Engineering Education: Doing Business as a Business in the 90’s

by Robert Pettus, Professor and Chair, Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of South Carolina

When I was asked to write this article, I was asked to talk about the need for changes in engineering education, given (i) limited resources and (ii) rapidly changing technology. Since we have dramatic reductions in our resources, a new Dean of Engineering, an entirely different assessment scheme from the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, and new and totally changed Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accreditation criteria on the way, I can be very passionate about this topic. However, a reasonable view is that change is an inevitable part of the engineering profession, and therefore, of engineering education. In addition to the forces which shape education in general, we are also affected by technological change and by the nature of the job market. We differ from science, for instance, in that we are seeking to solve the problems of the future as opposed to discovering the secrets of the past. For example, two of the four courses that are required in the sophomore year of the current University of South Carolina (USC) electrical and computer engineering curricula did not exist when I was a student in the early 1960’s. The fundamental nature of the job market has changed over the past decade. Employers are more selective about hiring decisions. Students are more likely to have to sell their skills and experience than their degree.

On some occasions, the forces which affect the engineering profession and engineering education are aligned. For instance, in the late 1960’s and early 70’s, the simultaneous declines of the space program, the defense industry, and the commercial aerospace industry created a significant (negative) impact. These situations create a “burning platform” environment in which the need for change is obvious and the resistance is minimized. To a great extent, the current forces created by limited resources and rapidly changing technology have created a similar need for significant change.

2. Technological Change

Technology affects us by both the rate of the change and by its nature. Most branches of science show an exponential growth rate of 4 to 8% per year. For example, Chemical Abstracts took 37 years to publish its first million abstracts, 18 years to publish the second million, and 1.75 years to publish the third million [1] . Those individuals and institutions that ignore this exponential growth tend to make bad decisions, such as that made by the former head of a major (but now much smaller) computer company, who stated that he did not believe there would ever be a place for a computer in the home. Some changes, particularly new technology such as the transistor, result in changes of curricula. Other changes, in enabling technologies such as the computer, affect the manner in which we do business. The most profound current change is being created by improvements in our ability to communicate. Our educational system has been based on the concept of a central repository of information since its inception. Cellular phones, television, the internet, and other new telecommunication technologies are changing this concept. These changes have been occurring sufficiently gradually that we have not yet seen any widespread changes. However, the idea of moving the knowledge to the student as opposed to moving the student to the knowledge will likely have some profound changes over the next decade. One concept which might not make the change is the semester. When education is delivered directly to the customer, we may have to adapt to the customer’s schedule. Educational institutions may have to act more like the power company in this regard.

3. Limited Resources

Engineering education has been subjected to the same down-sizing as has industry. Funding for higher education in South Carolina has been either flat or decreasing for almost 10 years now. To cite an example, the number of faculty in the USC ECE department has dropped from 23 in 1989 to 15 at the end of the Fall semester 1996. The state-appropriated operating budget has dropped to essentially $0. Limited resources, while probably more due to temporal than technological change, have been the burning platform for engineering education in the 90’s.

4. Strategic Directions for Engineering Education

A number of American institutions have transformed themselves in the latter part of the 20th century. Foreign competition has forced business to become more efficient and more customer focused. This competition, particularly from the Pacific Rim, was sufficiently intense to create a tense situation. Those companies that have done the best job in changing to a new situation, i.e., reducing their costs while providing value to their customers, are also the most profitable. Engineering education (and education in general) must learn from the lessons of industry. In particular, we must become more customer focused. We must also respond positively to the changing social needs and environment of our country. In this area, the US Army provides a positive example. Like many businesses, the Army has been re-engineering. In this case, the crucible was the Vietnam conflict. The current Army is an inclusive organization which reasonably reflects the demographics of the country and which is largely free of many current societal problems, such as drug use. I believe that the Army provides some good lessons in dealing with social problems, and is a better model than industry, because it cannot use exclusion to any great extent to create quality. If education, especially public education, is to serve an appropriate role, then we must provide our services to a broad segment of the public.

About four years ago, electrical and computer engineering at USC, together with the rest of the University, began a series of changes designed to re-engineer the way we did business. The first thing we did was to rethink our basic philosophy. Our industrial advisory board had a significant impact on us during this process. The results were that we determined that we should:

1. Be good stewards of the resources under control of the department and use these resources for relevant and attainable goals.
2. Develop an awareness of the identity of our customers and take their needs into account in all decisions.
3. Promote equal opportunity and fairness in all activities.
4. Seek to add value in all relationships.

Reference

[1] “Electronics and the Dim Future of the University”, Eli M. Noam, Science, vol 270, 13 October 1995.