An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2004 - 2005
REVIEW OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND
BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
FINAL REPORT
12th April 2005
Report: Review of Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
2
This report arises from a visit by a review team to the Department of Mechanical and
Biomedical Engineering on 22nd and 23rd February 2005. The Department had already
prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that, with supporting
documentation, was made available to the review team well in advance of the visit.
The ‘Review Group’ consisted of: Professor John Monaghan, Dept. of
Mechanical Engineering, Trinity College (Chairperson); Mr Robert Nolan, R&D
Director, Boston Scientific Ireland Ltd., Galway; Professor Kieran Michael
O’Connor, Department of Engineering Hydrology, National University of Ireland,
Galway; and Ms. Marilla Keating (Group Secretary), of ‘Quality by Design’, Galway.
The report is structured to cover the following main topics
1. Introduction
2. Aims and Objectives
3. Organization and Management
4. Programmes and Instruction
5. Scholarship and Research
6. Community Service
7. The Wider Context
8. Summary and Concluding Remarks
9. Comments on the Methodology of the Review
1.0 Introduction
The members of the Review Group wish to express their sincere thanks to all
members of the staff of the Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
and in particular to Professor Sean McNamara. The hospitality, cooperation, courtesy,
and openness of the staff throughout the review period were greatly appreciated. The
documentation provided to the Review Group was comprehensive and well presented,
and any additional documents requested were promptly provided. Apart from
meetings with departmental staff members, current students, and recent graduates, the
Review Group also met with representatives of the Centre for Excellence in Teaching
& Learning (CELT) (Dr. Iain MacLabhrainn), the Registrar’s Office (Mr. Michael
Kavanagh), the Research Office (Dr. Maura Hiney), and also the Engineering Faculty
Dean, Professor Padraic O’Donoghue. A guided tour of the relevant laboratories and
teaching facilities gave the Review Group valuable insights.
Overall, the Review Group would like to compliment the members of the
Department on the many excellent aspects of their current activities, on the very
substantial expansion since the review of 1996, and in particular on their timely
response to emerging market trends by bringing on-line the very successful
Biomedical Engineering Degree programme to complement that in Mechanical
Engineering.
This report highlights the main findings of the Review Group and contains
suggestions and recommendations for the further improvement and enhancement of
the management, teaching, and overall learning activities of the Department.
File name, Print date
MechEngFinalReport
05/07/2007
Report: Review of Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
3
2.0 Aims and Objectives
2.1 Goals and targets and strategic plan
In discussions with departmental staff on their ‘Self-Assessment Report’, it was noted
that in respect of their Departmental Plan goals and targets are not clearly defined,
just the “overall strategic theme” of their plan (Appendix F of the Self-Assessment
Report) being “one of consolidation after a period of rapid change and expansion”.
The Departmental Head reiterated their reluctance to produce a more detailed plan
while awaiting the faculty structural changes due in early summer and confirmation of
the starting date for the building of the School of Engineering. The Review Group,
however, strongly suggested that these constraints and uncertainties should not
prevent the Department from formulating short-term (3-5 year) plans defining
intermediate targets, milestones, and contingency strategies. While discussions at
Departmental Meetings on future Departmental activities are useful, the Review
Group concluded that, apart from the reference to “consolidation”, there is in fact no
formalized overall plan in the Self-Assessment Report and that such a plan is needed.
The Review Group recommends that the Department creates a Departmental
Plan for the remainder of this decade, which would consider the following elements:
1. Impending Retirements (over the next 2-5 years)
2. Restructuring within the new School of Engineering
3. Departmental Requirements of the new building
4. Academic Programmes over the transition period
5. Staff Development
6. Additional Staff Required
The Departmental Plan should be proactive rather than reactive and include timelines
and resource requirements. It should be consolidated within the Faculty Plan, thereby
ensuring wider communication and visibility, and attracting greater institutional
support.
2.2 Staff Development as an Objective
The Department and Review Group agreed that Staff Development should have been
included in the stated “primary aims and objectives” of the Self-Assessment Report.
3.0 Organization and Management
3.1 Introduction
Due to the significant increase in the workload of the Department, additional
administrative support is urgently required. In addition, the retirements of senior
academic and technical staff over the next 2-5 years, combined with the move to the
new building makes it imperative to provide for additional administrative, technical
and academic staff very quickly.
File name, Print date
MechEngFinalReport
05/07/2007
Report: Review of Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
4
3.2 Safety
The Department and the Review Group agree that, as raised in the 1996 Review
Report, safety continues to be a concern, particularly in laboratories. Issues such as
overcrowding, access, catering for students with special needs (as in the McLaughlin
Building and recently acquired Powder Store), timing and distance (e.g. labs out in
the GMIT at night) remain unresolved, pending the move to the new Engineering
School.
3.3 Staff Development Policy
The Review Group believes that Staff Development should be a priority and
recommends that the Department considers a more formalized staff development
programme in addition to any put in place by the University/Faculty. While Technical
staff are currently encouraged to participate in training courses, e.g. in Health and
Safety, AutoCAD, etc., there is no formal training plan or departmental records
maintained of attendance on training programmes. Technician training that requires
funding from central resources takes too long (up to 3 months) for approval and this is
a serious impediment.
While acknowledging the active participation of some of the academic staff in
the CELT programmes (e.g. Blackboard), the Review Group recommends that the
Department engages in strategic discussions with CELT at a Departmental level.
3.4 Administration
Because of the increased level of activity within the Department in recent years, with
no corresponding increase of administrative support, senior academic staff have to
engage in an inordinate amount of routine administrative tasks (e.g. timetabling,
typing exam and test papers, correspondence on the Professional Experience
Programme (PEP) etc.), which is clearly an inefficient use of their time. For these
reasons, and those outlined in Section 3.1, the Review Group recommends additional
administrative support for the Department, (e.g. by providing additional departmental
staff or by the sharing of centralised resources).
3.5 Technical Support
The increase in the level of activity in the Biomedical Engineering area, arising from
the introduction of the new degree programme, undoubtedly warrants the appointment
of an additional technician dedicated to the Biomedical area. The Review Group
recommends such an appointment as a priority. Furthermore, given the impending
retirement of two existing technical staff within the next 3-5 years and the move to the
new Engineering School, consideration should be given to the timely appointment of
their replacements to enable the smooth transfer of expertise and responsibility.
3.6 Academic Staff
While previous staff numbers were 7 academic staff for 35 mechanical students, there
are currently 9 lecturers for 70 students, incorporating the new degree programme.
Between 400-500 teaching hours are contracted out. While reference to the current
FTE’s might not in itself reflect the need for additional academic staff, the Review
File name, Print date
MechEngFinalReport
05/07/2007
Report: Review of Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
5
Group strongly recommend that due consideration be given to the conversion of some
of the temporary teaching posts to at least two full-time positions.
Furthermore, taking into consideration that the new IEI accreditation has
increased emphasis on learning outcomes, the Review Group believes that such
additional full-time academic staff are needed to meet this requirement also.
The retirement of the Head of Department, Professor Sean McNamara, in
about 2 years time, needs careful planning to facilitate the smooth transfer of his
departmental responsibilities.
3.7 Physical Resources
Noting the excellent facilities available to the Department within the National Centre
for Biomedical Engineering Science (NCBES), the Review Group was impressed
with the establishment of a number of multidisciplinary research groups within the
NCBES environment, supported with high quality equipment and journals. The
Review Group appreciates the challenges associated with the management this type of
multidisciplinary structure and welcomes this development as a sign of confidence
and vision by the department.
Noteing also that some of the current lab equipment in Nuns Island is quite old
and limited, with obvious safety implications, the Review Group recommends that
this issue needs to be addressed prior to the intended move to the new Engineering
Building. In order to facilitate hands-on practical experience to 1st and 2nd year
students, a dedicated student workshop should be incorporated in the new building.
3.8 Departmental Staff Meetings
The Review Group was pleased to note the regularity of these meetings, which are
clearly welcomed by staff and very effective for communication and organization of
departmental activities. To facilitate fuller attendance and participation, it suggests
that consideration be given to holding them at the same/default time every month.
4.0 Programmes and Instruction
4.1 Introduction
The Review Group was very impressed with the quality of the students that were
interviewed. The students unanimously agreed that the course equipped them with the
required comprehensive, fundamental background in engineering. They spoke highly
of their learning experience at NUIG, noting that the small class atmosphere
encouraged excellent teamwork and networking skills.
4.2 Student Information and Course Handbooks
The Review Group recommends that the two Information Booklets for prospective
students should be revised to incorporate a clearer indication of what courses are
mandatory in a given year, numbers of hours per week, as well as which courses are
optional, the implication of the groupings, etc.
File name, Print date
MechEngFinalReport
05/07/2007
Report: Review of Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
6
It also recommends the introduction of a separate ‘Student Course Handbook’
for each year of the programme to provide students with the necessary details of the
courses that they will take in a given year. For each course, this should include course
details such as those set out in Appendix E of the Self-Assessment Report, as well as
details relating to lab and tutorial timetables, policy on plagiarism, and other related
material.
4.3 Evaluation of Teaching and Learning
The Review Group recommends that the Department introduces a more formal
procedure for gathering student feedback on their teaching and learning experience
and that this should be the norm rather than the exception for each course. The
Review Group recommends that the Department consult with CELT and other
university resources on this issue.
4.4 Linkage
An issue that arose in the interviews with Biomedical students and graduates was the
necessity to ensure that in the teaching of 1st and 2nd year subjects, links are firmly
established with Biomedical applications. Furthermore, both the Mechanical and
Biomedical students also stressed the importance that lecturers should clearly
demonstrate the cohesion and links between all the subjects taught in 1st and 2nd year
and their relevance to the work of 3rd and 4th year.
4.5 Staff-Student Meetings
The Review Group welcome the reintroduction of the Staff-Student Meetings and
agree that this provides an important opportunity for staff-student interaction and
feedback. The students believe that these meetings are essential and provide a forum
to raise any issues of mutual concern.
4.6 Timetabling and Workload
Timetabling issues were raised in respect of the moving of students between various
Departmental facilities and those at GMIT. The Review Group is aware that the
Department is investigating ways to reduce this problem for students and encourages
the Department to explore alternatives, e.g. block-sessions of up to a week at GMIT.
The workload for final-year Biomedical Engineering is perceived by the
students to be excessive, e.g. too many course-work projects. The Review Group
suggests that the Department explores the possibility of introducing some of these
into the earlier years of the programme.
4.7 Design in Early Years of the Programme
An issue raised by a number of students was the desire to have an introduction to
Fundamentals of Design in earlier years in the programme to facilitate their design
projects in the 3rd year. The possibility of doing this should be explored.
File name, Print date
MechEngFinalReport
05/07/2007
Report: Review of Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
7
4.8 Professional Experience Programme (PEP)
The Review Group agrees that this programme is a key element of the learning and
educational experience of the student. All the 4th year students and graduates
interviewed enjoyed the PEP programme, agreeing that it is critical to gain this
experience. While some felt that 5 months is a little short, they all recognized that it
may not be possible to dedicate any more time to PEP. In discussions with the
students and graduates, it was not clear to the Review Group what mechanisms are in
place to address any difficulties that may arise during a PEP placement. This should
be clarified.
4.9 Labs and Tutorials
In general, all the students and graduates interviewed found labs to be beneficial.
However, where appropriate, they would have like a ‘Pre-Lab Lecture’ to familiarize
them with the relevant equipment and methods of measurement, e.g. in the Electronic
Labs. Where possible, laboratory material should be synchronized with the lectures.
Regarding tutorials, the students recommended the provision of structured
small-group tutorials for most courses, rather than full-class revision-lecture type
tutorials.
5.0 Scholarship and Research
5.1 Departmental Research Plan
Recognizing that the academic staff of this department are internationally recognised
for the quality of their research, the Review Group recommends the development and
completion of a Departmental Research Plan by the beginning of the next academic
year. This plan should consider strategy, current activities, current opportunities,
research objectives and goals and reflect the individual staff research plans. It should
be in a format suitable for inclusion in the overall Faculty Research Plan.
The Review Groups believes that the incorporation of such a Departmental
Research Plan within the overall Faculty Research Plan would provide the
Department with an effective way of aligning their plan with both the Faculty and
University research strategies, thereby facilitating greater recognition and institutional
support of their objectives.
5.2 Monitoring of Post Graduates
Apart from some isolated cases of problems of supervisor-access, the graduate
students interviewed felt that they are well supported by their supervisors and are
encouraged to explore and develop their own ideas. Nevertheless, the Review Group
recommends the introduction of a more formal structure for the monitoring and
mentoring of the postgraduates, which should include the formalities of entry and
progression over the course of their Post Graduate studies. For example, consideration
might be given to the scheme whereby all graduate students initially enrol onto a
master’s register, with subsequent transfer to the Ph.D. register following formal
assessment and successful review at the end of the 1st year of study.
File name, Print date
MechEngFinalReport
05/07/2007
Report: Review of Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
8
5.3 Mentor Support of Post Graduates
The Review Group recommends the introduction of an orientation programme for
new graduate students. The current graduate students suggested that in, addition to the
student’s supervisor; a peer mentor scheme (e.g. a senior postgrad) would be
welcomed.
6.0 Community Service
The Review Group was impressed by the inclusion of a community support module
within the degree programme. It was clear that the students greatly enjoyed doing this
although they found it time-consuming and they suggested that this valuable work
should be carried out in the 2nd year rather than the 3rd year of their programme. The
Review Group suggest that the Department give some consideration to addressing the
concerns of the students regarding the scheduling of this very valuable work
7.0 The Wider Context
The Review Group feel that it is worth noting that the degree programme in
biomedical engineering was the first professionally IEI accredited programme in
Ireland and the Department deserves to be complimented on this. The Department has
clearly established very valuable strong links with local, national and international
engineering companies. Its success can be gauged by the high demand for its
graduates by national and international companies. Furthermore, its academic staff
should be commended for having established strong links with other academic
institutions throughout the world. The multidisciplinary activities of the Department
reflect its response to the rapid changes in the wider application of both mechanical
and biomedical engineering. In the case of the latter, the NCBES building provides
the ideal environment for nurturing this multidisciplinary culture. In addition, the
international connections and standing of the staff of the department are clearly
evident in the range of international journals and conference proceedings in which
their research work is published.
8.0 Summary and Concluding Remarks
The Review Group greatly appreciated the openness and frankness of the staff,
students and former graduates of the Department, and was very impressed by the
quality of the students, post-graduates and graduates interviewed, and with their
genuine enthusiasm for the Quality Review process. Clearly, the Department has
responded very well to the growing need for biomedical expertise by the introduction
of its Biomedical Engineering Programme to complement its established Mechanical
Engineering Programme. The high level and extensive research conducted by the staff
of this Department is fully acknowledged.
File name, Print date
MechEngFinalReport
05/07/2007
Report: Review of Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
9
The following is a summary the Main Recommendations:
1. Development of a Departmental Plan, covering the next 3-5 years. This plan
would include issues such as impending retirements, restructuring,
anticipation of new building requirements, consolidation of existing academic
programmes and staff development.
2. Additional staff is needed, as follows: Conversion of some of the TTA posts
into full-time academic staff positions, with at least 2 permanent posts. More
administrative support is needed in order to free up academic staff time. A
specialized Biomedical technician is recommended in response to the
increased focus on Biomedical activities and for future accreditation purposes.
3. The application of newer teaching methods and more formal methods of
course evaluation should be encouraged and should be the Departmental norm.
4. The provision of student-centred handbooks for each year of the course is
recommended, containing syllabi, lecture, tutorial and labs, times, dates etc.
5. When teaching 1st and 2nd year courses, lecturers should focus on ensuring that
links are made to Biomedical as well as Mechanical Engineering applications.
6. The formulation of a Departmental Research Plan, reflecting individual
research plans, and aligned with the Faculty and University research
strategies.
7. The introduction of a more formal process for the mentoring and monitoring
of the progress of graduate students, with consideration of achieving the
master’s level initially as a first step, with transfer into the Ph.D. programme.
File name, Print date
MechEngFinalReport
05/07/2007
Report: Review of Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering
10
9.0 Comments on ‘The Methodology of the Review’
1. The Review Group appreciated the use of the facilities and supports available
to them during the review. The documentation provided was clear and well
presented and any additional documentation requested was promptly provided.
2. We would recommend that a separate time slot be allocated, in the Review
Timetable, for the Head of Department to meet with the Review Group.
3. The Review Group suggests that a standardized template be provided to
departments for the presentation of CV’s in the Self-Assessment Reports, as it
noted a wide variation in the presentation, content and indeed the usefulness
(in the context of a Quality Review process) of the CVs presented.
4. Ideally, more time should be made available for meetings with members of
staff.
5. Overall, the Review Group was satisfied with the review methodology, and
expresses its appreciation to the Quality Director and his staff.
Professor John Monaghan (Chairperson)
Professor Kieran Michael O’Connor
Mr Robert Nolan
Ms Marilla Keating (acting as Secretary to the Group).
(12th April 2005)
File name, Print date
MechEngFinalReport
05/07/2007