An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2005 - 2006
REVIEW OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FINAL REPORT
July 4th 2006
2
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
Introduction
This report arises from a visit by a Review Team to the Civil Engineering Department on 2nd –
3rd March, 2006. The Department had already prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment
Report' that, with other documentation, was made available to the Review Team in advance of
the visit.
The Review Team consisted of: Professor David Nethercot, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London (Chair); Professor Margaret O’Mahony,
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin;
Professor Emer Colleran, Department of Microbiology, NUI Galway; Mr. Sean Gannon,
Consulting Engineer, Ryan Hanley and Co., Galway; and Mr. Brendan Kennelly, Department of
Economics, NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur.
General Overview
Coming here as a review group has been enjoyable and informative. We appreciate the input of
all those who contributed to the review by meeting with us and preparing a comprehensive selfassessment report. The review group was on the whole impressed by the Department. The
Department has been successful in one of its primary goals of producing civil engineering
graduates of the highest quality and standard. This is the result of a strong commitment to
teaching in the Department and has been reflected by the full accreditation of its civil and
environmental engineering degree programmes by Engineers Ireland. The Department has also
succeeded in significantly increasing its research output since the last review with a doubling of
the numbers of research students and peer reviewed journal papers.
The review group recognizes that the next five years will be a period of significant change, both
within the University and in the wider external environment. The recommendations we make
below, particularly those regarding Organization and Management, Teaching Programmes, and
Scholarship and Research, are intended to help the Department to maximize the opportunities
created during this period. We believe that it is possible to reorganize staff input into the
undergraduate programme whilst maintaining its quality. The recent progress in increasing
research activity could thus be accelerated and consolidated. It will be difficult for the
Department to increase research activity if the University fails to resource some initiatives that
are necessary to facilitate this within the Department. The internal efficiency of the Department
could be improved by some redistribution of responsibility for certain tasks and by broader staff
involvement in the strategic development of the Department. Improved efficiencies should also
help to consolidate the upward trend in research activity.
1.
Aims and Objectives
The mission statement of the Department refers to two aspirations: the delivery of a top class
teaching programme and the attainment of excellence in research across the broad spectrum of
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008
3
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
the civil engineering disciplines. The aspiration regarding the teaching programme is clear and
comprehensive. We are concerned, however, that the second aspiration does not provide
sufficient direction to the development of the Department’s research policy. In particular we
believe that a Department of this size and composition would be better advised to aim for
research excellence in a selected number of areas.
We commend the Department for the considerable progress it has made in meeting many of the
objectives detailed in the strategic plan that it developed following the last quality review. The
main objective regarding the undergraduate programme – to maintain the existing high entry
standards and number of students – has actually been exceeded. The past five years have seen an
increase in entry standards and an increase in the number of undergraduate students in the
Department. We would have liked to see more progress on a number of structural changes that
were recommended in the strategic plan. For example, the plan recommended the appointment of
a department research officer but this does not appear to have happened.
2.
Organization and Management
Information provided in the Self Assessment Report lists the composition of staff in the
Department, refers to the Departmental Committee comprising all staff within the Department,
provides a table giving key administrative responsibilities and refers to the use of ad hoc groups
for particular tasks. The actual operation of this arrangement and its effectiveness was explored
in several discussions with different groups from the Department, from elsewhere within the
University and from outside the University. All of this information was used to construct a view
of the current situation within the Department.
Responsibility for identifying, debating, resolving and enacting the work of the Department
appears to reside either directly with the Head of Department or with individuals, informed by
the Departmental Committee meetings. As the scale of the Departmental operation increases,
structures and mechanisms need to evolve to ensure that it functions effectively, with an
appropriate balance between responsibility/ownership and efficiency. Mechanisms to deliver the
key functions, to effect change, to decide on priorities and to allocate resources need to be in
place. We believe that several specific tasks are sufficiently important that a specific provision
to address them outside either discussion at the Departmental Committee or by direct Head of
Department action is appropriate; each subject is referred to separately in a recommendation at
the end of this section. We recommend a greater element of “shared responsibility” for ensuring
integration between the various parts of the undergraduate programmes. Whilst we accept that
responsibility for delivering individual items will always be the responsibility of particular staff
members, we believe that more coordination across subjects and between years would strengthen
the student’s educational experience.
In addition, we believe that the Department would benefit by ensuring that several rather more
pervasive or cultural issues also be addressed. We suggest a number of ways in which good
practice might be further developed.
We note and approve the establishment within the Department of the principle that everyone
makes an equally valid contribution but that these contributions should not be identical. We
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008
4
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
would encourage the Department to continue to develop this concept since greater success is
likely to be achieved through recognition of the different skills and qualities possessed by
different staff members and the provision of an environment in which everyone can feel able to
give of their best.
The Department has recruited a number of new staff in recent years. Every member of the
Department, whether new or established, needs to further develop their careers. We believe there
to be a significant Departmental role in assisting and supporting this process, recognising that
some of the specific assistance can come from outside the Department, but that the primary
responsibility for developing its own staff rests with the Department itself.
Given that Galway is geographically more remote that many other Universities, we believe it to
be particularly important that every opportunity is taken to learn from experience elsewhere.
This may take place in many ways e.g. discussions with groups of colleagues in similar subject
areas at conferences, the giving of seminars or acting as an external examiner at another
University, ensuring that visitors to the Department make the maximum contribution
commensurate with their stay etc.
Recommendations
1. We believe that the Department should develop a clearly defined and appropriate
structure between the Head of Department and individuals designed to ensure the
delivery of all the key Departmental tasks e.g. improvement and streamlining of the
undergraduate course, developing the research culture and assisting young staff to build
research careers etc.
2. A small group, comprising the 4 year-coordinators (with an enhanced brief to take full
responsibility for the management and delivery of their part of the undergraduate course)
together with a suitable Chairman should become the vehicle for delivering the
undergraduate programmes.
3. A group should be actively considering not just how the Department’s activities might be
accommodated in the new building but which of them should be accommodated and to
what extent.
4. There is clearly concern about the possible formation of a single School of Engineering.
Although it will be a difficult task, the Department should seek to expose all the issues, to
find some way of considering these in an objective fashion and to formulate a collective
view on this important possibility.
5. A number of individuals within the Department should be identified as links to each of
the key outside activities so as to facilitative both continuous improvement and the
resolution of operational difficulties. We refer specifically to service teaching from
Departments such as Mathematics, Maths-Physics etc.
6. It is important to ensure that meetings are run in an effective way, with appropriate
agendas, and well defined mechanisms to follow-up on the identified actions.
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008
5
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
3.
Programmes and Instruction
The Review Group was impressed with the calibre of student intake to the civil and
environmental engineering programmes and by how highly regarded its graduates are considered
by employers. The Department has been successful in raising the entry requirements for civil
engineering while also increasing the number of students entering the programme. We received
very positive feedback from students on both of the undergraduate programmes. They praised
the staff for their open and accessible manner in dealing with students.
Given the significant similarities between the civil and environmental engineering programmes,
the Review Group wondered whether the brand of ‘environmental engineer’ offers added value
to students, particularly when they are looking for employment. This, in tandem with the
relatively low numbers of students on this course, has prompted the Review Group to suggest
that the Department might wish to consider this issue further.
In trying to engage the imagination of the students, the Department might consider taking up the
invitation of CELT to involve it more strategically in programme innovation. A similar
opportunity exists with the Library to include more enquiry based learning on the courses.
In the documentation provided, a number of suggestions for new courses were made. While the
Review Group acknowledges the enthusiasm of the Department to expand its activities, it advises
caution, not only because of the current heavy teaching demands imposed on the staff by the
existing programmes, but also because of concerns about the potential markets for the proposed
new programmes. For example, the proposal for a Project Management course might be better
suited to a postgraduate programme. We also think that there might be opportunities for the
Department to offer short professional courses on a modular basis.
Recommendations
1. The Department should re-evaluate the benefits of having a range of entry routes to its
courses.
2. The Department should consider the added pressure on students because of the shortened
semester in the third year. Similarly, the balance of subjects between the two semesters
in the fourth year might also be looked at in the context of student loading.
3. The Department should consider reviewing the programmes each year to examine course
content and the relationships between courses and years. The Review Group suggests
that the Department should not be afraid to drop topics or elements of courses in favour
of new topics or giving more time to the students to work on enquiry based projects.
4. The Department should produce a road map for incoming students to enable them to track
their progress through the courses. As part of this process, it would be worth highlighting
the relevance to engineering of the various courses in the first two years of the
programmes. A related point is the inclusion of more site visits or lectures on exciting
engineering projects in the early years of the programmes.
5. The Review Group recognises the importance of the PEP programme and in general
received good feedback from students on this element of the course. However, the
management of this process might need further fine tuning. Two issues were raised in
particular. The deadline of the first week in September for letters of agreement to be
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008
6
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
provided by students who source their own employer is considered to be too early by
students. In some cases letters of agreement are not exchanged between the university
and employer and this may result in unsatisfactory outcomes for some students.
4.
Scholarship and Research
The review group welcomed the significant increase in research activity, peer-reviewed
publications, and postgraduate research students in the Department since its first Quality Review
in 2000. There has also been a significant increase in research income and a substantial
investment in research facilities and equipment. Much of the research income and output is
concentrated in two areas (environmental engineering, and coastal and marine process
modelling). A number of academic staff have benefited from collaboration with colleagues in the
Environmental Change Institute and the Martin Ryan Institute for Marine Science. The absence
of dedicated technical research support staff delays PhD completion, reduces the quality of PhD
research, has negative health and safety implications, and could lead to continuity problems in
the development of sustainable research groups. We believe that increased investment in
administrative and technical staff as well as in better laboratories has potential benefits for the
University as well as for the Department. The review group noted that, in the current economic
climate, it is relatively difficult to attract NUI Galway or other Irish University Civil Engineering
graduates into postgraduate research programmes. The group welcomed the opportunity this
provides for the Department to benefit from the different backgrounds and experiences of
postgraduates researchers from overseas.
Recommendations
1. The review group strongly advocates that recent and future academic appointees should
actively seek involvement in collaborative research and should explore the feasibility of
inter-disciplinary research with members of other departments and research centres.
This would not only assist them in the submission of potentially successful grant
applications but would also help in the subsequent management of research projects.
2. The review group recommends that the provision of dedicated technical staff for research
be explored by the Department and the University.
3. The absence of administrative assistance within the Department for the management of
research accounts was also noted. The review group considers that this deficiency should
be addressed in order to create the environment in which a growing research activity can
flourish.
4. Postgraduate students and researchers are scattered across a variety of laboratories on
campus and this inhibits interaction and collegiality within the research community of the
Department. The review group recommends that, in designing the new Engineering
Science building, this issue should be carefully addressed, not only with respect to Civil
Engineering researchers but between Civil and other Engineering Departmental
postgraduates and researchers.
5. The review group recommends that the Department should increase its effort to
encourage academic staff to publish more extensively in international, peer-reviewed
journals.
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008
7
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
6. In order to grow post-graduate numbers and increase the research standing and
publication status of the Department, the review group recommends that new academic
recruitment should focus on research-active applicants of proven capability in areas that
would both complement and enhance ongoing research initiatives within the Department.
7. The review group was pleased to note that the teaching load of recent academic
appointees was not excessive and that this allows them adequate time for research. We
strongly recommend that this policy be maintained.
8. The group recommends that every effort is made to design facilities in the new
Engineering Building in such a way that research collaboration and interaction between
academics and researchers from Civil Engineering and other Departments within the
Faculty will be promoted.
5.
Community Service
We recognise and are very impressed with the very strong level of local interaction between the
Department and both industry and schools. The PEP provides an excellent mechanism for
engaging with local industry; it is clear that graduates are highly sought after and well regarded
in their subsequent employment. The very strong undergraduate entry owes much to the process
of engagement with schools. This is, however, quite onerous in terms of staff time and we would
suggest that the transfer of at least part of the responsibility to either or both the student body and
recent graduates working in the area might achieve similar or better results but at less overall
cost.
It seems clear to us that developments in higher education in Ireland will require a greater degree
of cooperation between similar Departments in different establishments. Therefore links to other
Civil Engineering Departments within Ireland should be strengthened and every attempt made to
play a full part in setting the agenda for the development of the engineering discipline in Ireland.
Engagement with the international research community is, quite understandably, somewhat
patchy. We believe that every effort should be made to identify opportunities to increase this
engagement and to ensure that action is taken to facilitate this.
Within the University it would appear that the Department is regarded as solid and reliable but
not particularly visible. An obvious example of its rather low key attitude is its pedestrian
website. The Department needs to promote itself and to ensure that its successes are recognised
and celebrated within the University. Student prizes, awards for conference papers, publication
of influential Industry or Government documents, important contributions to projects in the
public eye etc, are all opportunities to promote the image of the Department.
Recommendations
1. The Department should strengthen its interactions with other Civil Engineering
Departments across the Irish Universities, with the aim of ensuring that it is seen as both
a valued collaborator and, where appropriate, a leader.
2. The Department should, as a high priority, identify and develop an ongoing campaign to
promote a more positive and visible image of itself around NUI Galway.
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008
8
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
3. Given the importance of websites as the first point of communication for virtually every
member of the community nowadays it should be a high priority for the Department to
improve this feature and to use it to promote more effectively the achievements of the
Department.
6.
The Wider Context
This review was undertaken at the beginning of what seems certain to be a period of considerable
change for the Department. These include, inter alia, the long-awaited move to a new building,
the possible development of a new School of Engineering, the possible development nationally
of a graduate school of engineering, the possible development of a devolved model of resource
allocation in the university, and the continuing pressure from the Irish Government to expand
research output and postgraduate numbers. In this section we focus on initiatives that the
university could take that would help the Department to achieve its goals.
The University would like to move to a situation whereby the main interaction for a department
would be with its faculty and the University would in turn mainly interact with the faculty.
However, the resource allocation model employed by the university means that a department’s
interests continue to be served best by focusing its attention on the University. We would like the
University to clarify this situation.
The governing authority of the University has decided that smaller academic units be melded
together into larger units. Specific recommendations on this issue are likely to emerge later this
year. We note the failure of the University to act on the recommendation in the last quality
review that the Department of Hydrology be merged with the Department of Civil Engineering.
Whatever else happens regarding a possible school of engineering, we believe the case for this
merger remains as strong as ever. Following such a merger we hope that important service
teaching in the area of hydrology would continue to be provided to various departments in the
Faculty of Science.
Many individuals in the Department expressed concerns to us regarding the promotion system
within the university. The Department has an unusual structure with over half of the staff at the
senior (statutory) lecturer level while it does not contain any Associate (Personal) Professors.
While we recognize that it is difficult for a promotions board to compare the merits of
individuals from different academic disciplines we feel that individuals in the Department of
Civil Engineering may have suffered disproportionately from this difficulty.
The Department is somewhat unusual in that the same individual serves as both Head of
Department and Dean of Faculty. Quite apart from the heavy workload that this obviously
involves, we wonder whether such an arrangement is optimal from a managerial efficiency
perspective. The two roles are quite different from each other and it seems unfair to ask any
individual to do both simultaneously.
Recommendations
1. The University promotion system – particularly the step to Associate Professor - should
ensure that ability and achievement are properly identified and should recognize that a
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008
9
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
different balance of measures will be appropriate in different subject areas. The
University should ensure that it is well informed on best practice elsewhere, recognizing
that criteria should evolve to match the changing University environment.
2. We believe that the University should make a greater effort to recognize the particular
achievements of individuals in the Department. For example, the great success by the
Department in achieving 5 year accreditation for both of its degrees should be
recognized. In addition the difficulty of publishing certain kinds of engineering research
in peer reviewed journals should also be noted. It must also be recognized that some civil
engineering research requires a very significant input in time, physical resources and
extensive fieldwork.
3. The University should ensure that any individual does not have to serve as Dean of
Faculty at the same as time as serving as Head of Department.
4. The University should ensure that the system of allocating resources to Departments
aligns with the strategy of the University and facilitates and rewards success in the
declared priority objectives of the University.
7.
Report Summary and Concluding Remarks
The review group was on the whole impressed by the Department. It has been successful in one
of its primary goals of producing civil engineering graduates of the highest quality and standard.
This is the result of a strong commitment to teaching in the Department and has been reflected by
the full accreditation of its civil and environmental engineering degree programmes by Engineers
Ireland. The Department has also succeeded in significantly increasing its research output since
the last review with a doubling of the numbers of research students and peer reviewed journal
papers. The review group recognizes that the next five years will be a period of significant
change, both within the University and in the wider external environment. Our recommendations
are intended to help the Department to maximize the opportunities created during this period.
Recommendations
1. We believe that the Department should develop a clearly defined and appropriate
structure between the Head of Department and individuals designed to ensure the delivery
of all the key Departmental tasks.
2. A small group, comprising the 4 year-coordinators together with a suitable Chairman
should become the vehicle for delivering the undergraduate programmes.
3. A group should be actively considering not just how the Department’s activities might be
accommodated in the new building but which of them should be accommodated and to
what extent.
4. The Department should seek to expose all the issues that have been raised regarding the
possible formation of a School of Engineering.
5. A number of individuals within the Department should be identified as links to each of
the key outside activities such as service teaching from Departments such as
Mathematics, Maths-Physics etc.
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
10
6. It is important to ensure that meetings are run in an effective way, with appropriate
agendas, and well defined mechanisms to follow-up on the identified actions.
7. The Department should re-evaluate the benefits of having a range of entry routes to its
courses.
6. The Department should consider the added pressure on students because of the shortened
semester in the third year and the balance of subjects between the two semesters in the
fourth year.
7. The Department should consider reviewing the programmes each year to examine course
context and the relationships between courses and years.
8. The Department should produce a road map for incoming students to enable them to track
their progress through the courses.
9. The review group strongly advocates that recent and future academic appointees should
actively seek involvement in collaborative research and should explore the feasibility of
inter-disciplinary research with members of other departments and research centres.
10. The review group recommends that the provision of dedicated technical staff for research
be explored by the Department and the university.
11. The absence of administrative assistance for the management of research accounts should
be addressed.
12. The Department should encourage academic staff to publish more extensively in
international, peer-reviewed journals.
13. The review group recommends that new academic recruitment should focus on researchactive applicants of proven capability in areas that would both complement and enhance
ongoing research initiatives within the Department.
14. The review group recommends that the policy that ensures that the teaching load of
recent academic appointees is not excessive be maintained.
15. The group recommends that every effort is made to design facilities in the new
Engineering Building in such a way that research collaboration and interaction between
academics and researchers from Civil Engineering and other Departments within the
Faculty will be promoted.
16. The Department should strengthen its interactions with other Civil Engineering
Departments across the Irish Universities.
17. The Department should develop an ongoing campaign to promote a more positive and
visible image of itself around NUI Galway.
18. The Department should improve its web site and use it to promote the achievements of
the Department.
19. The University promotion system should ensure that ability and achievement are properly
identified and should recognize that a different balance of measures will be appropriate in
different subject areas.
20. The university should make a greater effort to recognize the particular achievements of
individuals in the Department.
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008
11
Review Report: Civil Engineering 2006
21. The University should ensure that any individual does not have to serve as Dean of
Faculty at the same as time as serving as Head of Department.
22. The University should ensure that the system of allocating resources to departments
aligns with the strategy of the University and facilitates and rewards success in the
declared priority objectives of the University.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
1. A meeting with a representative from Computing Services should be part of the review
process. A report from, and preferably a meeting with, the Research Accounts office
should also be incorporated into the review process. Many of the reports from other
administration units are of little value.
2. The Review Group should have access to complete CV’s and publication lists for all the
academic staff of the Department.
3. The Review Group should see the teaching schedule for recent academic years.
4. A confidential survey should be carried out with every member of the Department
Committee and its results should be sent to the Review group before they make their visit
to the Department. The survey should focus on attitudes about the internal organization
and management of the Department.
5. The SWOT analysis should be based on a meeting involving every member of the
Departmental Committee. Where possible, this meeting should be conducted with a
facilitator from outside the Department.
Professor David Nethercot, (Chair)
Professor Emer Colleran
Professor Margaret O’Mahony
Mr. Sean Gannon
Mr. Brendan Kennelly (Rapporteur)
Pre-final 7th April 2006
Final 4th July 2006
File name, Print date
CivilEngFinalReport1
11/12/2008