IndustryUniversityGovernment Roundtable for Enhancing Engineering Education IUGREEE

1
Industry-University-Government Roundtable for
Enhancing Engineering Education IUGREEE

• Summary Overview
• October 2000
• John McMasters
• Technical Fellow
• The Boeing Company
• Seattle,WA

2
Background

• IUGREEE initiated by Boeing - First meeting held
  in Seattle in March 1995 (hosted and paid for by
  Boeing)
• Outgrowth of the Boeing-University Workshop
  process initiated in Feb. 1994 which recognized
  that
• Many of the problems affecting Boeing in its
  relations with universities were national in
  scope (e.g. ABET accreditation policy) and beyond
  the reach of a single company in a single market
  niche (aerospace) to influence
• There are many interested parties in
  engineering education reform all have
  perspectives, all of which must be respected if
  real reform is to be accomplished
• No existing body or organization was working the
  problem of education reform (beyond conducting
  studies with mountains of mere recommendations),
  from an industry perspective although the NSF
  was doing a lot from the government end and IRI
  was working the research part with limited
  success.

3
Industry, University and Government Players in
Technical Education and Research

• Government

Industry
NSF, DoD, NASA
Industry- University research interests
The engineering education legislature
IRI
NAE/NAS/NIH NRC
ABET
IUGREEE
The Big Science lobby
AAAS
ASEE
Undergrad Education
Academe
IEEE, ASME, AIAA, etc.
Universities
The engineering educator faculty club
Professional Societies
for research
4
IUGREEE - How It Works

• Operates like a Knowledge Management Community
  of Interest/Practice
• Purely voluntary affiliation of individuals
  interested or involved in engineering education
  reform and enhancement
• Initiated, but not led, by Boeing (which remains
  a heavy participant, however)
• Membership open to anyone based solely on
  interest and willingness to contribute time and
  effort
• Operates under a simple Memorandum of Agreement
  (MOU) with no membership dues or fees, and no
  paid staff (other than services donated from
  various sources, e.g. SAE Foundation for several
  years)
• Meeting hosting expenses borne by donating
  organizations or companies on a semi-round robin
  basis Boeing has hosted 4 out of 11 to date, and
  McD hosted one prior to our merger.
• Individual travel and meeting related or other
  expenses borne by participants or the
  organizations they represent.

5
Industry-University-Government Roundtable for
Enhancing Engineering Education

• Mission
• Create and sustain an alliance of industry,
  university and government representatives to
  influence the quality of engineering education
  programs needed to produce engineering graduates
  able to meet the professional standards and
  challenges of the business environment of the
  21st Century.
• Identify and articulate critical issues to which
  academe must respond as perceived from an an
  evolving industrial perspective
• Develop action agendas to accomplish needed
  changes in engineering education
• Facilitate implementation through existing
  organizations and institutions, i.e. use existing
  resources to the maximum degree possible

Objectives
6
Industry-University-Government Roundtable for
Enhancing Engineering Education IUGREEE

• IUGREEE Action Implementation Model

Organizations
IUGREE

• ABET
• Government Agencies
• (NSF, DoD, NASA, etc.)
• NAE and NRC
• Professional Societies (ASEE, IEEE, etc.)
• Industry Associations
• (IRI, AIA, etc.)

Policy Steering Team
Advocate
Council (Advisory Board)

• Action Teams
• Academic
• Programs
• Enhancing the
• Profession
• Knowledge
• Management
• Research
• Alliances

Influence
Academe
Advocate/ Interact
7
IUGREEE TEAMS (Fall 2000)

• Policy and Steering Team (Chair Dr. Ted Okiishi,
  Iowa State U.) - Guides and integrates the
  activities of the Action Teams (the chairs of
  which are on the PS teams) which in turn
  identify issues and create action agendas in
  their areas of interest.
• Academic Programs (Co-chairs John McMasters,
  Boeing Wm. Durgin, WPI) - Deals with issues
  affecting students prior to graduation (at
  whatever degree level) including university
  curricula and pedagogy, related ABET
  accreditation standards, and industry-university
  educational alliances. In a 1999 team
  reorganization, Academic Programs absorbed the
  activities of the earlier Career Long Learning
  team and became responsible for continuing
  education issues (curricula, distance learning,
  accreditation, etc.) as well.
• Enhancing the Engineering Profession Team (Chair
  Bob Waner, Boeing) - Works towards providing the
  infrastructure necessary to support engineering
  education reform and complementary career long
  professional development opportunities once
  individual enter professional practice. Specific
  issues addressed include professional growth and
  recognition as well as supply and engineering
  image building in K-14 education and in the
  public perception.
• Knowledge Management Team (Chair Adnan Akay,
  Carnegie-Mellon U.) - This team was initially
  formed around the notion of the importance of
  knowledge reuses with all its education
  ramification to the future success of industry
  manufacturing concerns. It has since broadened
  to an effort to include a range of formal
  Knowledge Management issues and concerns into
  university programs.
• Research Technology Alliances Team (Chair Dave
  Wisler, GEAE) - Seeks to better align university
  research with industry needs and ultimately
  influence the university reward system.

8
IUGREEE Council

• The IUGREEE Council is made up of visible,
  senior-level individuals with strong ties to
  industry, professional societies, academe and
  other agencies committed to the goals of the
  organization.
• Council functions include
• Provide credibility and access to the working
  body of the Roundtable
• Actively assist in recruiting new (especially
  corporate) members
• Aid in drawing broad external attention to the
  issues identified by the Roundtable
• Evaluate and enable Roundtable team actions
• Constructively influence policies and programs of
  Roundtable teams and those of other education
  reform agencies

9
IUGREEE Critical Issues

• Development of a viable action (rather than
  mere recommendation) agenda by each of the
  IUGREEE teams
• Recruiting and retaining additional members,
  especially those from non-aerospace companies
• Increasing and strengthening (broadening) the
  membership of the Council
• Strengthening and/or reestablishing relations
  with organizations with needed resources to
  affect change

• Development of a strategic vision for engineering
  education, beyond the limits of what can be
  accomplished under ABET EC 2000
• Development of a compelling case for a continued
  broad base of industry support and participation
  in engineering education reform efforts
• We really need to take a hard look at where we go
  from where we have been and where we are now -
  and why.

10
Some Major Near Term Issues to Work

• Continued support for ABET
• Accreditation of click versus brick education
  programs
• Help define global requirements for ABET
  accreditation
• Successful full implementation of EC 2000
• Continue to provide high caliber ABET program
  evaluators from industry (and overcome internal
  company barriers to participation, etc.)
• Do we really have a serious problem with the
  demographics and pipeline for future graduates?
  If so, what should we do about it?
• How do we actually affect the faculty (and
  industry/government) reward system to better
  align both university education and research
  programs with real industry needs ?
• What, if any, impact do the concepts of Knowledge
  Management have on the way universities do their
  business? KM is clearly a big deal for industry,
  but what does it have to do with the way
  individual professors do their jobs?
• Programs like our Boeing-Welliver Faculty Summer
  Fellowship work well for us, but have so far
  resisted exportation to other companies. Why?
  How can this situation be changed?

11
Boeing List of Desired Attributes of an Engineer

• A good understanding of engineering science
  fundamentals
• Mathematics (including statistics)
• Physical and life sciences
• Information technology (far more than computer
  literacy)
• A good understanding of design and manufacturing
  processes (i.e. understands engineering)
• A multi-disciplinary, systems perspective
• A basic understanding of the context in which
  engineering is practiced
• Economics (including business practice)
• History
• The environment
• Customer and societal needs

• Good communication skills
• Written
• Oral
• Graphic
• Listening
• High ethical standards
• An ability to think both critically and
  creatively - independently and cooperatively
• Flexibility. The ability and self-confidence to
  adapt to rapid or major change
• Curiosity and a desire to learn for life
• A profound understanding of the importance of
  teamwork.

• This is a list, begun in 1994, of basic durable
  attributes
• into which can be mapped specific skills
  reflecting the
• diversity of the overall engineering
  environment in which
• we in professional practice operate.
• This current version of the list can be viewed
  on the Boeing
• web site as a basic message to those seeking
  advice from
• the company on the topic. Its contents are
  also included
• for the most part in ABET EC 2000.

12
ABETs Role In Technical Education
Workplace Rapid Change Classical Business
Info. Tech New Ventures Globalization Tech
nical Competency Socially Complex Desired
Employee Attributes Individual Basic
Education Advanced Degrees BS
Degree Continuing Education
Certification Life Long Learning Educational
System K-12 System Traditional Schools
Universities Non-Traditional Schools AA,
BS, MS, PhD Intl vs. Domestic Schools
Specialized Educ. Corporate Schools ABET
(Role) Pre-College, K-12 Graduate Degrees
Domestic Accreditation International
Substantial BS Degrees
Equivalency Engineering Continuing
Education Technology Distance
Learning Computing Certification
abetres8262000.ppt
13
ABET Program Evaluators from Industry
Industry looks to ABET for Accreditation ABET
looks to Industry for Evaluators
Universities (323) provide the education
with accreditation renewal every 6 years for
1555 programs
Industry Want Engineers who are properly prepared
from universities
ABET provides the accreditation for
Engineering education programs
Graduates enter workforce accepted by industry
as qualified to begin careers
Engineers come from industry to serve
The Math 50 schools/year 6-10 evaluators 3-5
from industry 200 industry people/year 1 week of
time training ABET pays travel Companies pay
time ? Industry Needs to Support
Evaluators 50 Industry 50 University
Professional Societies (28) provide Program
Evaluators and support the training of program
evaluators (eg, ASME, SAE, AIAA)
abetres8262000.ppt
14
Changing Paradigms In University Education

• Traditional Model
  Emerging Model ?

A whole system perspective
Aided by adoption of ABET EC 2000
Educate
Education (college/university raison detre)
Curriculum
Research (Scholarship and creation of new
knowledge)
Community Service
Create New Knowledge
Community Service

• Blocked by
• Continued heavy reliance on (government) funding
  for research
• Faculty reward system
• Lack of adequate industry attention

15
TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE BY DESIGN
Which of these two archetypal technical employees
is more valuable to The Boeing Company? They
both are!
Growth on this axis is necessary for all
technical path individuals.

• Tool Makers
• Information/Knowledge
• Gathers and Providers

• System Integrators
• Product/service Architects

Breadth of Technical Knowledge/ Experience
Breadth of Technical Knowledge/ Experience
Breadth of Business Knowledge/Experience
Deep Generalists
Technical Specialists/ Experts
Log scale
Minimum knowledge/ expertise required
for Technical Fellowship
Depth of Knowledge/ Experience
Boeing Technical Workforce Currently Future (5
yrs ) Technical Specialists 80-90 50
? Deep Generalists 10-20 50 ?
16
Evolving Trends In Engineering Education and
PracticeIndustry Needs -University Responses

• Industry Practice Major Industrialized Nations

• Massive computational/simulation capabilities
• Testing shift to validation
• Integrated Product Teams mandatory
• Lean concepts force closure of engineering
  (design) and manufacturing gaps
• Heavy emphases on Processes, Costs, Value

• Heavy emphasis on experiment
• Limited to slide rule mathematics
• Heavy reliance on handbook methods
• Strong linkage of engineering to manufacturing
• Limited company funded research

• Continued heavy reliance on testing
• Steadily increasing computational
• capabilities (but largely linear math)
• Widening gap between engineering and
• manufacturing cultures
• Greatly increased company-funded RD
• Greatly increased need for depth of
• technical knowledge

Engineering Curricula

System Integrators/ Product Architects (Multidis
ciplinary Perspective)
Technical Specialists (Engineering Science
Technicians)

• Vocational orientation
• Limited (linear) mathematics
• Emphases on
• - data gathering,
• - problem solving,
• - design (and drafting)
• - manufacturing

• Retain strengths in math and physics
  fundamentals plus enhanced IT emphasis
• Emphasis on design and manufacturing
• New emphases on breadth, context and process
  issues
• -Economics, business, project management
• -Environmental and societal issues
• -Teamwork and communication skills
• -Career-long learning

• Engineering
• General
• Practitioners
• Mechanical
• Electrical
• Civil
• Chemical

• Increasing emphasis on depth of specific
• technical knowledge
• Much attention to theory and math technique
• Decreasing emphasis on design and
• manufacturing
• Needs to publish or perish

Information Age
Cold War Era
Rapid Industrial Expansion
Emerging post-Cold War global economy, enabled
by transportation and communications technology
Big science, rapid technological
advances, international perspective
Transform from Agrarian to Manufacturing Economy
WW 2
Sputnik
Berlin Wall
1900
1950
2000
17
Desired Elements of a Model Engineering Education
Program

• Curricula with a proper balance between
  fundamentals (math, engineering sciences, IT,
  etc.) and provision of in-depth experience in
  skills and issues important to professional
  practice
• Fully compliant with the spirit and intent of
  ABET EC 2000 cf. Boeing list of Desired
  Attributes
• Provides a solid foundation for subsequent
  graduate study, professional practice and
  continued career-long learning
• Built on strengths in graduate education and
  research programs where these exist
• Courses and labs team taught to degree feasible
• Strong emphasis on design-build-test project
  experience from the freshman year through
  graduation (at whatever degree level)
• A diverse, well qualified faculty
• Strong teaching as well as research ability
• Industry and professional practice literate and
  experienced
• Willing and bale to function as a team
• Exemplars of life-long learning
• Effective mechanisms in place to integrate
  knowledge transfer (teaching, etc.) with research
  and community service
• Vertically between graduate and undergraduate
  programs
• Horizontally across department, college and
  discipline boundaries

• Adequate facilities and institutional support
• Classroom space suitable for cooperative/collabora
  tive learning pedagogical models
• Dedicated student design-build-test project labs
• Laboratory and computational facilities with
  modern equipment and technician support
• Strong external (industry, government, etc.)
  relations and support
• Use of adjunct faculty from industry, etc. to
  degree practical
• Strong, effective external advisory boards
  (with industry, government, peer institution
  representation) at both departmental and college
  levels
• Effective networks and exchange opportunities
  with industry, peer university programs (both
  domestic and international) and alumni

The model program outlined here pertains to a
standard engineering core (to which requisite
general education/liberal arts content may be
added) in universities with both graduate and
undergraduate degree programs. Most elements are
applicable to those programs devoted primarily to
providing quality undergraduate education as well.
18
A Possible Degree and Continuing Education
Structure for Engineering and Engineering
Science Education

• Pre-professional degree for subsequent graduate
  study in
• business, law, medicine, finance, etc.
• Employment as an engineering science
  technician

• Note The traditional BS/MS/PhD degree structure
• is a legacy of the 19th Century origins of
  engineering
• education programs as vocationally oriented
  outgrowths
• of the science components of liberal arts
  curricula and is
• no longer consistent with the needs of a true
• Professional Program.

Professional practice in industry, government,
etc.
Professional Engineering Degree M.E. - Master
of Engineering
Intern/Coop Encouraged
K-12 Education
Continued Career-Long Learning (Education and
Training)
Pre-Professional Engineering/Technology Degree
B.E. - Bachelor of Engineering
Traditional M.S. (Engineering Science)
Traditional Ph.D. (Professional Engineering
Science degree) Professional practice in
academe, research, etc.
5-6 years
19
About Process Improvement

• Never tell someone how to do something, tell
  them what you want done . . . and they will amaze
  you with their solutions.
• Gen. George S. Patton

20
Industry-University-Government Roundtable for
Enhancing Engineering Education IUGREEE

• Some Issues in Engineering Education in Relation
  to Knowledge Management from a Boeing Perspective
• October 2000
• John McMasters
• Technical Fellow
• The Boeing Company
• Seattle,WA

21
World Views of The Boeing Company

• Heritage Boeing
• (Puget Sound-centric)

• Emerging Boeing (Global) Enterprise

growth
Commercial Airplanes
Customer/Supplier Network
TBC Seattle, WA
Military
Space
growth
Commercial
TBC Global
growth
Other
growth
Space
Military
growth
Other
growth
Note Increasing the size of the company from
its Heritage level presents an organizational
volume problem. Thus, in doubling the size of
the company, according to the square-cube law
the problems of communications, etc.
are increased approximately eight fold.
Global Societal/Political/Economic Context
22
Technical Workforce Composition Over Time(Toward
a Technical Workforce Stabilization Strategy)

• Assumption The business remains cyclical per
  past historical trends, but grows (in terms of
  work statement) at an annualized rate of about 5
  per year on average, while attrition stabilizes
  at the historical rate of 5-6 per year.

1.0
Relative Technical Employee Headcount
Contingent Workforce -Contractors -Industry
Assist -Off shore teams
Temporary
0.5
Technicians
Permanent
Professionals (Math, Science, Eng., Computing)
Core Professionals (Core long-term technical
expertise)
0
2000
2010
2020
Year
Notes - While the work statement grows over
time, permanent employee headcount can be
stabilized via process improvements,
mechanization of routine work and strategic
assets utilization and consolidation.
- Stabilization of the workforce against
normal attrition allows beneficial continuous
recruiting regardless of fluctuations in the
business cycle.
23
Every Technical Employee Has (at least) Two
Allegiances
Multidisciplinary Team Platforms, IPTs, etc.

• Multi-disciplinary Teams (IPTs, Platforms Teams,
  etc.)
• Discipline/
• Technology
• Specialty
• TIG
• Each technical employee must become an
  ambidextrous thinker able to work cooperatively
  in a multi-disciplinary team while maintaining
  the integrity of the discipline(s) in which each
  has particular expertise.

Discipline/ Technology Specialization KM
Communities of Practice
24
Opportunities in a Balanced Exploration of the
Knowledge Management Domain

• Opportunities (all quadrants)
• Wise (balanced) use of resources
• Intrinsic part of the education/learning process

Aware
What we know we know.
What we know we dont know.
Knowledge Re-use
Targeted Research
Unknown
Known
Curiosity-based Research
Prospecting Hunting Searching
Traps Surprises Competitive Risk
What someone knows, but that we havent found
yet.
What we dont know we dont know.
Unaware
Originally developed by Dr. Lee Matsch Allied
Signal Aerospace and John McMasters under the
auspices of the Boeing initiated
Industry-University-Government Roundtable for
Enhancing Engineering Education IUGREEE in
1997-98.
25
Essentials of Knowledge Management

• A KM Taxonomy

• Wise application of knowledge is situational -
  requiring judgment and experience. There are few
  one size fits all, every time, everywhere
  solutions to most problems.
• Mentorship is required to reach the higher levels
  of the KM value stream.
• Knowledge is processed organized, interpreted
  information.
• Knowledge and information is what we put in
  textbooks
• Information is processed data

Enlightenment
Why What How
Wisdom
Knowledge
What How
Information
Data
26
Perspectives on Knowledge Management(Priorities,
Values and Emphases)

• Industry Agenda

Education Agenda

• A KM Taxonomy

• Customer satisfaction
• Shareholder value
• Profit

• Educated graduates
• Scholarly publications
• Research funding

Enlightenment
Wisdom
Products
Theory
Knowledge
Problem Solution and Data Acquisition Techniques
Tools and Processes
Information
Theory (and economics)
Data
Possible Applications
27
Why arent they talking?
Create people networks, rather than mere
information technology networks.
28
Technology Interest Groups(Communities of
Practice)

• An Boeing enterprise-wide association of people
  
• a community of common discipline/technology
  interest intent on
• advancing their art while maintaining the
  integrity of the body of knowledge it
  encompasses,
• enhancing the skill and knowledge of its
  practitioners at all experience levels,
• preserving its heritage and durable lessons
  learned
• purposely making its knowledge and experience
  readily accessible to the Boeing community at
  large.

29
Committees, Teams and Communities

• Committees/Teams
• Task/project oriented
• Direct value (perceived)
• Membership assigned
• Culture of action
• Driven by deliverables
• Develop by work plan (budget and schedule)
• Bound by authority (job expectations, rewards)

• Communities TIGs
• Goals oriented
• Indirect (strategic) value
• Membership open to all
• Culture of learning
• Driven by intrinsic motivation
• Develop organically
• Bound by sense of common interest and purpose

30
An Example of a Boeing KM Community of
Practice Aerospace Vehicle Configurations
Technical Fellowship Technology Knowledge
Sharing Forum

• Basic Premises
• Aerospace vehicles remain a core of Boeing
  business
• All the excellent technology and processes in
  the world are
• useless without the necessary skilled and
  motivate people
• to apply them
• Talented designers configurators
  aerospace vehicle
• system architects are hard to come bythe
  skill
• needs to be cultivated

Education/Training Programs Available to the
entire Boeing community
Master
One-on-One Mentoring
Aerospace Vehicle Configuration Synthesis 699
Experienced Journey-people

• Mentorship
• Technical Fellowship
• Technical peers
• Outside sources
• Academe
• Customers
• Suppliers
• Other

Aerospace Vehicle Configuration Synthesis 101
Apprentices
University Auxiliary

• Improved curricula
• Enhanced graduates
• Fresh ideas and methods

Strong ties to other CoPs
Faculty
Students
31
A Comprehensive TIG Concept
Technology Interest Groups (TIGs) are Boeing
variants of KM Communities of Practice.
Mutual research interests
University Executive Focal Boeing Fellows on
Campus

• Recruiting
• - Interns/
• Coops
• - New Hires

• Enhanced curricula
• Better prepared graduates

Faculty (Welliver Fellows ?)
Cream of the crop
University B
University C
Student Population
Created by Prof. Russ Cummings, Cal Poly-SLO in
collaboration with John McMasters
32
Boeing Signature Design Competition

• A Proposal to the Boeing University Relation
  Sub-Process Council
• Ron Bengelink
• Steve Kruse
• Brian Lee
• John McMasters
• (with special thanks to Dr. Russ Cummings,
• Cal Poly-SLO for review and advice)
• Revised September 29, 2000

Note This proposal was given first
reading approval at the URPC meeting held in
Houston, TX on Sept. 28, 20000.
33
Situation/Background

• Boeing has an outstanding Education Outreach
  program to advance company interests in
• Recruiting
• Continuing education
• Research and technology acquisition
• An outcome has been the adoption of ABET
  Engineering Criteria 2000 - an outcomes based
  approach to technical education program
  accreditation
• New ABET standards require a heavy emphasis on
  design and many schools lay claim to Boeing
  resources to support their programs
• A Boeing sponsored design competition could
  advance our broad interests while protecting our
  limited resources

34
What is Wanted

• A program that directly contributes to desired
  student learning outcomes and objectives that is
  more than a mere second helping of a large
  number of often parochially focused design
  competitions already on offer under various
  auspices
• A significant and constructive aid to our future
  college recruiting efforts
• Directly aids in preparing students with skills
  and attributes the company needs
• Projects a very positive image of The Boeing
  Company and our core competencies
• large-scale systems integration
• Customer knowledge and focus
• Lean, efficient design and production systems

35
Designing a Design Competition(Some Basic
Principles)

• Enhance the Boeing image
• Branding
• Leader in engineering education enhancement
• Good corporate citizenship
• Be of real educational value in undergraduate
  technical (and business) education
• Emphasize overall company technical interests and
  core competencies
• Enhance the image of the engineering profession
  at national and local community levels.

• Awareness of colors of money and intellectual
  property issues
• Offer a prize worth winning while avoiding
  winner and losers problems
• Should be a multidisciplinary team-based,
  design-build-test project competition
• Involvement by multi-department and cross-college
  teams should be encouraged
• Keep it as simple as possible to avoid hidden
  costs.

36
Competition Proposal

• The Boeing Company annually offers up to three
• prizes of 50,000 each 1/2 to the students and
  1/2 to the school to
• multidisciplinary teams of undergraduate student
• from our Focus and Interest schools for the
  design,
• construction and proof of concept demonstration
  of a
• system or major component of a system (in which
  case the
• entirety of system of which it is a part is to
  be described) which
• meets the requirements of a suitable customer
  to
• be selected by each of the participating teams.
• Note A suitable customer may be any local
  non-Boeing company or business, service agency,
  philanthropy, municipal government, etc. that
  agrees to work with a student team for the
  duration of the competition each year.

37
Competition Proposal (contd - 1)

• The theme of the competition will initially be
• and will reflect the constructive application of
  the
• broad range of technologies of interest to The
• Boeing Company, its customers and its suppliers
  to
• the needs of the students local communities.
• Within these broad guidelines, the specific
  project
• entry to be submitted is left to the discretion
  of the
• students working with the customer they select.
• A listing of current Boeing technology
  interests will be provided each year.

Aerospace Technology in Service to the
Community
38
Boeing Major Technologies(As Identified by the
Technical Fellowship Sub-Process Council in 1999)
Sample only

• Aerodynamics
• Aeroservoelasticity
• Communications
• Computing
• Configurations (airplanes, missiles, spacecraft,
  rotorcraft)
• Electronics
• Low Observables
• Materials
• Manufacturing
• Multidisciplinary Optimization MDO

• Propulsion
• Software
• Space Flight
• Structures
• Systems (Mission)
• Systems (Vehicle)
• Testing
• Other, e.g.
• Human Factors
• Safety
• Noise (Acoustics)
• Metrology
• Fuels

39
Competition Proposal (contd -2)

• In addition to the prize money offered to the
  winning entries, the company offers preliminary
  funding grants of 3,000 each to the 50 teams
  submitting preliminary project proposals
  (received by time and date to be specified)
  judged most promising according to the
  competition criteria.
• Notes
• Failure to receive a grant does not preclude
  entry into the competition
• Grants are to be given to most promising team
  proposals, with a limit of three maximum per
  school per year
• Grants are not subtracted from subsequent prize
  to winning teams
• Teams receiving grants which fail to produce a
  final report disqualify their school from
  subsequent competition entry for a two year
  period.

40
Competition Proposal (contd-3)

• Competition Schedule (Typical)
• Competition announcement sent to eligible schools
• (via Executive Focals) March 2001
• Students find customers, form teams, develop
• projects Apr. -Sept. 2001
• Preliminary proposals submitted
• ( for Prelim. Grant ) Oct.
  15, 2001
• Grants awarded Nov. 1, 2001
• Announcement of following years competition
  April 2002
• Formal entry packages Final Rpt. and test doc.
• due May 1, 2001
• Winners announced June 1, 2001

41
Competition Proposal (contd -4)

• Student Team Deliverables
• Final Project Documentation (Due May 1, 200X1)
• A final written report in specified format not to
  exceed 50 pages in length including
  illustrations, etc. with a mandatory 2-page
  Executive Summary good practice samples to be
  provided for guidance
• A video tape or equivalent documentation of
  test/proof-of-concept validation results not to
  exceed 10 minutes in length
• A letter from the students customer verifying
  the degree to which the project results met their
  agreed upon requirements

42
Final Report Format and Content Requirements

• Maximum 50 page limit including all
  illustrations, and required documentation
• 12 point Helvetica font with standard margins
• Must include a clear 2-page Executive Summary
• Must contain a suitable Index and List of
  Illustrations
• Clear, concise description of the customer, the
  project and why it is significant
• Clear description of customer requirements and
  design objectives

• Full discussion of design, and the design process
  and methods used
• Full discussion of the construction materials and
  techniques used and why specific approaches were
  taken
• Appropriation documentation of test procedures
  and results (in addition to video, etc.)
• Costs incurred, project management plan, and a
  closed business case for potential manufacture
  if applicable
• Summary of lessons learned
• Validation letter from the customer

43
Competition Judging Criteria

• Quality of Overall Approach and Results
  40
• Depth of thought and understanding of all product
  and process
• phases of the project
• Appropriateness and logic displayed in approaches
  and method used
• Multidisciplinary aspects of the team and results
  proportion to effort
• and cost expended
• Significance and Value of the Problem Solved
  30
• Importance of the problem as it serves the
  interest and needs
• of the customer
• Results obtained in terms of simplicity,
  cost-effectiveness and value
• Results of the business case analysis
• Creativity and Imagination Demonstrated
  20
• The best solution may be the simplest one
• Innovation for innovations sake is to be
  avoided
• Additional Relevant Factors 10
• Aesthetic appeal, absolute simplicity (in solving
  a tough problem), etc.
• Truly imaginative or unique selection of a
  problem or a customer
• Good results from a virtual team of students from
  several universities

44
Competition Judging Process

• Judging panel to be formed of company technical
  managers, members of the Technical Fellowship
  (STF,TF,ATF - it is now in their job description
  and we have over 1300), and other company
  technical experts as necessary and appropriate on
  a rotational basis for the duration of a given
  years competition
• The judges decisions shall be final (except in
  cases of fraud, plagiarism, or failure to follow
  the stated process)
• The judges shall review 5-page Preliminary
  Proposal packages and select up to 80 student
  teams for 3,000 preliminary funding grants (Oct
  15-Nov.1, 200X)
• The judges will review the Executive Summaries
  (and test documentation if warranted) of the
  Final Documentation packages submitted and down
  select to a suitable number (about 15-20)
  finalists ( May 1-15, 200X1)
• The judges with conduct a full review of the
  down-selected packages and recommend up to three
  winners to the URPC (May 15-30, 200X1)
• Following approval by management of the judges
  selections, winners of the competition will be
  informed on June 1, 200X1.

45
Additional Factors and Considerations

• Intellectual property rights for any work that
  may be patentable or copy written will be
  assigned to the students and their customers to
  be dealt with by local precedent and procedure.
  To address IRS issues with Colors of money,
  and avoid as many legal entanglements as
  possible.
• There is no single right answer and the playing
  field is level
• A wide range of customers and problems are
  possible
• A small team that produces good results
  working an a small but significant problem has as
  much chance of winning as does a large team
  working on something grand
• This proposed competition is a contest within a
  contest within a contest
• Students must find their own (non-Boeing)
  customers and define with them the problems to be
  solved
• The students must then design, build and test a
  product
• The students must also demonstrate an
  understanding of the entire Process (including
  the business and project management aspects)

46
A Competition Everyone Wins

• The Boeing Company
• Enhances the company image
• Enhances the recruiting of students with the
  right skills
• Serves many university relations interests with
  consolidated use of our always limited resources
• Students
• Exposed to and given realistic experience in our
  full list of Desired Attributes of an Engineer
• Gain exposure to working with a customer on a
  real problem of significance in their communities
  
• The Students Customers
• Gain the benefits of whatever the students are
  able to do, whether they win the prize for the
  competition or not