IE Program Assessment Report
2006-2007
Submitted by:
MIE Undergraduate Director
Chair of the MIE Undergraduate Committee
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (MIE)
University of Illinois at Chicago
Spring 2007
Distributed to:
 IE Faculty
 MIE Industrial Advisory Board
 MIE UG Student Advisory Board
1
Table of Contents:
I.
What are we trying to accomplish? ......................................................................................... 3
A. Scope and Mission Statement, The University of Illinois at Chicago ................................ 3
B. IE Program Educational Objectives .................................................................................... 4
C. IE Program Educational Outcomes ..................................................................................... 4
II. How do we accomplish these goals? ...................................................................................... 5
A. IE Program Educational Objectives Mapped to IE Outcomes............................................ 5
B. IE Program Non-IE Courses Outcomes Matrix .................................................................. 6
C. Industrial Engineering: IE Courses Outcomes Matrix ........................................................ 7
III.
How do we monitor how well are we doing and update program? .................................... 8
A. IE Program Constituents ..................................................................................................... 8
B. IE Program Assessment Process ......................................................................................... 9
C. IE Program Assessment Tools .......................................................................................... 10
IV.
How well are we doing? ................................................................................................... 10
A. Students ............................................................................................................................. 10
1) Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions) ........................................... 10
2) Undergraduate Student Advisory Board........................................................................... 11
3) E-mails to Undergraduate Director................................................................................... 13
4) Outcome Assessment ........................................................................................................ 13
5) Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues) ........... 13
B. Alumni: ............................................................................................................................. 15
6) Alumni Survey every three years ..................................................................................... 15
C. Faculty: ............................................................................................................................. 19
7) Faculty Meetings .............................................................................................................. 19
8) UG Committee.................................................................................................................. 19
9) Faculty Survey .................................................................................................................. 19
10) Faculty attend ABET Workshops ................................................................................... 20
D. Industrial Advisory Board: ............................................................................................... 20
11) IAB Meetings/Discussions (twice per year) ................................................................... 20
12) IAB Survey ..................................................................................................................... 20
E. Academic Peer Review: .................................................................................................... 22
13) External Review Report.................................................................................................. 22
14) Professionals working with students through Co-Op ..................................................... 22
V. Curriculum Changes Made ................................................................................................... 23
VI.
Discussion Topic for Future Changes ............................................................................... 23
VII. Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 24
IE Program Student Organizations ....................................................................................... 24
Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions) ............................................... 25
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board ............................................................................... 29
E-mails to Undergraduate Director ....................................................................................... 37
Outcome Assessment ............................................................................................................ 39
Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues) ................ 40
External Review Report ........................................................................................................ 41
Professionals working with students through Co-Op ........................................................... 43
2
I.
What are we trying to accomplish?
A.
Scope and Mission Statement, The University of Illinois at
Chicago
The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is a comprehensive public university located in the
heart of one of the nation's largest metropolitan areas. It is one of three campuses of the State of
Illinois' land-grant university, the University of Illinois. Its mission comprises three traditional
elements-teaching, research, and public service, each shaped by and relevant to its metropolitan
setting as well as the University of Illinois' traditional pursuit of excellence. UIC serves not only
the citizens of the state of Illinois, but also students from throughout the nation and the world
who are attracted by both the University's programs and the metropolitan setting on which it
draws and to which it contributes.
UIC seeks to provide its undergraduates with an education which is both broad and deep, to
prepare them for responsible citizenship, and to open intellectual and career opportunities which
will challenge their abilities. In doing so, UIC takes special account and advantage of the
extraordinary ethnic and cultural diversity of the Chicago metropolitan area, which encompasses
two-thirds of the population of Illinois and from which it presently draws most of its
undergraduate students. Among these students are many for whom a university education is not a
long-standing family tradition and who must surmount economic, social, and educational barriers
to achieve academic success. UIC endeavors to help these students fully realize their potential.
For the growing proportion of its students who are enrolled in graduate and professional
programs, both in Chicago and at its regional sites, UIC offers an education which will prepare
them to render skilled professional services and to assume positions of intellectual leadership in
their disciplines and professions.
In research and scholarship, the mission of UIC is to seek new knowledge and understanding at
the frontiers of learning. Both fundamental and applied studies are pursued, often in partnership
with the region's business, cultural, and service institutions. The academic community thus
serves as the focal point for investigation of the challenges and problems facing the region, the
State, and the society at large, both today and in the future.
UIC's public service activities include the provision of direct services which span the full range
of the campus's programs and disciplines. The clinical services provided by UIC's hospital and
clinics, and the active participation of faculty in a multitude of projects through UIC's many and
diverse research centers, help advance the efficiency and quality of life in the region. Members
of the faculty and staff also directly serve on boards, commissions, and advisory committees, in
communities throughout the metropolitan region, the nation, and the world.
Through its education, research, and public service, the University of Illinois at Chicago strives
to accomplish the land-grant mission originally envisioned for the University of Illinois in the
more agrarian environment of the nineteenth century. Located in the great metropolis that is both
the transportation hub of this country and the architectural capital of the world, UIC adapts that
mission to the challenges of the present and the future.
Ratified by the Faculty Senate of the University of Illinois at Chicago-November 19, 1986
Endorsed by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees-January 15, 1987
3
B.
IE Program Educational Objectives
The Industrial Engineering Program Objectives currently are:
1. To prepare students with the appropriate breadth and depth in areas including (a)
manufacturing and production, (b) systems engineering, (c) human factors and
safety, and (d) contemporary computer software applications in order to work
effectively as an Industrial Engineer in an industrial environment.
2. To prepare students to become professionals, who practice their trade ethically and
with a strong sense of responsibility to the community.
3. To prepare students for independent life-long learning, and (as applicable) success in
graduate studies.
4. To prepare students to be good technical communicators.
5. To give students design experiences as individuals and within teams.
C.
IE Program Educational Outcomes
Note: Outcomes are things that can be assessed by a given course.
A.
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering
B.
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and
interpret results
C.
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet the desired needs
D.
An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
E.
An ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems
F.
An understanding of professional ethical responsibility
G.
An ability to communicate effectively
H.
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global and societal context
I.
A recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in life-long learning
J.
A knowledge of contemporary issues
K.
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary
engineering practice
4
II. How do we accomplish these goals?
A.
IE Program Educational Objectives Mapped to IE Outcomes
I
J
K
A recongition of the need for and an
ability to engage in life-long learning
A knowledge of contemporary issues
An ability to use the techniques, skills,
and modern engineering tools
necessary engineering practice
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2
To prepare students to become
professionals, who practice their trade
ethically and with a strong sense of
responsibility to the community.
x
3
To prepare students for independent
life-long learning, and (as applicable)
success in graduate studies.
x
4
To prepare students to be good
technical communicators.
x
5
To give students design experiences as
individuals and within teams.
x
IE Program
Objectives
1
To prepare students with the
appropriate breadth and depth in areas
including (a) manufacturing and
production, (b) systems engineering, (c)
human factors and safety, and (d)
contemporary computer software
applications in order to work effectively
as an Industrial Engineer in an
industrial environment.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The broad education necessary to
understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global and societal
context
H
An ability to communicate effectively
G
An ability to idnetify, formulate and
solve engineering problems
F
An ability to function on multidisciplinary
teams
E
An ability to design a system,
component, or process to meet the
desired needs
D
An ability to design and conduct
experiments, as well as to analyze and
interpret results
C
An ability to apply knowledge of
mathematics, science and engineering
B
An understanding of professional ethical
responsibility
IE Program Outcomes
A
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
B.
IE Program Non-IE Courses Outcomes Matrix
Non-IE
Required
Courses
Outcomes
A
sci
B
C
exptl
design
D
team
E
p-fml
Engr 100
Chem 112
x
F
ethic
comm
H
br-ed
I
lf-ln
ct-iss
x
x
x
x
x
x
G
J
K
m-tls
x
Engl 160
x
x
Engl 161
x
x
Math 180
x
Math 181
x
Math 210
x
Math 220
x
Phys 141
x
x
x
Phys 142
x
x
x
Phys 244
x
x
Humanities
x
x
Social Science
x
x
Mgmt 340
CEMM 200
x
x
CEMM 203
x
x
CS 108
x
ECE 210
x
ME 150/250
x
x
ME 205
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
C.
Industrial Engineering: IE Courses Outcomes Matrix
IE
Required
Courses
Outcomes
A
sci
B
C
exptl
design
D
team
E
p-fml
IE 201
x
x
IE 341
x
x
IE 342
x
IE 345
x
IE 365
x
x
IE 396
x
IE 446
G
comm
H
br-ed
x
J
ct-iss
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
IE 461
x
x
x
IE 463
x
x
IE 464
x
x
IE 466
x
IE 467
x
IE 471
x
IE 472
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
K
m-tls
x
x
x
I
lf-ln
x
x
IE/ME 380
F
ethic
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
an ability to communicate effectively
the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a
global and societal context
I. a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
J. a knowledge of contemporary issues
K. an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for
engineering practice.
7
IE201=Engineering Economy; IE341=Ergonomics I; IE342=Probabilities and Statistics for
Engineers; IE345= Regression Applications and Forecasting in Engineering; IE365=Methods
and Work Measurements; IE/ME380=Manufacturing Processes Principles; IE396=Senior
Design II; IE446= Quality Control and Reliability; IE461=Safety Engineering; IE463= Plant
Layout and Materials Handling; IE464=Virtual Automation; IE466= Production Planning
and Inventory Control; IE467=Industrial Systems Simulation; IE471=Operations Research I;
IE472=Operations Research II.
III. How do we monitor how well are we doing and update
program?
A.
IE Program Constituents
To determine how well we are doing as educators to achieve the objects of the IE Program, we
have put in place a system to obtain input from the various constituent groups for the IE
Program. The groups consist of industry representatives, students, alumni, faculty, and an
academic peer group.
Students Input from the students comes in many such as survey, tests, and personal
communication. In addition, an undergraduate student committee was formed to give a group of
student an opportunity to interact with the faculty in formal committee setting. This committee
was formed in the Spring 2003 semester in order to allow a group of undergraduate students
input on the same documents the faculty use to assess and evaluate the program. This group
consists of 10 juniors and seniors based on their interest and leadership qualities. The group is
chaired by the Undergraduate Committee Chairman and will meet twice per semester to discuss
how to improve the program and student life.
Alumni- The alumni of the Industrial Engineering Program are also asked to provide
information about the program through surveys and personal communication.
Faculty The faculty will provide input through faculty meetings that are held monthly during the
academic year and ABET issues are a permanent agenda item for each meeting. Each
November, a special faculty meeting will be held to review the program and potential changes
for improvement (Faculty Program Review Meeting). In addition, the Undergraduate Committee
is in charge of examining and proposing all curriculum changes, course introductions or
revisions, petitions for any minor changes to the curricula, evaluation of transfer credits, and any
other matters related to the undergraduate program. This committee meets twice per semester.
Industry The majority of our input from industry comes from our departmental Industrial
Advisory Board (IAB). The members are outstanding professionals representing a broad range
of industrial firms. They include Abbott Laboratories, Boeing, DePuy Orthopaedics (a Johnson
& Johnson Company), Gas Technology Institute, Ingersoll International, LMS International,
Tool and Manufacturing Association, Caterpillar, Exelon, and UOP. Two additional members
represent Argonne National Laboratory and Georgia Institute of Technology. The Industrial
Advisory Board meets twice per year to discuss teaching and research aspect of the program.
8
Academic Peers- Every three to five years, a group of distinguished faculty from other
university is brought in to review the IE Program. This group provide a written External Review
Report about the IE program and provide recommendations.
These groups provide input in various ways. This information is gathered over the course of the
academic year and a report is submitted at the beginning of the Fall semester for review by the
various groups. Opinions for change are submitted formally by the various groups and
discussion for curriculum change is initiated. This process is identified as five of the items from
the two loops of EC2000 (indicated as I, II, III, IV, V in Figure 1). Changes in these items will
be based on the evaluation of the assessment criteria and the input from our constituencies.
B.
IE Program Assessment Process
At the start of the fall semester, the results of the various surveys from the previous year are
compiled, reviewed, and summarized by the Chair of the IE Program Assessment Committee.
These summaries are then circulated to the members of the Undergraduate Committee. The
results are discussed in regularly scheduled meetings of the Undergraduate Committee, and
recommendations for program improvement (e.g., curricular changes, new course changes, etc.)
are developed. These recommendations are presented to the Faculty, IAB, and the UG Student
Advisory Committee for discussion and approval. Based on this input, the UG Committee
makes appropriate changes and presents them to faculty during the Faculty Program Review
Meeting for discussion and approval. Then, the Education Policy Committee of the College of
Engineering approval is requested from the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (University
level). The last step for final approval and incorporation into the university catalog requires
approval by the UIC Faculty Senate. In addition, courses that can be taken by graduate and
undergraduate students must also be approved the Graduate College Executive Committee.
Further details on the various committees that provide input in the EC 2000 Evaluation process
are given here:
Outcomes
Required to
Achieve
Objectives
Educational
Objectives
II
I
How Outcomes
will be Achieved
III
Evaluate/Assess
VII
How Outcomes
will be Assessed
IV
Input from
Constituencies
VIII
Formal
Instruction
Student
Activities
VI
Establish Indicators that
Objectives are Being
Achieved
V
Figure 1 ABET EC2000 Evaluation Loop
9
C.
IE Program Assessment Tools
Students:
1) Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions) (May 2003, 2004)
2) Undergraduate Student Advisory Board
3) E-mails to Undergraduate Director
4) Outcome Assessment (May 2003)
5) Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues) (May 2004)
Alumni:
6) Alumni Survey (2003) every three years (February 2003)
Faculty:
7) Faculty Meetings
8) UG Committee
9) Faculty Survey (Spring 2004)
10) Faculty attend ABET Workshops
Industry:
11) IAB Meetings/Discussions (twice per year)
12) IAB Survey
Academic Peers:
13) External Review Report
14) Professionals working with students through Co-Op
IV. How well are we doing?
A.
Students
The students in the IE Program were very active the 2003-2004. Some highlights of the year
include student group run events such as Seminar Series, off campus visits, a “game day” to
encourage student and faculty interaction, and a FLAMOBILE (race car) competition for the
students. See the Appendix and more detail about what the student organizations did over the
past year to make the UIC IE Program better.
1) Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions)
EBI Engineering Exit Survey (Senior Exit)
Results of the EBI Senior Exit Survey were generally favorable towards the IE program
compared to other comparative IE programs around the country. The amount of information
provided by EBI is substantial and only the results regarding ABET questions are provided here.
Results are broken down by questions that correspond to each IE program outcome as well
questions regarding facilities. These results are shown compared to six specific University
Programs, our corresponding Carnegie Class, and all the Universities that had an EBI survey (61
programs). The six specific universities are: Northwestern U., U. of Texas at Austin, U. of
Wisconsin-Madison, U. of Virginia, U. of Notre Dame, U. of San Diego. General comments on
10
facilities were that the computer resources were very poor comparatively. In addition,
laboratories were considered poor. The UIC IE program had good response for ABET questions
compared to other universities. For 16 of the 22 questions, UIC was in the top 10 of the 25
institutions. Areas that need improvement are outcomes D and G (D - An ability to function on
multi-disciplinary teams; G - An ability to communicate effectively) as our program finished in
the bottom 5 institutions for 2 of the 22 questions. Within the comparison group (7 programs),
we were ranked at least at the 3rd or higher for 17 of 22 questions and only at the 5th for 2 of the
22 questions. These two questions were related to outcomes D and G (Detailed tables are
provide in the Appendix).
The Senior Exit survey also examined the two parameters about the required courses for the IE
Program. Each student gave a score from 0 to 5 to assess the importance of a given course and
how well it was taught. This is intended to help identify courses that may not be considered
important as well as those which were poorly taught. The results showed the lowest scores of
importance were for CEMM 203, ME 205 (score  3.0, Average value 3.9, see Figure 2).
Courses that were thought being poorly taught include ENGL 160, MATH 220, IE 464, IE 466,
IE 471, ME 250 (score  3.0, average 3.8, see Figure 2).
Importance (Avg=3.9)
Well Taught (Avg=3.8)
Industrial Engineering
4
3
2
ME 250
IE 472
ME 205
IE 471
IE 467
IE 466
IE 464
IE 463
IE 461
IE 446
IE 396
IE 380
IE 365
IE 345
IE 342
IE 341
IE 201
ECE 210(EECS 210)
CEMM 203
CS 108(EECS 170)
CEMM 200
PHYS 244
ENGR 100
PHYS 142
PHYS 141
MATH 220
MGMT 340
MATH 210
MATH 181
ENGL 161
MATH 180
0
ENGL 160
1
CHEM 112
Score (1-low,5-high)
5
Figure 2 Senior Exit Survey to determine for a given course its importance and how well taught
(2002-2003)
Insert Exit Survey results for 03-04, 04-05, 05-06
2) Undergraduate Student Advisory Board
The student board met 5 times during Fall and Spring 2003 to give comments on the design of
the new UG Study Room (opened Spring 2004), course requirement for computer programming,
and new questions to add for UG Senior Exit Survey. A summary of the committee’s comments
11
about the computer programming courses is given here and details are given in the Appendix. A
photo of the students is given in Figure 3.
Figure 3. 3rd Row: Prof. William Worek (Department Head), James McCoskey (ME Junior),
Prof. Francis Loth (USAB Faculty Chair, UG Director), Prof. Thomas Royston (Associate
Department Head), 2nd Row: Salomon Mercado (IE Senior), Steven Spentzas (ME Junior), Jason
Wennerberg (PTS President, ME Senior), 1st Row: Blaise Steele (USAB Student Co-Chair, IIE
President, IE Senior), Samantha Steinberg (USAB Student Chair, ASME President, ME Junior),
Anita Ramirez (ME Senior), Art Wildula (ME Junior)
Insert photos for 04-05, 05-06 (frank has these )
Summary Statement- Samantha Steinberg, USAB Chair
In response to the question “What is the most useful computer science/programming requirement
for mechanical and industrial engineering undergraduates?” the Undergraduate Advisory
Committee would like to provide the following feedback on the current curriculum offerings:


FORTRAN or CS108 is not a favorable programming or computer science
requirement for MIEs. Feedback was uniform that FORTRAN is outdated and utilizes
an unnecessarily complex syntax. It is not found to be particularly helpful with the
MIE curriculum and is not necessarily pertinent to most elementary engineering jobs.
C is a favorable programming language option and should be offered freely to
engineers in the program.
However, outside the current curriculum offerings, the Undergraduate Advisory Committee
would make the following recommendation regarding potential computer science curriculum
changes. The committee members believe that the computer science courses as currently offered
can be greatly improved upon. Committee members agreed that a basic understanding of
computer languages and programming syntax is necessary, however, because of the limited time
12
allotment in the MIE curriculum for programming class it is unreasonable to assume that
engineers will be able to develop a deep understanding of any specific programming language or
even a basic understanding of the number of languages they may eventually utilize in the work
place. It was therefore highly recommended that department investigate the option of providing a
general “Programming for Engineers” course that focuses on the general commonalities among
all common programming languages and in particular the basics of the C language. The
committee would recommend that this course utilize MATLAB as its programming interface.
MATLAB allows students to learn basic programming syntax and C language. In addition,
MATLAB would allow the course to have a strong secondary emphasis on linear algebra, which
is currently not required for MIE undergraduates. This would be particularly helpful to MIE
students who are expected to have a thorough understanding of both Linear Algebra and
MATLAB for many required courses.
3) E-mails to Undergraduate Director
Two e-mails that are noteworthy discuss the lack of computer facilities and the need for a
required course in Dynamics Systems and Control Theory. A third communication came in the
form of a letter from an engineer who was working with many students from our department.
This engineering complained of a lack of professionalism as well as inadequate computer skills
such as plotting with Excel (see Appendix).
4) Outcome Assessment
This assessment is conducted by the College of Engineering at UIC. The students survey results
are available for the 2002-2003 year and are given below in Figure 4. Results for current year
2003-2004 will be available in the Fall of 2004. Student Course Outcome Assessment Survey
form is given in the Appendix along with figures that detail the results on outcomes E-an ability
to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems, F-An understanding of professional
ethical responsibility; J-a knowledge of contemporary issues, K-an ability to use the techniques,
skills, and modern engineering tools necessary in engineering practice. In general, students in
the IE program rate their ability in the four areas approximately as 4.0 (5.0= “strongly agree”
and 1.0=”strongly disagree”) for each statement that that indicates that the student has this
ability. The results show that students in IE program compare well with the students in other
programs within the college of engineering.
5) Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues)
Two quizzes were administered to a required course (IE380) on the subject of Ethics and
Contemporary Issues. An example of quiz is given in the Appendix. The results show that the
percentage of our students that can respond in a coherent and reasonable manner to questions
about ethics and contemporary issues is 93% and 86%, respectively.
13
Figure 4 Assessment Survey Results for Outcomes E, F, J, K
replace with new data from EBI!!!!
14
B.
Alumni:
6) Alumni Survey every three years
The survey of IE Alumni was sent to alumni at the end of November 2002. The survey
instrument sent out to Industrial Engineering Alumni asked the following questions:
Industrial Engineering Alumni, please indicate if you agree or disagree with the
statements below. Answer each in comparison to your peers.
1. The UIC-IE program prepared me to work effectively as an Industrial Engineer in an
industrial environment.
2. The UIC-IE program prepared me to be a professional, to practice ethically and with
a strong sense of responsibility to my community.
3. The UIC-IE program prepared me for independent life-long learning, and (as
applicable) success in graduate studies.
4. The UIC-IE program prepared me to be a good technical communicator.
5. The UIC-IE program provided me with design experiences as an individual and
within teams.
As indicated above, we previously did not evaluate the achievement of the IE program objects
beyond the “generic College of Engineering process.” While most programs in the UIC College
of Engineering also used the generic COE process and did not have this cited as a program
weakness, we have taken steps to improve the process for evaluating the IE program objectives.
In 2005-2006, we have begun evaluating the IE program objectives through our own phone
survey and describe a plan to disseminate this information to our constituent groups, the
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board, the Faculty-UG Committee, the Industrial Advisory
Board.
The 2005-2006 Alumni Survey was conducted by phone to alumni who graduated on or before
2002. This insures that each graduate had spent time working as an engineer (in industry or as a
graduate student) and could provide feedback about how well UIC IE Program prepared them.
We tried to contact 24 graduates of the IE program and were able to get 6 of these to respond to
our survey (25%). The survey consisted of asking each alumni to give a score from 1 to 5 (1strongly disagree and 5-stronly agree) to indicate how well they though the IE Program helped
them to attain the objectives of the IE Program. These objectives are list below and on the web
site (http://www.me.uic.edu/programs/bsme_objectives.htm).
B.S. in Industrial Engineering Program Educational Objectives
1. To prepare students with the appropriate breadth and depth in areas including (a)
manufacturing and production, (b) systems engineering, (c) human factors and safety, and (d)
contemporary computer software applications in order to work effectively as an Industrial
Engineer in an industrial environment.
2. To prepare students to become professionals, who practice their trade ethically and with a
15
strong sense of responsibility to the community.
3. To prepare students for independent life-long learning, and (as applicable) success in graduate
studies.
4. To prepare students to be good technical communicators.
5. To give students design experiences as individuals and within teams.
In addition, the alumni were asked to give suggestions that they thought might improve the
program in its ability to reach these objectives. The results of this survey are shown in Figure 1.
In general, the responses were near 4.0 for most of the objectives with objective number 4
(communication) the lowest. These results are similar to the results obtained 4 years ago by the
College of Engineering survey shown in Figure 2. Note that the objectives were modified
slightly during the time between the two surveys. Additional feedback was obtained in the form
of comments to improve the program. Those are listed here:
Alumni Comments on IE Program:

IE too much connected to the ME side, get alumni to come back and talk or help recruit,
speaker series

Professors need to be more accessible

Ethics was good however emphasis community involvement could be improved, add
professor with an IE background, feels that UIC preparation was as good as GT students
he is doing an MBA and feels that if emphasize that this training is good for all different
areas much like an MBA

In IE major incorporate supply chain management, just in time manufacturing time, and
LEAN (produces waste)
16
5.0
4.5
Score (1-disagree, 5-agree)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1. Prepared students with 2. Prepared students to
3. Prepared students for 4. Prepared students to be 5. Gave students desgin
the appropriate breadth become professionals, who
independent life-long
good technical
experiences as individuals
and depth in areas
practice their trade ethically
learning, and (as
communicators.
and within teams.
including (a) manufacturing and with a strong sense of
applicable) success in
and production, (b)
responsibility to the
graduate studies.
systems engineering, ©
community.
human factors and safety,
and (d) contemporary
computer software
applications in order to
work effectively as an I
Figure 1 Response to Alumni Survey for the IE Program taken by the Department of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering 2006.
Score (1-disagree,5-agree)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
prepared me well to work prepared me well to be a
effectively as a ME in an
professional, to practice
industrial environment
ethically and with a strong
sense of responsibiilty to
my community
prepared me well for
independent life-long
learning, asd (as
applicable) success in
graduate studies
prepared me well to be a
good technical
communicator
provied me with good
design experiences as an
individual and within
teams
Figure 2 Response to Alumni Survey for the IE Program at UIC taken by the College of
Engineering in 2002.
17
IE Program Plan for Utilizing the Alumni Surveys
The Alumni Surveys will now be carried out each year by our department rather than the college.
This way we can ensure the consistency of the data and the timeliness of the acquiring the data.
In order to resolving the “weakness” in the process by which our program objects are reviewed
and revised, the consistency and timeliness of the data will be critical. The plan we have
outlined for review/revision of the IE Program Objectives is shown below.
IE Program Objectives Review Process
Fall Semester
Phone Survey of Alumni at least three years past graduation.
Spring Semester
February 1st Send Survey Data and Comments Sent Industrial Advisory Board
March 1st Industrial Advisory Board provides feedback and proposed changes to
objectives/curriculum
March 2nd Send Survey Data and Comments and Industrial Advisory Board Feedback to
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board.
March 15th Industrial Advisory Board provides feedback and proposed changes to
objectives/curriculum
March 16th Send Survey Data and Comments along with Industrial Advisory Board Feedback
and Undergraduate Student Advisory Board Feedback to the Faculty-Undergraduate Committee.
April 1st Faculty-Undergraduate Committee provides feedback and proposed changes to
objectives/curriculum and presents this finding at a faculty meeting. Final recommendations are
either approved or rejected by the faculty.
This Program Objectives review process is conducted in parallel with the review of the program
outcomes. For clarity, the process for the program outcomes is not described in this response as
it was described in the previous response.
As described in the previous response, some novel ideas of how to improve the review of the
objectives were presented at the ASME ABET Workshop held in San Diego, CA held March
11th, 2005. Professor Loth, the Department Undergraduate Director, attended this workshop.
Professor Loth has attended the ASME sponsored ABET Workshop each year for three years in
a row and found it quite helpful in interpreting the goals of the ABET review process and how it
relates to the assessment process. The fact that assessing the program objectives is an extremely
challenging aspect of the assessment process was vigorously discussed at the ABET Workshop.
Another discussion is how to maintain contact with our former students in order to get this
alumni information. As described here, we have begun assessing this information each year for
18
the class that graduate three years prior such that the data always represents a student three years
after graduation.
C.
Faculty:
7) Faculty Meetings
Faculty provides input through faculty meetings that are held monthly during the academic year
and ABET issues are a permanent agenda item for each meeting. Each November, a special
faculty meeting will be held to review the program and potential changes for improvement
(Faculty Program Review Meeting). See Minutes of Faculty Meeting in Appendix.
8) UG Committee
This committee oversees all changes in the curriculum and helps guide the assessment process.
See Minutes of Faculty Meeting in Appendix.
9) Faculty Survey
The faculty survey was submitted by 17 faculty members (Spring 2004). The results showed that
all the courses have a score above 4.0 (see Figure 6).
5
Course Importance
4
3
2
1
IE
20
IE 1
34
IE 1
34
IE 2
34
IE 5
36
IE 5
38
IE 0
39
IE 6
44
IE 6
46
IE 1
46
IE 3
46
IE 4
46
IE 6
46
IE 7
47
IE 1
47
2
0
Figure 6 UIC Faculty Survey of Course Importance (required courses)
repeat after changes are in place
19
10) Faculty attend ABET Workshops
In 2002-2003, two faculty members (Francis Loth, Undergraduate Director and David He)
attended the ASME/ABET EC2000 Workshop on Sunday November 17, 2002 at the 2002
ASME Congress in New Orleans. This information of this workshop was then summarized to
the entire faculty in an effort to provide more information about the ABET EC2000 requirements
such that we can better meet the needs of our program’s constituencies. In 2003-2004, one
faculty member (Francis Loth, Undergraduate Director) attended the ASME/ABET EC2000
Workshop at the ASME Mechanical Engineering Education Conference held March 5-9, 2004,
in Clearwater Beach, Florida.
update with Scott, Darabi, Manaf...
D.
Industrial Advisory Board:
11) IAB Meetings/Discussions (twice per year)
Meeting have an ABET IE Program presentation followed by discussion on the current
curriculum and how we can improve it to better prepare our student for industrial jobs in the
greater Chicago area.
12) IAB Survey
Five IAB members responded to a survey to assess the level of importance for IE program
required courses. The results showed the two lowest scores of importance were for IE 463 and
ME 250 (see Figure 7).
6
4
3
2
1
ME 250
ME 205
IE 472
IE 471
IE 467
IE 466
IE 464
IE 463
IE 461
IE 446
IE 396
IE 380
IE 365
IE 345
IE 342
IE 341
0
IE 201
Course Importance
5
20
Figure 7 UIC MIE Industrial Advisory Board Survey of Course Importance (required courses)
input new results after Fall meeting
21
E.
Academic Peer Review:
13) External Review Report
Overall message of the report is positive however, there is a recommendation to hire more
faculty in order to maintain or improve the quality of the IE program. The executive summary
of the report is given in the Appendix.
14) Professionals working with students through Co-Op
This assessment is conducted by the College of Engineering at UIC. The students survey results
are available for the 2002-2003 year and are given below in the table. Results for current year
2003-2004 will be available in the Fall of 2004. Outcome Assessment Survey form for
Professionals who worked with Co-Op students is given in the Appendix that assess outcomes AAn ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering, C-An ability to design a
system, component, or process to meet the desired needs; E-an ability to identify, formulate and
solve engineering problems; F-An understanding of professional ethical responsibility; G-An
ability to communicate effectively; H-The broad education necessary to understand the impact of
engineering solutions in a global and societal context; J-a knowledge of contemporary issues, Kan ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary in engineering
practice. In general, professionals rated the IE students ability in these areas either 4.0 or 5.0 out
of 5.0 where 5.0 corresponded to “strongly agree” for each statement that that indicates that the
student has this ability. The results show that students in IE program compare well with the
students in other programs within the college of engineering.
22
V.
Curriculum Changes Made
Quizzes related to ethic and contemporary issues have been designed and added to IE380
(“Manufacturing Process Principles”) to evaluate the students’ awareness and appreciations for
ethics and contemporary issues in addition to the end-of-semester faculty surveys of outcomes.
This was partially in response to comments from ABET and from comments by students and
faculty. Discussion is continuing about adding even more measures into other courses.
Compressive Process is in place to update Computer Facilities each year. Faculty, Industrial
Advisory Board and e-mail from student were important assessment factors in this decision to
improve computer facilities.
The Computer Science Department has modified the CS108 course which our IE Program
student take to include two weeks of Matlab instruction in response to our request. Faculty and
UG Student Advisory Board were important inputs in this process.
VI. Discussion Topic for Future Changes
IE-Examining change from fortran to C++
Discussion on integrating more hands-on labs into IE courses.
23
VII. Appendix
IE Program Student Organizations
24
Senior Exit Survey Results (EBI plus additional questions)
25
26
CS-COE Meeting
Present: Krishna Gupta, COE; John Hetling, BIOE; Francis Loth, MIE; Bob Sloan, CS; Pat Troy,
CS; Chein Wu, CME;
The discussion at todays meeting revolved around CS 108. The opinion of the College of
Engineering faculty appears to be split as to whether an Engineering Graduate should know how
to program using the FORTRAN language or the C language. A few items that were agreed upon
during the meeting were:
1. A small section on MATLAB programming would be a nice addition to the course (1 to 2
weeks).
2. The number of credit hours for the course should not be increased.
3. The C programming language and the FORTRAN programming language are fairly equal as
to what type of programs can be created using each one. Switching between languages is mostly
learning the syntax of the languages.
4. The tread across the country is that Engineers are taking programming courses that include
MATLAB. The trend is also favoring the C programming language over FORTRAN.
27
5. CS 107 is NOT a typical "Programming for Engineers" course. The focus of CS 107 is on
Object Oriented Programming.
I would like to ask all of the Undergraduate Chairs to take a poll of their faculty. Please return
the results to Pat Troy.
--------------------------------------------------------------Which statement best describes your preference for the programming language used in an
introductory programming class?
1.
I have a VERY STRONG preference for the FORTRAN language.
2.
I have a preference for the FORTRAN langauge.
3.
I have no preference between the FORTRAN and C languages.
4.
I have a preference for the C language.
5.
I have a VERY STRONG preference for the C language.
--------------------------------------------------------------If no consensus is reached via the above survey. One solution could be to create CS 109 - C
Programming for Engineers. Then the CS 108 - FORTRAN Programming for Engineers could
be taught in the Fall and CS 109 could be taught in the Spring.
28
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board (2005-2006 year)
(ask Frank but maybe nothing...)
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board (2004-2005 year)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (ME):
Is there a IE version? ask Frank
Undergraduate Student Advisory Board
Dear MIE Faculty Advisory Committee,
In response to the question “What is the most useful computer science/programming requirement
for mechanical and industrial engineering undergraduates?” the Undergraduate Advisory
Committee would like to provide the following feedback on the current curriculum offerings:
FORTRAN or CS108 is not a favorable programming or computer science requirement for
MIEs. Feedback was uniform that FORTRAN is outdated and utilizes an unnecessarily complex
syntax. It is not found to be particularly helpful with the MIE curriculum and is not necessarily
pertinent to most elementary engineering jobs.
C is a favorable programming language option and should be offered freely to engineers in the
program.
However, outside the current curriculum offerings, the Undergraduate Advisory Committee
would make the following recommendation regarding potential computer science curriculum
changes. The committee members believe that the computer science courses as currently offered
can be greatly improved upon. Committee members agreed that a basic understanding of
computer languages and programming syntax is necessary, however, because of the limited time
allotment in the MIE curriculum for programming class it is unreasonable to assume that
engineers will be able to develop a deep understanding of any specific programming language or
even a basic understanding of the number of languages they may eventually utilize in the work
place. It was therefore highly recommended that department investigate the option of providing a
general “Programming for Engineers” course that focuses on the general commonalities among
all common programming languages and in particular the basics of the C language. The
committee would recommend that this course utilize MATLAB as its programming interface.
MATLAB allows students to learn basic programming syntax and C language. In addition,
MATLAB would allow the course to have a strong secondary emphasis on linear algebra, which
is currently not required for MIE undergraduates. This would be particularly helpful to MIE
students who are expected to have a thorough understanding of both Linear Algebra and
MATLAB for many required courses.
29
Please see the comments written below by Jason Wennerberg for a more details explanation of
the benefits of a MATLAB based programming course.
My opinion on the programming requirement is that it really doesn't matter what language you
teach computer programming in. The basics in any programming course are all the same. You
have loops, input/output, logical statements, functions, etc.. The only difference between the
languages is specific syntax. This distinction is not even that important since the WAY a
program is written is the important part. That being said I think that FORTRAN is not only
outdated but also unnecessarily complex in terms of syntax. What I think should be taught is a
course based on CS 107 but in the MATLAB language or some other scripting based language.
The course should also include material on matrix operations since MATLAB is used commonly
in industry. Maybe this could be the class that makes up for our lack of a linear algebra
requirement. Once ANY programming language is taught a student can then program in any
language simply by typing 'C tutorial' or the like in google and looking up the specific syntax.
Some good things about MATLAB:
Syntax is not complicated and structure of code is more obvious.
MATLAB .m files can be written to look exactly like C code if one wishes to do more complex
things. Some of the course should still include good old fashion programming and can be done in
C which is now the standard language of computer scientists and anyone else who writes a lot of
code.
MATLAB is being required in many courses undergrads have to take. I had to write MATLAB
code for fluids II and Numerical Methods and use it in ME 320. I also think that a lot of
professors would like to start using it more.
MATLAB is used in the Engineering industry much more often than C or FORTRAN.
MATLAB can be purchased relatively cheaply as a student ($99) and is a very good buy. Also
there is a free version for LINUX called Octave that uses the exact same .m files. FORTRAN
and C compilers for windows are VERY expensive. MATLAB would allow many more students
to work on projects at home and would encourage them to explore things on their own without
worrying about complicated math.
ME's don't seem to be as afraid of MATLAB as of FORTRAN probably because the syntax is
easier.
~Jason Wennerberg
FORTRAN is said to be outdated, but some companies still use it. For engineers there has to be
some requirement for programming, whether it is Fortran or C or some other updated language. I
think a survey from local employers, asking what language they prefer students to have, would
be a good idea. Along with that idea maybe have students in the engineering school wait until
they know what field they will be pursuing, so they can decide what program they will need.
That is a long shot but an idea.
~James McCoskey
I think that we should definitely have some kind of programming coursework in the curriculum,
but I'm not sure that Fortran is the best thing. We use Matlab a lot, so maybe something along
30
those lines would be more appropriate. But then (I think it was Jason that mentioned it) the idea
of having just a general programming class sounds kind of right. Just to teach people how to
think for programming, and technique, instead of just focusing on one language, that way they
are versatile, and not limited to a certain language.
~Anita Ramirez
I think that CS 107 is a more useful class for the IE curriculum, since it gives a better
understanding for the 400-level simulation and automation courses Industrial Engineers are
required to take. Fortran is outdated, but C should focus more on the programming than the
object orientation.
~Blaise Steele III
With regards to the computer science requirement, I believe that c++ is a better language
compared to FORTRAN for engineers here at uic. If we would like to take things to another
level, I think it would be best to create an introductory computing course for engineers. This
course can teach the fundamentals of C++ and object oriented technologies as well as contain a
section on Matlab.
~Steve Spentzas
I think we should move to C. I also think we should replace physics III with linear algebra. I
never used physics III and linear algebra has come up over and over again.
~Salomon Mercado
I think CS107 and CS108 should remain the same except that students should have a choice
between the two. Also CS107 should be C/C++ not Java. I recall an idea of an engineering
programming and matlab class and think would be too much for one class.
The C programming language is a good beginner programming language. It covers date types,
program flow, data input and output. C++ is only different from C in that there are different
functions for text in and out and C++ is object oriented.
There would be too much information in one course to combine matlab and a language such as C
or FORTRAN. It would be better to have a full semester in programming in one language. Once
a student knows one language they can use that knowledge to learn anther. If the introductory
course is used to learn the basics of more than one language then there could be a loss in some
advanced topics.
A reference guide for computer math tools might help students with matlab. The reference guide
might include notes on matrices, matlab, maple, and mathematica. Off the subject the reference
guide could also include tips for using word processors and spreadsheets.
~Matt Hull
31
I think Fortran should be offered but not required, it is an old language that almost noone uses
anymore. I learned C++ in high school and that shows that they are on the right track. C++ is
much easier and makes more sense and a lot of things are simplified. Fortran is the long way of
doing things. If Fortran is taken out from requirement and replaced by C++ or another
programming class it will have the same effect for teaching but students would like it more. Any
programming class that is taken should teach the way to program and the thought process behind
it. It would be interesting to see what languages other colleges are teaching, then we can see if
we are teaching ancient material.
~Art Widula
32
April 26, 2003
MIE Faculty,
Below is the summary opinion of the MIE Student Advisory Committee to the question of how useful
undergraduate MIE students view the creation of an exclusive MIE study room in SEL.

There was uniform support of the creation of an MIE undergraduate study facility in SEL. Student
expressed that currently no adequate study facilities for MIE students, either individually or for
group work, have been made available to date.
 The students of the MIE Advisory Committee are all part of study groups that they believe would
use the facility a minimum of once a week and some groups expressed that they might utilize the
facility upwards of 25-30 hours per week.
 All students expressed a need for good workspace, which included good lighting and large
worktables. Individual ideas of what constituted good workspace varied by student. Below is a
snapshot review of some suggestions mentioned, both during the committee meeting and below in
emails:
a. Square or round tables sitting 4-6 students
b. Senior project lockers, 5-10
c. Computers
d. Good Work Lighting
e. Sound control
f. Vending Machines
g. Card Key Access
h. Garbage Facilities
i. Couches and end tables
j. Whiteboards
k. Microwave
l. Sound proofing or partitions
 The following were areas of debate or concern:
a. Food policies: Students on the committee were divided regarding food policies. Some
students felt strongly that allowing food in the study area is a great draw, while other
students expressed concern regarding cleanliness and smell.
b. Room Policing and Maintenance: There was considerable concern regarding who would
police the room to prevent theft and vandalism and who would be responsible both
financially and physically for room maintenance. For example, there was considerable
debate as to whether or not the computers should have printers, which may break more
easily and require paper and ink.
Sincerely,
The MIE Student Advisory Committee
I strongly believe that the development of an study room is necessary for both Undergraduate and
graduate students. We are in a necessity to have a place where ME students in general can study. I do
oppose to food consumption in such place and I am pro-study groups. The place should have great
lighting and comfortable size tables. The computers are an excellent idea. I do not think that a card
access is neccesary. It is really expensive and we can utilize that money in more beneficial things such as
scholarships or more computers etc. There must be other way (not as expensive) of taking care of the
computers and others. I propose for all the members of the committee to come up with a design that will
be discussed during a future meeting.
Regards,
Claudya
33
I would like to see a MIE study room setup. I think we should get what is
necessary and nothing outrageous. Computers would be good to have but if we
start getting printer and such, it would become a problem in maintaining.
Round tables are a good idea and we should get 5 or 6 of them. The lockers
are a good idea, but removing two or three of them would free up a good
amount of room that could be used for a couch. If we do decide to allow
food, put a garbage can in there so people would throw the food out when
they are done with it. Overall, I think this room should be finished to our liking.
Art
... as far as the study room goes, I’m sure that would be great provided the word gets out to all the MIE
undergrads (and maybe grads? i know they already have one tho) so they can make full use of it.
I would say go for it.
dan
I think SEL 3287 would be a great room to have the study room in. It certainly is large enough, and is
close enough to ERF to make the location convenient. However, I feel food should be allowed. We are all
in college, and should be able to clean up after ourselves, so food cleanup should not be an issue. The
room is going to need a paint job, and new carpeting. I think four round tables, seating five to six people
each would be fine, but leave the couches there! Some people like to sit by themselves on the
comfortable couches, so they should remain along the walls (new ones should be purchased though). A
microwave wouldnt be a bad idea, although those tend to get messy.
Two computers would be sufficient, and I agree with your idea of printing in the lab down the hall, to lower
the trouble of maintenance by removing a printer. The room should be card access only, exclusively to
MIE students, so the card swipe machine is a must. The chalkboard should stay, and we should get a
new attractive attention-grabbing sign to display the room, and also advertise in ERF and ENGR 100, and
especially at the reception.
Blaise Steele
I think that the MIE study room is a wonderful idea. I believe that if the room is built there would be
enough engineers to make it useful. I think with four or five round tables, 2 or 3 computers, some
computer ports, and maybe a small set of couches, it would be a great place to study.
In regards to the MIE banquet in the beginning of the year, and gaining recognition for the MIE as a
whole, a small competition would be a good attention grabber and gain student support for the program.
Also, I believe that just getting professors to support MIE programs with a few minor announcements
when convenient for them will also raise support.
Steve
This is what we need in the lounge:
- square tables that will seat 4
- padded chairs for the tables
- Couches with coffee tables like in the atrium
- Computers (2 or 3) with printer
- Vending machines, at least one for coffee because what kind of study lounge doesn't have coffee
available.
- white board
34
We should also leave the blackboard in there. Also I think that we should alow eating and drinking and
put the computers in the small room where there won't be any eating or drinking. I can also gaurantee
that at least me and three of my friends would be in there quite a bit. I would bet money that many others
would be there also if we advertise it right (something I have every confidence that you can do).
Jay Wennerberg
The MIE study room is an excellent idea. The people in my study group agree that there is a need for a
study room and they assure me that they would definitely use it. I am in a study group that meets 4-5
times a week for 3-6 hours. The size of our group ranges from 5-10 people. We currently meet in the
Physics Department's TA room, because it is in SEL. SEL is a desirable location, because our classes
and professors a nearby. The MIE study room is a good investment of undergraduate funding that I hope
will be operational by August.
Salomon Mercado
1. The total number of hours I spend per week
doing coursework outside of class is typically:
0-4
5-9
1014
1519
2024
2534
35+
2. The number of hours I spend per week working
at a job that is unrelated to my studies:
0-4
5-9
1014
1519
2024
2534
35+
3. The average number of hours I spend per
week working with the teaching assistants is
typically:
0-4
5-9
1014
1519
2024
2534
35+
1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Somewhat Disagree 3 – Indifferent 4 – Somewhat Agree 5 – Strongly
Agree
4. I found my major advisor accessible:
1
2
3
4
5
5. I found the time I spent with my major advisor
beneficial in planning my coursework:
1
2
3
4
5
6. I found the UIC computer resources sufficient
for completing academic assignments:
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
7. I found the MIE faculty accessible and helpful:
8. I found the teaching assistants able and
prepared to answer my questions regarding
my coursework:
9. I would greatly benefit if more course materials
were available on the World Wide Web:
10. The computer skills I learned during my
degree have been/will be of great assistance
as a professional:
11. My academic studies at UIC have greatly
enhanced my problem-solving and teamwork
skills:
35
12. My major-required courses were scheduled in
such a way that I was able to graduate
without unnecessary delays:
13. Research opportunities with MIE faculty were
made available to me:
14. I found the required laboratories helpful in
providing hands-on explanations of lecture
materials:
15. Laboratory write-ups and course projects
improved my technical writing skills:
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
16. I am interested in pursuing graduate studies:
36
E-mails to Undergraduate Director
E-mail from Student discussing need for better Computing Resources
Delivered-To: floth@tigger.cc.uic.edu
From: matt <mhull1@uic.edu>
To: FLoth@uic.edu
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 21:10:13 -0800
Subject: accc computers
Priority: Normal
Organization: school
Reply-to: matt <mhull1@uic.edu>
X-mailer: Phoenix Mail 0.92.08 Standard Edition
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
Dr Loth,
I talked to several weeks ago about having problems in the computer labs at
school. I have since picked up a used Macintosh and do not rely on the
computer lab.
The computers in the labs hang for about 2 minutes when loading Excel. It
will stall completely if I double click on an excel file and not choose to
open excel from the start menu. At random excel will quit because the N
drive quits responding. I think last year with windows 98, excel was
installed locally and this year with windows XP excel is installed on the
network which is why it talks so long to load and why it crashes.
In previous semesters I have used mathematica for homework and lab
write-ups. This semester tried to use it and it failed to run stating that
the license has expired. I do not know if that software is intended for
the math department and the engineering students are not expected to use
it, so they chose not to renew the license.
The Mac's work fine except the network drive is not mapped so I can not get
to my files. I have to email them to myself. The network is preferred;
the floppy is too slow and small. It would be great if they would map the
Unix account to both machines. I can access the Unix account from home
using ssh, the H drive in the accc labs does not allow ssh login from off
campus do I can not finish homework at home. The Mac's do not have an ssh
GUI for transferring files to and from it so again I have to resort to
emailing my files to myself. I asked the accc lab about this and they said
it was a privilege to have to have the network drive and don't seem to care.
After dealing with all of the problems in the computer labs I have been
kicked out twice, once due an accc class in the windows XP labs and once
37
due to some class in the Mac labs. The people attending the class in the
Mac lab did not look like students from UIC. I had to show one of them
where the room was. They appeared to be community collage students.
With all of these problems in the computer labs I am being to think that
the university does not expect me to do any course work on the computer;
maybe pencil and paper? The accc computer lab is doing a poor job of
providing computer tools, perhaps the college of engineering could get
there own computer labs.
Update 1:
I have tried to connect my laptop to the schools network at the network
terminals and that failed the other day telling me it could not assign an
IP address. I was trying to print my homework to submit. I suppose I will
need to buy my own printer to go with the laptop I had to buy. As an
engineering student I am expected to do some of my homework using word and
excel, usually lab reports. I have tried almost everything to work on lab
reports during school but it all seems to fail.
Update 2:
I have talked to the accc support and they said they are testing something
before mapping the h drive on the Mac's and they will try to put an ssh GUI
client on the Mac's. Perhaps the accc should get their stuff working when
students are not dependent on it, such as the summer semester.
As stated before I have since bought a used laptop. A little costly for
the computer and software.
Matt Hull
38
Outcome Assessment
39
Outcome Directed Quizzes (Outcomes F & J, Ethics and Contemporary Issues)
40
Faculty Meetings



Vote for C++/ Fortran
Nov 15th, 318, 312
Alan presentation
External Review Report
Submitted on May 14, 2004 by:
Rajan Batta, Professor
Department of Industrial Engineering
University of Buffalo, SUNY
Andrew Kusiak, Professor
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
The University of Iowa
Yuan-Shin Lee, Professor
Department of Industrial Engineering
North Carolina State University
Summary of Findings and Observations
The preparations and planning for the visit were thorough and helpful. The documentation was
complete and provided a good description of the state of the program.
1.
Mission and Curricular Effectiveness
The Industrial Engineering (IE) program’s mission is well conceived and consistent with the
mission of the university. The contributions of the program to the state-of-the-art of the
profession are comparable to other programs of similar size. The contributions of the Virtual
Manufacturing engineering area are world class and clearly the strongest element of the program.
The average scholarly publication rate across the program is high. The funded research level for
IE faculty is very competitive in the peer group. However, curriculum of the program has
limited coverage of the IE discipline largely due to the relatively small size of the program
faculty.
The IE program is somewhat unusual compared to peer UIC engineering departments with
respect to the interdisciplinary and the inter-institutional opportunities that present itself at the
UIC campus and in the Chicago area.
The program content, both graduate and undergraduate, is generally well thought out. The
undergraduate program is similar to many IE programs. Due to the small size of IE faculty,
numerous 400 and lower -level courses are offered as joint graduate and undergraduate classes,
which has a negative impact on learning effectiveness. At the Master and Ph.D. level, there is
41
some evidence that the core could be strengthened as a small number of 500-level IE graduate
courses are offered due to the limited number of IE faculty. Interviews with students reinforced
this observation. Similarly, at the graduate level, students perceive that some of the core
graduate courses are crammed with a wide range of topics covered at basic level.
There appear to be opportunities to improve the effectiveness of the curriculum to better address
the local business needs.
Specific suggestions are provided in the Conclusion and
Recommendation sections. Topics such as supply chain and lean manufacturing could be added
to the curriculum.
2.
Faculty/Staff Quality
The department staff is effective, enthusiastic, and is appreciated by the students. Student
mentoring at the departmental level could be improved.
The IE faculty, as a whole, is very enthusiastic, and exceptionally academically productive.
Faculty members in Virtual Manufacturing engineering have created a program that is among the
best in the nation. The IE faculty have complementary areas of research interests. Some faculty
members in IE have excellent relationships with industry and provide outstanding experience to
both undergraduate and graduate students. For example, the work of the Virtual Manufacturing
and control is highly recognized and valued by Caterpillar. The committee acknowledges the fact
that the academic contributions by the Virtual Manufacturing group in IE program are clearly
one of the best in the nation.
IE faculty overall have high journal publication rates and good funding levels, among their peers.
The IE faculty pursues a cutting-edge interdisciplinary research at UIC. For example, some IE
faculty collaborated with Dentistry faculty to conduct research on virtual reality and collision
detection in dental training.
The committee is concerned with the small size of the IE faculty. Currently, there are only three
faculty members with IE degrees (one Full, one Associate, and one Assistant Professor) plus one
full-time Visiting Professor with IE degree. It is observed that the IE program at UIC provides
only limited coverage of the IE discipline.
The diversity of the faculty is reasonable. The mix of faculty, junior and senior, is a good
foundation for continued improvement.
42
Professionals working with students through Co-Op
43