1998-99 Planning and Review Committee
Consultant Report
I. Degree: B.S. in Manufacturing Engineering
Review Date: Spring 1999
Program Directors:
PRC Consultants:
Bob Meyer (Semester I) and Danny Bee (Interim – Semester II)
Bob Peters and Jana Reeg Steidinger
Purpose of the Review: To assess the B.S. degree in Manufacturing Engineering as part of a seven-year review cycle required of all degree programs at UW-Stout.
Committee Findings: The PRC recommends (1) a two-year progress report to focus upon assessment and curriculum changes; (2) implementation of the PRC recommendations; and (3) continuation of this program for the ongoing seven-year cycle.
II. Abstract:
The B.S. in Manufacturing, a highly applied program, prepares engineers for employment in small- to medium-sized manufacturing facilities. In keeping with the applied format in many of UW-
Stout’s programs, extensive laboratory learning is utilized throughout the curriculum.
A new program, the Manufacturing Engineering major began August 1994 with its first graduates in December 1996.
The program requires 137 total credits for graduation, 43 of which are general education credits and
94 professional core credits. With a highly prescribed curriculum, no electives are included within the program structure. A minor in materials was developed for the program. Also, some engineering students elect to complete minors in either mathematics or chemistry.
The program is not presently accredited. A major focus of the program director has been preparation for review by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). The
ABET review visit occurred October 1998 and accreditation is expected to be officially conferred in
June 1999.
III. Process Followed for Current Review
The Interim Program Director, Associate Dean for Technology Transfer, Technology Department
Chair, and the Dean of the College of Technology, Engineering and Management met with the
Planning and Review Committee on February 22, 1999 to present their program review report. The report included documentation as outlined in PRC procedures and included the following: key instructor, program advisory committee, and student surveys as well as one-year follow-up surveys of graduates. The report was presented at the February 22, 1999 meeting of the PRC.
IV. Previous Review and Recommendations:
Being a new program, no previous PRC recommendations exist.

V. Program Review:
Program Strengths:
The Manufacturing Engineering program has several distinct strengths.
The program fits a niche in the small and medium-manufacturing arena that also fits the university’s special mission and goals. The program also fits the technology focus of the University of Wisconsin-Stout.
A professional core of courses designed to prepare students to work in the aforementioned arena and to be competitive with other engineering programs.
The program director during Semester I, Bob Meyer, was considered by students and graduates as approachable, competent and knowledgeable. The program directorship changed during the review and survey data only included the Semester I director.
Faculty in the program have been described as having a unique blend of educational preparation and practical experience.
The manufacturing engineering program has been recommended for accreditation by the ABET
(Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) review team, and will in all likelihood be approved during the summer.
The program has a strong laboratory component with a hands-on problem solving focus.
Graduate and student surveys indicate strong support and a program that is highly valued.
The program director and faculty appear very willing to address needed changes as recommended by the program advisory committee, according to the review team and the student surveys.
Eighty percent of recent graduates have passed the Society of Manufacturing-Engineering Certified
Manufacturing Technician Examination.
The program has an established linkage with the Stout Technology Transfer Institute and with the recent promotion of Bob Meyer (former program director) to the institute the link should become stronger.
Issues of Concern:
Several issues of concern were identified:
1. The program has 137 credits for degree completion and the ABET review team recommended that the number of credits be reduced. Course overlap or redundancy appears to be a concern according to both the students and the review team. The program director and faculty appear to be addressing this issue through course revision and redesign.
2. An issue requiring immediate attention is the lack of an assessment in the major plan on file with the Provost’s Office. The existing program evaluation appears to center on accreditation or the results of the SME Certification Exam. The evaluation has not yet gathered information

from employers of graduates however, the survey has been developed. The program evaluation was not as clear as it might be with the missing elements added.
3. Student surveys and the ABET review team questioned the need for the general education technology requirement as the nature of this program more than meets the intent of that requirement. Advisement of students and appropriate course selection appear to be the underlying issues that create this situation. Advisement of students during the freshman and/or sophomore year could turn this complaint into a program asset.
4. The unique blend of faculty knowledge and skill is both an area of strength for the program and an issue of concern. Maintaining the unique blend when hiring new faculty appears to be at the heart of the issue. Faculty salaries for persons possessing both the knowledge and the practical skill and experience in the field have been stated as low by the program director and the ABET review team. A complicating factor is the current discussion within the program of a possible addition of a master’s program in engineering. The ratio of Ph.D. level faculty in the program has the potential, with the addition of a master’s program, to become insufficient to meet the needs of the program and therefore becomes an area of concern with future development.
Another area of concern was the use of master’s trained faculty in the program and the potential these faculty have for advancement and promotion. An issue is the problem associated with master’s level faculty returning to school to acquire a doctorate. Implications include: resources for professional development, hiring academic staff to fill behind the faculty released to pursue advanced degrees, cost in human terms, etc.
5. The ABET review team identified faculty stability, continuity, morale, low faculty salaries, and a confusing organizational matrix as problems facing the program. Furthermore, facultyteaching loads were referred to as high, a contributing factor cited was the need for faculty to provide technical support in labs. This demonstrates an ongoing need for lab support in the form of a technician who can assist faculty with lab maintenance and the long term need for upgrade and maintenance of computers and equipment.
6. Areas of concern with student performance on the SME Certification Exam were mentioned however, the specific areas of concern, which were identified, have not yet been studied and addressed.
7. Curricular deficiencies identified by the ABET review team: (1) The Probability and Statistics course was needed earlier in the course sequence because that knowledge and skill could be utilized more fully in labs and courses that follow. A suggestion was made that the course be moved to the junior year; and (2) ethnical, social, economic and safety issues need to be included in the curriculum to help students understand the impact of engineering on society.
8. The review team also suggested a need to focus program goals and articulate them to students and the public.
9. A functional laboratory plan is needed to address ongoing needs, timelines and plan to recapitalize including technical support and maintenance and upgrade of facilities and equipment.
Recommendations for Program Director
1. Continue with curricular revision by addressing the issues raised by the ABET review team and described in the issues of concern; the probability and statistics course; and the ethnical, social,

economic and safety issues. Course overlap and redundancy as identified in student surveys and by the ABET review team. Analyze and address the curricular deficiencies identified through student participation in the SME Certification Exam. Continue with program credit reduction efforts so as to create a program that can reasonably be completed in a four-year timeframe.
2. Describe more thoroughly the program evaluation, the ongoing plan for assessment in the major. File an Assessment in the Major report and annual plan to evaluate the program with the
Provost’s Office. The plan should address the various sources of data to be obtained, ABET review, analysis of results of student participation in SME Certification Exam, annual student survey, program advisory input, and the type of impact the data is expected to have on the program. Address curricular, program and personnel impacts of the program evaluation.
Clarification of the role of each of these formative data sources to the overall program evaluation would help future reviewers understand the program design and courses.
3. Student advisement for the general education technology requirement is needed so that the requirement is completed as early as possible within a student’s program. The PRC recommends the requirement be met within the freshman year or first semester of sophomore year, or within the first year that a transfer student begins the program.
4. Develop clear descriptions of program goals, along with a mechanism to distribute to students and the public.
5. Continue to develop strong ties with the Stout Technology Transfer Institute as it can provide experiential activities and broaden the knowledge of students.
6. Continue to plan and pursue laboratory technical support and funding for long range improvement and maintenance of facilities and equipment.
Recommendations for the Dean:
1. Due to the unique blend of knowledge, skill and practical experience that program faculty have, the dean will need to work with the department chair to identify and address the issue of low faculty salaries. Also, address the resource needs associated with supporting faculty to pursue advanced degrees.
2. In the event that a master’s program in Engineering is initiated, remain proactive with regard to the resources that are needed to hire and retain appropriately trained and experienced faculty.
3. Resources for the laboratories appear to be an issue that the dean may need to address through additional funding or reallocation to provide technician assistance. Maintenance and replacement of equipment will continue to be an issue until long range plans for such are in place.