B.2. Program Educational Objectives (Criterion 2)

The primary goals of the IMSE Department are to develop technically qualified industrial engineers, equipped with the necessary analytical, data-based decision making, computing, communication, teamwork and leadership skills for the design, analysis, implementation and management of production, information, and service systems; to expand the field of knowledge in industrial and manufacturing systems engineering with emphases on manufacturing systems, information engineering, human factors, and applied operations research; and to provide continuing education and outreach activities in our professional areas.

The mission statement is the highest level of a top-down process to define program

educational objectives. To formulate our mission, we began with our perspective on Industrial Engineering (IE): Industrial Engineering is focused on the design, analysis, implementation and operation of systems, which provide goods and services vital to our society. Typically systems are highly complex, and are comprised of people, processes, materials, technology and information integrated to meet a common goal. Examples of systems can be found in any sector of the economy, e.g., manufacturing, distribution, transportation, public sector, health care, information, and finance to name a few. The objective of IE is to improve the quality and productivity of these systems.

The program mission is consistent with our above-stated view of Industrial Engineering as an

academic discipline and the special needs of our student body as discussed in Section B.1. The

program mission and the program educational objectives derived from it (stated in the next

section) are also consistent with the broader institutional mission of the College of Engineering:

"The College of Engineering is committed to excellence, innovation, and effectiveness in research, education, and outreach programs that are responsive to the needs of its constituents."

B.2.2 List of Program Educational Objectives

With the mission statement serving as a basis, the department identified the following

seven educational objectives.

1. Develop an ability in students to competently employ broad-based analytical tools and computers for decision-making and system design, analysis and performance evaluation.
2. Expose students to the formulation of problems in specific application areas, including manufacturing, production, logistics, ergonomics, management, service industry, public policy, and information systems.
3. Expose students to design experiences, which escalate in scope and complexity over the duration of their educational program, culminating in a realistic design project comparable to the work that an IE would be expected to do in a workplace.
4. Provide students with ongoing opportunities for written and oral presentation of their ideas to aid in the development of good communication skills.
5. Provide students with ongoing opportunities for working in multidisciplinary teams.
6. Instill in students a desire for lifelong learning so they can effectively adapt to the changing demands in their workplace and be able to perform tasks outside their field of expertise.
7. Develop the potential of students to assume top managerial and leadership roles in their chosen professional careers.

The following four groups are considered primary constituents of the program:

1. Students
2. Faculty
3. Employers
4. Alumni
5. (The following group is considered to be a secondary constituent of our program.) College and University Administration

These five constituents were involved to varying extents and through different forums in the

processes related to the establishment and review of program objectives. We also interact with other engineering departments to ensure that our students are receiving appropriate instruction in courses outside the major. We also consider the entrance requirements of graduate programs and professional engineering registration when contemplating program changes.

B.2.4 Processes Used to Establish and Review Program Educational Objectives

The initial development of our process was accomplished in stages:

1. CASCOM Committee (which has student membership) discussed program and developed first draft of objectives and outcomes (Spring, 1998)

   CASCOM (Curriculum, Assessment, and Standards Committee) is a standing committee of the IMSE Department, charged with making recommendations to the faculty on important undergraduate matters, including curricular changes, new courses, program assessment, etc. The committee, for the 1999-2000 academic year, consisted of Professors Jackman, Meeks, Min, and Patterson (chair), Dr. Egbelu, and Deb Holmes along with a student (Ely Setiawati) and an industrial member (Mr. Arvin Plima of Pella Corporation).

2. Two faculty retreats were devoted to these topics to get faculty input and develop a consensus regarding our approach (Spring and Fall, 1998)
3. A focus group, consisting of 10 companies who hire our graduates, was held in Davenport, Iowa, in the Fall of 1998. They provided additional input the development of our objectives and how we might reach those objectives.
4. CASCOM discussed these group inputs and generated an initial process cycle (Spring, 1999)
5. Student and alumni survey information was collected and evaluated (Spring, 1999)
6. Faculty were involved in a sequence of meetings to discuss, evaluate, and approve the resulting process cycle, objectives, and outcomes (Spring, 1999)
7. IMSE Industrial Advisory Board discussed materials and provides input (Fall, 1999)

   Excellent feedback was obtained on what industry is looking for in our graduates. Some of the board members’ suggestions were incorporated in the Program Mission and Program Educational Objectives, as well as into our thinking about the IE curriculum.

8. Revised statements were approved by a unanimous faculty vote (Fall, 1999)
9. Statements and process dissemination (Fall, 1999; Spring, 2000)

   The mission statement and program objectives are posted on all departmental bulletin boards, placed in the Undergraduate Student Manual (given to all students) and on the IE Department web site, to familiarize students with them. An electronic form is made available on the web site for comments and feedback. These documents are also posted on an office bulletin board, so the faculty members are continually reminded of their importance.

10. A meeting with members of the Dean’s Advisory Council was used to further focus our objectives, assessment process, and course content (Spring, 2000).
11. A meeting of the officers of IMSE student organizations was used to obtain additional student opinions of our departmental objectives, outcomes, and our process (Spring, 2000).

The continuous improvement process for the industrial engineering program developed using this process is shown in detail in Appendix I, Table D1, as an IDEF0 model. The overall process is illustrated in Figure 1, below. The process consists of three iterative loops based on three levels of improvement activities, similar to those of the ABET Evaluation & Assessment 2-Loop Process. The difference in the three loops is seen in the loop cycle time and the constituencies involved. The shortest loop is the instructor loop in which an instructor utilizes course assessment tools to determine areas of improvement local to the course. When issues of a larger magnitude than the course result from these assessments, an instructor will bring this to the next loop, involving the Curriculum Assessment & Standards Committee as well as the other faculty. Changes made at this level can include re-structuring of the program, elimination of courses, and addition of courses. For significant changes in program direction, it may be necessary to contact external constituents for additional input. The third loop brings in external participants including industry, alumni, and engineering educators. Input from these participants is brought into the second loop of improvement. We will evaluate and improve this process over time. The above discussion shows our processes for establishing and reviewing program educational objectives. We have instituted this process and, based on our initial pilot evaluations/assessments during Spring 2000, are confident that it is a useful tool in improving the effectiveness of the IMSE program.

The university administration is not directly involved with formulating program objectives. However, we recognize the administration does exert a major influence on the long-term direction of the department through hiring policies, and provision of resources and facilities. This, in turn, will influence our undergraduate program objectives.

Figure 1. Overview of Our Continuous Improvement Process

B.2.5 Ensuring Achievement of Program Educational Objectives

The program educational objectives are tied directly to course objectives. Each course description form lists the program objectives that the course meets. Table D2 in Appendix I summarizes these relationships. From this table it is seen that most program objectives are met by more than one course, and every program objective is covered to a satisfactory extent through a combination of courses.

In Fall 1999, faculty members were asked to fill out a form listing the specific components (such as projects, homework assignments, case studies) from the courses they just taught that fulfill one or more of the above-listed program objectives. In part, this is an educational process for the faculty to make them sensitive to the need for achievement of the program objectives. Furthermore, as the faculty become more attuned to the philosophy of outcomes based assessment and continuous improvement, they will modify and improve their courses to converge toward an even stronger achievement of the program objectives.

Feedback from students regarding the extent of the achievement of program objectives are obtained in several ways.

1. A Student Feedback Committee was established in Spring 2000. This committee consists of officers from IIE, Alpha Pi Mu, HIMSS, INFORMS, and other student groups. This group meets independently of any faculty and presents their results to the Director of Undergraduate studies.
2. Graduating seniors have both an Exit Survey and an exit interview with a committee made up of the Department Chair, the Director of Undergraduate Studies and the Academic Advisor.
3. Each course will be evaluated by a new student evaluation instrument which has questions linked to ABET Criteria 3.
4. A general student survey is given to every student in the program during the Spring semester.
5. A survey will be sent to department alumni to determine the impact our program has made on their professional careers and to obtain their critique of our program.
6. A survey instrument will be given to the departmental advisory council to obtain information regarding program improvements, facility needs, and departmental direction
7. A survey instrument, being developed with DDI, will be used to determine the effectiveness of our program in preparing students for their first job experience

The survey results, exit interview results, and the results of the Student Feedback Committee meeting will be included in the material available during the ABET visit. We plan to follow these processes regularly in the future. The results from these evaluations are used to improve the effectiveness of the program. The Undergraduate Program Director reviews the faculty course forms to make sure that the program objectives listed in the course syllabi are actually met. Any gross discrepancies are brought to the attention of the individual faculty.

A complete listing of major feedback received from the primary constituents in 1999-2000 and the corrective actions taken in response are given in Table D3, in Appendix I-A.