Academic Program Review 2004-2005
Executive Summary
Industrial and Engineering Technology Department
The Industrial and Engineering Technology (I&ET) Department was included in the third
cycle of academic program review for the 2004-2005 school year. Based upon feedback
from the previous cycles, the contents of the self-study were modified as were some of
the implementation details. The Industrial and Engineering Technology Department was
one of seven programs undergoing this process for this cycle. Included in the process was
the composition of a self-study document based upon the faculty’s analysis, and the
visitation of an external reviewer, Dr. Thomas L. Erekson, director, School of
Technology, Brigham Young University who read the self-study, interviewed faculty,
staff, administration, and students, and submitted his analysis.
The departmental self-study completed by the faculty and staff is the major document for
this program review. This complex document reveals the strengths and challenges
through the departmental perspective and reflects the commitment of the department for
self-analysis, reflection, and evaluation. The institutional expectation is that the
department and college administration will use the self-study document, the dean’s
report, and the executive summary as guides to the faculty, staff and administration for
the next several academic years as the department addresses the recommendations and
continues its record of excellence.
Since this process requires an enormous amount of time and effort from all of the
participants, it is necessary to ensure that the results are used to inform decisions and
future course of actions. Therefore, the department faculty and college administration
will be expected to provide a summary of activities undertaken during the 2005-2006
academic year as a consequence of the program review. This report will be due to the
provost in October, 2006.
Commendations:
The I&ET faculty and staff are noted for their commitment to their students and industry
partnerships. Faculty take very seriously their advising and mentoring responsibilities
providing an array of services and co-curricular activities including participation in
professional societies, conferences and undergraduate research. Students feel well cared
for and appreciative of the efforts expended by the faculty on their behalf.
Industry partnerships have benefited interns, equipment grants, and enriched specific
courses and programs through industrial speakers and research funds. Faculty are
proactive in seeking these external funds including the state high demand grants for the
Construction Management and Safety and Health Management programs.
Recommendations:
Dr. Erekson was very clear in his report that the department needs to build upon the work
of the academic program review by continuing the dialog “in order to prioritize activities
and realign resources…the faculty needs to identify things that they should continue
doing; and, in order to find internal resources that can be reallocated, they need to
identify the things that they can do more efficiently, and the things that they can
eliminate.” Included in this review should be a curriculum audit analyzing the “number of
options, and emphases being offered, the array of technical electives, and student
demand, with an eye toward program focus and streamlining programs.” As a corollary to
this discussion is a central question that Dr. Erekson posed: “Is the I&ET Department a
group of programs and faculty, or is it a unified department?” Focusing the faculty and
administrative efforts upon defining the goal and mission of the department will assist in
prioritizing and building capacity.
The Hogue Technology building’s renovation is a part of the university’s long-range
facilities planning. This is both an opportunity and a challenge for the department. This
renovation could provide the center-piece of a renewed recruitment effort as well as the
much needed physical space. However, it is incumbent upon the department to ensure
that the building meets their programmatic needs by carefully aligning their curriculum
planning with building needs.
A third area that impacts the department is the lack of a coherent assessment plan for the
various programs in the unit. This is particularly true for those programs under the
auspices of the specialized accreditation agencies, but is also of concern through the
regional accrediting commission. Faculty need to become familiar with the assessment
standards and work to address the weaknesses.
For the graduate program, the Master of Science in Engineering Technology, several
recommendations are suggested. First, in order to address the declining enrollments, a
needs assessment be completed upon which a marketing strategy is adopted to target
selected student and employer populations. Included in the needs assessment should be
analysis of the curriculum to determine if it is meeting student and employer needs. The
declining enrollment trend needs to be altered and once strong cohorts are established, the
MSET program at Des Moines needs to move to state funding. The appointment of a
graduate coordinator is a positive step and reflects departmental responsiveness to the
recommendations of Dr. Erekson and is in line with CWU’s strategic goals. This should
also create additional scholarship and collaborative opportunities for the I&ET faculty.
Dr. Erekson also noted that a Graduate Handbook would help to address some
communication issues he observed.
Overall, the Department of Industrial and Engineering Technology is strong and poised to
reach even greater strengths.