CMC's Symposium & ITAC's
Executive Forum Evaluation
Statistics based on 70 respondents (Staff filtered out)
November 2012
Survey Execution & Response
• Sent to 201 attendees
• 79 Respondents (36.3 % Response)
– 70 Non-staff attendees
• 5 surveys “in progress” and only half complete
– 9 Staff (CMC & ITAC) filtered out in this report
• 1 survey “in progress” and only half complete
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
2
Part 1 - Content & Elements of the Event
Number of
Please indicate your satisfaction with the
Somewhat Somewhat
people who
following elements of the event:
Satisfied Satisfied
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied attended
TEXPO research exhibits and
demonstrations
78.18%
37.04%
5.88%
5.96%
n=55
CMC's vendor sponsored CAD training
sessions
63.64%
8.93%
3.92%
2.01%
n=22
CMC's Technology Roadmap Session
60.38%
43.24%
19.05%
5.68%
n=54
Vendor and agency exhibits
45.31%
75.00%
40.00%
15.50%
n=65
Thursday morning session content
75.44%
46.15%
14.29%
0.00%
n=58
Thursday afternoon session content
67.24%
54.84%
7.14%
7.31%
n=58
Awards Banquet
81.25%
26.67%
4.55%
0.00%
n=49
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
3
Part 1 - Content & Elements of the Event
The satisfaction with the following elements
Awards Banquet n=69
81%
Thursday afternoon n=58
27%
67%
Thursday morning n=58
55%
75%
Vendor and agency n=65
7% 7%
46%
45%
Roadmap Session n=54
5%
75%
60%
14%
40%
43%
15%
19%
6%
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
CAD training sessions n=22
64%
TEXPO research n=55
9%
78%
0%
20%
37%
40%
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
60%
80%
4% 2%
6% 6%
100%
November 2012
4
Part 1 - Content & Elements of the Event
Comments:(All 12/22):
•
TEXPO research exhibits and demonstrations
-- No time
• CMC's vendor sponsored CAD training sessions
-- My only comment that it will be much better to have these sessions on a different day than the
competition day so students can attend
-- Not so much a training as a presentation of the product
-- only had three attendees across two sessions - more promotion and better timing is required
• CMC's Technology Roadmap Session
-- Had doctor's appointment
-- Presentation was not really compelling, even if content was
-- Too detailed during dinner
-- Was already aware of the content so less informative then the Thursday sessions
• Vendor and agency exhibits
-- Due to the large and segregated venue for the symposium, I felt that the traffic flow resulted in fewer
attendees and researchers visiting the vendor and agency exhibits.
-- Have limited interest in those due to nature of my job
-- Nice variety of vendors to speak with.
-- Not enough attendees visit the exhibit area completely
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
5
Part 1 - Content & Elements of the Event
Comments:(All 10/22):
Thursday morning session content
-- Good high-level overviews
-- Great lineup of speakers, very engaging presentations
-- Interesting from a business point of view, but less for research
• Thursday afternoon session content
-- Interesting from a business point of view, but less for research
-- Not interesting
-- Same comment as above, although more technical and less, accessible material for me, still good
speakers
-- variety of views
• Awards Banquet
-- ha ha - I won!
-- the columns in the facility were very irritating ... not a good venue
-- Very good networking opportunity
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
6
Part 1 - Content & Elements of the Event
Question
Likely
Likelihood that you will recommend future TEXPO
Research Competitions to others:
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
75.71%
Unlikely I Don't Know
2.86%
21.43%
November 2012
7
Part 1 - Content & Elements of the Event
Likelihood to recommend TEXPO: Please comment on your selection. (All 13):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CMC Microsystems Texpo is a great opportunity for researchers to exhibit their Microsystems research.
Excellent opportunity to showcase research within Canada with good prizes
Exposure more valuable than most students realize
Good experience for postgrad students
I attended mostly for networking. TEXPO was for curiosity. I would ask the competitors what they got out
of it before recommending it to any researchers I know.
It dominantly seemed like it was for students and not companies.
Like the format, opportunities for students to showcase the fruit of their labor
Not sure if it was a match our industry, more academic than industry focused
One of the best so far
Outstanding work from various researchers in the country - a must see for anyone interested in the latest
in electronics and microsystem research in Canada.
The event was quite mild and as exhibitor we were not seeing the ROI we expected for
The price should be in the $700 range. Also some incentive to get people to visit each table. Maybe a
giveaway prize if you complete a vendor signature form at each table.
This is great opportunity to see other universities research and work. In addition, the sessions were
helpful to see the industry trends and advancement in various fields
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
8
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
Please describe your satisfaction with the
following administrative elements of the
joint event held by CMC and ITAC:
Somewhat Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Number of
Dissatisfied people who
attended
The proportion of time allocated to
presentations, networking, and technical
sessions
83.87%
53.85%
33.33%
20.67%
n=62
The length of the event
83.87%
53.85%
50.00%
0.00%
n=62
The value received for the price paid
79.37%
43.75%
55.56%
20.86%
n=63
Toronto as a location for the event
74.60%
68.42%
50.00%
0.00%
n=63
The October timing of the event
77.78%
70.59%
40.00%
0.00%
n=63
Organization and administration (registration,
venue, room setup, audio/visuals, TEXPO)
88.71%
40.00%
33.33%
20.46%
n=62
Holding CMC's Symposium and ITAC's
Executive Forum concurrently
78.95%
52.38%
10.00%
0.00%
n=57
Overall satisfaction with the event
79.37%
75.00%
0.00%
20.86%
n=63
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
9
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
The satisfaction with the following administrative elements
Overall satisfaction n=63
79%
Symposium and ITAC's
Executive n=57
Organization and
administration n=62
The October timing of the
event n=63
75%
79%
52%
89%
40%
78%
Toronto as a location n=63
75%
The value received n=63
79%
The length of the event
n=62
The proportion of time
n=62
33%
44%
50%
56%
54%
54%
40%
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
20%
40%
68%
84%
20%
10%
71%
84%
0%
21%
60%
21%
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
50%
33%
80%
21%
100%
November 2012
10
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
Comments:(All 10/20):
•
•
•
•
•
The proportion of time allocated to presentations, networking, and technical sessions
-- networking sessions could be more
The length of the event
-- The training sessions should not be on the same competition day
The value received for the price paid
-- Free admission for me so can't complain!
-- Only as relates to the training sessions
Toronto as a location for the event - Comments:
-- A little expensive for students.
-- Canada
-- Canada
-- Choose a location that is not prone to so much traffic on Toronto's periphery next time!
-- Hub airport - city expensive
The October timing of the event
-- Conflict with Nano Ontario was avoidable
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
11
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
Comments:(All 10/20):
•
•
•
Organization and administration (registration, venue, room setup, audio/visuals, TEXPO)
-- Great work by the team!
-- Room booking was inadequate
-- the pillars in the room were very irritating
-- Top notch! Many helpful staff members, always available.
-- University of Manitoba
-- University of Windsor
Holding CMC's Symposium and ITAC's Executive Forum concurrently
-- Allows for additional networking
-- Didn't attend ITAC
-- synergistic for both organizations
Overall satisfaction with the event
-- Disappointed with quantity of student participation
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
12
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
Question
Would you attend this event with the same format next year?
Yes
73.02%
No
4.76%
Maybe
22.22%
Comments (All 5)
•
•
•
•
•
Change city each year
if not me, someone else from PMC-Vancouver
If time permits, I would like to or recommend others to.
Looking forward to it.
Maybe arrive only for the annual meeting and not for the training.
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
13
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
What theme would you like to see at next year's Annual Symposium?
(This year was 'Embedded Software & Hardware'; 2011 was 'Energy Matters'; 2010
was 'Sensors') Comments (All 14/35)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3D-IC
Biomedical Microsystems
Biomedical Microsystems
Canadian Nanotechnology roadmap
Convergence of the PC, Camera, Smartphone, Tablet etc.
DSP in optical coherent telecommunications
Electronics Innovation
Embedded Software & Hardware for Aerospace & Defense
Embedded Software and Hardware
Embedded systems for Aerospace
Global R&D Trends with emphasis on role for North America.
Heterogeneous systems
In line with DMT strategy more focus on commercialization
Interdisciplinary systems
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
14
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
What theme would you like to see at next year's Annual Symposium?
(This year was 'Embedded Software & Hardware'; 2011 was 'Energy Matters'; 2010
was 'Sensors') Comments (All 15/35)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IP world market - supply, demand, and quality standard
MEMS and materials
MEMS or packaging
Micro Optical systems
Microfluidics
microsystems and sensors
Mobile
More software
New and Emerging Technologies
new technologies for computer engineering
Optics, optoelectronics and photonics.
Refrain from answering (vendor).
RF. Microwave and millimeter wave, MMIC
Sensors
sensors
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
15
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
What theme would you like to see at next year's Annual Symposium?
(This year was 'Embedded Software & Hardware'; 2011 was 'Energy Matters'; 2010
was 'Sensors') Comments (All 6/35)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Smart Materials
System prototyping
The Internet of Things - How Everything is Becoming Connected
Wireless Communications & Embedded Systems
Wireless Power
Wireless, Telecom
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
16
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
Suggested speakers: Comments (All 12)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a medical researcher making prolific use of microsystems
Art de Genus
Aerospace & Defense non-profit organizations (i.e. CADSI)
Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google
Arthur Carty
Dr. Mike Smith from University of Calgary
Luc Ouellette, Dave Danovitch
Microsoft, Apple, ...
Paul Yeager
Perhaps speakers from early successes from DMT engagements
Prof. Trevor J. Hall
Someone in Cisco or Alcatel-Lucent
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
17
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
Question
Would you consider assisting in the planning for next year's event?
Yes
Number of
people who
attend
No
19.64%
80.36%
n=56
If "Yes", how? Comments (All 7)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As a volunteer if CMC requires any help
Generate more awareness!
it depends on what CMC is needed on that time!
ITAC program advice (like in 2012)
TBD
TEXPO RESEARCH
Training and Network
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
18
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
If you would consider assisting, please provide your contact information: (All 12)
Name:
Telephone:
Email:
Nabeeh Kandalaft
5199651617
kandalan@uwindsor.ca
Zack Sharon
6478711555
tsharon@direc-ir.com
Ehsan
2048816321
ehsan.tahmasebian
Pierre Paulin (STMIcroelectronics)
(613) 768-9069
pierre.paulin@st.com
Khalil
418-576-3665
k.zahar@mail.utoronto.ca
Chan-Wang Park
418-723-1986 ext 1737
chan-wang_park@uqar.ca
Sam ho
613-799-3220
samho@da-integrated.com
Dong cheng Deng
587-718-2727
dongcheng.d@gmail.com
Ken Wagner (SMC Chairman)
514 501-3411
ken.wagner@pmcs.com
Carolyn Ren
1-519-888-4567 x 33030
c3ren@uwaterloo.ca
Ian McGill
416-312-3406
ian.mcgill@nrc.gc.ca
Francisco Moreno
510 248 4643
francisco.moreno@beecube.com
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
19
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
Is there anyone you'd like to nominate for next year's Outstanding Service Award (either
Academic and/or Industrial)? (All 6)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bill Miller retired Windsor U
Dr. Robert Laganiere – U of Ottawa
Imed Zine-El-Abidine
Mr. Kris McNeil from Solace Power Inc.
No
Sebastian Fischmeister
Can you add the name of any new microelectronics companies for our mailing list?
(All 5)
•
•
•
•
•
I will send you mine when it is created!
Nemsors Technology
No
Option, Advanced, Direct Microelectronics
See ITAC Recruiting
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
20
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
Additional comments: (All 4/9)
•
An eye-opener. I really liked it.
•
Good networking opportunity, I will attend in the future to continue building relationships and learning about
R&D and companies in electronics industry in Canada and USA.
•
[Email received]: Due to my classes on the second day of the CMC’s 2012 Symposium and ITAC’s 18th
National Executive forum, I was only able to attend the evening event on the first day. I am sure the
Symposium must have went well, as it has always been. Unfortunately, I am not be able to fill the
evaluation form. Sorry about that.
•
I started to fill out the survey when I received the first email about a week ago. However, all that I did at the
conference was teach the COMSOL workshop and then I left after the first day. It seemed to me that the
questions were more suitable for people who stayed for the entire conference, so I didn't complete the
survey. I thought the venue was nice, the food was good and I enjoyed myself. One thing that could have
gone more smoothly was setting up in the morning. I got the impression that a key person was sick (not
much you can do about that), but it would have been better if there was a backup plan in place. (I spent a
fair bit of time looking for the projector and looking for course material that was mailed from our office to
the conference venue.) This is minor, and I'm sure that if the person was not sick then things would have
gone smoothly, but a backup plan is also a good idea. Thanks for everything!
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
21
Part 2 - Organization & Administration
Additional comments: (All 5/9)
•
•
•
•
•
I think holding MNRC can bring more people and it is advantageous to students and faculty like the one in
2009.
I would be happy to help secure candidates for "Outstanding Service Award"
Thanks for your great efforts!
Valuable event. Likely need to sort out relationship with ITAC SMC. CMC seemed to dominated this year.
SMC mandate now unclear.
Very good day - well organized, lively and informative. TEXPO was a pleasant surprise!
Total of respondents 79, Report based 70 non-staff responses
November 2012
22
TEXPO Participants only
9 Respondents
Part 3 - Your participation as a presenter in TEXPO
Question
Would you participate in Texpo again?
Yes
No
77.78%
Maybe
0.00%
22.22%
Why? comments: (All 3)
•
•
•
Excellent opportunity to show off research
Good learning experience overall, and have more to present in the future
Great opportunity to see audience's view of our new technology
TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents
November 2012
24
Part 3 - Your participation as a presenter in TEXPO
Question
Yes
Would you recommend presenting in TEXPO to
another student or faculty member?
No
88.89%
Maybe
0.00%
11.11%
Why? comments: (All 3)
•
•
•
Excellent opportunity to show off research
Good learning experience overall, gives exposure to your work
Same reason
TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents
November 2012
25
Part 3 - Your participation as a presenter in TEXPO
Question
How did you hear about TEXPO?
(check all that apply)
E-mail
bulletin
33.33%
TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents
CMC's
website
44.44%
Faculty
advisor
88.89%
Another student or
faculty member
Other, please
specify
22.22%
November 2012
0.00%
26
Part 3 - Your participation as a presenter in TEXPO
Please indicate your satisfaction with the
following aspects of pre-TEXPO preparation
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Not
applicable
TEXPO information posted on CMC's website
88.89%
0.00%
11.11%
TEXPO information sent to you by e-mail
88.89%
0.00%
11.11%
Information on travel subsidies and accommodation
arrangements
77.78%
0.00%
22.22%
Pre-TEXPO arrangements for your presentation
88.89%
0.00%
11.11%
Set-up time and available resources (e.g. support staff,
supplies, etc.)
88.89%
0.00%
11.11%
comments: (All 1)
Information on travel subsidies and accommodation arrangements - If dissatisfied, how could it be
improved?
• Did not use.
TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents
November 2012
27
Part 3 - Your participation as a presenter in TEXPO
Please indicate your satisfaction with the
following aspects of the competition
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Not
applicable
Competition information on CMC's website
77.78%
11.11%
11.11%
Competition information sent to you by e-mail
88.89%
0.00%
11.11%
The judging process
75.00%
12.50%
12.50%
The space provided (table, facilities, etc.)
88.89%
0.00%
11.11%
comments: (All 2)
Competition information on CMC's website - If dissatisfied, how could it be improved?
• More concrete details on allotted time for presenting, one thing said 10 mins with 5 mins of questions,
another said it didn't matter how the time was spent, but you just get 15 mins total
The judging process - If dissatisfied, how could it be improved?
• However, I think the judging should be on the student contribution to a project and not the whole project. It is
a student competition, not a team competition. Some projects have been carried out for few years. Few
students has been working on small part of the project are presenting the whole project as their own, while
other students had worked thoroughly on their own project for couple of years, but it is their own total
project
TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents
November 2012
28
Part 3 - Your participation as a presenter in TEXPO
Question
Yes
Did you select which competitions to enter by
carefully reviewing the criteria?
Question
Were you able to do other things that you wanted to do?
(visit other presentations, talk to companies, etc.)
Not
applicable
No
88.89%
0.00%
Yes
11.11%
No
100.00%
0.00%
comments: (All 1)
•
but not as much as I might have wanted
TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents
November 2012
29
Part 3 - Your participation as a presenter in TEXPO
Question
What is your opinion about the amount of time that TEXPO
is officially open?
Too long
0.00%
Too short
Just right
33.33%
66.67%
comments: (All 1)
•
Only during lunch hour. People became more interested after the awards were presented.
TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents
November 2012
30
Part 3 - Your participation as a presenter in TEXPO
Question
Holding TEXPO judging the afternoon on the day before the symposium
gives you the opportunity to showcase your research at the symposium and
attend the presentations during the day.
Do you like the time that the TEXPO judging is held?
Yes
No
88.89%
11.11%
comments: (All 1)
•
It should not be at the training sessions held on that day
TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents
November 2012
31
Additional Suggestions
We welcome any additional comments, and please comment if you have any additional
suggestions on how CMC could improve our preparations or your participation in TEXPO
(All 2)
•
•
NA
See above comments
TEXPO participants only: Total of 9 respondents
November 2012
32