Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
An Analysis of Engineering Credits in ABET Accredited Engineering Management Programs
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Kauffmann, Paul Farr, John V. Schott, Elizabeth W. Wyrick, David A. |
| Copyright Year | 2015 |
| Abstract | The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) database on engineering programs and graduates indicates there are 23 programs in the United States classifying themselves as engineering management (EM). Of these 23 programs, only five are ABET accredited EM programs. Additionally, there are six ABET accredited EM programs not listed in the ASEE database. Overall, there are only 11 ABET accredited EM programs on a national basis (programs with management in the name). Although it is unclear why the majority of the EM programs do not pursue ABET accreditation, one possible explanation may be a lack of understanding on what curricular topic may or may not qualify as an engineering credit. Further complicating this question is how the program criteria of EM are fulfilled and how that course work relates to the engineering credit count. Especially problematic in the process of balancing these requirements and constraints is the limit of total program credits. This paper provides a first step in exploring these issues by analyzing current ABET EM programs and documenting the allocation of engineering topic (ET) hours along with how they satisfy program criteria. The paper examines the allocation of credits and generalizes the approach employed by these programs to accomplish the required engineering credits and the program criteria. We found that there was a disparity in ET content in like courses; especially for the less technical topics. Also, programs that taught the courses within the department, in general were able to claim higher ET hours than those where the less technical topics were taught outside the department. Introduction Based on a range of influences such as the globalization of the manufacturing base, outsourcing of many technical services, efficiencies derived from advances in information technology (and the subsequent decrease in mid-management positions), and the shifting of the economy to a servicebased orientation, technical organizations and engineering in general are experiencing a significant change in overall career characteristics and expectations. The nature of this change can be seen in this description of what a 21 century technical organization must be concerned with: (1) maintaining an agile, high quality, and profitable business base of products or services in an unstable and global economy, (2) hiring, managing, and retaining a highly qualified and trained staff of engineers, scientists, technicians, and support personnel in a rapidly changing technological environment, and (3) demonstrating a high level of innovation, entrepreneurship, and capability maturity usually with an ever increasing amount of government oversight and regulation. One response to these global realties has been a significant growth of engineering management (EM) related topics and programs, especially at the graduate level. At the undergraduate level, there has also been growth in terms of related classes, minors, and certificates that are embedded within traditional degrees. However, the number of undergraduate EM programs has seen little growth. Currently, as shown in Table 1, the ABET website lists eleven accredited undergraduate P ge 26172.2 2 programs in the US and five internationally with the word “management” in the program name and only Clarkson University has received its initial accreditation in the US in the last five years. Only five use the term “engineering management” exclusively for the program name. A recent American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) publication on domestic engineering programs lists 23 EM undergraduate programs, which also are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. ABET accredited and ASEE EM Related Programs ABET Accredited EM Programs* ASEE Listed EM Undergrad Programs Domestic University of Arizona** (2003) Clarkson University*** (2009) University of Connecticut (1978) Missouri University of Science and Technology ** (1979) North Dakota State University (1971) Oklahoma State University (1936) University of the Pacific**(2003) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1978) South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (1991) Stevens Institute of Technology** (1990) United States Military Academy** (1985) International Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport (2009) Istanbul Technical University (2009) Kuwait University (2006) Universidad Autonoma de San Luis Potosi (2012) University of Sharjah (2010) University of Arizona Arizona State University California State, Long Beach California State, Northridge University of California – Santa Cruz Christian Brothers University The College of New Jersey Colorado School of Mines Gonzaga University Illinois Institute of Technology Mercer University Miami University Missouri University of Science and Tech. University of North Carolina Charlotte University of the Pacific NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering University of Portland Southern Methodist University St. Mary’s University Stevens Institute of Technology University of Tennessee Chattanooga United States Military Academy University of Vermont * Programs with “Management” in the name, ** “Engineering Management” programs, *** “Engineering and Management” programs. The number in parenthesis under ABET accredited programs is the year that the program was first accredited. Why are all EM related programs listed in the ASEE column in the right hand column of Table 1 not ABET accredited? After all, this field is in fact EM, with the emphasis on the “E” word. Why would ABET accreditation not be a standard benchmark of EM programs and what accounts for the differences in the numbers of the accredited and not accredited programs? The larger goal of our study is to begin the process of exploring the issues behind these questions. As a starting point, this paper investigates the engineering credit content (ECC) of the accredited programs. Our “not so subtle” hypothesis is to find whether the difference in the number of ABET accredited undergraduate programs compared to the ASEE list may be related to the challenges involving capped total program credits and the continuous struggle to meet the math and science and ECC required for ABET accreditation while satisfying the EM program criteria and maintaining relevant content perceived to be important to undergraduates (such as accounting, marketing, and organizational behavior). P ge 26172.3 3 Based on the changing nature of technical organizations, what should be the focus of EM undergraduate programs? Programs appear to be tugged in two directions. A number of studies and papers 5, 6, 7 including the ABET criteria call for graduating engineers who can lead teams, manage resources, work in teams, and understand the global context of engineering. This would appear to be the sweet spot of EM programs. However, business, engineering technology, and technology programs can provide these attributes too in their disciplines, too. What do EM programs do differently in this regard? Parallel to these calls for what some consider more “soft” engineering workplace skills, there is a parallel and equally loud call that traditional engineering competence must not be sacrificed or compromised. Many see these skills as the foundation of an engineering degree and the core bedrock for the 21 century global competitiveness and innovation that the US needs to maintain its standard of living. The National Academy of Engineering summed up these two perspective in the following statement: Technical excellence is the essential attribute of engineering graduates, but those graduates should also possess team, communication, ethical reasoning, and societal and global contextual analysis skills as well as understand work strategies. In addition to these broader engineering perspectives, the ABET EM program criteria provide additional insight into what should be interpreted as special to EM at the undergraduate level (our emphasis underlined): The curriculum must prepare graduates to understand the engineering relationships between the management tasks of planning, organization, leadership, control, and the human element in production, research, and service organizations; to understand and deal with the stochastic nature of management systems. The curriculum must also prepare graduates to integrate management systems into a series of different technological environments. Whether in the area of ABET Criterion 3 (a)-(k) student outcomes or in the program criteria, factors such as a restricted and possibly narrow interpretation of engineering topics, university pressures to reduce the total number of credits hours, and the calls from industry to provide a different type of education, require that we rethink and refine the definition of ECC in the curriculum. In summary, we hope to analyze this point and shed light on the apparent disparity between the number of ABET accredited and non-accredited programs by examining how the accredited EM programs address the balance of ECC program content and accreditation requirements. We begin with a more detailed look at the ABET program criteria for EM. ABET Engineering Management Criteria Of the many facets of the ABET criteria, for EM programs there are two main issues that must be addressed to attain accreditation. First and foremost is meeting the number of ECC hours required. The ABET program criteria specifies: ...one and one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering design appropriate to the student's field of study. The engineering sciences P ge 26172.4 4 have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application focused on the area of design. These studies provide a bridge between mathematics and basic sciences on the one hand and engineering practice on the other. Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.18260/p.23511 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://peer.asee.org/23511.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23511 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
