09 4.09 4.09 4.09 4.09

Rate the presentation for readability of the slides, figures, graphs. 4.29 4.29 4.29

Overall rating of the presentation 3.98 3.98 3.98 3.98 3.98 3.98 3.98 3.98

Percent Ratings of Presentation Evaluation Criteria with Respect to ABET a-k Program Outcomes

78.2 79.4 78.9 80.4 79.4 80.9 81.8 78.7 80.7

Figure 18 - Spring 2006 Capstone Client Project Ratings

Criteria used by project clients to evaluate project team performance

Criteria Average Client Ratings ( lowest=1 5=highest )

The project team understood your problems and needs 4.00 4.33 3.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.79

The team maintained acceptable level of communication and provided timely feedback as well as soliciting your input

4.00 4.33 2.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.29

The team dealt with you in a professional manner (e.g., on time for meetings, prepared for meetings, courteous, neat, high ethical standards, high technical standards, positive attitude, etc.)

5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 4.25

The approaches used for developing proposals and solutions are clear

4.00 4.33 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.42

The project team fulfilled all the deliverables as was outlined in the “statement of work”

5.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 3.63

The results of the project have value for my organization 4.00 4.67 2.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.46

Attention to design and or/documentation details 4.00 4.67 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 3.83

The results of the project are of high quality 5.00 4.33 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.54

This project was representative of activities by practicing engineers 4.00 4.50 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 3.94

This project was a challenging engineering project 5.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.13

This project was a valuable learning experience for the project team members 5.00 4.50 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.07

Would you consider using Capstone teams for future projects 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.50

Overall satisfaction with the experience and the project results 4.50 5.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 3.69

Industrial and Manufacturing Relationship of Project Team Performance Evaluation Criteria Cri

Engineering Program and Project Management/Capstone Spring 2006

Used by Project Clients to ABET a-k and Corresponding Ratings

ABET Criterion 3Criteria used by project clients to

evaluate project team performance a b c d e f g h i j k

Criteria Shaded areas show the evaluation criterion link to ABET a-k Average client ratings (5=highest ) are shown in the shaded areas

The project team understood your problems and needs 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79

The team maintained acceptable level of communication and provided timely feedback as well as soliciting your input

3.29 3.29 3.29 3.29

The team dealt with you in a professional manner (e.g., on time for meetings, prepared for meetings, courteous, neat, high ethical standards, high technical standards, positive attitude, etc.)

4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25

The approaches used for developing proposals and solutions are clear 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42 3.42

The project team fulfilled all the deliverables as was outlined in the “statement of work”

3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63

The results of the project have value for my organization 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.46

Attention to design and or/documentation details 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83

The results of the project are of high quality 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54 3.54

This project was representative of activities by practicing engineers 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94

This project was a challenging engineering project 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13 4.13

This project was a valuable learning experience for the project team members

4.07 4.07 4.07 4.07 4.07

Would you consider using Capstone teams for future projects 4.50

Overall satisfaction with the experience and the project results 3.69

Percent Ratings of Project Team Evaluation Criteria with Respect to ABET a-k Program Outcomes

72.0 74.1 74.1 75.2 74.4 76.2 74.4 76.6 79.7 75.3 73.7

Figure 19 - Spring 2006 Capstone Client's Evaluation

IME Student Ratings of Instruction

IME SRoI summary results are provided in appendix DD. For 100 and 200 level courses, the average ratings are higher than department mean value. Most students’ rating was good for these classes. Overall, the SRoI scores improved for higher level courses. The outcome was good against a benchmark of 3.500 for the department.

Conclusion and RecommendationsThis report considers assessment of two distinct and yet overlapping programs. Although many issues are similar, some are unique to each program.

The excellent ratings received from employers of our students using the co-op survey instrument are a very positive feedback on the department’s performance and the ability to prepare our students for the workplace. Many of our students do short term and long term internship with companies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and other states as far as California. IME student’s response was most positive and the Employer’s evaluation of our students was excellent.

The focus of this assessment report is mainly on curriculum, program outcomes, and objectives of the two programs. We have learned the following:

Include Vision, Mission, Objective, and Outcomes for each program as part of the syllabus, an assignment or in-class discussion.

From the survey of Graduating students during the exit interviews, we realized that the IE&M student’s lowest rating of 3.4 was for “knowledge of contemporary issues” and “Design, experimentation, analysis, and interpretation of data” and the MfgE student’s lowest rating of 3.0 was for “broad education” and also “knowledge of contemporary issues.”

Our graduating students also rate their capability lowest with respect to the following topics: “ability to design experiments…” by the IE&M students and “printed circuit board microelectronics design...” by MfgE students.

Topics related to understanding impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and social context must be identified to students as such. These topics must be identified in the course syllabus or before any discussions in class so students can relate these topics towards advancing Program Objectives and Outcomes.

Allocate space in syllabus for contemporary issues and identify the topic as such when presented to the students.

Industrial engineering students scored less than the national average in: Engineering Probability & Statistics, Chemistry, Computers, Ethics & Business Practices, Engineering Mechanics (Statics & Dynamics), Fluid Mechanics, Electricity & Magnetism, Thermodynamics, and Quality.

Manufacturing Engineering students scored less than the national average in Engineering Probability & Statistics, Engineering Mechanics (Statics &

Dynamics), Material Properties, and Human Factors, Productivity, Ergonomics, & Work Study.

The Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering department will be assessing various outcomes and performance criteria following a review calendar presented in Table 1. We will continue to assess student’s performance with respect to department’s objectives and outcomes. The students will be assessed on their learning outcomes along with their communication skills (written, oral, and presentation). FE exam results, even though inconclusive, will be used to evaluate student’s performance. Formative assessment will be done in selected classes and Faculty Course Assessment Report filed for each course taught in the department. The FCAR is used to provide faculty a mechanism for keeping track of classroom performance and to allow for reflection and recommendation for future teaching of that class. FCAR is generated for each class taught in our department starting fall 2005. A sample of FCARs is presented in Appendix EE.

For next year we will focus on the following:

At least one lecture in upper-level courses must be dedicated to ethical issues and dilemmas for practicing engineers

Even though our students take a formal class in Engineering Ethics (ENGR 402 – Engineering Ethics & Social Responsibility), we as a department need to include discussions about ethics in all classes.

Encourage students to take the Industrial or Manufacturing FE exam (Not the General Exam) and continue toward receiving their professional engineering license.

The curriculum committee will reevaluate all courses in both programs to identify overlaps and gaps.

Faculty will reexamine the course syllabus and contents to address topics that require improvement as identified in this report

The department will place special emphasis on the following program outcomes for the junior and seniors in the program:

o Professional & Ethical Responsibilitieso Life-Long learningo Contemporary issues

Appendix AA - IME Students Internship/Co-op Survey Results

(Student Survey)

Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering North Dakota State University Internship/Co-op (Student Survey)Survey Results

3. GPA: Total Number of Respondents (N): 10Number of responses to this question (n): 101. 3.952. 3.313. 4.04. 3.65. 2.986. 3.957. 3.258. 2.6649. 2.9810. 3.0

5. Class Standing:

0. 2. 4. 6. 8.

Senior

Junior

Freshman

Sophomore

Graduate

Other (please specif

6. Major

0. 3. 6. 9. 12.

Industrial Engineeri

Manufacturing Engine

7. Faculty Supervisor: Total Number of Respondents (N): 10Number of responses to this question (n): 101. Joe Herring2. Dr. Cook3. Reza Maleki4. Dr. Cannon Bilen-Green5. Dr. John Cook6. Jason Forsell7. John Cook8. Valery R. Marinov, Ph.D.9. Dr. John Cook10. Dr. Farahmand

8. Employer: Total Number of Respondents (N): 10Number of responses to this question (n): 101. John Deere Cylinder Division- Minneapolis2. Bobcat Company3. Caterpillar, Inc4. Hutchinson Technology Inc.5. Swanson Health Products6. John Deere Cylinder7. CNH8. Bobcat Company, Gwinner, ND

9. Swanson Health Products10. Parker Hannifin Oildyne

9. Supervisor Name: Total Number of Respondents (N): 10Number of responses to this question (n): 101. Jason Forsell2. Joshua Payne3. Kevin Kempa4. Rick Jenneke and Rob Hauser5. Troy Ruscheinsky6. Jason Forsell 7. Chris Kellen8. Adam Mauch9. Troy Ruschiensky10. Jason Worm

10. Supervisor's Title: Total Number of Respondents (N): 10Number of responses to this question (n): 101. DPS Manager2. Manufacturing Engineer3. Engineering Manager4. Rick-Advance Development Engineer, Rob-Industrial Engineer5. Project Coordinator6. Senior Engineer7. Manufacturing Engineer8. LPO9. Project Coordinator10. Quality/Lean Manager

11. How well your overall academic experience prepared you for your internship/coop?

VW W M P NO

Choices

12. How well your courses/labs/project prepared you for your internship/coop?

VW W M P NO

Choices

13. How well were you prepared to meet your new challenges?

VW W M P NO

Choices

14. How well were you prepared to meet your communication challenges?

VW W M P NO

Choices

15. How well were you prepared to meet your problem solving challenges?

VW W M P NO

Choices

16. How well were you prepared to meet your ethical challenges?

VW W M P NO

Choices

17. How well were you prepared to meet your teamwork challenges?

VW W M P NO

Choices

18. Level of practical work experience related to my major

VW W M P NO

Choices

19. Level of practical work experience related to my career goals

VW W M P NO

Choices

20. Understanding of how organizations function

VW W M P NO

Choices

21. Clarity of career goals

VW W M P NO

Choices

22. Career expectations

VW W M P NO

Choices

23. Professional network of contacts in field

VW W M P NO

Choices

24. Ability to apply knowledge related to my field of study

VW W M P NO

Choices

25. Motivation to learn in the classroom

VW W M P NO

Choices

26. Motivation to continue and persist to graduation is

VW W M P NO

Choices

27. Ability to take initiative

VW W M P NO

Choices

28. Ability to follow through on tasks and projects

VW W M P NO

Choices

29. Desire to pursue life-long learning

VW W M P NO

Choices

30. Ability to set priorities

VW W M P NO

Choices

31. Ability to creatively identify, formulate, and solve problems

VW W M P NO

Choices

32. Leadership skills

VW W M P NO

Choices

33. Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

VW W M P NO

Choices

34. Oral presentation skills

VW W M P NO

Choices

35. Writing skills

VW W M P NO

Choices

36. Ability to work with others to accomplish a goal

VW W M P NO

Choices

37. Ability to design and conduct experiments

VW W M P NO

Choices

38. Ability to make decisions

VW W M P NO

Choices

39. Please rate your overall Internship/co-op experience:

VW W M P NO

Choices

40. Have you been offered a permanent position with this employer?

N100.0%

41. Comments:Total Number of Respondents (N): 10Number of responses to this question (n): 3

1. I am not at the point in college that they would offer me a permanent position yet.2. I am in the middle of my coop with HTI, at this point it is hard to make a judgment on a couple of the last questions3. Good learning experience

Appendix BB - IME Employers Internship/Co-op Survey Results

(Employer’s Survey)

Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering North Dakota State University Internship/CO-OP (Employer Survey)Survey Results

3. GPA:

Total Number of Respondents (N): 7Number of responses to this question (n): 61. 4.02. ?3. ?4. 2.85. Cumm: 3.336. Unknown

4. SEX:

0. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Female 3.00

)5. CLASS STANDING:

0. 2. 4. 6. 8.

Senior

Junior

Freshman

Sophomore

Graduate

Other (please specif

6. MAJOR:

0. 2. 4. 6. 8.

Industrial Engineeri

Manufacturing Engine

7. FACULTY SUPERVISOR:

Total Number of Respondents (N): 7Number of responses to this question (n): 31. ?2. Dr. John Cook3. Dr. Farahmand

8. EMPLOYER/ADDRESS:

Total Number of Respondents (N): 7Number of responses to this question (n): 71. Caterpillar Inc. Technical Center, 14009 Old Galena Rd., Mossville, IL 615522. Hutchinson Technology Inc.3. John Deere - 1301 115th Ave NW - Coon Rapids - 554474. Bobcat Company, 210 1st Ave NE, Gwinner ND 580405. 4075 40th ave. sw, Fargo, NDAK., 58104 6. Parker Hannifin, 5520 Highway 169 North, New Hope, MN 562887. 3401 1st Ave N - Fargo ND 58102

9. SUPERVISOR NAME:

Total Number of Respondents (N): 7Number of responses to this question (n): 71. Jay Voorhees2. Rob Hauser3. Jason Forsell4. Adam Mauch5. Troy Ruscheinsky6. Jason Worm7. Chris Kellen

10. SUPERVISORY TITLE:

Total Number of Respondents (N): 7Number of responses to this question (n): 71. Material Distribution Supervisor2. Industrial Engineer3. Senior Engineering Supervisor4. Lean Promotion Officer5. Project Coordinator6. Quality / Lean Manager7. Manufacturing Engineer

11. Please describe briefly the project/s that the student worked on during the period of the internship/co-op.

Total Number of Respondents (N): 7Number of responses to this question (n): 71. 1. Collected and charted data on our shipping/delivery performance.

2. Participated as a member of a 6 Sigma team and pasted the exam to obtain 6 Sigma Green Belt designation.

3. Through her research of our operation, she developed a survey/questionnare, emailed it to our customers and tabulated the results to show areas in need of improvement.2. Leadtime reduction for new product design and build. Capacity analysis and setup reduction.3. Time Studies, Ergonomic Analysis, Design Project4. Lean manufacturing process improvements. Communication baords and process for the floor.5. Quality Control Automation, Order Induction Automation, Researching Purchasing Software, Operations Process mapping, 6. Assembly Line Changeover

Kanban ReplenishmentAssembly Line Standard WorkOperations Management

Quality Improvement #1 Pareto defect in Assembly7. 1. Managing production part orders for the Fabrication Dept.

2. Developing part nesting strategies to improve material utilization.

3. Programming production parts to improve part nesting efficiency.

12. What areas do you think the student could have shown improvement?

Total Number of Respondents (N): 7Number of responses to this question (n): 51. More like exposure than improvement. Aki would benefit from an internship in a manufacturing environment.2. She has done a great job so far. It is too early to assess her improvement on the job.3. Communication with other departments.4. Organization / Prioritization5. Chase needs to be more open to asking for help when becoming overloaded with work. We are a team, but Chase seems reluctant to ask for help in these situations. If is very important for Chase to monitor the due dates of production orders and get them to production on time.

13. What courses would benefit the student?

Total Number of Respondents (N): 7Number of responses to this question (n): 51. From my perspective, Aki seems to be on the right track. She has good interpersonal skills, provides accurate data and actively participates in a team environment.2. Production control, operations strategy and lean manufacturing concepts3. MS Office, A class in presentations including putting them together and speaking to a group4. Projects where the students can work together.5. Work Station Design

Facility Design

Program/Project Management

Engineering Accounting / Finance

Other that the student has already attended...

14. Would you recommend this student for further internship work or consider hiring him/her for a vacant position in your company?

Y100.0%

15. Please provide your overall rating of the student’s performance:

VW W M P NO

Choices

16. How would you rate the student with regard to thoroughness, accuracy, professional ethics, and efficiency in performing job assignments?

VW W M P NO

Choices

17. Please provide any additional comments or recommendations.

Total Number of Respondents (N): 7Number of responses to this question (n): 51. Aki did fine work for us. The survey/questionnaire she developed was very insightful. Aki's analysis of the results was very helpful in improving our operation.2. I have only worked with Ashley for two months, and this is the second survey I have had to complete for NDSU. It would be much more effective to do the survey at the end of her co-op. Also, you should not ask the employer to fill in her faculty advisor or GPA -- this should be done on the students’ survey.3. Gretchen was eager to learn and worked hard during the session.4. Bryan has shown ambition along with thoroughness in the projects he has worked on. He gets the results that he proposes at the beginning of the project by very thorough research. His projects have come in on budget and on time. Bryan takes pride in the work he puts out. Bryan achieves results.5. Aaron has been an asset to our division. He has been able to prove results through the projects he has worked on. We continue to keep in touch with Aaron as he progresses through graduation.

18. Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

VW W M P NO

Choices

19. Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data

VW W M P NO

Choices

20. Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs

VW W M P NO

Choices

21. Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams

VW W M P NO

Choices

22. Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems

VW W M P NO

Choices

23. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

VW W M P NO

Choices

24. Ability to communicate effectively

VW W M P NO

Choices

25. Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and social context

VW W M P NO

Choices

26. Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning

VW W M P NO

Choices

27. Knowledge of contemporary issues

VW W M P NO

Choices

28. Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice

VW W M P NO

Choices

Appendix CC – Faculty Courses Assessment Report (FCAR)

Faculty Course Assessment Report IME 330 – Manufacturing Processes I – 3 credits

Spring 2006 – Valery Marinov

Catalog Description: Traditional manufacturing processing methods as employed in contemporary practice. Includes: properties of materials, machining, casting, forming, and fabrication techniques. Several experiments will be conducted on various manufacturing processes in the laboratory.

Grade Distribution:

A B C D F W Total 33 21 4 1 4 2 65

Modifications Made to Course (past 1-2 years): 1. The class handouts were published and are now a required text for this class

Student Learning Outcomes: • Define manufacturing and explain its relationship to design and marketing. (h)• Describe the nature of materials including atomic structure, crystalline and non-crystalline structures.

(a, e) • Explain alloys and phase diagrams, stress-strain relationships, and the effect of work temperature on

the material properties. (a, e)• Provide theory of chip formation in metal machining; describe cutting force and temperature

relationships. (a, e)• Select the proper cutting tool material for machining a particular work material. (a, e)• Explain the effect of tool wear on the cutting process; calculate the parameters of Taylor’s tool life

equation. (a, e)• Understand the basics of machining economics; calculate the optimal cutting conditions for minimum

production cost or time. (a, c, e, h, k)• Describe capabilities and limits in terms of size, accuracy, precision, surface quality and production

rate for the conventional material removal operations applied to produce round, prismatic and irregular shapes. (a, c, j, e)

• Explain the basic characteristics and applications of the processes for permanent and non-permanent assembly such as mechanical assembly and various welding operations. (a, c, j, e)

• Explain the principles and select a suitable non-traditional manufacturing process for a particular application. (a, c, j, e)

• Explain the principles, capabilities and limitations of the powder metallurgy process. (a, c, j, e)• Explain different metal casting processes including sand casting, die casting and other expendable and

permanent mold casting processes. Design a sand casting mold for a simple shape metal part. Calculate the total solidification time and the riser’s dimensions. (a, c, j, e)

• Explain fundamentals of metal forming operations such as rolling, forging, extrusion, wire and bar drawing, and sheet metal working operations including cutting, bending and deep drawing. Calculate the basic process parameters for these operations. (a, c, j, e)

• Demonstrate skills in the laboratory project to ensure completion, efficiency and quality of the final results (a, c, d, e, f, g, k)

Communications Component: Students are required to prepare and submit a formal final report on their laboratory project.

Ethics Component: No course component was designed to address this issue.

Contemporary Issues Component: The course material covers the latest manufacturing technologies along with the traditional processes.

Student Feedback: Feedback for IME 330 was sought through the “Formative Assessment for Enhancing Teaching and Learning” tool developed and offered by Dr. Sudhir Mehta, Associate Vice President for Academics, NDSU. Below are some examples of typical responses:

Question #1 - What helps you learn in this class

The lab experience and the videos played in class. The PowerPoint’s are a big help The lecture notes are a very good learning tool. Pictures are better and the information is more in

depth. The teacher takes the time to go into details of what is on his slides. The material is explained in

great detail and is much appreciated.

Question #2 - What improvements would you like

Some of the slides are a little crowded and the size of the words around the figures is a little too small.

The chance to work with more complex machines in the lab Maybe some more in depth videos It is difficult with the class being so early in the morning

Reflection:

Proposed Actions for Course Improvement: 1. Slides and handouts need reworking to make them more useful for students2. The lecture notes will be published and included in the course pack (now they are offered online)

Faculty Course Assessment ReportIME431; Production Engineering -- 3 credits

Spring Semester 2006 -- David L. Wells, Professor

Catalog Description: Design of a cellular production system for a representative industrial or consumer product. Application of Theory of Constraints and Lean Thinking to production system design. Production system design methodology: linked phases for product, process, quality and production engineering. Design of fixtures. Seminar/case study format, plus laboratory. Prerequisite: IME 330; recommended: IME 430

Student Population: 10 Manufacturing Engineering1 Industrial Engineering and Management1 Mechanical Engineering

Grade Distribution:A B C D F W Total9 3 0 0 0 0 12

Student Rating of Instruction:Standard Questions: 1. your satisfaction with the instruction in this course mean

score: 4.6672. the instructor as a teacher mean score: 4.7503. the ability of the instructor to communicate effectivelymean

score: 4.5834. the quality of this course mean score: 4.6675. the fairness of procedures for grading in this course mean

score: 4.4176. your understanding of the course content mean score: 4.250

>>>> student satisfaction overall mean value score: 4.556

IME: 3.668; CEA: 3.895; NDSU: 4.077

Supplementary Questions:Please rate yourself on the competency statements (7. through 15.), as follows:

5 =statement describes me perfectly ~~ complete mastery4 =statement describes me pretty well, but I have some holes ~~

good, but not complete, mastery3 =statement only partly describes me ~~ partial mastery2 =statement doesn’t describe me very well ~~ only beginning to

achieve this competency

1 =statement doesn’t describe me at all ~~ no mastery in this competency

7. I understand the basic building blocks of product engineering,process engineering, quality engineering and productionengineering used in designing manufacturing systems. mean score: 4.333

8. I am confident in my ability to apply principles of Theory ofConstraints and lean manufacturing in design of a manufacturing cell. mean score: 4.000

9. I understand how to create and evaluate process flow andoperational models of production systems. mean score: 4.417

10. I am confident in my ability to model and analyze manufacturingproblems and to design effective and efficient production solutions. mean score: 4.083

11. I can identify and apply the primary metrics for evaluating productionsystems employed to manufacture discrete hardgoods. mean score: 3.917

12. I feel confident in my ability to identify, select and search out thenecessary data for designing effective and efficient production systemsfor the manufacture of discrete hardgoods. mean score: 4.333

13. I can function as an effective team member in either leadership orfollowership roles. mean score: 4.500

14. I can write an effective and focused engineering report. mean score: 4.250

15. I am confident in my ability to prepare and deliver a professionalpresentation on a complex engineering subject. mean score: 4.167

>>>> learning achievement overall mean value score: 4.222

During the past semester, I improved my skills in the following competencies:

5 = very much4 = a lot3 = somewhat2 = marginally1 = not at all

16. Analytical modeling mean score: 4.00017. Reaching decisions in complex engineering situations mean

score: 4.00018. Gathering and using engineering data mean score: 4.09119. Working in engineering teams mean score: 3.909

20. Writing engineering reports mean score: 3.90921. Preparing and delivering engineering presentations mean

score: 3.818>>>> skill improvement overall

mean value score: 3.955

Student Feedback:* Comments on SROI evaluation forms:No comments offered.

* Student Feedback on Last Day of Class:Need better connection between lecture and lab -- started well, but

then became disconnected.

Liked having a single project that carried through the entire semester. This gave us time to really get into the engineering.

It was really good to get to start at the beginning with analysis of the product, and progress through the process and quality design phases, and finally to the production system design.

The course would be better organized if there were more time on the last phase (design of the production system).>>> Proposed taking one period from each of the first three

phases and adding the three class period onto the last phase. The class liked this idea.

Would like to have more discussion on methodology for designing production systems in Phase 4 -- more guidance (perhaps similar to the methodology lecture for process engineering).-- Need more understanding of methodology and metrics.-- Would like to have professor discuss more in depth on the

reasoning used to make system design decisions.

Suggestion to pick projects that are more even in complexity -- e.g., the fishing reels have dozens of parts, which makes it difficult to devote adequate time to production of each part (within the time constraints of the course).

Improved instructor feedback:Use finer pen point. Can read the professor’s writing alright, but ink

from a broad point pen bleeds into the paper and makes for tough reading.

Would like to have presentation format where there is more discussion and immediate feedback -- on both content and presentation format.

-- Suggestion: take a lab period (2 hours) for the presentations for each phase. [alternative: 2 class periods] This would allow for more comprehensive student presentations (which are needed, especially for Phases 2 and 4). It would also provide time for more extended discussion of the projects by both students and professor.

>>> Noted that this would alleviate the cramped timing in Phase 4. But the lab schedule would become tighter.

-- It would be helpful if each group heard the critique of the reports of the other groups. Provide feedback pointing out better ways to present various aspects of the work and discussing the rationale behind such judgments.

Would like to carry the final project into a situation where the students have to ‘sell’ the production system to a decision-maker.>>> Pointed out that this would require significant expansion

of the project workload to incorporate an appropriate level of financial analysis. I have avoided this extension in the past on grounds that the projects are already large for the credit and semester time constraints.

>>> Proposed an alternative of inviting manufacturing managers from local plants to attend the Phase 4 presentation, participate in the discussion and provide a part of the evaluation. Students seemed to like this idea, but were a bit wary of having an outsider grade them.

>>> Also pointed out that there is a plan afoot to separate 631 from 431 next year in much the same fashion as explained earlier for separation of 630 from 430. If that plan persists, one of the features of 631 will be a game simulation that will include a financial proposal presentation at the end.

Personal Reflection:* In-class discussions were generally lively, but five of the students did not take part adequately. They attended well, but seldom participated in the discussion. Hard to draw out.

Prospective Action for Course Improvement:* Structure laboratory segment of the course more clearly.* Keep trying to acquire modular fixturing for lab projects.* Look to products that have the following characteristics: [a] moderate part count; [b] key part that is adaptable to modularized fixturing or to custom fixture of modest complexity; [c] mix of made and purchased parts; [d] made parts of one- or two-hand size* Try to recruit manufacturing managers from local industry to evaluate final presentations. First thoughts: Brian Dahl, Mike

Kiernan, Tom Kenville -- if product mix for projects becomes broader: Barbara DeHaan, Mike Zurn/Jim Springer/Qing Gu, Randy Eisenhardt/Kurt Gunning

Faculty Course Assessment Report IME 432 – Composite Materials Manufacturing – 3 credits

Spring 2006 – Jing Shi

Catalog Description: Processes for manufacturing products from fiber-reinforced composite materials. Analysis of tooling, process variables, and quality management during processing. Design of processes for manufacture of selected composite parts. Prerequisite: IME 330, ME331.

Grade Distribution:

A B C D F W Total 7 1 1 0 0 0 9

Modifications Made to Course (past 1-2 years): 1. New textbook has been selected, and a set of additional reading materials has been compiled for the

class.2. New course lecture notes have been developed.

Student Learning Outcomes: • Define advantages and drawbacks of composites over traditional engineering materials (f) (h) (j) (k). • Understand the common types of reinforcements, matrices, and constituent composite material forms

like fabrics, prepregs, compounds (a) (j) (k). • Identify the composite material systems based on their characteristics and applications (a) (j) (k). • Select an appropriate manufacturing technique and equipment for given composite material and justify

their choice in terms of feasibility, production cost and rate (a) (c) (d) (e) (k). • Know the post-processes of composite materials to make mating parts by machining and assembly

structure by joining (a) (j) (k). • Understand the basic design knowledge about polymeric composite based on mechanics of materials,

and use a software for composite materials analysis (a) (c) (d) (e) (k).• Perform cost analysis in selecting a proper composite material for a particular application (a) (h) (k).

Communications Component: For reading assignments, students are required to discuss their understandings in the class. Some of the homework questions are open ended, and they are often asked to present their opinions in the class. For group homework or project, they need to prepare a report and discuss it in class too. Also, it is required they should interact with the industry people when they have field trips or receive a guest lecture.

Contemporary Issues Component: The course material covers the latest developments in composite materials technology such as nano-carbon tube and nanocomposites, and the state of art composite products and processes in airspace, automotive, and defense industries.

Student Feedback: On the student course evaluation forms, students indicated a satisfaction on the way the course was taught. Some students indicated that more filed trips should be arranged, and some suggested that more guest lecture from industry experts should be included.

Reflection: The course uses almost every major aspect of composite materials and manufacturing processes. It appears that the balance (number of lecture hours) and inter-connection of each topic is a deliberate issue. The basic

knowledge on mechanics of composites was taught for two weeks, but how it is connected with other topics of the course may not be very clear to the students. This may lead to the re-organizing of topic sequence in the future semesters.

Proposed Actions for Course Improvement: 1. After using the textbook twice for class, I feel that it might be helpful to adopt another book as an

optional textbook for the class. The current textbook is good, but some topics are too concise. 2. More field trips and guest lectures from industry and/or academia experts should be arranged.

Faculty Course Assessment Report IME 440– Engineering Economy (section 1-3 credits, section 2-2 credits)

Spring 2006-Ergin Erdem

Catalog Description: Capital investment decision foundation within the rules of general and project accounting. Analysis of benefits and returns against cost for engineering installation, operation, life cycle, and buy-rent-lease decisions. Grade Distribution:

A B C D F W Total 44 48 25 11 2 6 136

Modifications Made to Course: 1. Included additional chapters on inflation, replacement analysis, and economic analysis in public

sector2. Rather than giving information about project cash flows in a separate chapter, showed the

interrelation between the project cash flow and engineering economy related concepts in a holistic manner.

Student Learning Outcomes: At the successful completion of this course, you will be able to:

1. Understand the basic economics/mathematical analysis when making engineering decisions.2. Understand to use Excel spreadsheet as a tool in engineering economics problem.3. Understand economic concepts such as time value of money, inflation, rates of return,

depreciation, and others.

Communications Component:

Ethics Component:

Contemporary Issues Component: Discussed about the amendments that are to be made in Tax Law in Corporate Income Tax chapter.

Student Feedback:

Reflection: Overall, the course went pretty well. The auditorium was not large enough for accommodating all of the students. Especially during the tests, because of limited seating capacity, some minor problems were encountered. There was another meeting for a different class right after IME 440 at the same auditorium. Because of that particular class meeting, the duration of each test other than the final exam was limited to 90 minutes. This limitation was certainly not a desirable one. Proposed Actions for Course Improvement:

1. Introduce different financial software for getting the students acquainted with various financial applications.

2. Add another section for evaluation of risk and project uncertainty.3. Give examples and solve questions that are in parallel with the test questions of Engineering

Economics section of Fundamental of Engineering Exam.4. Assign case studies for expanding the depth and scope of students’ knowledge and practical

skills in Engineering Economy.

Faculty Course Assessment ReportIME456, Program and Project Management - 3 credits

Spring Semester 2006 – Reza A. Maleki

Catalog Description:Capstone experience. Integration of technical, business, and operational specialties in a project consulting firm. Work with multi-disciplinary teams that design, plan, and present for a variety of industrial clients.

Grade Distribution

A B C D F W Total19 14 1 2 0 0 36

Students Assessment of Course Outcome (from attachment A):• Understand project management concepts including project attributes, constraints,

life, process, and project management benefits. Score: 4.12• Become familiar with project needs identification, project selection, and process of

developing requests for proposals. Score: 3.94• Be able to perform needs assessment and develop a statement of work addressing

client and project requirements. Score: 3.97• Use their knowledge to develop proposals for designing or improving a system,

component, or process to meet desired needs. Score: 3.76• Develop and manage project plans by clearly defining project objective, developing

work breakdown structure, and developing network diagram. Score: 3.88• Have knowledge of project cost planning and project performance measurement.

Score: 3.63• Understand the development of effective project managers and teams. Score: 4.07• Develop professional project documentations. Score: 3.94• Use commercially available software to plan and manage projects. Score: 3.71• Enhance their ability to deal with others, emphasizing functional and project teams,

motivation, leadership, integrity, ethics, diversity, and personal growth. Score: 4.06

Student Feedback:See attachment B.

Reflection:Students highly value the overall educational experience in this course. The students have made both positives and negative comments about their experiences with some team members and team structure. Concerns were also expressed about the evaluation form. No major concerns about lectures or test structures.

Proposed Action for Course Improvement:

Short-term: I will explain in more detail the “team members’ appraisal form.” This year was the first time that I used evaluation forms for final presentations and team members’ performance that were completed by business/industry representatives as well as by project clients. These forms will be posted on the course Blackboard so the students can see the Criteria used for evaluations.

Long-term: It is the general consensus that a two-semester business/industry capstone course can serve the students learning better. There is support for such move and will be a part of upcoming IME programs re-structuring.

Attachment A

Attachment BSummary of Comments Made by Students

Note: The comments shown below were collected from the “Team Members Performance Appraisal” forms that were completed by students. The comments made are all in reference to students’ participation in Capstone experience which requires concurrent enrollment in IME456 and IME485 for Industrial Engineering and Management students or concurrent enrollment in IME456 and IME489 for Manufacturing Engineering students.

I would just like to comment that as a team all of us put a lot of work into this project. Each of us team members had our strong points that we mostly worked on. Sam did most of the work related to AutoCAD, while Phil did a lot of the PowerPoint presentation, Steve did a lot of work on figuring out the costs of moving equipment and such in really nice excel files and Jacob did a lot of the work on the PowerPoint and documentation making sure everything was formatted correctly. We worked on this project a lot as a group and all of us worked on the documentation and presentation but we also all had our strong points.

One suggestion I have is to make sure that all the teams are told the same thing. A good way to do this might be to send out an email to all the project managers or everyone in the class after you tell one group a certain criteria. This might help to avoid any frustrations that may occur with different groups getting different instructions.

Otherwise I felt that this was a very beneficial course and that I learned a lot from it. Before this project I knew nothing about sand casting and I know I feel that I know quite a bit about it. From this class I also learned a lot about managing my team by being the project manager and always making sure that we were doing what we were supposed to be doing.

Chelsea did an excellent job facilitating communication between the capstone team and Dee, Inc. She was superb at keeping track of our progress and directing us in the completion of the project.

Steve put in a lot of work considering he only took a three credit class. He did great job of gathering data while at the facility. Steve’s major contribution to the project was the cost analysis and documentation.

Jacob as you know has a great command of the English language. He of course did a great deal of work on the project documentation & report. Jacob also developed one of the proposed layouts.

Phillip primarily worked on the power point he also did a superb job.

My major contribution to the project was the creation of plant layouts and their analysis.

Overall this is one of the best groups I have ever had. We were a very well balanced team and everybody’s strengths complimented to the over group dynamic. I personally feel that everyone regardless of the amount of time they put in deserves the same grade.

This type of appraisal without the ability to give people the same score in the same area is not fair to people who contributed equally. I do not know how you can possibly rate team members on a scale that does not allow for the same score. Also, it may be helpful to gather information about the contribution and individual feels about their own personal contribution. If a group of team members form an alliance it could be easy for that person to be alienated and destroyed in an evaluation.

I thought that at times the team did not pay enough attention to Bill and did not ask enough question at the meetings up at DEE. The trips to DEE could have been better planned out as to what we needed to get done. But overall, for the first time most of the team who had never been in a situation like that did well.

I thought that some of the comments made on the evaluations given by the facility were a little on the unfair side. It feels like they thought we did not put in enough time into the project, or thought of all the possible plans or outcomes that we could have done for DEE. While some of these thoughts are maybe true to some extent, it seems to me that the amount of productivity of the project was good for the amount of talent and experience contained within the group. The most important thought to me is the amount of time (1 semester) to really dig in to the problems at DEE and to come up with better solutions to their needs.

We had an excellent team. We got along great and worked well together. Everyone fell into a role that accented their strengths (Sam – AutoCAD, Phil – PowerPoint/Photoshop, Chelsea – Organization, Steve – Excel, Jacob – Writing and AutoCAD) this made the group very effective and efficient. I would work again with all of them if possible. Great team dynamics and we had a blast while completing the project.

I think that this rating scale is skewed. I really think that everyone in this group contributed equally. If there was something that needed to be done, someone would always volunteer to do it. Nobody ever complained about having to do anything and I don’t think that the “Quality of Contributions” section shows that.

The scheduling between the classes could be improved. It would have been beneficial to have work time available in the mornings at the end of the semester. The scheduling of rehearsal and final presentations could be improved by providing more time. Overall I had no complaints with the course.

This team worked very well. The hours differences between members are as a result of the word document and power point presentation; most of the time one person worked on the document and another member worked on ppt (The animations take some time to do and rarely them can be done by two different persons.) All of us worked at the same level gathering data.

The main point to improve on this course is the evaluation sheet. It is not fair to grade everyone poorly just because they did a smaller amount of work, because there were times when everyone contributed equally to the entire project.

Tom Mohagen: He appears to have some background of the design and concepts relating to redesign and construction of buildings. Towards the beginning of the project, his involvement was limited and his excitement was very low. It was very difficult to get him motivated in doing some of the tasks he was capable of doing. Even when he had been given simple tasks (which was not very often and were not very complicated), he had passed those responsibilities onto other group members or had failed to complete them entirely. Unfortunately, later in project development, he had a family commitment which separated him even further from the commitment of the project.

I do regret not attempting to give him a large amount of responsibility (myself) early on to attempt to get him motivated. I believe this would have made him realize the importance of this project and perhaps get some type of output from him. Other than that, I don’t believe anything short of a miracle in the name of academia would have gotten him to give an honest effort into ensuring the quality of the final results of the project. I have to admit that his commitment level was probably the lowest I have ever experienced in all of my group experience, and believe that a passing grade would be unfair to the department as well as Tom himself.

His only noticeable contribution would be the section of project team members in the report, and I believe that his activities journal does not accurately represent the contribution and effort put forth toward the project.

JT Rhode: He has extensive knowledge of documentation required for major projects, charts and diagrams to show operations flow and analysis, as well as resourceful in finding needed resources. He showed enthusiasm and was ready to dive into any task from the very beginning. Even though he didn’t have much experience as to requirements for a redesign project, he did show an effort to learn and apply his knowledge and strengths to the project. He made many attempts to get involved with other group members and help with their portions of tasks, and was more than willing to take on those tasks completely if needed. Unfortunately he had career commitments later on in the project that made him less available, but still found the time to put in the necessary work to complete the project.

As being the only other engineering major in the group, I worked very closely with him and have a very good idea of his commitment and contribution toward the project. There

were times when I felt that his energy level was starting to weaken and that his abilities to work quickly during “crunch time” were somewhat limited. Other than that aspect, I feel that he has made sacrifices and put much effort in assuring a complete and quality project.

Emily Tarr: She has extensive knowledge of the requirements for a remodeling project as well as computer programs used for facility design. Her creativity and commitment to the project are the things that she contributed most to the group. I really felt that she enjoyed what she was doing and was very willing to contribute to the group wherever possible, including giving her knowledge and taking on tasks that others were unwilling or unable to contribute. She was very dedicated and worked very hard to complete the tasks she was given including: research of office interior design sources, CAD documentation (which took patients and a lot of time), and the project poster board (with the exception of the Gantt chart).

She is not much of a group leader. Most of the time, it seemed as though she was just “following the leader.” She did not take initiative on her own and was content in doing her own work. When there were apparent problems within the group, she either tried to play the neutralizer and downplay the issue, or she would pick a side and compound the problem which made an apparent split within the group. I also believe that she made sacrifices and gave an honest effort in assuring a quality project. However, she did not make herself very available when it came down to the finishing touches and did not put forth the effort in finalizing the project.

Amy Vanderlinden: Does not work well with other people and has poor group skills. When she had something on her mind regarding the project, there were only a few outcomes. When she had ideas about layouts and how to configure the space, she almost always addressed the other facility design majors in the group. If she had some stipulations about how the project was being conducted, she would consult other group members (not the entire group) to get their opinion on the issue; she then proceeded to attack other members and would begin making accusations instead of addressing the issue in a reasonable way. There were, in fact, a few instances of this (and I refrained from telling my “most memorable capstone experience” during the banquet for the reason that it could easily be interpreted as negative).

During group meetings, it appeared that her focus was more on what other members’ contributions (and time put in) as opposed to what topics needed to be discussed for the completion of the project. She also had a number of meaningless interruptions during group meetings and made it difficult for the group to remain focused on project ideas and work. While she had her own ideas of what needed to be done based on her past experience, she was unwilling to use creative and new techniques that could be useful in her career. Instead, she simply played the “ignorance card” and refused to be even the slightest bit involved in what she felt was not her responsibility. Her willingness to help (some of us) was nearly nonexistent. While she was more than willing to “dive” into tasks that she was very capable of doing, she very ungraciously put work tasks upon others.

I tried using a managerial technique (that did not appear to have much of an impact on this type of team member) to simply address the issues that the group was immediately faced with. The goal was to focus the group members on what needed to be done and attempt to get some creative feedback on how it could be accomplished. Instead, I just received backtalk on how this was not what we were supposed to be doing. In order to alleviate any kind of negative feelings within the group, I made attempts to rationalize the issue to get team members on the same page so the project could continue. The next approach was simply to assign the next task that needed to be done. This eventually led to poor group interaction and difficulty in getting any kind of real group effort throughout the project.

She does have extensive knowledge of the requirements for a remodeling project as well as computer programs used for facility design. Her participation and energy level throughout the project is easily one of the greatest in the group. It was not difficult to get her motivated to do work related to her knowledge and experience. She began to show extra interest in interior design and choosing furniture and other designs once the progress of the project reached that point. She became very easy to work with and share with the group what her thoughts and plans were. Once she had specific tasks to perform (and a time frame for which to complete them), her involvement in the group greatly improved and she began to show an actual excitement level for the project.

Near the very end of the project, her excitement level had dropped dramatically and didn’t seem to care how the group would combine all the information available. She considered her work complete and did not care how much work was left or how it was going to get done.

I do believe that she has leadership skills, but she needs to learn how to work with others and help develop a combined group effort.

I found it very difficult to manage the project with my schedule. I realize that this is of course partially my fault, but I feel that project managers should be students that are willing and able to take on the responsibilities and not just have it handed to them. I am not saying I didn’t want to be PM, I’m just suggesting a more careful selection in the future.

It was apparent after being involved in this project that it is difficult for a group of five, in two separate majors, to work together collectively. Perhaps a more careful selection of projects would eliminate this complication

It is hard to evaluate my group with this format because no matter how you rate them someone is always on the bottom even if everyone did the same amount of work.

This is for the group evaluation:It’s hard to be included in a group that lets you know of things that need to be done the day before a deadline and also being informed of meetings the day before they happen. It’s also hard to participate in a group were two members take over all the responsibility and only delegate the things they don’t want to do. I had a hard time working with this

group for the soul fact that they had bad attitudes towards me, which I will admit that I did not put in as much time as they did, but there were only a hand full of things that they would allow me to do.

Dr. Maleki,

This class offered a lot of good insight on what a future project will entail in the competitive job environment. Especially in learning how to deal with team members different personalities in how they think, work, and express their opinions and feelings about the project. This team never felt “unified as one” there was a dividing line between the Industrial Engineers and Facility Management majors throughout the project from beginning to end. This entailed a lot of whining, complaining, finger pointing, and back stabbing. This was difficult for me to except but I did my best to make things work even in times when I had to walk on egg shells to get my opinions and ideas across.

I have to say that I accepted the challenge that was before me in this project and believe I did a successful job. I also believe that I gained more knowledge by doing this project, with this team, than any other capstone student in the class. Reasons are that I learned how to work with a client from a business standpoint, use my knowledge learned in Industrial Engineering & Management courses on the project, and especially gained knowledge on working with a team that doesn’t quite “click.”

So Dr. Maleki, I would have to say that this course is laid out very nicely and that you have a good grasp on the students to make sure that they stay on task in completing an excellent project for the client. I have nothing bad to say about Capstone and I am happy with what I have learned by taking the course. Thank you,

I have never dealt with such HORRIBLE workers (Colby and JT) every time I would ask something of them, it wouldn’t get done, and in order to get it done I had to yell and scream at them. I feel that both of them talked down to me because I wasn’t an engineer. When someone shows up half and hour to a client meeting (Colby and JT) that is unacceptable. If this class was run by one of the ADFH teachers that I have had in the past they would have dropped them from the class-it doesn’t matter if they are a graduating senior or not!!!! They would have been yelled at in front of the class for not dressing properly-do these children have any professionalism training in their education?

How are they supposed to go out into the real world and work for a company? And as far as work that they contributed to…? Other than a spaghetti diagram, and some budgeting stuff what did either one of them contribute? When they where working on documentation, a week would go by and only a paragraph or two would be added- WHAT DID THEY SPEND ALL OF THEIR TIME WRITING????????? Those two might have spent some hours in the computer lab- but how much of that time was actual work and how much was spent laughing at Scott? If I could give Colby a letter grade it would be a D and JT would get a D-.

Tom, what can I say…? Tom didn’t do much of anything. I understand he had a baby, but if he couldn’t put the time into class he should have taken the semester off. All of the work that he actually put into the project was half-assed and I had to re-do it-wasting my time, I should have just done it myself in the first place. I know that I can’t count on Tom to do anything, but I can always count on him to show up to meetings and act professional. If I could give Tom a letter grade it would be D-.

Amy, likes to take control. She never stops talking, even when she doesn’t know what she is talking about-which kind of sucks in front of clients. She did a lot of work on the project, but it was always on her time. If Amy didn’t want to work on the weekend she wouldn’t answer her phone. And she likes to put things off until the very last minute, which is the opposite of my working style. If I could give her a letter grade it would be a B+.

Class comments:I feel that our project should not have fit the same requirements as the rest of the projects since it was a very different project that has not been tackled in that class very many times. I feel that we should be able to vote out members if they are not performing. I also feel that we shouldn’t be required to follow so many templates. We should be able to use our creativity.

For Group commentsComments on Tom: Tom did NOT contribute to this project the only things that will show up on his time sheet are mainly things that he was required to be at fro a group with the exception of the one or two things that he worked on individually. He does not deserve the same grade as the rest of the group! He has openly admitted that he knows that he did not contribute to the group. I don’t think that this is fair.

An email that I sent you previously: I know that Tom is unable to attend the meeting today, but I feel that it needs to be addressed that Tom is not willing to help when asked. I have tried to hold this back as long as possible, but I can't do this any longer. Emily and I have asked on many occasions for Tom to do something, and he tells us "no, I'm busy" or "I'm tired" or many other excuses. I really feel bad that I have been complaining about our group, but many of the things that I have mentioned in the past are much unneeded. I feel that Tom has done little to nothing to contribute to the overall project and I don't see this changing in the next few weeks. He technically should not have been in the class since he is only a junior. I have covered for him enough. I really just thought that you should be informed of what is going on.

Comments on Colby: Colby needs to work on his leadership skills (big time!). First, he wouldn’t listen to Emily or me when we would tell him we needed to do something (we knew what we needed since we had done similar projects in the past). He wouldn’t delegate anything, which was mine and Emily’s job (since he wouldn’t do it). He also needs to complete his work on time; we needed things completed before we could start on other things. He was THREE WEEKS late on one thing! He showed up about 25 minutes late to a client meeting! I really don’t think that that was professional. Most of the time that Colby put into the project was not quality. It took him two weeks and I don’t know how many hours to write a page and a half. When he would work with me he would take too much time over analyzing every word and everything. He time could have

been spent doing something else. It also took him and JT and hour and a half to write one slide for the PowerPoint.

Comments on JT: JT had no respect for Emily or me. He was very disrespectful to us! He would try to argue a situation to be in his favor even when we said no. An example of this is the contractor situation. He wanted to call a contractor, Emily and I advised him not to. He kept arguing with Emily and me about it. Finally Emily caved in and agreed even though she knew the contractor couldn’t do anything for us at the time. When they showed up at the meeting the contractor flat out told them it was a waste of his time (and it was). This situation did not have to happen. Then JT sent me into a meeting with the same contractor and didn’t tell me what to do or anything and again the contractor couldn’t help us and JT made me look stupid! He really needs to learn to listen and respect people. JT need to learn about quality and not quantity work too.

Comments on Emily: Emily put a lot of quality time into the project. When she worked she got her stuff done. She was very resourceful and helpful to the group. She deserves an A on this project. Emily’s work was quality too.

Comments on me (Amy): I put a lot of quality time into this project. I tried to work with the group but it is really frustrating when they don’t listen to you the entire time when you have experience with this type of project. I learned a lot about working with different people this semester. By the end it was easier for me to just do everything that I needed done than to ask for one of the other members to help. I also don’t think that it is right that I put in more time then the engineers who were in the class for more credits.

David Bartholome has a great sense of responsibility. Always available for meetings. Probably put the most time in the project … too bad he did something that did not help the team during presentations and in documentation and will be totally of NO use to the client. Spend most of his time making Pro-E drawing that are useless to both team and client. The drawings were something that we initially thought of doing but they proved to be too time consuming and not helpful in any way to the project but for some reason we were not able to persuade David in that and he spend more than 50% of his time on this useless activity. At the same time totally failed to fulfill his main responsibility as project manager, did not communicate well with client. The team was not even aware until final presentation day that there was an opportunity to go to Jamestown and actually try our standardization proposal and create a SOP manual for one crate as a sample; the project manager never conveyed the massage from Goodrich that there is a crate ready for packaging to the rest of us. Although creating an actual SOP is not part of our SOW it would greatly help the client and contribute to a better feedback for the team performance. Failed as team manager!

Adam B. Maus has many good qualities and being at meetings on time is just one to name. Did what he was supposed to do but pays absolutely no attention to detail and keeping track of documents. Did not keep his part of project documentation in good order which greatly increase time other team members needed to spend looking for data and formatting the presentations and final documentation. Also, took no initiative and constantly needed to be told point by point what to do. In general, below average

performance from a person who can do almost excellent. No excitement about the project at all!

Kristen Nuss was late for meetings on occasions and maybe a little bit too many times out of town on weekends but that’s understandable when you have to help a friend with her wedding at your hometown. Sometimes came unprepared to meetings. On the other hand contributed a lot to presentations and documentation even though did not do very good housekeeping in the documentation area. In fact she did majority of the work on presentations and final documentation along with me. Also, she contributed with a lot of knowledge in specific areas and programs needed for the project. Overall I have the feeling I and Kristen could pull this project through by ourselves and even deliver more to the client than we delivered now. Hope to work with more people like her on the job one day.

I strongly feel that the suggested grades that I am giving are a good representation of the level of contribution that each member gave along with the quality of their work.

Mitch was an important factor to the success of this project. Adam brought many great ideas to meetings and was always willing to give 100%. Jeremy put in a great deal of effort towards the project. The only reason why Jeremy’s score was in the 80’s was because he was unable to make some meeting due to illnesses.

We all worked hard on this project, and everyone was helpful with inputs and ideas.

I believe that our team did a great job. Not only did we communicate effectively but, everyone knew what was expected of them and I think it shows in the Capstone presentation comments. In retrospect, I think our team got off to a rocky start in the beginning because of an inadequate understanding of the problem statement. We did, however, pull it together in the end to come up with some good ideas for Goodrich. In fact, Goodrich will be implementing our layout by the end of May! We have been invited down to Jamestown to look at the new layout when completed. I would like to conclude that this project, although frustrating at times, was fun. I don’t think this project would have turned out as well with any other team members.

I did not like watching every presentation 4 times. I thought that instead of watching all of them, we could have broken the class into halves or something and still got enough feedback. Watching presentations consumed a lot of possible work time.

I think that some of the project objectives were not really engineering related and therefore some of the skills that we had learned in the classroom could not be applied to our projects.

The teams that had to travel out of town had a disadvantage in that they did not have the easy access to get information needed for the project, more than that, they were not able to spend as much time at the facility due to the distance.

Along with the rating system of team members there should be an evaluation done on the over all project and each team members contributions to the project. With just this evaluation you can not capture how each team member performed throughout project.

I thought that the project group worked very well together. It made working on the document and presentation go really smoothly.

I enjoyed working with each of these individuals. They are all likeable people who, by their very nature, are dedicated to seeing results in whatever they do. There is a reason why our group was not struggling to finish our project at the end of the semester, and that reason is intimately related to the quality individuals that composed our team. The satisfaction of our client speaks volumes to the dedication shown by all three of my teammates to reach a common goal.

I would like to give every team member 100 % of the points allocated in this section because they all worked hard and were very helpful. The project would not have been a success if it was for all of us working so well together. I hope in the future there will be more service/hospital type project to show the wide scope of the Industrial Engineering background. All in all it was a good course and it wasn’t nearly as frustrating doing the report for this project compared to the IME 480 class. Thanks Dr. Maleki for all of your help and patience this semester. I know it isn’t a very easy job dealing with us. Thanks again.

The course was a good overall experience. I would like to see a little direction of content vs. formatting issues. I understand the need for it, but often times our conversations were more about how it should look instead of what the correct information actually is.

Let the team decide the project manger. Fewer presentations, I understand the quizzes but they are really unnecessary, and some of the time between them is way to long.

The project teams should use different grading scales for different majors, IE team members only taking the 3 credit class

Six people are almost too many people for this type of project. Everyone couldn’t contribute equal or close to equal work.

The meeting with you should be spent more on content rather than format of power point and paper. It seemed that we didn’t accomplish anything more in the meetings that could have been done is less than half the time.

The meetings with the instructor were a big waste of time for the most part. Those meetings should have been a half hour at the very most.

I appreciated the fact that I didn’t have to buy a textbook for this class and it should stay that way.

Overall, I felt that this was a quality course and I learned a lot.

Overall, I feel that we did a good project and that Peter did a great job managing and driving this project. For that he should be commended. However, I left sort of frustrated because I felt that when I was doing the project research, it was “our” project but when it came time to write the report, it was “Peter’s” project. Because of this, I now don’t feel any of the ownership and pride about this project that I thought I would feel when it was done. I don’t really feel like this was my project at all.

I believe that without Hugh and Peter’s having previous knowledge of the facilities software organization and collaboration the detailed objectives and deliverables stated in this specific project would not have been accomplished. Their previous knowledge of Infinity Windows system allowed us a jump start on the entire project. Our team, though had a couple of disagreements, was able to establish what the goal of the entire project was and how to maintain a professional relationship throughout the entire project.

First, I would like to mention that this is the best project team I have worked with in years. All team members showed a willingness to work and would attempt to do whatever was required. There were times where I found it difficult to think of things for Eric and Dana to do. They are skilled in their own areas, but I did not expect them to learn concepts now that Hugh and I have spent the last 4 years mastering. Both of them have a good grasp of everything that occurred during the project, and I think their project time sheets account for the fact that they were only taking three credits, and the focus of the project was out of their field of expertise. All of the team members were unusually strong willed. Each of us had our own opinion of what should be done when. I appreciate this attitude because it means people care about the project, and actually have applied critical thought to the aspects others are working on. This also means we were in a continuing process of good natured storming.

Hugh did an excellent job running the simulations. He accomplished everything asked of him. Hugh, however, is very bad at estimating the amount of time a task would take. Originally, he had promised to have the length simulation done before the end of spring break. This was not completed until late April. This proved frustrating as the rest of the project team stalled out with little work to do, until the simulation was finished, and analysis could begin. Additional frustrations with Hugh occurred when we but heads over who should have the final say in project decisions. He has this habit of bringing up problems and suggestions at the eleventh hour when the work is basically complete and no one is in the mood to change anything. Things just have to be frozen at a certain point in my opinion. For instance, Wednesday before the capstone presentations he decided he did not agree with the clarity of the pie charts (he wanted them quoted in yield), and that he could not present material that he didn’t believe in. I would have understood this if we had made up numbers (we didn’t, I never would), but this seemed like a mountain out of a molehill situation. A similar situation occurred when we were writing the project documentation and I “corrected” a section that Hugh had written. He didn’t appreciate this and commented “why should I write anything, if you’re just going to rewrite it?” My response was “As project manager I feel it’s my responsibility to make sure we present the best product possible.” What I was doing, we increasing the writing level of what he had written, and adding more detail. Hugh believed that the paper should be written very simply and not includes much detail. I felt that the paper should be clear, but be written at a college senior level, with as much relevant detail as possible. The catch lies in the fact that again, he didn’t want to write something “he didn’t believe in.” In the end he decided he marginally approved of my changes and agreed to continue working. He worked that night until 12:30. So, even though he disagreed he continued working, this I respect.

The reason I bring up these two situations is this; I feel it would be good to more clearly define the project team environment as either completely democratic, or a more traditional “boss like” management environment. Does the project manager have the final say? If so, what happens to team members that resist? Who takes care of this? There is often a difference between a manager and a leader. In the project environment, I feel it is essential the project manager be defined as a boss first, and leader second. A leader is defined more by likeability, and an ability to get people do things based on character and charisma. Just having a democratic “leadership” environment creates a legless manager. (Note: This is the general format of most engineering projects I have been involved in during my time here). Of course, the best bosses are both good managers and leaders. I feel the project manager should have the final say in decisions regarding the direction of the project, even if the rest of the team objects. Any significant disagreements could be brought to you. It is a rare instance where you have this number of strong willed people on the same project and it has been a learning experience.

Secondly, the audience of the project presentation, and the document should be better defined. Are we writing/presenting for you, our client, or completely uninformed people? Are the uninformed people engineers or are they English majors? Defining these two areas more clearly would have eliminated what little friction our team encountered.

NOTE: The problems listed above were very minor, and overall the experience was very good. Having these people in my group and encountering these difficulties was a good experience for my development as a leader. I don’t feel the boss less, charisma based environment truly represents a real life work environment.

Faculty Course Assessment Report IME 460 – Evaluation of Engineering Data – 3 credits

Spring 2006 – Valery Marinov

Catalog Description: Course provides a solid introduction to concepts and methods in engineering statistics. Topics include descriptive statistics, probability, random variables, probability distributions, sampling distributions, inferential statistics, simple and linear regression, and analysis of variance. Practical examples will be used as to illustrate concepts.

Grade Distribution:

A B C D F W Total 47 31 10 1 4 8 102

Modifications Made to Course (past 1-2 years): This was a new class preparation for this instructor.

Student Learning Outcomes: 1. Effectively develop and present descriptive statistics to summarize the primary characteristics and

trends in a numeric data set. (a, b, e, k)2. Effectively conduct and interpret inferential statistics to predict population parameters of interest from

sample statistics. (a, b, e, k)3. Plan and conduct fundamental experiments of design, analyze the results, and make recommendations

based on the analysis. (a, b, c, e, k)4. Utilize basic statistical process control methods to evaluate key quality attributes of a process. (a, b, k)5. Apply basic regression techniques in an engineering context. (a, b, e, k)6. Use common statistical software packages to conduct data analysis. (k)

Communications Component: No course activity was designed to address this component.

Ethics Component: Ethics is an important issue in statistics, especially, when planning and interpreting the results from statistical experiments. Students are advised on the dangers of misusing the powerful statistical tools.

Contemporary Issues Component: This is a very traditional, introductory class in engineering statistics. All new developments in the area are at a level which is well beyond the scope of this class. Probably the best way to introduce contemporary issues is by the application examples.

Student Feedback: Feedback for IME 460 was sought through the “Formative Assessment for Enhancing Teaching and Learning” tool developed and offered by Dr. Sudhir Mehta, Associate Vice President for Academics, NDSU. Below are some examples of typical responses:

Question #1 - What helps you learn in this class

The slides are very helpful The example problems Going over homework in class and having notes on-line

Question #2 - What improvements would you like

More in depth explanations of the sample problems

The recitations are not value added at all More interaction in class

Reflection:

Proposed Actions for Course Improvement: 1. More real world examples in class2. The recitation session needs a significant improvement

Faculty Course Assessment ReportIME461, Quality Assurance and Control - 3 credits

Spring Semester 2006 – Canan Bilen-Green

Catalog Description:Proactive and reactive quality assurance and control techniques; emphasis on quality planning, statistical process control, acceptance sampling, and total quality management. Issues in reliability and maintainability engineering. Prerequisite: IME 460.

Grade Distribution

A B C D F W Total6 10 7 5 0 0 28

Students Rating of Instruction (from attachment A):

o your satisfaction with the instruction in this course - Score:

o the instructor as a teacher - Score:

o the ability of the instructor to communicate effectively - Score:

o the quality of this course - Score:

o the fairness of procedures for grading this course - Score:

o your understanding of the course content - Score:

Reflection:

I am inclined to remove the industry project component from this course and put more emphasis on lab activities.

Faculty Course Assessment Report IME 463 – Reliability Engineering – 3 credits

Spring 2006 – Om Prakash Yadav

Catalog Description: Study and application of statistical models and methods for defining, measuring and evaluating reliability of products, processes, And services: life distribution, reliability estimation, parametric reliability models, accelerated life testing, reliability improvement.

Grade Distribution:

A B C D F W Total 2 5 2 0 1 0 10

Modifications Made to Course (past 1-2 years): 1. Nonparametric models, warranty data analysis, identification of bad data and their impact of reliability

estimation, and incorporation of fuzzy information in reliability estimation included in the n course study.

Student Learning Outcomes: • Understand the importance of reliability engineering in product design and development as well as in

manufacturing environment and its impact on business performance. Meets criteria (a) (b) (h) (i) (e) (k).

• Understand the various probability distributions used in reliability engineering and method of fitting right distribution to given data. Meets criteria (a) (b) (j) (e) (k).

• Understand the reliability data analysis process and various methods and/or models for estimating reliability of new design. Meets criteria (a) (b) (d) (e).

• Apply engineering knowledge and specialist techniques to prevent or to reduce the likelihood or frequency of failure. Meets criteria (a) (b) (e) (h).

• Apply and integrate new tools and techniques, such as RBD, FMEA, QFD, FTA, etc. into reliability engineering methodology. Meets criteria (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (k).

• Use of assessment and validation tools to evaluate the effectiveness of product design and development and determine ways of coping with failure that do occur. Meets criteria (a) (b) (c) (d) (f) (g) (j) (k).

• Enhance their ability to be effective team members emphasizing contribution, data analysis and brainstorming skills, integrity, ethics, diversity, and personal growth. Meets criteria (d) (f) (g) (h) (j).

Communications Component: Students are required to work as team on 2 small projects and submit group report on their group projects. The presentation of the group project is required too and counted in their grading.

Contemporary Issues Component: The course material covers the latest tools and techniques in reliability engineering specially dealing with qualitative information during product development process.

Reflection: Overall, the course went well, but some areas need work. Half of the class showed no interests in learning new tools and techniques. Probably there is a need to develop few case studies showing systems engineering approach while using latest tool and techniques.

Proposed Actions for Course Improvement:

1. Include one or two major projects during the semester to give clearer picture of reliability engineering approach and hands on practice using available tools and techniques. Efforts will be made to taker real life project to give better understanding of the subject.

Faculty Course Assessment ReportIME470, Operations Research I - 3 credits

Spring Semester 2006 – Canan Bilen-Green

Catalog Description:Techniques to optimize and analyze industrial operations. Use of linear programming, transportation models, networks, integer programming, goal programming, dynamic programming, and non-linear programming. Prerequisite: MATH 129, 265. S

Grade Distribution

A B C D F W Total5 5 1 0 0 1 12

Students Rating of Instruction (from attachment A):

o your satisfaction with the instruction in this course - Score:

o the instructor as a teacher - Score:

o the ability of the instructor to communicate effectively - Score:

o the quality of this course - Score:

o the fairness of procedures for grading this course - Score:

o your understanding of the course content - Score:

Reflection:

Faculty Course Assessment Report IME 472-672, Simulation/Busn & Indust Systems (sections 01) – 3 credit

Spring 2006 – Kambiz Farahmand

Catalog Description: IME 472/672 Simulation of Business and Industrial Systems Credits: 3Development of the fundamentals and techniques of simulating business and industrial systems. Monte-Carlo techniques and computer usage. Prereq: IME 460/660, high-level computer language. S

Grade Distribution:

A B C D F W Total 9 12 2 1 1 25

Modifications Made to Course: Used Simulation for Visual Slam and AweSim as the new text book to familiarize the students with

basic modeling techniques and statistics generation and analysis. Installed MAPICS AweSim 3.02 for students to use for homework. Reviewed the use of ProModel in the lab. Projects were to be done using ProModel 7.0.

Student Learning Outcomes: At the successful completion of this course, you will be able to

Model industrial and manufacturing problems Understanding the process of simulation and how it is utilized as a problem solving tool Develop simulation models following proper scientific approach and use the results to

apply to real world problem

Communications Component: Students worked in a team of 5-7 working on a real-life project from a local industry. Students

developed a simulation model representing the current operation at the factory and then developed a proposed scenario model and compared results.

Students made two preliminary presentations to the class to solicit help and guidance and to communicate their progress to the class.

Students were in constant communication with the project clients to gather and collect data and to identify their needs.

Students also developed and presented a 30 minutes presentation of their work. Presentations were made to the class and questions were answered.

Teams communicated with each other toward dividing tasks and completing the project requirements.

Students also completed a technical report and submitted as part of the project work.

Each student prepared and presented as part of oral presentation. Instructions were given in lecture regarding how to present this material in a professional manner. CLA category: Oral Communication. Results: 60% - average = 0.43 (novice), 40% - average = 0.89 (expert)

Ethics Component: One lecture was dedicated to coverage of the PE Codes of Ethics and their role in daily professional life. A second lecture featured review of case studies and class discussions concerning ethical issues and dilemmas

Contemporary Issues Component: Time was spent in lecture relating the development of new animation software to be used for simulation of manufacturing systems. The use of modular programming in developing and writing simulation software.

Student Feedback:

On the student course evaluation forms, students indicated that they would like information on Blackboard. This would make it easier to have groups interact more easily.

Students also would like more lab time to be spent on software. Workload was high at the beginning and slowed down toward the end. Needed to understand more basic modeling before going after technicalities!

IME 472 - S06

Learning OutcomeMy capability of modeling industrial and manufacturing Engineering problems. GoodMy understanding of the simulation process and how it is utilized as a problem solving tool. GoodMy ability to develop simulation models following proper scientific approach and use the results to apply to real world problem. Good

InstructionLevel of satisfaction with the instruction in this course. Good

The quality of instruction received. Good

Technical complexity of the subject matter and topics covered. Good

FacultyCompetency of the instructor in the subject matter. Good

Instructor’s availability outside the class. GoodFairness of procedures for grading in this course. Good

Reflection: Overall, the course went well, but some areas need work. Most of the class demonstrated effective modeling skills. Some students were more active than the others in projects. Students spent too much time collecting data for projects. There were problems with team work and certain members of the team not carrying their workload. Projects should be done in AweSim and small portions of the operations to be done in ProModel using the animation.

Proposed Actions for Course Improvement: 5. Post all information on Blackboard.6. Dedicate more time to lab with TA assigned to assist students.7. Dedicate 10 minutes of every week to contemporary issues.8. Continue with two lectures on ethical responsibilities.9. Stress the value of teamwork and ask for task assignments for each team.10. Projects to also be done in AweSim with results verified using ProModel.

Faculty Course Assessment ReportIME485, Industrial and Manufacturing Facility Design - 3 credits

Catalog Description:Capstone integration of analysis and design tools to convert product design into production plans and plants.

Grade Distribution

A B C D F W Total11 5 0 0 0 0 16

Students Assessment of Course Outcome (from attachment A):• Understand the principles and philosophies of value added manufacturing and how

they apply to plant layout and material handling. Score: 3.93• Apply various tools for process, flow, and layout analysis and their use in layout

development. Score: 4.07• Understand the importance of material handling function in a manufacturing

environment and its relationship to physical facilities, plant layout, safety and risk control. Score: 4.13

• Understand workplace ergonomics and environmental factors which effect health, safety, and productivity of workers. Score: 3.86

• Become familiar with auxiliary services required to support production and employees in facilities. Score: 3.33

• Understand requirements for production systems which possess appropriate degrees of flexibility to cope with future changes in design, new products introduction, volume variations, and changing technology. Score: 3.33

• Be able to design an appropriate facility and material handling systems for selected product, including the selection of appropriate equipment. Score: 4.07

• Be able to perform productivity assessment showing the economic gains from their proposed solutions. Score: 3.73

• Enhance their ability to deal with others, emphasizing functional and project teams, motivation, leadership, integrity, ethics, diversity, and personal growth. Score: 3.73

• Enhance their communications skills essential to working with others, reporting, and documenting various tasks, actions and issues. Score: 3.93

Student Feedback:Students’ feedbacks shown mostly reflect their capstone experience; involvement in teams and the business/industry projects. They highly value their involvement in industry projects and interacting with outside clients. Some of the students expressed problems working in teams and made suggestions for improving team work.

Reflection:Students’ feedbacks shown in Attachment B mostly reflect their capstone experience; involvement in teams and the business/industry projects. Attachment A, the course outcome survey focuses more on the unique features of IME485. This is the first time

that I did not use a textbook for this course and the class relied heavily on on-line materials and the PowerPoint presentations that I had compiled. This offered unique opportunities as well as many challenges and difficulties limiting my ability to deliver all the topics that I had outlined in course syllabus.

Proposed Action for Course Improvement:I have already started the process of re-structuring the course which will include improved learning outcomes. To support the improved learning outcomes, I have been working on revising of all the PowerPoint presentations that I put together during Spring semester 2006. I am also in the process of compiling many support materials from various sources including College-Industry Council on Material Handling Education (CICMHE). All of these action items for course improvements will be implemented during the next course offering in Spring semester 2007.

Attachment A

Faculty Course Assessment ReportIME489, Manufacturing Engineering Capstone - 3 credits

Catalog Description:Capstone experience. Student projects in design, analysis, and experimental investigation related to manufacturing.

Grade Distribution

A B C D F W Total3 5 0 0 0 0 8

Students Assessment of Course Outcome (from attachment A):• Apply the principles and philosophies of value added manufacturing. Score: 4.43• Understand requirements for production systems which possess appropriate degrees

of flexibility to cope with future changes in design, new products introduction, volume variations, and changing technology. 4.43

• Understand workplace ergonomics and environmental factors which effect health, safety, and productivity of workers. 4.43

• Be able to perform needs assessment and develop a statement of work addressing client and project requirements. 4.43

• Develop and manage project plans by clearly defining project objective, developing work breakdown structure, and developing network diagram. 4.43

• Use their knowledge to develop proposals for designing or improving a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. 4.43

• Understand and document impact of proposed changes on productivity and/or quality. 4.43

• Be able to perform analysis of requirements for capital expenditure and workforce affected by proposals. 4.43

• Enhance their ability to deal with others, emphasizing functional and project teams, motivation, leadership, integrity, ethics, diversity, and personal growth. 4.43

• Enhance their communications skills essential to working with others, reporting, and documenting various tasks, actions and issues. 4.43

Student Feedback:Students’ feedbacks shown mostly reflect their capstone experience; involvement in teams and the business/industry projects. They highly value their involvement in industry projects and interacting with outside clients. Some of the students expressed problems working in teams and made suggestions for improving team work.

Reflection:Attachment A, the course outcome survey focuses more on the unique features of IME489. I do not use a formal textbook for this course and rely heavily on a number of references as well as on-line resources. I believe I can improve the delivery of related topics required in support of learning outcomes. I

Proposed Action for Course Improvement:I have been working on revising some of the PowerPoint presentations that I put together during Spring semester 2006. I am also in the process of compiling many support materials from various sources that can better support the stated learning outcomes. I will also have 3-4 revised in-class lab activities that will further contribute to enhance learning of students. All of these action items for course improvements will be implemented during the next course offering in Spring semester 2007.

Attachment A

Appendix DD – IME SRoI Results for Spring 2006

North Dakota State University Semester Report Information Student Rating of Instruction --- Course Level Summary Report Report Generated on 16JUN06 Using Data from Spring 2006

Department Information Number of Students: Response Key:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Level: 100 & 200 Level Courses VG= Very Good....(5) Dept: INDUSTRIAL & MANUFACTURING ENG G= Good....(4) # Sheets Scanned: This Level .... 37 IB=In Between....(3) Your Dept ..... 379 P= Poor....(2) Your College .. 4331 VP= Very Poor....(1)

Frequencies (top row) and percents (bottom row) are provided to the right of each question. S.D. is the Standard Deviation and #R is the Number of Valid Responses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please rate: VG G IB P VP OMIT AREA MEAN S.D. #R======================================================================================================================== | Level 3.730 0.838 37 1. your satisfaction with the 3 26 4 3 1 0 | Department 3.586 0.961 374 instruction in this course. 8.1 70.3 10.8 8.1 2.7 0.0 | College 3.905 0.966 4285 | University 4.083 0.918 32281------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 4.027 0.687 37 2. the instructor as a teacher. 8 23 5 1 0 0 | Department 3.703 0.980 374 21.6 62.2 13.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 | College 3.944 0.998 4284 | University 4.149 0.942 32271------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 4.000 0.745 37 3. the ability of the instructor 8 23 4 2 0 0 | Department 3.618 1.015 374 to communicate effectively. 21.6 62.2 10.8 5.4 0.0 0.0 | College 3.870 1.005 4282 | University 4.082 0.970 32234------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 3.583 1.052 36 4. the quality of this course. 5 19 6 4 2 1 | Department 3.548 0.971 372 13.5 51.4 16.2 10.8 5.4 2.7 | College 3.867 0.923 4279 | University 3.985 0.891 32239------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 3.811 0.616 37 5. the fairness of procedures 3 25 8 1 0 0 | Department 3.836 0.878 373 for grading this course. 8.1 67.6 21.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 | College 3.966 0.934 4276 | University 4.157 0.877 32229------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 3.892 0.809 37 6. your understanding of the 7 21 8 0 1 0 | Department 3.714 0.909 374 course content. 18.9 56.8 21.6 0.0 2.7 0.0 | College 3.940 0.837 4276 | University 4.016 0.836 32221------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please rate: VG G IB P VP OMIT AREA MEAN S.D. #R======================================================================================================================== | Level 3.538 0.972 320 1. your satisfaction with the 42 145 88 33 12 4 | Department 3.586 0.961 374 instruction in this course. 13.0 44.8 27.2 10.2 3.7 1.2 | College 3.905 0.966 4285 | University 4.083 0.918 32281------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 3.631 1.002 320 2. the instructor as a teacher. 54 149 76 27 14 4 | Department 3.703 0.980 374 16.7 46.0 23.5 8.3 4.3 1.2 | College 3.944 0.998 4284 | University 4.149 0.942 32271------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 3.528 1.026 320 3. the ability of the instructor 45 143 87 26 19 4 | Department 3.618 1.015 374 to communicate effectively. 13.9 44.1 26.9 8.0 5.9 1.2 | College 3.870 1.005 4282 | University 4.082 0.970 32234------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 3.517 0.967 319 4. the quality of this course. 44 134 92 41 8 5 | Department 3.548 0.971 372 13.6 41.4 28.4 12.7 2.5 1.5 | College 3.867 0.923 4279 | University 3.985 0.891 32239------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 3.825 0.903 320 5. the fairness of procedures 62 175 58 15 10 4 | Department 3.836 0.878 373 for grading this course. 19.1 54.0 17.9 4.6 3.1 1.2 | College 3.966 0.934 4276 | University 4.157 0.877 32229------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 3.675 0.924 320 6. your understanding of the 50 158 79 24 9 4 | Department 3.714 0.909 374 course content. 15.4 48.8 24.4 7.4 2.8 1.2 | College 3.940 0.837 4276 | University 4.016 0.836 32221------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions beyond #6 are optional, vary by department, and use the following key: A=5 B=4 C=3 D=2 E=1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please rate: A B C D E OMIT AREA MEAN S.D. #R======================================================================================================================== Item 7. 4 8 0 0 0 0 | Level 4.333 0.492 12 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 | Department 4.333 0.492 12------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 8. 2 8 2 0 0 0 | Level 4.000 0.603 12 16.7 66.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 | Department 4.000 0.603 12------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 9. 6 5 1 0 0 0 | Level 4.417 0.669 12 50.0 41.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 | Department 4.417 0.669 12------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 10. 3 7 2 0 0 0 | Level 4.083 0.669 12 25.0 58.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 | Department 4.083 0.669 12------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 11. 2 7 3 0 0 0 | Level 3.917 0.669 12 16.7 58.3 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 | Department 3.917 0.669 12------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 12. 5 6 1 0 0 0 | Level 4.333 0.651 12 41.7 50.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 | Department 4.333 0.651 12------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 13. 8 2 2 0 0 0 | Level 4.500 0.798 12 66.7 16.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 | Department 4.500 0.798 12------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 14. 4 7 1 0 0 0 | Level 4.250 0.622 12 33.3 58.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 | Department 4.250 0.622 12------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 15. 3 8 1 0 0 0 | Level 4.167 0.577 12 25.0 66.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 | Department 4.167 0.577 12------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 16. 2 7 2 0 0 1 | Level 4.000 0.632 11 16.7 58.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 | Department 4.000 0.632 11------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 17. 3 5 3 0 0 1 | Level 4.000 0.775 11 25.0 41.7 25.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 | Department 4.000 0.775 11------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 18. 3 6 2 0 0 1 | Level 4.091 0.701 11 25.0 50.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 | Department 4.091 0.701 11------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 19. 3 5 2 1 0 1 | Level 3.909 0.944 11 25.0 41.7 16.7 8.3 0.0 8.3 | Department 3.909 0.944 11------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 20. 2 6 3 0 0 1 | Level 3.909 0.701 11 16.7 50.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 | Department 3.909 0.701 11

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 21. 2 6 2 1 0 1 | Level 3.818 0.874 11 16.7 50.0 16.7 8.3 0.0 8.3 | Department 3.818 0.874 11------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please rate: VG G IB P VP OMIT AREA MEAN S.D. #R======================================================================================================================== | Level 4.176 0.809 17 1. your satisfaction with the 6 9 1 1 0 1 | Department 3.586 0.961 374 instruction in this course. 33.3 50.0 5.6 5.6 0.0 5.6 | College 3.905 0.966 4285 | University 4.083 0.918 32281------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 4.353 0.702 17 2. the instructor as a teacher. 8 7 2 0 0 1 | Department 3.703 0.980 374 44.4 38.9 11.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 | College 3.944 0.998 4284 | University 4.149 0.942 32271------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 4.471 0.717 17 3. the ability of the instructor 10 5 2 0 0 1 | Department 3.618 1.015 374 to communicate effectively. 55.6 27.8 11.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 | College 3.870 1.005 4282 | University 4.082 0.970 32234------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 4.059 0.748 17 4. the quality of this course. 4 11 1 1 0 1 | Department 3.548 0.971 372 22.2 61.1 5.6 5.6 0.0 5.6 | College 3.867 0.923 4279 | University 3.985 0.891 32239------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 4.125 0.885 16 5. the fairness of procedures 6 7 2 1 0 2 | Department 3.836 0.878 373 for grading this course. 33.3 38.9 11.1 5.6 0.0 11.1 | College 3.966 0.934 4276 | University 4.157 0.877 32229------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Level 4.059 0.748 17 6. your understanding of the 5 8 4 0 0 1 | Department 3.714 0.909 374 course content. 27.8 44.4 22.2 0.0 0.0 5.6 | College 3.940 0.837 4276 | University 4.016 0.836 32221

January 20, 2006 - NDSU - North Dakota State University · Web viewExplain the principles,...

Documents

Transcript of January 20, 2006 - NDSU - North Dakota State University · Web viewExplain the principles,...

North Dakota - NDSU

NDSU Direct Programs

Ndsu Offensive Playbook

NDSU Graduate Bulletin

January 2021 - NDSU

metallurgy association EPMA Powder Metallurgy Summer ...

NDSU IT Security

NDSU Libraries

CAREER CENTER - NDSU · NDSU Career Center –306 Ceres Hall 701-231-7111 career.ndsu.edu

NDSU announces spring commencement ceremonies › fileadmin › ihas › IHAS_Schedule › 2012_Archi… · NDSU announces spring commencement ceremonies NDSU spring commencement

Open letter to NDSU President Bresciani. NDSU and Planned ...

Nordstrom - NDSU

Linkage Disequilibrium - NDSU

Cloud Drives at NDSU

Internationalization at NDSU

@NDSUPerformingArts · Web viewStudent Chamber Music NDSU Saxophone Ensembles 12th Avenue Saxophone Quartet Bison Saxophone Quartet NDSU Saxophone Trio NDSU Saxophone Choir Friday,

NDSU GROW: Supervisor Training · 2018-08-10 · NDSU GROW: Supervisor Training. Fall, 2016. Jeremy Penn, NDSU. Director, Student Affairs Assessment @NDSU_SA_ASSESS. STUDENT AFFAIRS

NDSU Advance FORWARD · Tl Mentoring and reverse mentoring Women in leadership Travel Oct-10 NDSU Administration External to NDSU FORWARD Administration Key: 4. Percentage of NDSU

INTDUCTIN - NDSU Libraries

NDSU Soybean production research