2010 GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW MASTER OF SCIENCE …irsurvey/hlc2015/2007-14_ENGR... · 10/1/2010 · agencies. In a recent survey of EMGT alumni, 83.6 percent of the respondents thought

2010 GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW

MASTER OF SCIENCE

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Academic Unit: Engineering Management Program Contact Person: Glen Marotz, Professor Associate Dean, Research and Graduate Programs School of Engineering (SOE) Telephone: 785-864-2980 Email: [email protected] Date: October 1, 2010

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Page Organizational and Summary Details (OSD) 7 OSD.1. Engineering Management Program Highlights OSD.2. Executive Summary OSD.3. Self-study Process:

OSD.3.a. Documents and Data Sources OSD.3.b. Approach

1. What do we do and why do we do it? 16 1.A. Mission of Unit

1.A.1. Centrality to the mission of the School of Engineering and the Edwards Campus 1.A.2. The Engineering Management mission

1.B. Unit goals and priorities 1.C. Short mission statement 1.D. Role of unit 1.E. Need and Impact statements

1.E.1 Why is there a Graduate Program in Engineering Management? 1.F. Graduate Instructional Programs Reviewed in this Report (Master of Science in Engineering Management, Edwards Campus) 1.G Graduate Catalog Description of the EMGT Program

2. Who does it? 22 2.A. Faculty in Profile: 2.B. Who is doing the teaching? 2.C. Who is doing the advising/mentoring? 2.D. What is their workload? 2.E. Quantitative and Qualitative indicators:

2.E.1. Overall counts/FTE 2.E.2. Tenure-track, other, GTA 2.E. 3. Demographics 2.E.4. Scholarly Output 2.E.5. Grants 2.E.6. Awards 2.E.7. Master‘s-level Chair status

2 | P a g e

2.F. Maintaining Quality

2.F.1. How are you recruiting and retaining Faculty to sustain and enhance program quality? 2.F.2. Given your observation of the median age of the Faculty, what is your succession plan?

3. How well do we do it, and who thinks so? 31 3.A. Recruitment, Admission, Enrollment, Retention, Progression, & Graduation 3.A.1. Recruitment, Admission, Enrollment 3.B.1.a. Recruitment 3.B.1.b. Admission 3.B.2. Retention, Progression, Graduation 3.B.2.a. Retention 3.B.2.b. Time to Degree 3.B.2.c. Student Performance at Graduation 3.C. National and Regional Comparisons 3.C.1. Comparison of Selected Programs (UCOL, Drexel, Duke, KSU, MIT, UTexas, WSU) 3.C.2. Big 12 EMGT Programs 3.D. EMGT Statistics 3.D.1. GRE Test Scores 3.D.1.a. Financial Support 3.D.1.b. Demographics 3.D.2. Program Productivity 3.D.2.a. Distribution of class sizes 3.D.2.b. Advising 3.D.2.c. Time to degree 3.D.2.d. Degrees Awarded 3.D.2.e. Student research productivity 3.D.3. Program Quality Outcomes 3.D.3.a. Learner Outcomes 3.D.3.b. Tests, Papers and Projects 3.D.3.c. Placement rates, employer assessments 3.D.3.d. Student awards 3.D.3.e. Service, Outreach/engagement and Corresponding Impact 3.E. Assessment 3.E.1. (RS1): DeSieghardt Strategic Communications Report 3.E.2. (RS2 to RS4): The School of Engineering—Engineering Career Center (ECC) 3.E.3. (RS5): 2010 EMGT Alumni Survey 3.E.4. (RS5A): Statistical Results from the 2010 Alumni Survey Data 3.E.5. (RS6): EMGT Advisory Board Questionnaire 2010 3.E.6. (RS7): 2005/2009 AIMS EMGT Graduate Student Satisfaction Survey

3 | P a g e

4. Overall Quality 68 4.A. External indicators of quality 4.A.1. External Accreditation 4.A.2. National Rankings 4.A.3. Faculty Awards 4.B. Reflecting on your short mission statement 4.B.1. Students 4.B.2. Faculty 4.B.3. Service 4.C. What is your overall assessment of the quality of the academic programming in the unit at the present time?

5. Given your present assessment of program quality, what are your plans to advance the program? 75 5.A. Strategic Plan Development: SWOT Analysis 5.A.1. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats 5.C. Discussion of Targets for Change: Weaknesses and Opportunities 5.C.1. Establishment of an SOE Edwards Center (SEEC) Management Structure 5.C.2. New Degree Program: Project Management 5.D. A New Off-Site Approach to Customer‘s Educational Needs 5.E. Additional Resources 5.E.1. Triangle Initiative 5.E.1.a. Triangle Initiative: funding/faculty/degree programs

6. How will you evaluate future progress and successes? 83 6.A. Unit Metrics: EMGT 6.B. School Metrics: SOE

Appendices 87 A.1. Reports and External Surveys Electronic Survey and Results of EMGT Alumni Survey Electronic Survey and Results for EMGT Advisory Board Survey Cohort Statistical Analysis A.2. DEMIS (AIMS), SOE and ASEE Data Resumes/CV‘s AIMS/DEMIS Report A.3. EMGT Programs in the USA ASEM Listing ASEE List of Graduates from EMGT MS Programs

4 | P a g e

Selected EMGT Programs from other Universities KU EMGT Program Description MS-Level Professional Programs in the SOE

Admission Requirements for the PMGT Program

Project Management Institute MEM Consortium A.4. Student Teaching Evaluations Faculty Evaluations by Students A.5. Accredited/Certified Programs ABET Accredited programs ASEM Certified programs

5 | P a g e

List of Tables

OSD 1. Budget recapitulation for AY 2005-2006 to 2009-2010

1. Student Demand: 2005-2009

2. Master of Science in Engineering Management Degree

3. EMGT Full-time Faculty

4. EMGT Part-time Faculty

5. Faculty Workload

6. Typical Full-time Faculty Workloads Fall 2010

7. Typical Part-time Faculty Workloads Fall 2010-Srping 2011

8. EMGT Scholarly Output

9. EMGT Grants

10. Student Statistics by Year and Status Category for MCM, EMGT, & MSIT

11. Admission, Probation, Provisional Status

12. Master‘s Degrees Awarded in Engineering Management, 2008-2009 (ASEE, 2010)

13. Commonalities Among the Selected Programs

14. Eight Selected Programs

15. Engineering Management Programs: Big 12

16. Class of 2009 Graduates

17. Examples of Recent EMGT Outreach Efforts

18. Factors Assessed in the Alumni Survey

19. EMGT Degree Importance to Employers

20. Advisory Board Members

21. Area of Interest and Specific Questions

22. ABET Listed Engineering Management Programs 2010

23. American Society for Engineering Management Certification

24. General Criteria for Master‘s Level Programs

25. Faculty Awards

26. M.S. Engineering Management Students

27. SWOT Analysis

28. Master‘s-level Degree in Project Management

29. PMI Membership

30. Schedule for Implementation

List of Figures

1. Engineering Graduate Students Admitted on Probation/ Provisional Status: Fall 2008, 2009, & 2010

2. Engineering Master‘s-level Students Admitted on Probation/Provisional Status: Fall 2008, 2009, & 2010 Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: All Admitted and Enrolled

3. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: All Admitted and Enrolled 4. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Admitted and Enrolled on

Probationary Student Status

6 | P a g e

5. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Applicants by Math Requirement and Average BS GPA

6. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Admitted and Enrolled by Math and Average BS GPA

7. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Admitted and Enrolled by Type and Current Status

8. Graduate Student Satisfaction Measures 9. SEEC Organizational Structure

7 | P a g e

OSD.1. Engineering Management Program (EMGT) Highlights

The success of the EMGT program rests on the success of its graduates. EMGT has

been in existence for twenty-six years, and counts 585 graduates, among them, senior

executives in a variety of corporations, businesses, industries, and governmental

agencies. In a recent survey of EMGT alumni, 83.6 percent of the respondents thought

that their EMGT education was very important/somewhat important (top two categories)

in achieving their level of professional success; 59.3 percent have received a promotion

to, or acceptance of, a new position--with managerial duties--after completing the EMGT

program; and 95.7 percent responded ―If I had to do it again, I would attend the EMGT

Program at the University of Kansas‖. Graduates (95.0 percent) have recommended the

KU EMGT Master's degree to others, a mark of satisfaction with the overall program.

The EMGT program is designed specifically to meet the educational needs of the

predominant market demand in the Kansas City (KC) metropolitan area: Engineering

and Consulting (E/C). The KC E/C community employs about one-half of all of the KU

EMGT graduates; manufacturing (the most common market for EMGT graduates

produced by other institutions nationwide) employs only about thirteen percent of EMGT

graduates, and IT/Software employs about twelve-percent. The remaining fraction holds

various-level positions in USA and international institutions and corporations.

The program is the most productive Master‘s-level program (measured on the basis of

SCHR/FTE) in the School of Engineering, and the largest program on the Edwards

Campus.

About eighty-nine percent of the Master‘s students in the program work full-time and

attend graduate school part-time, although a small group (nine-percent) are able to both

work and attend full-time because of the way in which classes are scheduled. More than

ninety-percent of the students hold a professional position at the middle-management

tier or above. A significant number hold executive-tier positions.

The design of the program is coupled with accessibility: students can take advantage of

the EMGT program by attending classes scheduled at convenient times at the Edwards

Campus in Overland Park, or they join their colleagues through live-streaming of class

sessions, or they can take advantage of remote access to course materials and lectures

through Distance Learning.

EMGT was the first KU-SOE program to implement a Distance Learning curriculum.

The program was started ten years ago in order to reduce student attrition caused by

travel, work-schedule, and relocation issues. The digital recording of evening classes—

typically taught from 7:10 to 10:00 PM--allows in-class and distance-learning students

8 | P a g e

an opportunity to review the lecture at a later time or date, understand the discussion,

re-read the handouts from class, and review and study at their own pace.

EMGT has a high retention level, which is an indication of students‘ commitment to the

program, the dedication of faculty to advising, the availability of Faculty and Staff as

Mentors, and an efficient tracking system, which keeps students moving forward on

their Plan of Study.Faculty and Lecturers have significant professional experience:

eighty-two years combined for the full-time faculty, and over 200 years for the part-time

Lecturers, who remain employed as professionals in their respective fields

Program quality is reflected by the requests for instruction from consulting firms in the

Kansas City metropolitan area, and at locations across the country. Such instruction is

either under contract, on a fee-for-services agreement, or it is offered through KU

Continuing Education. Black & Veatch (B&V) Incorporated selected KU‘s Engineering

Management program to develop and deliver continuing education to its future

managers and leaders. The program extends over a forty-four week period; the course

is presented live in Overland Park, KS, by streaming video and is attended by B&V

employees in Florida, Texas, Connecticut, Michigan, Beijing and Bangkok. The

program is in its fourth year. EMGT faculty presentations support the Edwards Campus

Professional Edge Program, the Burns & McDonnell Mind Builder Series, and the CEAE

Professional Development Series at B & V. Firms often pay tuition for their employees

as an encouragement to complete the program.

The Johnson County Triangle tax measure, which was promoted and supported by

business and community leaders, includes the funding of the new Edwards Campus

BEST (Business, Engineering, Science and Technology) building, which is an

acknowledgment of the significant educational role that Engineering plays on the

Edwards Campus.

9 | P a g e

OSD.2. PROGRAM REVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EMGT is an interdisciplinary program that is focused on the intersection of engineering

and management. Graduates of the program gain expertise in various elements of

managing a business enterprise, while simultaneously building on existing technical

skills. EMGT is located on the Edwards Campus (EC), and is operated and

administered by Faculty who teach and work exclusively in the program. EMGT

program is an option for students with baccalaureate degrees in any engineering

discipline, or degrees in technology, math or the sciences. The degree requires the

completion of 33 credit hours. Courses are divided into three categories: Core Courses

(18 hours), Elective Courses (12 hours), Field Project/Thesis (3 hours). The elective

course work allows students to concentrate within one of three areas (Consulting

Engineering Services, Manufacturing/Process Industry, Systems and Information

Technology), which mirror the principal professional employment areas of program

students and graduates. EMGT is one of six Master‘s programs within the KU School of

Engineering (SOE) that lead to terminal degrees, i.e., unlike research-based Master‘s

programs, there are no PhD-level opportunities available to degree-holders.

Centrality to the Mission of the School of Engineering and Edwards Campus

EMGT educational activities are, in all respects, central to the missions of the SOE and

the Edwards Campus. The School is committed to offering educational opportunities to

working professionals in the Kansas City metropolitan area, and becoming ―…the

engineering School of choice‖ in Kansas City. The mission of the Edwards Campus is

to bring the high-quality academic programs of the University of Kansas to the greater

Kansas City community, in order to serve the workforce, as well as the economic and

community development needs of the region. As the largest engineering program on the

KU Edwards Campus, EMGT is critical to the success of these integrated missions.

Strengths, Productivity and Qualifications of the Faculty

The three full-time EMGT Faculty members have some eighty-two years of combined

academic and corporate/industrial experience. The ten part-time Faculty members

have in excess of 240 years of experience. Extensive real-world experience, along with

proven excellence in teaching and service activities, make them very well-qualified to

teach working professionals.

Program productivity measured by the SCHR/FTE ratio is very high. The number of

graduates produced per FTE is also very high, and is a result of the dedication to the

student community by the Faculty and Staff. Similarly, the student retention rate is very

high, again because of the activities of the Faculty and Staff. Note that the retention rate

is also among the very highest within the University, which meets one of KU‘s principal

goals.

10 | P a g e

Curriculum and Impact on Students

The EMGT program prepares technical professionals for careers in management.

Continuous review of the curriculum, addition of new electives, and attention to

feedback from students and their employers, insure that the curriculum will continue to

serve the needs of its intended target population.

Analyses of all the survey questions related to ―How Well?‖ yielded results in support of

the conclusion that EMGT is perceived to be of high quality among a sizeable majority

of its alumni, regardless of their year of graduation. This judgment is based, in part, on

the number of graduates who have found that the EMGT degree is a stepping stone to

promotions, managerial appointments, and higher salaries.

Students need for the Program and Employer Demand

The student demand for EMGT is very high: SCHR production is the highest among all

KU engineering Master of Science programs, majors enrolled, and degrees conferred.

The program continues to attract students, and has maintained an enrollment of about

150, on average, per year over the past ten years; the number of graduates has

averaged approximately thirty-five per year over the same period. About ninety-percent

of the EMGT students are employed full-time, principally in consulting engineering firms

in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The degree program is specifically-designed to

meet their needs, and the needs of their employers.

There is significant international demand for the program as well, e.g., there are twelve

full-time international students enrolled at the present time. The program also has 20-

25 students on H1 visas working at area companies during most academic years.

11 | P a g e

Service provided by the program

EMGT courses are in demand by students from Information Technology, Civil

Engineering, and students in MBA programs. In addition, Faculty members routinely

conduct seminars and training for the American Society for Quality, Black & Veatch,

Burns & McDonnell, Dearborn Mid-West, and KU Continuing Education, among others.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Program

EMGT is the most cost-effective program in the SOE, as measured by total SCHR

production, degrees conferred, courses taught per faculty member, budget, and number

of staff/SCHR produced.

Overall Program Quality

The overall quality of the EMGT MS program is judged to be in the very good category.

The rating is warranted based upon:

Attainment of stated goals;

Alumni performance and achievements upon graduation;

Consistent program demand from the target audience--the working professional--

who is most frequently an individual from an engineering consulting firm;

High performance levels of Faculty and Staff;

Development of a delivery system that aids in student learning, student

retention, and graduation;

Use of technology in 100 percent of the courses to insure that students gain as

much as possible from their educational experience irrespective of their

schedules, geographical location, or professional demands;

Time-to-degree improvement (1999: 5.3 year average; 2009: 4.6 year average,

which is a positive thirteen-percent change);

Ratings of the overall program by students and external reviewers;

Demand for instruction by corporations and businesses, either within the regular

Edwards Campus academic year schedule, or on-site on an instruction-for-fee

basis;

And, willingness by companies, businesses, and corporations to provide tuition

assistance for their employees, in order to encourage qualified people to seek

additional education at an advanced level.

12 | P a g e

Program Challenges

Instructional Load

The number of Kansas City metropolitan area businesses, corporations, and agencies

that encourage and support their employees to obtain the EMGT degree has increased

substantially. It is clear from an analysis of the data that EMGT will need additional

resources in order to maintain overall quality.

13 | P a g e

OSD.3. Self-study Process

OSD.3.a. Documents and Data Sources:

Self-study process results described below are based upon seven reports, and:

Data drawn from the KU Office of Institutional Research and Planning

(OIRP);

Examination and comparison of selected EMGT programs in the USA with

the KU-EMGT program;

Data abstracted from the American Society for Engineering Education

(ASEE);

Data and documents drawn from the Accrediting Board for Engineering

and Technology (ABET) and the American Society for Engineering

Management (ASEM).

14 | P a g e

OSD.3.b. Approach:

Overall Graduate Program Review Process. --The basic structure of this review

follows the guidelines developed and distributed to Schools through the Provost‘s Office

in December, 2009. The final document will be submitted to the Provost‘s Office in late

2010.

Engineering Management Master of Science Review Process. --The School was

notified by the Provost‘s Office that Engineering Management should undergo an

intensive review; there are no specific guidelines for such a graduate-level endeavor.

Therefore, the School approached the EMGT intensive review process requirement by

utilizing the Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) guidelines for

those elements that could serve, when applicable, as a reference framework for the

review. The review was extended further by inclusion of comparisons with (a) other

EMGT programs nationally, and through (b) the inclusion of additional written and

numerical analyses of relevant existing data. The result is considered to be a

comprehensive view of the KU-EMGT program at the level of an ‗intensive analysis‘ by

the School of Engineering.

15 | P a g e

Section 1: What do we do and why do we do it?

16 | P a g e

1. What do we do and why do we do it?

The last program review was completed in July, 2000.

1.A. Mission of the Unit 1.A.1. Centrality to the mission of the School of Engineering (SOE) and the Edwards Campus (EC)

Mission: School of Engineering The mission of the University of Kansas School of Engineering is to give the students a high quality educational experience; to generate and apply knowledge through research, development, and scholarly activity; and to serve society, the state of Kansas, and the engineering profession. The primary objective is to produce graduates with the technical competence to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering: to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems; to design and conduct experiments, including the analysis and interpretation of data; to design a system, component or process to meet desired needs; and to use techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

Mission: Edwards Campus The mission of the Edwards Campus is to bring the high-quality academic programs, research and public service of the University of Kansas to the greater Kansas City community to serve the workforce, economic and community development needs of the region.

The activities of EMGT are, in all respects, central to the mission of the SOE. EMGT

supports the mission through ‗…provision of a high-quality educational experience; and

by service to society, the state of Kansas, and the engineering profession‘. The School

is committed to offering educational opportunities to working professionals, and

becoming ―…the engineering School of choice…‖ in the Kansas City metropolitan area.

As the largest engineering graduate program on the Edwards Campus, EMGT is critical

to the success of these combined missions.

The EMGT program also serves an international community: there are twelve full-time

international students enrolled at any given time; and about 20-25 EMGT students on

H1 visas are working at area companies during a typical academic year.

1.A.2. The Engineering Management mission:

The mission of the Master of Science in Engineering Management (EMGT) program

is to ‗…prepare technical managers from fields of engineering, science, math and

computer science to manage more effectively within technologically-based

organizations, and to promote entrepreneurial activities in the formation of new business

enterprises‘. The mission encompasses the extension and enhancement of the skill

17 | P a g e

sets of technical leaders and managers through advanced education and training, and

the promotion and encouragement of high-quality technical leadership and

management.

1.B. Unit goals and priorities The EMGT Master of Science program is designed specifically for engineers and

scientists who want to add Master‘s-level management skills and knowledge to their

undergraduate degree subject area. The program is not designed to be as technical as

a research-based Master‘s in engineering, or as general as a Master‘s in Business

Administration; it is intended to provide an educational experience at the intersection of

technology and management.

1.C. Short mission statement

The overall program mission for the EMGT is to provide a modern engineering

management education with an appropriate balance between professional practice and

theory. The mission is accomplished through training in management and leadership,

finance, ethics, written and oral communication, team building, ethical decision-making,

strategic analysis, quantitative analysis, simulation, project management and

leadership, and quality assessment and assurance.

1.D. Role of unit

The EMGT program provides managerial-level and leadership-skills education to

engineering and technical professionals in the Kansas City metropolitan area, the state

of Kansas, the USA, and to international constituencies via distance learning.

1.E. Need and Impact statements

Market Dynamics.-- The US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the Occupational Outlook

Handbook, 2010-2011, reports that ―….employment of engineering and natural

sciences managers is expected to grow eight-percent over the 2008 - 2018 decade….‖,

and that ―…(although)…earnings for engineering and natural sciences managers vary

by specialty and by level of responsibility,…median annual wages of engineering

managers were $115,270 in May, 2008…(and)…the middle fifty-percent earned

between $91,870 and $141,730.‖ In the June 22, 2007, Kansas City Business Journal,

article, the author noted that ―…the Kansas City…(metropolitan area)…is…a Mecca for

Engineering firms. Industry giants such as Black & Veatch, Burns & McDonnell and

HNTB have made Kansas City their corporate headquarters, and scores of other

engineering firms, large and small, call Kansas City home,…(who employ)…some…

2,510 engineers‖. In short, the demand for Engineering Management graduates is

18 | P a g e

strong and will continue to grow; the potential market for engineers with an advanced

degree is significant.

Student Demand.--The student/employer need for the EMGT program is high, as

shown in the DEMIS(AIMS) data for SCHR production, majors enrolled and degrees

conferred; an average of thirty-five students graduate each year. A brief look at several

statistical categories shows that the need for the program has increased over the review

period (Table 1):

Table 1. Student Demand: 2005-2009

Changes: 2005 to 2009

Spring Semester 2005-2009 (Percent Change)

Total Credit Hours 709 (+34)

Total Student Count 264 (+33)

Distance Learning Students 42 (+27)

Students w/o Duplicates* 205 (+23)

Non-EMGT Majors 27 (+59)

EMGT w/o Duplicates 78 (+19)

*w/o duplicates: students are counted as strictly Distance Learners or as on-campus learners; those who take some classes by distance learning and some on-campus are counted as on-campus, i.e., they are not double-counted.

Courses in EMGT are also in demand by students from other majors: approximately

twenty-percent of the students enrolled in EMGT courses come from other programs,

such as Civil Engineering, Information Technology and the MBA program in the

Business School. The Business School also cooperates in joint programs with the SOE-

EMGT.

1.E.1 Why is there a Graduate Program in Engineering Management?

The scope and complexity of engineering management responsibilities have changed

significantly over the past decade. Difficult economic conditions, and marketplace

19 | P a g e

competition, have placed an increasing emphasis on technology as a strategy that can

improve upon an existing competitive advantage. Today's engineer-manager simply

must incorporate technological innovation. The engineer-manager also must satisfy

design and safety requirements, manage human resources to boost productivity, use

natural resources efficiently, be aware of other environmental concerns and emphasize

total quality in operations. To meet these challenges, engineers require better education

and training in management principles and applications. Precisely these needs led to

the development of the Master of Science program in Engineering Management at the

KU School of Engineering in 1984.

The EMGT curriculum prepares technical professionals for careers in

management, and many alumni have used that preparation to achieve

distinguished management careers at major corporations. Continuous review of

the curriculum, frequent addition of new electives and feedback from students,

their employers, and the EMGT Advisory Board assure that the curriculum will

continue to serve the needs of this constituency.

1.F. Graduate Instructional Programs Reviewed in this Report: Master of Science in Engineering Management, Edwards Campus

1.G. Graduate Catalog Description of the EMGT Program

20 | P a g e

Table 2. Master of Science Degree in Engineering Management (Catalog description)

Program Requirements

Engineering Management (EMGT) does not require the GRE or GMAT.

EMGT classes may be taken for undergraduate credit (enrollment form and class prerequisites required), for graduate credit (non-degree seeking or as an elective for another graduate program), or as degree-seeking.

The Master of Science program in Engineering Management requires the completion of 33 credit hours. Courses are divided into three categories: Core Courses (18 hours), Elective Courses (12 hours), Field Project (3 hours). The elective course work allows students to concentrate one of three areas (Consulting Engineering Services, Manufacturing/Process Industry, Systems and Information Technology) which mirror the principal professional areas from which EMGT students come. Engineering Management is flexible with respect to students‘ choice of electives and encourages students to select courses that meet one of our emphasis areas or technical courses from Business Administration, Public Administration, Engineering or Computer Science programs. All such elective courses must be listed as graduate courses, taken for graduate credit, and approved by an EMGT Faculty member in order to apply toward the Master of Science in Engineering Management degree. The curriculum is designed to make its graduates sensitive to customer needs and to changes in business and industry and government. Throughout the EMGT program, emphasis is placed on team-based approaches, written and oral communications skills, management of technology and continuous improvement. Case studies and a field project encourage the practical application of concepts. EMGT students are

encouraged to choose work-related topics for their field projects.

Admission Requirements To enter KU's Master of Science in Engineering Management program, applicants must have:

1. Bachelor of Science undergraduate degree in engineering or related science from an accredited institution. *Technology degrees are considered only with a very high (e.g. 3.8) GPA and substantial experience (8-10 years).

2. A 3.0 or higher grade point average (on a 4.0 scale). Admission may be granted on a probationary basis if your GPA is between 2.75 and 2.99 or provisional basis if your GPA is between 2.50 and 2.74.

3. Two year's full-time, post-undergraduate work experience in a technological environment. 4. International students must also meet the English, visa/I20, and financial support requirements

described in the "Admission" section.

EMGT Course Requirements

EMGT Core Courses: 18 Credits Required

Required Courses: EMGT 806 (3) Finance for Engineers EMGT 809 (4) Personal Development for Engineering Managers

Courses with Prerequisites: EMGT 821 (3) Strategic Analysis of Technology Projects (prerequisite: EMGT 806) EMGT 830 (2) Case Studies in Engineering Management (prerequisite: complete 21 credits hours)

Choose One of these for Core Quantitative Course Requirement: EMGT 810 (3) Applications of Quantitative Analysis in Decision Making EMGT 811 (3) Engineering Systems Simulation

Choose One of these for Core Project Management Course Requirement: EMGT 813 (3) Design Project Management EMGT 823 (3) Management of Internal Engineering Projects

21 | P a g e

EMGT Electives: 12 Credits Required All elective courses outside of the EMGT department must be listed as graduate courses, taken for graduate credit, and approved by an EMGT Faculty member in order to apply toward the Master of Science in Engineering Management degree. Approved EMGT elective courses are listed below: EMGT 801 ( 800T) - Management Theory and Practice for Engineering Managers EMGT 802 - Statistical Analysis and Prediction of Engineering Systems EMGT 803 - Technological Forecasting and Assessment EMGT 804 - Business Development and Marketing of Professional Services EMGT 805 - Management of Innovation EMGT 807 ( 800R) - Labor and Employee Relations for the Engineering Manager EMGT 808 - Quality Management EMGT 812 - Law and the Design Professional EMGT 824 - Product Marketing for Engineering Managers EMGT 840 - Systems Approach to Engineering EMGT 850 - Environmental Issues for Engineering Managers EMGT 860 - Special Problems in Engineering Management EMGT 862 - Manufacturing Systems Integration EMGT 867 - Advanced Operations Management EMGT 800V - Leadership Techniques and Methods for the Engineering Manager

EMGT Field Project: 3 Credits Required 1-3 credits may be taken per semester. You must enroll for credits continually (excluding Summer semesters) until the Field Project is complete.

Total EMGT Degree Program: 33 Credits Required

*Some universities offer undergraduate degrees in engineering technology (ET). The requirements for, and intent of, engineering and ET degrees are quite different. Engineering degree programs are calculus-based, and require formal coursework in the natural sciences. ET degrees are usually algebra-based, and science-related subjects are incorporated into ET courses. Baccalaureate-holders in engineering can seek to become licensed Professional Engineers, which requires an apprenticeship arrangement and examinations. ET-holders cannot achieve licensure in most states.

22 | P a g e

Section 2: Who Does It?

23 | P a g e

2. Who does it?

2.A. Faculty in Profile:

The Faculty consists of two 1.0 FTE (Tuttle, Assistant Professor/Director; Miller), and

one 0.8 FTE (Bowlin)-level appointments. All Faculty members instruct classes, advise

students, Chair Field Project committees, provide service through committee

membership to Edwards and Lawrence Campus activities, recruit students, provide

workshops and seminars to engineering firms and other constituencies, as well as

coordinate activities with the American Society for Engineering Management, KC

chapter.

2.A.1. The Faculty has combined academic and industrial experience of approximately

90 years.

Table 3. EMGT Faculty

Dr. Thomas Bowlin (BS, MS, PhD) has over thirty years of progressive

experience in operations analysis and performance improvement, management

information and work systems design, and operations enhancement strategy. His skills

included team work strategies, process improvement, project management, and a range

of engineering and quantitative methods. The majority of his consulting work experience

has been with hospitals, multi-hospital systems, and large physician groups. He has

extensive experience as a college and university teacher, both in full-time and in adjunct

roles. Member: American Society of Engineering Management.

Linda Miller (BA, MBA) has over thirty-two years of experience in industrial

manufacturing, professional services and not-for-profit corporate settings. She has

expertise in general management, strategic and market planning, market analysis,

market research, marketing communication, direct selling, training, and sales

management.

Herbert Tuttle (AAS, BS, MS, MBA, MSIE) has more than twenty years of

progressive engineering, management and consulting experience in broad range of

manufacturing; including process engineering, heavy equipment and consumer product

manufacturing, warehouse and distribution, automotive assembly, electronic

manufacturing and specialty pharmaceutical production. He has held several leadership

positions, most notably, Plant Manager, Engineering Manager, Project Manager,

Production Manager, Safety Director and Program Director. Mr. Tuttle has been an

instructor in the EMGT program since 1995. He is currently pursuing a PhD in

Engineering Management at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Member: American

Society of Engineering Management.

2.A.2. The part-time Faculty has relevant, real-world, and current knowledge of the

evolving scope and practice of Engineering Management. The 0.25 FTE lecturers (10)

24 | P a g e

have individual academic and industrial experience ranging from 12 to 45 years. Five of

the Faculty/Lecturers hold memberships in the American Society of Engineering

Management.

Table 4. EMGT Part-time Faculty

Diana Fiddick, ASQ Certified Six Sigma Black Belt, has thirteen years experience in

telecommunications and wire and cable (Embarq, Sprint, Whitaker Cable, Anaconda

Wire and Cable) and eleven years working with geotechnical engineering consulting

firms. She received a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry Education from the University of

Missouri, Columbia, Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of Missouri,

KC, and a Master of Science in Engineering Management from the University of Kansas.

She has been an examiner and team leader for the Kansas Award for Excellence.

Member: American Society of Engineering Management. Michael Kelly has twenty-four years of management experience in manufacturing,

health care, and human resources. His leadership roles with Procter & Gamble, the

Midwest Transplant Network, and Honeywell International provide a rich background in

operations, engineering, quality, risk management, learning, and organization

development. He earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from KU, and is also a

graduate of KU‘s EMGT program. Member: American Society of Engineering

Management. John Bricklemyer has more than twenty-six years of experience in a variety of

industrial settings. His experiences include positions in general management,

operations management, engineering management, purchasing, product management,

and engineering. He has worked for a Fortune 500 company and has managed mid-

sized departments and small entrepreneurial subsidiaries. He holds a Master‘s degree

in International Management from the American Graduate School of International

Management (Thunderbird), a Master‘s degree in Industrial Engineering (Engineering

Management option) from the Rochester Institute of Technology, and a Bachelor‘s

degree in Industrial Engineering from the Pennsylvania State University. Member:

American Society of Engineering Management. John Conrad has twenty-five years of manufacturing experience in a wide variety of

roles at two production plants. He worked at Procter and Gamble‘s main plant in St.

Louis, MO, prior to employment at the ICL plant (formerly known as FMC and Astaris) in

Kansas City, which makes phosphorus-based chemicals for the pharmaceutical, semi-

conductor, and food industries. Mr. Conrad earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering (with

honors), and a Master‘s degree in Engineering Management (with distinction), both from

KU.

Dr. Raymond Dick has over seventeen years of experience in engineering,

management, and business development positions. His experiences range from systems

engineering and technology adiption to product management within a sales and

marketing context, engineering and operational management, and small business

entrepreneurship. He is currently a Senior Engineer in the National Secure

Manufacturing Center, a business unit of the Department of Energy‘s Kansas City Plant.

Dr. Dick holds Bachelor‘s, Master‘s and Doctor of Engineering degrees in Mechanical

25 | P a g e

Engineering from KU. Terry Sullivan has thirteen years of engineering and project management experience at

various wireless telecommunication companies. His responsibilities included satellite

communication projects, microwave radio projects, and in-tunnel/in-building wireless

projects. Mr. Sullivan earned a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Texas

A & M University, and a Master of Science in Engineering Management from the

University of Kansas. Member: American Society of Engineering Management. Terence Flanagan has over thirty years of experience, and is currently Vice President

and Transportation Group Director of HNTB Corporation in Kansas City. He is

responsible for the office's transportation planning and highway/civil design groups, as

well as the design services group (structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering). He

has served as HNTB's firm-wide Project Management Operations Director and is

involved in numerous transportation, motorsports, and Corps of Engineers projects. Mr.

Flanagan earned a Bachelor‘s degree in Civil Engineering, a Bachelor‘s in Business, and

a Master‘s in Engineering Management from KU. Marc Richardson is Senior Attorney with Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. He has an MBA, and is a Registered Professional Engineer. His engineering management and legal experience interests have focused on legal aspects of the Engineering, Procurement, and Construction process, Contract Negotiations and Administration, Claims and Litigation Management, Project Management, and Project Controls. He currently serves as the Chair for the Missouri Bar Construction Law Committee. He has served as an adjunct faculty member and an instructor at KU, UMKC and Rockhurst. He has held positions as Assistant Professor in Industrial Engineering at the University of Central Missouri, and Indiana State University. Mr. Richardson holds a BS degree in Industrial Engineering from UM-Columbia, an MBA from Rockhurst University, and a Juris Doctor degree from the UMKC School of Law. Michael Katzman has more than thirty years of progressive experience in

environmental and geotechnical applications and has managed local offices for several

engineering-consulting firms. A geologist by training, he was an Assistant Instructor at

Michigan State University, and an Assistant Professor at Denison University. He was

most recently Senior Environmental Geologist for Kansas City Power and Light (KCPL).

He is a Registered Environmental Assessor in California, and a Certified/Registered

Professional Geologist in Indiana, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Oregon, Wisconsin and

Missouri. He holds a BA in Geology from Hofstra University, and a Master‘s in

Engineering from the Michigan State University. of Maine, Orono, ME, Michigan State

University. Timothy Wilcoxon has over thirty years of experience as the project manager for

building design, procurement and construction administration; and as TQM team

facilitator. He currently serves as the O&M Supervisory Architect / Engineer for the

Shawnee Mission School District. Mr. Wilcoxon holds a Bachelor‘s degree in Civil

Engineering , and a Master‘s in Engineering Management from KU.

26 | P a g e

2.B. Who is doing the teaching? The full-time Faculty typically instruct three classes each Spring and Fall semester. The quarter-time lecturers typically instruct one class each academic year (Table 7).

Table 5. Faculty Workload

Full-time Faculty

Title FTE Courses/Sem. Advising/Sem. Chair Thesis/Sem.

Bowlin Lect. .75 3 50 approx. 6-10

Miller Lect. .75 3 50 approx. 6-10

Tuttle Asst. Prof.

1.0 3 50 approx. 6-10

Adjunct Faculty

Courses/Year

Bricklemyer Lect. .25 2 NA NA

Conard Lect. .25 1 NA NA

Dick Lect. .25 1 NA NA

Fiddick Lect. .25 1 NA NA

Flanagan Lect. .25 1 NA NA

Katzman Lect. .25 1 NA NA

Kelly Lect. .25 1 NA NA

Richardson Lect. .25 1 NA NA

Sullivan Lect. .25 1 NA NA

Wilcoxon Lect. .25 1 NA NA

2.C. Who is doing the advising/mentoring? Advising/Mentoring is shared by all full-time Faculty members. Each full-time Faculty

member advises approximately fifty students. The EMGT website is designed primarily

to serve as an aid to students, and, secondarily, as an advising and recruiting tool. As a

result, the course descriptions, forms, calendars and the like give the student

information about prerequisites, important dates and procedures. Each new student

also must attend a student orientation, during which students are introduced to the

Faculty, and learn about the EMGT program and its requirements.

2.D. What is their workload? The following data were reported in DEMIS for AY 2009-2010: instructional FTE is 3.6;

the instructional SCHR is 1,297; SCHR per FTE is 367; Organized Section per FTE is

6.2. The average figures for the SOE overall are 231.9 SCHR per FTE, and 4.0 FTE

per Organized Section. Further details may be found on Tables 6 and 7, and in the

attached DEMIS report.

27 | P a g e

Table 6. Typical Full-time Faculty Workloads Fall 2010

Name Courses

Instructed

with

Distance

Learning

New

Student

Advisees

Continuing

Student

Advisees

Chair Field

Projects

Field

Project

Committee

Member

KU /

Edwards

Campus

Committees

Bowlin EMGT 802,

EMGT 803,

EMGT 810

10 approx. 40 approx. 15 approx. 5 approx. 2

Miller EMGT 806,

2 sections,

EMGT 824


Tuttle

Program

Director

EMGT830,

EMGT 835,

EMGT 860


Table 7. Typical Part-Time Faculty Workloads Fall 2010 – Spring 2011

Name Fall 2010 Courses Instructed

with Distance Learning

Spring 2011 Courses

Instructed with Distance

Learning

Field Project

Committee Member

Bricklemyer EMGT 809 EMGT 809 2

Conard EMGT 800 EMGT 806 4

Dick EMGT 821 EMGT 821 2

Fiddick EMGT 808 1

Flanagan EMGT 813 (Team Instruction) 2

Katzman EMGT850 1

Kelly EMGT 823 1

Richardson EMGT 812 1

Sullivan EMGT 809 EMGT 809 1

Wilcoxon EMGT 813 (Team Instruction) 2

During the review year period, the EMGT program launched a ―Distance Learning

(DL)/Degree Completion‖ program administered through the Blackboard Educational

Administration System. This approach has led to a significant retention level, because

28 | P a g e

traveling, ill and relocated students can continue to progress toward degree completion.

Furthermore, it enhances the learning of students whose native language is not English,

because they can read and review lessons to increase their level of understanding of

the material.

DL systems place additional time management demands on the Faculty. Classes are

asynchronous under this format, which means that students are accessing materials

throughout a 24-hour cycle. Lessons are completed and questions asked as their

schedules permit, which means that they are in contact with instructors frequently. Each

question, course detail, examination, etc. must be individually addressed, i.e., there are

no ‗office hours‘ during which student questions and issues can be collectively

discussed. The SOE estimates that the DL option is necessary to serve disparate

student needs, but that it also has increased the workload of the Faculty.

2.E. Quantitative and Qualitative indicators: 2.E.1. Overall counts/FTE

The 2000 EMGT Program Review listed a total of 6.69 FTE for AY 1999; 913 SCHRs

were generated in the Fall of 1999. Ten years later, the FTE had decreased by 3.1 (-46

percent); 678 SCHRs were produced, which is a decrease of 235 (-25.7percent).

SCHR production for Fall of 1999 was 136.4 per FTE; for Fall, 2009, it was 170.8 SCHR

per FTE, or an increase of 34.4 (+25.2percent).

The program has maintained a student enrollment of about 150, on average, per year

over the past ten years. Graduates numbered approximately thirty-five per year over the

same period.

2.E.2. Tenure-track, other, GTA

There are no T/TT Faculty or GTA‘s currently in the EMGT program.

2.E.3. Demographics

There currently are no females, minority or international T/TT EMGT Faculty.

29 | P a g e

2.E.4. Scholarly Output EMGT‘s Faculty members are primarily engaged in instruction; research and/or publication is not a regular part of their professional activities1. However, Mr. Tuttle is the author of several publications (Table 8).

Table 8. EMGT Scholarly Output

Tuttle, Herbert, The Relationship Between Team Success and Team Virtuality, Proceedings, 28th ASEM National Conference, Sponsored by The University of Tennessee Space Institute / Chattanooga, TN. 2007.

Tuttle, Herbert, The Internet Encyclopedia, Bidgoli, Hossein (Editor), Authored Video Streaming Chapter, Prentice-Hall. 2003.

Tuttle, Herbert, Technical Project Teams and Work Place Design, Proceedings, 22nd ASEM National Conference, Sponsored by The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL. 2001

Tuttle, Herbert, Managing Your Engineering Management Career, Proceedings, 22nd ASEM National Conference, Sponsored by The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL. 2001

Tuttle, Herbert, Handbook of Industrial Automation, Shell, Richard L. and Hall, Earnest L. (University of Cincinnati), Co-authored Chapter IX. Material Handling and Storage Systems, William Wrennall and Herbert Tuttle, Marcel - Dekker, Inc. New York. 2000 2.E.5. Grants

EMGT‘s Faculty are primarily engaged in instruction; responsibilities do not include

application for contracts or grants. However, Mr. Tuttle has been awarded significant

funding through the US Department of Commerce, and the Kansas Department of

Transportation (Table 9).

Table 9. EMGT Grant

Tuttle, Herbert : Program Director (Principal Investigator) for MAMTC (Mid-American Manufacturing Technology Center®) Overland Park, Kansas.) The office was composed of five Field Engineers, a Director and Office Manager and provided manufacturing consulting services to eastern Kansas and Kansas City. Total Annual Federal and State Funding (Manufacturing Extension Partnership/National Institute for Standards and Technology) $420,000 to $ 670,000 (1999 - 2005).

Tuttle, Herbert: CO-PI for Economic feasibility of using KDOT fiber optic infrastructure for the transmission of KDOT data. To determine the economics and benefits of transmitting video and data from KDOT field devices back to Topeka via a data communication network. The project was 12 months and the estimated funding level was $38,000. (2003).

1 Note that tenured and tenure-track faculty on the Lawrence campus are expected to devote their time to

research (forty-percent), teaching (forty-percent), and professional service (twenty-percent). EMGT faculty devote their time to teaching and professional service only.

30 | P a g e

2.E.6. Master’s-level Chair Status

All Faculty (Bowlin, Miller and Tuttle) serve as Chairs of Field Project (Thesis)

committees. Additional members from the part-time Faculty, with appropriate expertise,

are added to student committees, with the approval of the School of Engineering and

the Office of Research and Graduate Studies.

2.F. Maintaining Quality 2.F.1. How are you recruiting and retaining Faculty to sustain and enhance program quality? The Kansas City metropolitan area has many engineering managers with advanced

degrees who can serve as part-time Faculty and Lecturers. This ensures current real-

world understanding of the needs of Engineering Management students in the program,

and it permits the introduction of current best-practices into courses.

2.F.2. Given your observation of the median age of the Faculty, what is your succession plan? The staffing plan requires that Faculty serve as instructors for both core and elective

courses, and that they are assisted by an available pool of potential Lecturers. It is

anticipated that current full-time Faculty will not retire within the next ten years. Given

the present size of the program, the instructional staffing plan will continue to be viable.

In Section 5, we describe a new Master‘s-level degree program, Program Management

(PMGT), which is in the final stages of development. The new degree is a response to

a significant opportunity, given the demand for the degree in the Kansas City

metropolitan area and across the country. The degree is an integral part of the

educational program planned for the Triangle Initiative-funded BEST (Business,

Engineering, Science and Technology) building on the Edwards campus. Once in place

(AY 2012), operation of the PMGT will require the addition of three full-time, and three

part-time faculty.

31 | P a g e

Section 3: How well do we do it and

who thinks so?

32 | P a g e

3. How well do we do it, and who thinks so?

Analysis of the data presented in Section 3 supports the following observations and conclusions:

EMGT is a unique program within the SOE; its focus is market-driven, and it is offered only on the Edwards Campus;

Recruitment activities are focused on students in the core market;

Students meet or exceed admission standards;

Distance learning has proven to be a useful, pedagogically sound strategy that permits flexibility in the adult learner‘s schedule

Student retention percentages are high;

Advisors provide significant assistance to students that is considered exceptional by current students, and graduates;

Time-to-degree has improved about thirteen-percent over the last decade, and is considered acceptable, given that ninety-percent of the students are employed full-time;

The EMGT curriculum and requirements compare favorably with other national programs;

External evaluations support the conclusion that EMGT fulfills its mission, and is well-regarded by its target audience.

Data Sources for Section 3.--Self-study process results described below are based

principally upon the following data, Reports, and Surveys (RS):

RS1: A 2005 report prepared by an external consultant for the Edwards

Campus administration (DeSieghardt Strategic Communications Research

Report, 2005);

RS2-RS4: The 2007, 2008 and 2009 School of Engineering Career Center surveys of graduates;

RS5: 2010 electronic survey results from EMGT Alumni;

RS5A: Statistically-based analysis of responses by graduate cohorts from

the 2010 Alumni Survey Data;

RS6: 2010 survey results from the EMGT Advisory Board;

RS7: Data drawn from the KU Office of Institutional Research and

Planning [OIRP: DEMIS(AIMS)];

Examination and comparison of selected EMGT programs in the USA with

the KU-EMGT program;

33 | P a g e

Data abstracted from the American Society for Engineering Education

(ASEE);

Data and documents drawn from the Accrediting Board for Engineering

and Technology (ABET) and the American Society for Engineering

Management (ASEM).

3.A. Recruitment, Admission, Enrollment, Progression, and Graduation

Examination of the statistical picture provided by the figures and tables in section

3.A. below leads to the following observations:

Provisional status in EMGT is not more or less frequent at admission than in other programs within the SOE;

Students who enter the program on a Provisional basis are able to perform at a level that permits them to change to Regular status;

Entry level requirements are met in similar fashion and degree across SOE disciplines and programs.

3.A.1. Recruitment, Admission, Enrollment

The various figures and tables in this section reflect data for AY 2004-2008, 2007, and

for 2000-2010. Data are drawn from DEMIS (AIMS), and SOE databases (Appendix).

3.A.1.a. Recruitment

The SOE employs a three-part strategy, which is coupled with the overall Research and

Graduate Program recruitment program. The strategy is based upon local/area/regional

contacts by EMGT Faculty and Staff, and planned formal visits to companies that

employ KU-EMGT graduates. EMGT Faculty and Staff respond to contacts and

inquiries, which are entered into a database maintained by RGP. RGP sends personnel

to national recruiting events, prepares advertising and informational materials, maintains

the EMGT WEB-site, and tracks students through the

recruitment/application/acceptance/enrollment/matriculation/graduation processes.

The 2009-10 (through May) recruiting activities included meeting prospective students

and alumni at Black & Veatch, Burns & McDonnell, Garmin, Honeywell, and at the

American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM) conference in Kansas City.

EMGT has also recruited at Cerner, Ford, Ft. Leavenworth, Kiewit and Bayer. EMGT

utilizes an ‗open house‘ concept with local firms. Prior to each open house, program

34 | P a g e

alumni within the targeted company that serves as the host for the open house receive

an e-mail, which reminds them of the impending visit. Alumni are asked to attend the

open house, and to bring one prospective student with them.

EMGT also advertises on the SOE web pages, and brochures are distributed at regional

career fairs by RGP personnel during career fair and other recruitment events.

3.A.1.b. Admission

Students may apply for admission to the EMGT program if they have earned a

baccalaureate degree in engineering or a related science, the latter defined as a natural

science, mathematics, or computer science (admission requirements for EMGT are

listed in the Appendix; detailed admission, success rate, time-to-degree are

summarized on Table 10).

DEMIS (AIMS) Admission Yields.--Admission yields (ratio of admissions to

applications) have been variable over the past six years: 2004 (96.6 percent), 2005

(94.1 percent), 2006 (93.9 percent), 2007 (81.8 percent), 2008 (75.6 percent), and 2009

(56.1percent). The average yield over the 2000-2009 period was eighty-two percent.

Success Rates.--The success rates (ratio of admitted to enrolled) are as follow: 2004

(78.6 percent), 2005 (87.5 percent), 2006 (100 percent), 2007 (82.2 percent), 2008

(85.3 percent), and 2009 (82.6 percent). The overall average success rate was eighty-

two percent.

35 | P a g e

36 | P a g e

Admission Status.--Three admission-status categories (Regular, Provisional,

Probationary) were possible prior to the 2009-2010 academic year depending upon a

student‘s GPA or coursework situation at the time of application. After 2009, only two

admission categories were possible: Regular /Provisional. Provisionally-admitted

students who subsequently do not meet the requirements established for them at

admission are moved to Probationary status at the start of the next semester. For

purposes of discussion in this section, all students who were not admitted to Regular

status prior to their first enrollment period were combined into one category (P), and are

so represented on the figures and tables in this section.

Student status upon entry into SOE Master‘s-level programs across the SOE, status

changes that occurred as they progressed through the curriculum, and their current

(Spring, 2010) status are shown on the following figures and attached tables.

SOE Summary Statistics for 2008-2010 Provisional/Probation (P) and Regular (R)

Status Admissions.— Table 11 and Figure 1 provide a summary view of admissions to

P and R status over the 2008-2010 period. The P/R ratio provides a measure for

programmatic comparisons, as does the P/R rank.

Admission status statistics vary widely from year-to-year, as well as among departments

and programs (e.g., for 2009, the lowest Provisional status admission percent was zero,

and the highest was twenty-two). The P/R ratio for some programs varied three-fold

over the 2008-2010 period, and an individual rank score changed more than two-fold.

The number, qualifications, and potential openings for applicants change significantly

from year-to-year; the P and R statistics reflect such differences. In some cases,

students are admitted to P status because their GRE scores have not been reported, or

they have not yet taken the examination, although their preparation and GPA more than

meet departmental/programmatic standards; the P is changed to R once the GRE score

is reported. In some years and among programs, students‘ preparation for graduate

study is not considered complete, and they are admitted to P status under the proviso

that they complete one or more classes so that they can be prepared for graduate-level

work. The P/R ratio for EMGT reflects the overall figures for the SOE (Table 11),

namely, it ranged from two to four over the three-year period listed on Figure 1.

37 | P a g e

Table 11. Fall 2008, 2009, & 2010 Probation/Provisional Admits for EMGT and Engineering Graduate Students

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010*

DEPT # Admitted on Probation/Provisional Status

P/R % P/R Rank

DEPT # Admitted on Probation/Provisional Status

P/R % P/R Rank

DEPT # Admitted on Provisional Status

P/R % P/R Rank

EMGT 8 22.0% 2 EMGT 5 20.0% 2 EMGT 3 18.7% 4

Overall view of the EMGT 2004-2008 admission cycle.-- Data displayed on Figures

2-3 provide an overview of status at the time of admission for an extended period

(Summer 2004-Fall 2008), and for a single admission cycle (Fall 2007; Fig. 5), which is

considered to be representative of admission cycles generally. About eighty-seven

percent of the applicants over the five-year period were admitted to the program; 147

(eighty-six percent) of the 170 students admitted enrolled (Figure 3).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

EMGT** Total

8

27

5

21

3

29# o

f S

tud

en

ts A

dm

itte

d

Figure 1. Engineering Graduate Students Admitted to Probation/Provisional Status:

Fall 2008, 2009, & 2010

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

Fall 2010*

38 | P a g e

Figure 2. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: All Admitted and Enrolled

Mathematics Requirement.-- About ninety-four percent of the 147 enrollees met the

mathematics requirement at the time of admission. The six-percent who did not had two

options: take a college-level calculus course, or enroll in EMGT 860. EMGT 860

(Mathematics for the Engineering Manager) is designed to meet the needs of the

Engineering Manager who needs an overview course, that emphasizes elements of

discrete and continuous mathematics significant to engineering management decision-

making. The course is comprehensive in that it covers Basic Algebraic Operations

through Determinants and Matrices, and Differential Equations. Performance at a

graduate level permits students to satisfy a math deficiency if it was listed during the

admission process.

Text: Basic Technical Mathematics with Calculus, by Allyn J. Washington, Addison

Wesley Publishers. Seventh Edition. ISBN: 0-201-35665-1, 961+ pages.

EMGT Student Status During Progression Through Spring 2010.--A subset of the

SU04-F08 data is used to display the 2010 status of the thirty-eight students who were

admitted to P-status during the entire five-year period (Figure 4). Of the thirty-eight

students, twenty-one (fifty-five percent) attained Regular status by 2010, four (eleven-

percent) remained in the P-category while they were working to reach Regular status,

ten (twenty-six percent) had completed their requirements and had graduated, three

0

50

100

150

200

196

138

9

Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Summer 2004 - Fall 2008 Admitted and Enrolled (196 applications, 170

admitted and 147 enrolled*)

Total Applications

# Admitted & Enrolled Who Met Math Requirement

# Admitted & Enrolled Who Did Not Meet Math Requirement

39 | P a g e

(six-percent) were admitted on P-status, but did not fulfill their requirements and were

dismissed from the program.

Figure 3. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Admitted and Enrolled on

Probationary Status

EMGT 2007 Entering Class: Snapshot View.--A similar look at a snapshot of the 2007

entering class reinforces the overall observations in the previous paragraphs, and adds

additional detail. EMGT received forty-nine applications in this cycle; thirty-three (sixty-

seven percent) were admitted (Figure 4). The average GPA for the entire cohort was

3.08.

Figure 4. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Applicants by Math

Requirement and Average BS GPA

0

5

10

15

20

25 21

4

10

3

Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Summer 2004 - Fall 2008 Admitted and Enrolled Probationary Student Status

(38 total)

Regular**

Probation Meeting Req.***Graduated

Dismissed

0

10

20

30

40

50

49

30

3 3.08

Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Fall 2007 Admitted and Enrolled (49 applications, 33 admitted and

enrolled*)

Total Applications



Avg. BS GPA

40 | P a g e

Eighteen (fifty-five percent) of the thirty-three students were admitted to Regular, and

thirteen (thirty-nine percent) were admitted to P-status (Figure 52). The latter thirteen

did not have a sufficient GPA to qualify for R-status. The two admitted to P-status who

did not meet the mathematics requirement prior to their first enrollment period were

informed that they would have to satisfy additional requirements in order to reach R-

status.

The disposition of the Fall 2007 entering cohort as of Spring 2010 is shown on Figure 6.

Thirty-two students who entered the EMGT Master‘s program in Fall 2007 were still

enrolled in the program; one was dismissed due to poor academic performance. Five

students had moved from Probationary to Regular status through a combination of (a)

meeting the requirements placed upon them at admission, and (b) performance in the

classroom. The remaining ten students were making progress, but had not achieved

Regular status.

2 One student was admitted to Regular status who did not meet the mathematics requirement upon entry. In this

case, the student had: completed a degree program in 1986, performed adequately as an undergraduate (3.27 GPA), good letters of recommendation, taken two mathematics courses, completed chemistry and physics, and worked at four corporations at progressively greater levels of management responsibility. In order to insure that the student would have the necessary background for all courses in the curriculum, the student was required to take EMGT 860MA and EMGT 860MB, but was informed in the admission letter that the courses would not count toward graduation.

0

5

10

15

20

Regular Admit Prov/Prob Admit

3.37 2.73

17

13

12

Figure 5. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Fall 2007 Admitted and Enrolled by Type (33 total*)

Avg. BS GPA



41 | P a g e

Student Status After 1 Year # of Students

Data Compiled and Summarized in Fall 2008

Regular 17

Probation to Regular ** 5

Probation Meeting Req.*** 7

Regular w/Exception **** 1

Probation w/Exception **** 2

Dismissed 1

Total Applications 49

GPA Comparison.--The GPA for all Engineering Master‘s students at the end of Spring

semester, 2008, and for EMGT were 3.70 and 3.85, respectively; the difference

between the two scores is nine-percent. For comparative purposes, the overall Master's

GPA averages for programs in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (biological

sciences, geology, and physics/astronomy), Pharmacy, and Education were 3.69, 3.71,

and 3.85, respectively. The mean of the various GPAs listed is 3.76 and the SD is 0.08.

Thus, the GPA in EMGT is statistically similar to the GPA of other Master‘s-level

students throughout the University.

02468

1012141618

Regular Probation to Regular **

Probation Meeting Req.***

Regular w/Exception

****

Probation w/Exception

****

Dismissed

17

57

12

1

Student Status

Figure 6. Degree-Seeking Engineering Management Students: Fall 2007 Admitted and Enrolled by Type and Current Status (33 total*)

42 | P a g e

3.B.2. Retention, Progression, Graduation

3.B.2.a. Retention

Retention Rates.-- EMGT retention rates are high, which is a priority of both the SOE

and University (Table 10). Graduates consider the following items important to the

retention process:

The Faculty and Staff provide significant advising help, which means that the

student feels a strong sense of commitment by the EMGT Faculty and Staff to

the program;

Faculty and staff are located on the Edwards Campus and schedule daytime,

evening and weekend hours to meet with, and advise, students;

Engineering Management is flexible with respect to student's choice of electives,

which encourages students to select courses that meet their needs, e.g.,

students have chosen technical courses from Business Administration, Public

Administration, Engineering and Computer Science programs;

Students are engaged in a full-time career, and the information and practices that

they gain and learn can be immediately applied at their place of employment,

which provides incentive to continue;

The DL option is available, which means that students cannot miss a class,

because all classes are recorded and are available on-line, along with all class

documents and handouts;

Work-related projects are used as instructional modules and thesis frameworks,

which means that application of concepts and techniques/tools are readily

apparent;

Courses are offered at corporate sites at time convenient for students, which

provides a strong incentive to remain in the program and to complete the degree;

Companies send employees to the program, and pay tuition costs for successful

course completion; both serve as incentives to continue.

3.B.2.c. Time to Degree

Time-to-degree averages 4.1 years, a longer period than research-based Master‘s

programs, but similar to other EMGT programs nationally. Students are employed

predominantly full-time; one class per semester is the norm, two if time commitments

permit. The ten-percent of the student body that can devote 100% of their time to the

program typically finishes their degree programs in three semesters.

43 | P a g e

3.B.2.d. Student Performance at Graduation

Comparison of GPAs at graduation shows that EMGT students performed at a high

level, comparable to MS graduates in other disciplines.

3.C. National, Regional and Big 12 Comparisons

Conclusions:

KU EMGT has characteristics similar to degrees offered nationally, locally, and

within the SOE;

Differences arise in its intended market, focus, instructional delivery systems,

and cost.

Comparison with extant EMGT programs permits discussion of commonalities and

differences among programs nationally, regionally, and within the Big 12, specifically,

the diversity in mission, intended audience, instructional delivery systems, and intended

participant qualifications.

A self-reported listing of the number of Master‘s degrees awarded in 2008-2009, which

is compiled annually by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE, 2010),

is shown on Table 12. The American Society of Engineering Management (ASEM) has

its own list of national programs, which is categorized by State and School (Appendix).

There are some fifty-three on-line programs listed nationally.

44 | P a g e

Table 12. Master’s Degrees Awarded in Engineering Management, 2008-2009 by Institution and Number (ASEE, 2010) School Total Master's State Sort Key Rank

Old Dominion University 163 VA OLD DOMINION 1

University of Bridgeport 135 CT BRIDGEPORT 2

The George Washington University 124 DC GEORGE WASHINGTON 3

Duke University 116 NC DUKE UNIVERSITY 4

Florida Institute of Technology 108 FL FLORIDA INSTITUTE 5

New Jersey Institute of Technology 91 NJ NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE 6

Northwestern University 88 IL NORTHWESTERN UNIVERS 7

California State University-Northridge 76 CA CALIFORNIA STATE, NORTHRIDGE 8

Missouri University of Science and Technology 74 MO MISSOURI 9

University of Waterloo 57 ON WATERLOO 10

Florida International University 55 FL FLORIDA INTERNATIONA 11

Portland State University 53 OR PORTLAND STATE UNIVE 12

University of Southern California 52 CA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 13

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 48 MA MASSACHUSETTS INSTIT 14

Santa Clara University 47 CA SANTA CLARA 15

Dartmouth College 46 NH DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 16

Stevens Institute of Technology 44 NJ STEVENS INSTITUTE OF 17

Southern Methodist University 43 TX SOUTHERN METHODIST 18

University of Michigan-Dearborn 40 MI MICHIGAN 19

University of Pennsylvania 40 PA PENNSYLVANIA 20

University of Kansas 39 KS KANSAS 21

Case Western Reserve University 37 OH CASE WESTERN 22

The University of Texas at Austin 36 TX TEXAS, AUSTIN 23

University of South Florida 36 FL SOUTH FLORIDA 24

Columbia University 36 NY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 25

Tufts University 35 MA TUFTS UNIVERSITY 26

University of Colorado at Boulder 33 CO COLORADO 27

University of Ottawa-Faculty of Engineering 32 ON OTTAWA 28

Washington University 32 MO WASHINGTON U 29

University of Dayton 30 OH DAYTON 30

University of Alabama at Birmingham 29 AL ALABAMA 31

Lawrence Technological University 29 MI LAWRENCE TECHNICAL 32

Drexel University 28 PA DREXEL UNIVERSITY 33

Northeastern University 27 MA NORTHEASTERN UNIVERS 34

Cornell University 26 NY CORNELL UNIVERSITY 35

Western Michigan University 25 MI WESTERN MICHIGAN 36

Colorado School of Mines 24 CO COLORADO SCHOOL 37

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 24 IN ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUT 38

Washington State University 24 WA WASHINGTON S 39

University of Tennessee-Chattanooga 21 TN TENNESSEE, CHATTANOOGA 40

45 | P a g e

(Table 12 Continued) Air Force Institute of Technology 20 OH AIR FORCE 41

Oakland University 19 MI OAKLAND UNIVERSITY 42

Saint Cloud State University 19 MN SAINT CLOUD STATE 43

University of Louisville 19 KY LOUISVILLE 44

The Ohio State University 16 OH OHIO STATE 45

University of Detroit Mercy 13 MI DETROIT 46

University of New Orleans 12 LA NEW ORLEANS 47

Mercer University 10 GA MERCER UNIVERSITY 48

University of Maryland-Baltimore County 10 MD MARYLAND 49

California State Polytechnic University-Pomona 10 CA CALIFORNIA STATE POL 50

Kansas State University 9 KS KANSAS STATE 51

Wayne State University 9 MI WAYNE STATE 52

Marquette University 9 WI MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY 53

Saint Martin's University 6 WA SAINT MARTIN 54

McNeese State University 6 LA MCNEESE STATE 55

Louisiana Tech University 6 LA LOUISIANA TECH 56

Widener University 5 PA WIDENER UNIVERSITY 57

University of Miami 5 FL MIAMI 58

The Catholic University of America 4 DC CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY 59

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4 IL ILLINOIS 60

University of North Carolina-Charlotte 4 NC NORTH CAROLINA, CHARLOTTE 61

Saint Mary's University 3 TX SAINT MARY'S 62

Western New England College 3 MA WESTERN NEW ENGLAND 63

University of Alaska Fairbanks 2 AK ALASKA 64

FAMU-FSU College of Engineering 2 FL FAMU 65

Wichita State University 1 KS WICHITA STATE 66

Rowan University 0 NJ ROWAN UNIVERSITY 67

Worcester Polytechnic Institute 0 MA WORCESTER POLYTECHNI 68

California Polytechnic State University 0 CA CALIFORNIA POLYTECHN 69

Wilkes University 0 PA WILKES COLLEGE 70

Gannon University 0 PA GANNON UNIVERSITY 71

University of California-Santa Cruz 0 CA CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ 72

Syracuse University 0 NY SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY 73

The Johns Hopkins University 0 MD JOHNS HOPKIN 74

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 0 CO COLORADO 75

University of Massachusetts Amherst 0 MA MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST 76

46 | P a g e

3.C.1. Comparison of Selected Programs (UCOL, Drexel, Duke, KSU, MIT,

UTEXAS, WSU)

3.C.1.a. Comparisons

Review of the structure, admission requirements, goals, application procedures, and

course content leads to the following conclusions, which are divided into two categories

(Table 13):

Table 13. Commonalities Among the Selected Programs

Primarily for the person engaged in professional careers (EMGT); some require

prior management-level experience and significant support from their employer

and professional community;

Applicants must have earned a degree in Engineering, mathematics, the natural

sciences, related field (EMGT), or ―…some other degree…‖ (unspecified);

Prerequisite options permit non-qualifiers to enter program;

Subject areas in the program include business, economics, statistical methods,

and management, with concentrations in any ad hoc approved course

sequence (EMGT);

Some focus on the development of a specific skill-set, e.g., MIT (EMGT);

Require work experience that ranges from 18 months to five years (EMGT);

Distance education component offered, either exclusively or as an option

(EMGT);

Part-time option, which is usually the predominant choice (e.g., Drexel 90%; MIT

50%) (EMGT);

Typically have a notable percentage of foreign students (e.g., 10% to more than

60%).

Differences Among the Selected Programs

Entrance requirements are highly variable:

o Some programs admit students with a minimum GPA, others upon

GPA/GRE numbers plus letters of recommendation;

o Some require a GPA above a specific figure only for JR-SR hours in the

candidate‘s discipline; others specify GPA overall scores for the JR-

SR years;

Developed for specific markets (EMGT):

o Not as a step toward the PhD;

o No research experience necessary;

o Not a universal MS research-oriented science degree;

Formulated and constructed to meet local-to-regional needs and interests

(EMGT);

47 | P a g e

Progression through the degree program and time-to-degree are highly variable:

o Some are completed on a one-year, two-semester, Summer fixed schedule;

others over an average four+ year period;

Instructor‘s use of course management tools variable, if used ;

Distance education component can be synchronous or asynchronous (EMGT);

Cost:

o Programs charge the normal Graduate per-credit hour fee (EMGT); more

commonly, the entire program is paid for at the time of enrollment.

3.C.1.b. Eight Selected Programs

Eight programs were chosen for comparative purposes with the KU-EMGT Master‘s

program (National Degree-Production Rank: 21) (Table 14: Extended program

descriptions for each are provided in the Appendix):

UColorado (National Degree-Production Rank: 27)

Drexel (33)

Duke (4)

KSU (51)

MIT (14)

UTexas (23)

Wichita State

These programs represent much of the Master's-level EMGT spectrum across

educational institutions in the USA. Public, private, large and small institutions are

included. All of the programs have been offered for some time, and are considered to

be educationally mature in their philosophy, intended market, and curriculum. One of

the selected schools is part of the Master of Engineering Management (MEM) Programs

Consortium (Appendix), which is a group of schools that consider their degree programs

among the most prestigious in the USA.

48 | P a g e

49 | P a g e

50 | P a g e

51 | P a g e

52 | P a g e

3.C.2. Big 12 EMGT Programs

Five Big 12 schools currently offer Master‘s-level professional degrees in EMGT (Table

15). All differ in admission requirements, prerequisites, and program focus. Some are

administered through Industrial Engineering departments as professional-degree

options, some are offered through a separate administrative unit within a College of

Engineering (e.g., University of Texas-Austin College of Engineering, Center for Lifelong

Engineering Education), and some provide all instruction through their University‘s

Continuing Education Division.

Table 15. Engineering Management Programs: Big 12 (as of 7-2010)

Yes No Baylor

X

Colorado X Iowa State

X

Kansas X Kansas State X Missouri

X

Nebraska X* Oklahoma

X

Oklahoma State X* Texas X Texas A&M X Texas Tech

X

*Option as a minor or concentration area, not official degree.

3.D. EMGT Statistics

3.D.1. GRE Test scores The GRE and/or GMAT are not required for entry into the program.

3.D.1.a. Financial support

Student loans—AIMS data (Appendix)

There are no Scholarships, fellowships, GTA\GRA positions available to students in the

EMGT program.

Students finance their education through a combination of employer contributions and

student loans. Approximately ninety-percent of the students receive tuition

reimbursement from their employer upon successful completion of a course required for

the EMGT degree. Other data show that about fourteen-percent of all students in the

53 | P a g e

program had need or non-need based loans. Forty-five percent of

those receiving loans were minorities, and some sixty-percent of

all persons receiving aid were Kansas residents.

3.D.1.b. Demographics

The average age of the typical EMGT student is 32; ages of

students in any year range typically from 25 to 50.

3.D.2. Program Productivity

The EMGT Faculty has consistently produced among the highest

number of degrees per year within the SOE (Table 16).

3.D.2.a. Distribution of class sizes:

Distribution of size of classes may be found in the DEMIS report

(Appendix).

3.D.2.b. Advising:

Each student admitted to the program attends an Engineering

Management-specific, new-student Orientation Program on the

Edwards Campus. Each student is assigned an academic

Advisor; students are required to meet with their Advisor each

semester (by e-mail, phone, and/or chat for DL students) prior to

the enrollment period for a given semester. Typical advising

includes discussion of course sequencing, selection of electives,

and consideration of the student‘s outside work load/ travel

schedule. Students are in contact with their Advisor throughout

their entire degree program. Advisors respond to student queries

and issues on weekends, evenings, and while travelling

throughout the year—the latter because there are no ‗semesters‘

for DL students.

3.D.2.c. Time to degree

Details may be found in the DEMIS report (Appendix: AIMS Degree Counts). The

median average for the past nine years was 4.1 years--a figure that matches well with

similar programs nationally.

Faculty Member MS or PhD

Committee

Chair

Rank

Agah, Arvin (2 co) 33 1

Tuttle, Herbert 14 2

Bow lin, Tom 11 3

Miller, Linda 10 4

McEnroe, Bruce (1co) 9 5

Faddis, Terry 4 6

Sturm, Belinda 4 6

Subramaniam, Bala 4 6

Zerw ekh, Robert 4 6

Bai, Yong 3 7

Darw in, David 3 7

Huan, Jun 3 7

Matamoros, Adolfo 3 7

Chong, Osw ald 3 7

Taghavi, Ray 3 7

Allen, Chris 2 8

Bennett, Caroline 2 8

Berkland, Cory 2 8

Detamore, Michael 2 8

Friis, Lisa 2 8

Glavinich, Thomas 2 8

Hui, Rongqing 2 8

Medina, Mario 2 8

Tsatsoulis, Costas ( 2 co) 2 8

Adams, Craig 1 9

Alexander, Perry 1 9

Barrett, Ron 1 9

Blunt, Shannon 1 9

Camarda, Kyle 1 9

Colgren, Richard 1 9

Deavours, Daniel 1 9

Demarest, Kenneth 1 9

Ew ing, Mark 1 9

Farokhi, Saeed 1 9

Fischer, Kenneth 1 9

Grzymala-Busse, Jerzy 1 9

Guzman, Javier 1 9

Hale, Richard 1 9

Han, Jie 1 9

Lane, Dennis 1 9

Leuschen, Carlton 1 9

Liang, Jenn-Tai 1 9

McLaughlin, Criag 1 9

Miller, James 1 9

Minden, Gary 1 9

Nguyen, Trune Van 1 9

Parr, Alfred (1 co) 1 9

Peltier, Edw ard 1 9

Perrins, Erik 1 9

Petr, David 1 9

Randtke, Stephen 1 9

Saiedian, Hossein 1 9

Schrock, Steven 1 9

Sterbenz, James 1 9

Willhite, Paul 1 9

Wilson, Sara 1 9

Young, Brian 1 9

co=co-chair

Table 16. Class of 2009 Graduates

54 | P a g e

3.D.2.d. Degrees awarded

The average number of degrees awarded annually over the 2001-2009 period was

thirty-five. The number of graduates varied from twenty (FY06-07) to fifty-two (FY04-

05). Degree production per EMGT Faculty member typically ranks in the top five within

the SOE (Table 16).

3.D.2.e. Student research productivity

The EMGT is a professional degree, not a research-based degree. Consequently,

EMGT Master‘s students are not engaged in research activities typical of those carried

out by graduate students on the Lawrence campus. Faculty members are not expected

to apply for external grant funding; teaching is their primary activity. Consequently,

Faculty and students do not engage in joint research efforts.

The majority of the Engineering Management students are working professionals.

Application for grants and contracts, and the publication of work-related project results

may be in conflict with employer policy, conflict of interest regulations, and employer

confidentiality rules. These issues are unique to the EMGT degree program among the

Master‘s degrees offered by the SOE. However, two students recently made

presentations at the annual American Society of Engineering Management conference

(2009). One student received a third-place award for their paper, and the other student

received second-place honors.

Field projects constitute the framework for a graduate-level, data or information-driven

learning environment. Students gather original--or analyze existing project--data, and

information in order to answer a question, or to illustrate a management principle,

improve a management strategy, or develop a new way of addressing an EMGT issue.

3.D.3. Program Quality Outcomes

Program outcomes describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of

graduation, and are based upon the needs of the program‘s clientele. The EMGT

program outcomes are based upon the integration of management with technology across three

dimensions:

TECHNICAL: an understanding of, and proficiency in, engineering and

science;

HUMAN: the ability to build a collaborative effort within a group;

55 | P a g e

CONCEPTUAL: the ability to apply analytical thought to the management

process and to the enterprise as a total system.

3.D.3.a. Learner Outcomes

The typical EMGT student is a working professional in their early thirties—most

commonly a person with 10+ years of experience in a profession--who wants to learn

something that they can apply at their place of employment immediately3. They need

elements of decision-making concepts, and examples in which the concepts are

applied. Thus, Learner Outcomes for graduates of the EMGT must encompass and

reflect the needs of the student population.

ABET has an established set of outcomes, which form the basis for assessment of the

success of undergraduate programs.4 Recasting ABET undergraduate outcomes

permits an ad hoc framework that can be applied to EMGT.

The recast learner outcomes are:

1. An ability to:

1.a. apply knowledge of engineering and/or technology and management approaches and techniques to problems and opportunities in today‘s technologically-based companies;

1.b. understand and act upon financial statements, determine present value of future markets, develop capital budgets, make investment decisions and determine cash flow, perform financial planning and management for technologically-based organizations;

1.c. test for, and determine objectives of, engineering and management decisions, prepare career and personal development plans, determine management-preferred communication styles, and write or present accordingly, and understand and act upon constructive feedback;

1.d. understand general systems theory, model development and applications of mathematical programming, including linear programming, dynamic programming, queuing models, and similar tools;

1.e. function on multifunctional, live and virtual project teams;

1.f. determine methods of developing, implementing, and using computer simulations for management processes, such as inventory control, queing, project monitoring, and capital investment decisions;

1.g. plan and manage a technologically-based project, which

3 This paradigm is well-described by Knowles’ institution of the ‘andragogy’ concept as a subset of pedagogical

practices (Knowles, Malcolm; Holton, E. F., III; Swanson, R. A. 2005. The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier). 4 There is no comparable list for graduate programs, in part, because advanced-degree curricula and degree intent

vary widely. See section 4.A.1.

56 | P a g e

encompasses the entire project life cycle from inception to close-out;

1.h. integrate material presented in other courses into their EMGT program through the utilization of EMGT-based case studies;

1.i. plan, organize, staff, direct, and control design projects.

2. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility in today‘s global technological environment;

3. Knowledge of today‘s societal and political issues and their resultant impact on engineering and management decision-making.

Specific learner outcome attainment is described in Section 3.E.3.

3.D.3.b. Tests, Papers and Projects

Outcomes are assessed through successful completion of course components, which

typically include examinations, projects, and other assigned exercises. Projects and

reports for classes must be based upon work-related problems—where and when

permitted by the student‘s employer. The Field Project requires that the student identify

a problem at their place of work or at another organization, study the situation, develop

a plan to attack the problem based upon their coursework, implement it, and report on it

in written and oral forms.

3.D.3.c. Placement rates, employer assessments

The EMGT Master‘s program is populated by students who are already employed.

EMGT Alumni survey responses indicated that 87.9 percent held a full-time position

when they were students in the program, 9.3 percent held a full-time position at the

same time that they were full-time students, and, finally, 2.9 percent reported that they

were not employed during the period when they were a full-time student. At the time of

graduation, 90 to 100 percent of the students—depending upon the year--were

employed.

3.D.3.d. Student awards

Two students submitted their Field Projects (Master‘s Thesis) as papers in the annual

American Society for Engineering Management Fall Conference (2009); both papers

won awards.

3.D.3.e. Service, Outreach/engagement and Corresponding Impact

Service Courses.--EMGT provides service to other programs through the opportunity

to enroll in courses, which are in demand by students in IT, Civil Engineering, and MBA

programs, among others. EMGT courses taken by non-majors range from 19.8 percent

57 | P a g e

to 27.5 percent of the number of courses taught in any given year (Appendix: AIMS

SCHR figures FY05-06 through FY 09-10).

Outreach.--Faculty members routinely conduct seminars and offer training for the

American Society for Quality, Black & Veatch, Burns & McDonnell, Dearborn Mid-West,

and KU Continuing Education, among others (Table 17).

Table 17. Examples of Recent EMGT Outreach Efforts

Project Management for US ARMY Design And Certification Engineer. Three day course

prepared and delivered for the US ARMY Redstone Military Arsenal, Huntsville, AL 201. HT

Project Management for Aerospace Professionals. Five day course prepared and delivered

for Lockheed Martin, Marietta, GA 2009. HT

Project Management for Flight Test Engineers. Custom one day course prepared and

delivered for at Northrop Grumman, El Segundo, CA 2006. HT

Project Management for Those New to Project Management in Aerospace, Custom five day

course for Boeing, Bombardier/Learjet and Raytheon, Wichita, 2005. HT

Coaching and Feedback. Burns & McDonnell, 2010. LM

Building Professional Networks. Burns & McDonnell Professional Women's Exchange 2010,

MSPE/ASCE Meeting 2010, and ASEM Meeting, 2009. LM

How to Play in the Sandbox. ASEM Meeting, 2008, and Terracon National Sales Meeting,

2008. LM

Creativity. Kiewit Power Engineers Annual Conference, 2008. LM

The Secret to Successful Sales Forecasting. KU Continuing Education, 2007. LM

New Communication Methods in A/E: Blogs, Podcasts, YouTube. KU Continuing Education, 2007. LM

Golf, Rolex and Lake Homes: The Successful Seller/Doer. KU Continuing Education, 2007. LM

The Successful Seller/Doer. Needham and Associates, 2007. LM

How YOU can Contribute to a Marketing Strategy ASEM, 2006. LM

Modeling for Better Decision-Making. Burns and McDonnell. 2010. TB

58 | P a g e

Managing a Conflict. Burns and McDonnell. 2010. TB

Queing Analysis for Your Toolkit. Burns and McDonnell. 2010. TB

3.E. Assessment

Satisfaction surveys.--Seven reports and surveys have been completed as part of

SOE‘s continuous overall program quality-assessment process, or solely to assess

various aspects of the EMGT program. The questions on the EMGT surveys were

developed by the Research and Graduate Programs Office, with the assistance of

EMGT Faculty and Staff (Appendix):

RS1: DeSieghardt Strategic Communications Research Report (December,

2005)

RS2: The School of Engineering Career Center 2007



RS5: EMGT Alumni Survey 2010

RS5A: Statistical Results from the 2010 Alumni Survey Data

R6: EMGT Advisory Board Survey 2010

R7: AIMS Graduate Student Satisfaction Measures 2004 and 2009

3.E.1. (RS1): DeSieghardt Strategic Communications Research Report

Conclusions Drawn from the Report:

EMGT is a valuable program according to Executives, Senior-level managers, employees in major Kansas City metropolitan area companies (who hold or do not hold a KU-EMGT degree), current EMGT students and alumni;

EMGT is well-regarded for its applicability to students‘ work environment, its organization, and the quality of its coursework;

EMGT students were very well satisfied with their educational experience, in particular, the enrollment process, advising, the variety of course offerings, the quality of the professor‘s efforts, and the network of relationships they developed;

Students and graduates share their enthusiasm about the program with others in the marketplace;

EMGT Faculty understand the needs of people who are working 40 hours or more a week, and plan a curriculum around a busy schedule;

Streaming of lectures, electronic availability of course materials, and the Distance Learning initiative are well done;

Students are very appreciative of the effort to schedule course offerings well in

59 | P a g e

advance of a given semester, which permits them to do long-range planning;

The level of instruction by Faculty is considered to be generally outstanding.

During November and December 2005, a comprehensive qualitative research project

was undertaken on behalf of the KU Edwards Campus and the School of Engineering.

The design of the project, data collection and analysis, and the presentation of

conclusions were under the direction of a consultant; no Edwards or SOE administrators

or Faculty were involved in any phase of the project.

The objective of the effort was to understand the current views of two specific groups in

the engineering community on the value of a Master‘s degree in the field; what elements

the degree should include; and how employers and professionals characterize the

EMGT degree. The first group consisted of executives who held positions at a variety of

small-to-large companies, with exclusive, or branch offices, in the Kansas City

metropolitan area. A second group consisted of engineers who were either

contemplating or pursuing a Master‘s degree; current students; or recent graduates.

Members of this group were interviewed collectively in the ‗focus group‘ format in order

to create a situation in which the maximum amount of discussion could occur around a

set of specific questions.

Executive participants were:

Gregory Graves, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Burns & McDonnell

Marjorie Franklin, founder and consultant, Franklin Associates

Angela Chammas, Director of Information Technology Services, Sprint

Skip Gast, VP and Director of Human Resources, Black & Veatch

Lester Lampe, PhD, VP and Global Water Resources Practice Leader, Black & Veatch

Jeffrey Eidemiller, PE, Structural Engineer, Black & Veatch

Scott Smith, CEO, HNTB

Clifford Illig, Vice Chairman, Cerner

Chester Belcher, Consulting Engineer, Payne & Brockway

William Zahner, CEO, A. Zahner Company

Clifford Cross, Project Manager, Honeywell 3.E.2. (RS2 to RS4): The School of Engineering--Engineering Career Center (ECC) The ECC developed and carried out surveys of graduate students who had completed a degree program in 2007 (R2); the survey was amended and used again in 2008 (R3) and 2009 (R4).

60 | P a g e

Responses applicable to EMGT graduates were:

Students recognized that the EMGT program was oriented toward the Kansas City market and its distinct mix of employers;

The program has a strong academic reputation;

Graduates expected to receive a promotion either at their current place of employment, or upon the assumption of a position at another employer, once they completed the EMGT program.

3.E.3. (RS5): 2010 EMGT Alumni survey

Conclusions that can be Drawn from Responses to the Questionnaire:

The respondents represented degree recipients from all demographical categories for a twenty-six year period; there was no statistically significant difference among respondent answers to questions over the period, an indication that the perceived quality-level of the degree program has remained the same throughout the program‘s life;

Respondents chose an EMGT degree for multiple reasons: classes were offered at night (75 percent); the program focus was on management, and was not considered to be strictly a technical degree (69 percent); proximity of the university to home (61 percent); and the program met their criteria for a Master‘s degree (59 percent);

Learning Outcomes were met based upon respondents answers to queries specifically designed to address each outcome;

83.6 percent of the respondents thought that their EMGT education was very important/somewhat important (two highest categories) in achieving their current level of professional success;

59.3 percent have received a promotion to, or accepted, a new position, with managerial duties after completing the EMGT program;

Graduates concluded that their additional education beyond the Bachelor‘s degree was considered important and valuable to their employers and themselves;

52.6 percent thought that they were better prepared for assuming management roles in their organization, as compared with individuals they know with similar Master‘s degrees;

95.7 percent responded positively to the statement: ―If I had to do it again, I would attend the EMGT Program at the University of Kansas‖;

95.0 percent have recommended the KU EMGT Master's degree to others.

An EMGT alumni survey was conducted in April, 2010, as part of the program‘s efforts

to monitor its success in meeting its objectives. The total number of EMGT graduates

since the program‘s inception is 598; 485 have valid email addresses in the EMGT

61 | P a g e

database. The survey period was set at three weeks, after which no responses were

accepted for inclusion. All responses were submitted anonymously; no changes were

possible on any submitted response. The response rate was 28.9 percent, or a total of

140, which exceeds statistical requirements for a valid sample necessary to draw

conclusions. The factors assessed in the survey are listed on Table 18.

Table 18. Factors Assessed in the Alumni Survey

Factor Question

Number

Demographics 1, 2, 3, 4

Educational Funding 19

Current Employment Position/Position at

entry into EMGT program

6, 7

Reasons for pursuing the degree 10

Attendance Factors 4, 5, 20

Program Objectives 11

Instructional quality 18

Distance Learning uses 14, 15, 16

Estimate of the worth of the EMGT to

Businesses, Corporations, degree holders

8, 9, 12, 13, 17

Satisfaction with the degree program 21, 22, 23

Demographics of Respondents:

Graduates were grouped into four categories based upon their year of graduation:

<1995; 1995-1999; 2000-2004; 2005-2009. This approach allowed a statistical analysis

of responses to questions among categories. The analysis was structured so that

possible changes among graduates from different graduate cohorts could be assessed.

Academics: Learner Outcomes

In response to the question: ―Attending the EMGT graduate program improved my personal and professional abilities‖ (…in the following categories…)*:

4.35 Understanding the financial aspects of a business (1b)5

4.26 Leadership and management skills (1a)

4.24 Planning and managing projects (1g)

4.24 Public speaking and presentation skills (1c, 1i)

4.18 Verbal communication skills (1c)

4.09 Written communication skills (1c)

4.09 My willingness to try new activities or responsibilities (1a)

4.04 Examining problems from multiple perspectives (1e, 1h)

5 Items in parentheses are Learner Outcomes; a list is contained in Section 3.D.3.a.

62 | P a g e

4.04 Developing confidence in my ability to perform well (1c, 1)

3.93 My ability to work in teams (1e)

3.88 My ability to apply quantitative methods to engineering problems (1d)

3.83 Recognizing and acting upon ethical principles (2)

3.81 Thinking creatively (1e, 1f)

3.81 My ability to learn independently (3)

3.68 My ability to adapt to changing technologies (3)

3.67 My ability to work with people from diverse cultural backgrounds (1e) *Out of 5

In response to the question: ―To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements‖, alumni responded:

The quality of instruction was what I expected in graduate School – 94.3 percent strongly agree or agree;

Students in my program were treated with respect by Faculty -- 99.3 percent strongly agree or agree;

Advising and assistance were readily available --90 percent strongly agree or agree;

Grading was fair and appropriate to the degree -- 97.9 percent strongly agree or agree;

Program encouraged student collaboration or teamwork-- 96.4 percent strongly agree or agree;

Program provided opportunities to take coursework outside of my own department -- 71.9 percent strongly agree or agree;

Amount of coursework was appropriate to the degree – 94.2 percent strongly agree or agree;

Program provided flexibility for travel and family obligations--93.6 percent strongly agree or agree.

In response to the question: "What aspects of the EMGT graduate program are

important to you or your employer?", former students supplied a variety of comments

(Table 19).

Table 19. EMGT Degree Importance to Employers* Management styles, businesses acumen, ability to lead, motivate and

manage people and projects.

Mgmt skills, technical knowledge, speaking, reporting, analyzing, assessing,

team work, solution focused.

Direct applicability of many of the classes to our work (consulting)

environment.

Professionalism

Expert Instructor Staff

Flexible night classes for working professionals including video feeds

available for many of the classes.

Progressive learning that translates to the job in real time.

Overall understanding of finance, project management, as well as ethics.

Being a small company (<15 ppl), my employer finds it invaluable to have

an employee possess management and business-related skills to help

63 | P a g e

assist in those areas when needed, and ultimately take the reins when the

time calls for them to "open the books" to an employee for partnership.

Skills that broaden engineer‘s knowledge of non-core engineering areas,

such as technical sales, marketing, presentation skills and finance. Core

skills including project management and management of technical

professionals

That the curriculum was tailored to our business making it an efficient

program without a lot of wasted classes

Integrating/education of critical management elements associated with

technical aspects of our profession--teaching that includes practitioners

*Selected Response Text (all responses are contained in the Appendix)

In response to the question: "Please describe your major professional accomplishments (e.g., major projects, promotions, honors/awards, licensure or publications…", former students supplied the following (among many others; see Appendix for the complete list)6

My MS EMGT allowed me to move into project management and then to lead our sales and marketing department. I was promoted to officer approximately 1.5 years ago. I was recently awarded the Professional Progress Award by the K-State College of Engineering, which I believe is due in part to completing my MS degree and the opportunities generated from doing so.

Warren Kennedy Associate Vice President

Burns & McDonnell

I have been promoted to engineering manager at Black and Veatch. I have worked on several challenging projects, including licensing of a nuclear power plant and a feed water heater replacement project. I have also provided training on several occasions that I would have previously avoided due to difficulties I had with public speaking and have been embraced by other senior managers for the contributions I bring to B&V. I encourage our younger engineers to enroll in the EMGT program if they want to get a leg up on the competition

My experience in KU‘s EMGT Program has improved my skills in every aspect in my career. The knowledge gained has improved my success in my profession, which has gotten recognized to the point of being promoted. I recommend it for those wanting to add management skills in their technical field.

Jim VonAchen Transportation Network Planning Manager

McLane Company, Inc.

Won two National Awards and one State Award for Young Engineers through three different professional societies. I‘ve become a registered Professional Engineer in two states. I have also served on numerous committees and boards for different professional societies. Alysen

6 Alumni were invited to submit comments by name if they wished to do so. Some of those public comments are

reproduced in the table; others can be found on the Alumni Survey forms in the Appendix.

64 | P a g e

After graduating from the EMGT program, I was soon promoted to a Senior Financial Analyst at my company. In less than 10 months, I received a transfer and a promotion to Operation Analysis Manager. In this position, I created and managed an OMS department for three properties... After approximately a year and a half, I was promoted again to Planning & Analysis Manager where I managed multiple departments with 10 total employees, including a Manager, Senior financial Analysts, and entry level Financial Analysts. In this position, I was responsible for developing and managing a budget of $400+ million in revenues and an EBITDA of $95 million. After two years, I then left to work as a consultant in the Operations Analysis field... I have been in my current position of Corporate Director of Planning & Analysis since June of 2008. I am currently responsible for the budget and financial reporting/analysis for six companies. Shane F. Pomeroy

I was able to get a job in IT Consulting as soon as I graduated and I worked in IT Project Management until August 2009 when I returned to school full-time. I had applied for PhD studies to only one University and was able to get acceptance. I would want to attribute my job and PhD to the excellent program offered at the University of Kansas. Kanchana Srinivasan

3.E.4. (RS5A): Statistical Results from the 2010 Alumni Survey Data

Conclusions from the Statistical Analysis of the Alumni Survey:

The four Alumni graduation cohorts sampled were statistically demographically consistent, and, thus, represented the overall make-up of the graduate population;

Graduates attained mid-level to executive-level positions subsequent to graduation from the EMGT program;

Distance Learners constituted an average of about 20-percent for the population, and the figure increased to about 28-percent for the 2005-2009 sample group, an indication that distance learning is becoming an increasingly important option;

Students ‗Agreed‘ to ‗Strongly Agreed‘ that the coursework was directed toward their needs in sixteen personal and professional categories listed on the questionnaire;

Graduates concluded that they were better prepared than their colleagues who had similar degrees from other institutions;

The content of courses and the overall curriculum were considered to be of graduate-level quality;

Cohorts responded in statistically-similar fashion over more than a twenty-five period, a strong indication that a consistent level of quality has been maintained throughout the life of the EMGT program;

Graduates consistently responded that they were satisfied with their overall educational experience, and, as a result, had recommended the program to others.

65 | P a g e

The purpose of this report was to provide a summary of statistical results from the analysis of the Alumni survey that are pertinent to the EMGT Program‘s self-review process. The full report is in the Appendix.

3.E.5. (RS6): EMGT Advisory Board Questionnaire 2010

Conclusions from AB Written Responses:

Generally, the EMGT degree is considered to be better than the MBA for technically focused businesses;

Graduates who had also earned Master‘s degrees in other disciplines concluded that the EMGT offered courses and coursework which were relevant to current industrial standards and practices, and were equivalent in academic rigor to those in other Master‘s-level programs;

The addition of a Project Management degree option would be of benefit to manufacturing companies;

Program personnel consistently look for validation of its programs through consultation with people in industry.

AB written responses to questions are in the Appendix.

The rational for the Advisory Board (AB) Survey was to gain the perspective of an external group that was familiar with the program through various levels of association, including, and most importantly, the employment of graduates from the program. AB members are listed on Table 20; all received the survey, except for the three Faculty members on the Board. All responses were sent by return electronic mail to a password-protected file under the management of Mary Ryan, Associate Dean at the Edwards Campus.

Table 20. Advisory Board Members

Corporations and Business Faculty Bryan Adams Manager, Project Lead Campaigns Honeywell FM&T

Thomas H. Bowlin Lecturer Engineering Management

Benjamin J. Biller, P.E. Associate Vice President of Infrastructure Burns & McDonnell

Linda Miller Lecturer Engineering Management

Christopher Conner Sr. Systems Architect Cerner Corp

Herbert R. Tuttle Director and Assistant Professor Engineering Management

Christine Hendzlik Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers

David R. Kraft Professor Emeritus Engineering Management

Brian Larson CEO Transystems Corp.

66 | P a g e

James R. Lewis Executive Vice President of Production Black and Veatch

Michael Stites Senior Engineer Environmental Compliance National Nuclear Security Administration's Kansas City Plant Honeywell FM&T

Gregory Towsley Director Grundfos Pump Corporation

Peter D. Zanoni, PE Associate Vice-President, Deputy Manager, Infrastructure Global Practice Burns & McDonnell

The survey was constructed to elicit responses in several categories (Table 21):

Table 21. Area of Interest and Specific Questions

Area of Interest Question on the Survey

Demographics 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Affiliations 3

Education of Advisory Board members 4

Advisory Board Value perception 6, 7, 8

Educational goals 12, 13, 15, 16

Major field of employment 2

Program quality 9, 10, 11, 14

3.E.6. (RS7): 2005/2009 AIMS EMGT Graduate Student Satisfaction Survey

All graduate students receive an Exit Survey from the Provost's Office Division of

Research and Graduate Studies upon graduation. The responses to the question under

the heading ‗Factors that are obstacles to academic progress in the unit‘ are reproduced

below for the 2005 and 2009 academic years (Figure 7). Results on the figure permit

EMGT, Advisory Board and School to address issues raised by the students enrolled in

program, and serve as a framework for discussion.

67 | P a g e

Figure 7. Graduate Student Satisfaction Measures

The move 'upward' of the category "Work/Financial Commitments" between 2005 and

2009 is understandable given the state of the USA economy. Three factors are relevant

from the GS response: keep the program affordable, reduce the time-to-degree so that

monetary benefits are realized sooner, and keep the curriculum structure as flexible as

possible. (Also, note that "Work/Financial Obligations" and "Family Obligations" are

greater than the overall KU means for these items—both indications of the type of

student in the EMGT program.) "Course scheduling" and "Program Structure or

Requirements" remain well below the KU respective means—indications that they or are

of minor concern, and are reflections of the efforts that EMGT exerts to make

matriculation and progression as straightforward as possible.

68 | P a g e

Section 4: Overall Quality

69 | P a g e

4. Overall Quality

Conclusion for this section:

EMGT has established educational objectives and program elements, meets the

academic year requirement, and has demonstrated that graduates have the

ability to apply the principles taught in the courses offered.

4.A. External indicators of quality

4.A.1. External Accreditation

The KU School of Engineering has not sought accreditation (A) and/or certification (C)

by either national accrediting organization (Accrediting Board for Engineering and

Technology, ABET; American Society of Engineering Management, ASEM) for the

EMGT at Edwards, or for any of the Master’s programs on the Lawrence campus.

Master‘s-level (and above) programs nationally rarely seek accreditation. Accreditation

is occasionally used as an external indicator of quality, but the SOE has not sought

external accreditation or certification because, among other factors,the benefits are

unclear.

Justification.--There are several reasons why graduate programs do not seek

accreditation or certification by an external agency:

Most EMGT programs are developed for a specific purpose, and are not like typical research-based Master‘s programs. Unlike research-oriented Master‘s-level programs, design for a particular

local/regional market, specific managerial level, and/or undergraduate degree-

holder, is a common thread among EMGT programs. For example, MIT, Duke, U

Texas and U Colorado degree programs all are designed for a defined

professional market, not for the student who seeks a Master‘s as the first step in

a PhD program--unless the school offers a PhD in Management or in Industrial

Engineering (program descriptions for the listed schools are in the Appendix).

None of the latter four EMGT programs are accredited.

The KU MS-EMGT curriculum is structured to meet the core course requirements

that are needed to satisfy educational and market demands in the Kansas City

metro area. About fifty-percent of the KU-EMGT alumni are employed in the

Engineering/Consulting business sector, and only thirteen-percent are employed

70 | P a g e

in manufacturing (the second largest employer category); in most other metro

regions, the percentages are reversed. The market percentages in KC are

reflected in course content: the Project Management Class (EMGT 813) is

focused on the planning and management of projects external to an employee‘s

firm or corporation, which is the main business activity of engineering and

consulting firms. Other courses (EMGT 804 Business Development and

Marketing Professional Services; EMGT 812 Law and the Design Professional;

and EMGT 824 Product Marketing for Engineering Managers) meet the needs of

students whose firm provides consulting and management services on contract.

The benefits of A/C for graduate-level programs are unclear.

If A/C accreditation has significant benefits to a School and program-graduates,

then virtually all graduate-level programs would seek reviews, but virtually none

do. Accreditation by ABET is clearly important for baccalaureate programs,

given the nature of the engineering profession, and the desire to insure that all

graduates and all programmatic elements have met established standards.

Once past the baccalaureate level, however, the A/C benefits are much less

clear.

Graduate-level programs are formulated in such a way that they would meet A/C

guidelines if a review were requested.

Note the following guidance from ABET in their accreditation document (Table 22):

Table 22. General Criteria for Master’s Level Programs

II. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR MASTER’S LEVEL PROGRAMS

° Master’s level programs must develop, publish, and periodically review,

educational objectives and program outcomes. The criteria for Master’s-

level programs are fulfillment of the baccalaureate level general criteria,

fulfillment of program criteria appropriate to the Master’s level

specialization area, and one academic year of study beyond the

baccalaureate level. The program must demonstrate that graduates have

an ability to apply Master’s level knowledge in a specialized area of

engineering related to the program area.

ABET-accredited, and ASEM-certified programs, are listed on Tables 23 and 24,

respectively. Only one Master‘s-level program nationally, the EMGT at the Air Force

Institute of Technology, is accredited by ABET (Table 23); the other Schools listed each

71 | P a g e

have Master‘s-level programs, but have not requested a review from ABET. Similarly, of

the eighty-seven EMGT programs that hold membership in the ASEM, four (4.5%) have

received certification, and only two of the Schools have sought re-certification (Table

24). None of the Big 12 EMGT Master‘s-level programs are certified.

Table 23 . ABET Listed Engineering Management Programs 2010

Institution MS Accredited

Air Force Institute of Technology OH Yes

University of Connecticut CT No

Missouri University of Science and Technology MO No

North Dakota State University ND No

Oklahoma State University OK No

University of the Pacific CA No

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute NY No

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology SD No

Stevens Institute of Technology NJ No

United States Military Academy NY No

Table 24. American Society for Engineering Management Certification

Scope Currently over 100 graduate programs offering an engineering management curriculum are administered throughout the US. At the request of it members, the ASEM initiated a certification process in the fall of 2003 for certification of EM Master‘s programs and similar EM programs that focus on Technology Management.

Criteria: ASEM uses the following criteria in its evaluation process EM Master‘s Program Certification Academic Standards (Appendix) EM with a Focus on Technology Master‘s Program Certification Academic Standard

Results: The Following Programs have been certified by ASEM as having met these criteria: 2007-2011 Old Dominion University (National Degree Production Rank: 1)* – Master‘s of Engineering in Engineering Management St. Cloud State University (43) – Master‘s of Engineering Management 2005-2009 George Washington University (3) – Master‘s of Engineering Management Missouri S&T (9) -- Master of Engineering Management Program, Management of Technology Track, Quality Engineering Track, and Project Management Track

2003-2007 Old Dominion University - Master‘s of Engineering in EM Stevens Institute of Technology (National Rank: 17) -- Master‘s of Engineering in EM (Recertification Pending) Stevens Institute of Technology -- Executive Master‘s in Technology Management (Recertification Pending)

* Rank in 2008-09 by the total number of EMGT graduates according to ASEE, 2009.

72 | P a g e

A slightly more detailed parsing of the available data shows that eleven of the twelve

American Association of Universities (AAU)7 members listed by ASEM offer ME, MEM,

or MS degrees—each of which is different in its requirements, purpose, student

population, number of students enrolled, course presentation schedules, and

presentation format. None of the degree programs are certified.

Furthermore, some seventy-six EMGT degree programs are listed by the American

Society for Engineering Education for 2008-2009, among them, fifteen AAU Schools:

Johns Hopkins, Syracuse U, U of Illinois, Ohio State U, Cornell, Washington U, U

Colorado, Columbia, KU, U Pennsylvania, U Michigan, MIT, USC, Northwestern, and

Duke. None have accredited or certified Master‘s-level degree programs in EMGT.

4.A.2. National Rankings

There are no national rankings available for EMGT programs from any agency or

private evaluation group.

4.A.3. Faculty Awards:

EMGT‘s Faculty are primarily engaged in instruction; responsibilities do not include

application for contracts or grants. However, Mr. Tuttle has been awarded significant

funding through the US Department of Commerce, and the Kansas Department of

Transportation (Table 25).

Table 25. Faculty Awards

Tuttle, H.: Recipient of a Bellows Scholar Award from the SOE 99, 02, 03, 04. Selected as a Miller Scholar (for 2000-2001 & 2001-2002). Received Streaming Video Course Development Grant $6000, 2001;

Bowlin, T.: Miller Scholar Award from the School of Engineering for 2007.

4.B. Reflecting on your short mission statement

Short Mission Statement.--The overall program mission for the Engineering

Management Graduate Program is to provide a modern engineering management

education with an appropriate balance between professional practice and theory. The

mission is accomplished through training in management and leadership, finance,

ethics, written and oral communication, team building, ethical decision-making, strategic

analysis, quantitative analysis, simulation, project management and leadership, and

quality assessment and assurance.

7 Duke, KU, Northwestern, U of Arizona, U Colorado, Stanford, U Southern California, Case Western Reserve U, U of

Texas, Columbia, Cornell, Washington U.

73 | P a g e

4.B.1. Students:

Many graduates of the EMGT program have concluded that their careers have

advanced significantly due to their Master‘s degree achievements: 83.6 percent thought

that their EMGT education was Very Important/ Somewhat Important in achieving their

level of professional success. A promotion to, or acceptance of, a new position—often

with managerial duties--after completing the EMGT program was cited by 59.3 percent

of EMGT graduates. A majority (52.6 percent) thought they were better prepared for

assuming management roles in their organization, compared to other individuals they

knew with similar Master‘s degrees. Their opinions are borne out by voluntarily

contributed information shown on Table 26.

Table 26. M.S. Engineering Management Students

Engr. Total Same Same New Grad/Prof ** Still Other

Mgmt. Reporting Employer Employer Employer School Seekin

g Promotion e.g. PhD

2007 19 11 5 3

2008 25 15 5 2 3

2009 30 19 4 4 2 1

Total 74 45 14 9 0 5 1

All 'connection' ' data are based on voluntary reporting (usually directly by the student).

**If a student was 'still seeking' at graduation, we try to reach the student & update status at six months' post graduation.

This report reflects the updated status if we were able to connect with the student (often they don't respond to outreach attempts).

2007 - 5 students from various categories shared employer info

2008 - only 2 students shared employer info (the 2 students who had selected new employers)

2009 - 2 of the students who noted they were continuing to work for the same employer also stated that they were intending to pursue

additional graduate/professional school opportunities (they are only counted under same employer category).

- only 2 students shared employer info (one student who had selected a new employer, and one who marked other)

Sept. 10, 2009 EVALUATION Approximately 19% of the graduates received a promotion from current employer. Approximately 12% of the graduates found a better position.

Approximately 61% of the graduates stayed at same employer and in same position. Approximately 7% were seeking a new position, typical of international students.

74 | P a g e

These data suggest that about one-third of the students, upon graduation

had already benefitted in indirect or direct ways from their participation

4.B.2. Faculty:

Both full and part-time Faculty members are aware of the needs of the adult learner.

The Faculty contributes to the program mission by providing management and

leadership education to professionals in the Kansas City Metro area, through lecture,

academic and career advising, professional workshops and training.

4.B.3. Service

The full-time Faculty regularly provide short-courses, presentations, and classes in

engineering management to Black & Veatch, Burns & McDonnell, KU Continuing

Education, the local chapter of the American Society of Engineering Management, as

well as other clients in Kansas and the Kansas City metropolitan area (see section 3.c.

for a partial listing):

4.C. What is your overall assessment of the quality of the academic programming

in the unit at the present time?

Based upon the factors described in this report, the School rates the EMGT Master‘s

program in the ―Very Good‖ category. This rating is appropriate from a variety of

perspectives, but especially the ones that really matter to the students, which include

the skills learned, the performance of the Faculty and educational support Staff, and the

performance of our graduates as professionals upon after completion of the degree

program.

75 | P a g e

Section 5: Given your present assessment of program

quality what are your plans to advance the program?

76 | P a g e

5. Given your present assessment of program quality, what are your plans to

advance the program?

Summary of Planned Actions:

Establish an administrative structure for EC programs;

Implement Faculty Addition Plan;

Develop additional teaching facilities;

Expand recruitment and advertising functions;

Establish a framework that will enhance interaction among employers and students;

Add PMGT.

5.A. Strategic Plan Development: SWOT Analysis

The SOE courses and degree programs offered on the Edwards campus constitute an

effort by the School to serve a constituency that consists of professionals, who seek

advanced training in engineering management. An update of the current strategic plan

as outlined in the following paragraphs will strengthen existing programs, extend the

reach of KU to additional, and--in some cases--different clientele than those served to

date.

SOE began the development of a Strategic Plan for Edwards programs in 2005. The

plan was updated in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The passage of the voluntary tax package

in Overland Park under the ascendant Triangle Initiative led to revisions in 2009 that

included the possibility of additional funding, the addition of personnel, and the

institution of a new degree program.

The SWOT analysis included consideration of data sources listed throughout this report,

including items from the 2010 Alumni Survey, which were: (1) interest in additional/new

degree programs that would serve the specific needs of the Kansas City market; (2)

possible formulation of a PhD/DE program; (3) additional efforts that would foster

interaction with local companies (4) course/curriculum changes/additions that would be

beneficial to students and companies; (5) means of strengthening interaction with and

among DL students; (6) additional ways and means of advertising the program; (7)

financial consideration for students, and: (8) reflection on the benefits of the degree and

program from the graduates' point of view. The combination of these items led to the

SWOT analysis shown on Table 53.

77 | P a g e

5.B. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

Table 27. SWOT Analysis

Area Analysis

Strengths

The program meets its stated outcomes and Learner Objectives

Academic Advising System is well-regarded by students and graduates

Located within the KC Metroplex

Experienced faculty with diverse academic and industry experience

Excellent and flexible distance learning program

Wide range of electives available through other Engineering disciplines, and the

Business School

Good alumni base

Advisory Board involvement is excellent

Long period of existence, and acknowledged excellence

Good reputation of University

Simple admission procedures (GRE, GMAT are not required for EMGT)

Weaknesses

Lack of overall management structure

Time to degree has decreased, but could be shortened more

Many part-time but experienced adjunct faculty, and few full-time faculty

Lack of teaching lab facilities

Budget challenges

Faculty Workload

Career advising system

Absence of marketing and public relations functions

Limited faculty and infrastructure resources

Opportunities

Expand the program by focusing on upgrades in Distance Education technologies

Recruit more faculty

Develop and offer a wider variety of courses to attract more students

Large Project Management Master‘s-level market available locally

Provide additional on-site course sessions for corporations around Kansas City area,

which could

be linked to their offices all over the country

Introduce new graduate programs starting with Project Management

Threats

Growing number of online courses offered by other universities

Reduction in tuition reimbursement by employers affects enrollment

Possibility of introduction of programs in other, nearby public/private universities

Continuation of fall in economy / business growth

5.C. Discussion of Targets for Change: Weaknesses and Opportunities

5.C.1. Establishment of an SOE Edwards Center (SEEC) Management Structure

SEEC.--SOE does not have a central administrative structure for EMGT programs on

the Edwards campus. EMGT is organized in a fashion that is similar to a department,

but without the typical departmental faculty, staff, space, and budgetary arrangements.

Establishment of a departmental-level unit for EMGT, and an administrative structure

under a center concept would do much to alleviate identified weaknesses, permit the

development of current programs to a level necessary to meet the competitive

78 | P a g e

environment, foster addition of new programs that meet current and future market

needs and to expand into new markets. Such a structure is outlined on Figure 9.

Figure 9. SEEC Organizational Structure for Edwards Programs.

5.C.2. New Degree Program: Project Management

5.C.2.a. Degree Discussions

Significant general discussion has taken place over the last two years about SOE

educational efforts on the Edwards campus; specific consideration has been given to

new degree and certificate programs that would allow the School to capitalize on new

opportunities and markets.

Project Management.—A brief description of the proposed PMGT degree is shown on

Table 28.

79 | P a g e

Table 28. Master’s-level Degree in Project Management

Brief listing of the overall goals of the PMGT Master‘s-level degree:

Project Management Professionals

Are responsible for all aspects of the project for the life of the project;

Lead and direct cross-functional teams to deliver projects;

Demonstrate sufficient knowledge and experience to apply a methodology

to projects.

Admission Requirements are listed in the Appendix

Demand for the PMGT Master’s Degree--The growth of project management is

illustrated in the table below, which shows the growth in membership of the Project

Management Institute (PMI), a global organization with members in over 150 countries

and approximately 125 chapters in the United States. According to a 2009 MediaMark

survey, 61,000 PMI members planned to pursue an advanced project management

degree in the next two years (Table 29).

Table 29. PMI Membership

Year PMI Worldwide

Membership

PMI Kansas

City

Membership

2009 500,000 1300

2005 205,000 1000

2003 114,000 700

PM training is important to organizations in the greater Kansas City area. Executives

and managers at Sprint, Cerner, Black and Veatch, and Hallmark Corporation indicate

that improvement in project performance, and the training and education of PMs are

one of the keys to their organization‘s future success.

In the Big 12 the only school found to offer a Master of PM program is the University of

Texas. In the greater KC area one other school, Keller, offers a Master of PM degree.

Research has shown that more than 22,000 in the Kansas City area want to finish a

graduate degree. The Edwards Campus will add six graduate degree programs in BEST

(Business, Engineering, Science and Technology) areas (see section 5.D.1.). The

programs will be phased in gradually, and will eventually allow the campus to enroll

1,000 to 1,500 more students than it does currently.

80 | P a g e

Affiliation with the Project Management Institute and Certification Issues.--

Affiliation with the PMI would bring several advantages to the degree program.

Project Management Institute.--The Project Management Institute is a not-for-profit

membership association for the project management profession; the Institute has more

than half a million members and credential holders in 185 countries. The Institute is

supported by globally-recognized standards and credentials, an extensive research

program, professional development opportunities, and a scholarship program. KU-SOE

PMGT will join the PMI Registered Education Provider (R.E.P.) network.

PMI is the only project management association with a dedicated research unit, which is

responsible for initiating academic research at institutions around the world, and guiding

and coordinating PMI-funded research. Over the last decade, PMI has invested $14

million in project management research and has been directly involved in the release of

more than 350 publications. PMI‘s Project Management Journal is a leading academic

journal devoted to advancing the discipline of project management.

The PMI Educational Foundation's Scholarships and Awards Program supports

development of project management professionals worldwide through learning

opportunities. The scholarship program was established to assist students in obtaining

degrees from accredited institutions in the field of project management. The program is

open to any student preparing to enter--or already attending--an accredited degree-

granting university. Scholarships are available for students at the Masters level; KU-

PMGT will take full advantage of this opportunity.

5.D. A New Off-Site Approach to Customer’s Educational Needs

Given the implementation of the PMGT, and in combination with the current EMGT

program, SEEC intends to form Unique Business Partnerships (UBP) with firms within

the Kansas City market area, and beyond if demand suggests that expansion would be

in SEEC‘s economic interest. SEEC will advertise the availability of on-site educational

programs to companies and organizations if eight or more employee-students form

cohort groups for a particular degree or certificate program. The courses required will

be distributed directly to their corporate conference room from the Edwards campus, or

a schedule of deliverables will be developed that meets the company‘s needs and the

EMGT-PMGT teaching schedules.

81 | P a g e

SEEC would provide on-site advising and registration for the assembled group. SEEC

would develop a marketing and advertising program to attract students and employers,

and would visit with personnel at each location.

5.E. Additional Resources

5.E.1. Triangle Initiative

The ability of the SOE to respond to the Kansas City metropolitan area market through

its Edwards-based program will be enhanced with the passage of the voluntary sales

tax package that is part of the Johnson County Education Research Triangle initiative

passed in FY 08 and now in full operation. The sales tax is expected to generate an

estimated $15 million per year to fund the construction of new facilities, and provide

resources for the operation of new programs. Revenue generated by the measure will

enable the Edwards Campus to construct the Business, Engineering, Science and

Technology, or BEST, Center. Before the structure is finished however, the campus will

begin expanding new degree offerings in these areas (PMGT is one of the new degree

programs).

5.E.1.a. Advertising, Public Relations, and Networking

Advertising and PR Funds.--Engineering Managers, Human Resource Managers and

prospective working adult students have surprisingly limited awareness of SOE‘s

programs on the Edwards Campus, despite the fact that EMGT has had a presence in

the Kansas City metropolitan area since 1982, and has graduated approximately 30+

students per year. More than 50% of the student candidates are from outside the

Midwest and the USA; their principal source of information about KU and the Edwards

campus is through the WEB. All other metro universities advertise on television; KU

doesn‘t, which will change once PMGT is in operation. The KU-SOE, in partnership with

EMGT and its other Edwards program providers, has developed, and will implement, a

marketing strategy aimed at the large professional community in the Kansas City

metropolitan area, the region, and other national and international communities.

Networking.--Networking through faculty travel/professional society meetings and

travel to specific conferences and workshops is limited, in part, because there is no

budgetary item for these items. Additional resources will be allocated to permit

EMGT/PMGT Faculty to attend and participate in external events that will serve as

informational and advertising opportunities.

82 | P a g e

Schedule for Implementation.—The schedule for implementation is outlined on Table

30.

Table 30. Schedule for Implementation

Activity AY 11-12 AY 12-13 AY 13-14

SEEC Structure Implementation X

Marketing Strategy Development X

WEB design X

Office Move-in X

Marketing Campaign X

Streaming Software Upgrade X

Staffing Plan Completion X

New Degree Implementation X

Distance Learning Expansion X

Off-site Instructional Plan and Course Module

Development

X

83 | P a g e

Section 6: How will you evaluate future progress and successes?

84 | P a g e

6. How will you evaluate future progress and successes?

Program Quality Measures were listed above and are reproduced below.

Program Quality Measures:

Alumni performance and achievements upon graduation;

Consistent program demand from the target audience--the working professional-- who is most frequently an individual from an engineering consulting firm;

Development of a delivery system that aids in student learning, student retention, and graduation;

Use of technology in 100 percent of the courses to insure that students gain as much as possible from their educational experience irrespective of their schedules, geographical location, or professional demands;

Time-to-degree improvement;

Ratings of the overall program by students and external reviewers;

Demand for instruction by corporations and businesses, either within the regular Edwards Campus academic year schedule, or on-site on an instruction-for-fee basis;

And, willingness by companies, businesses, and corporations to provide tuition assistance for their employees, in order to encourage qualified people to seek additional education at an advanced level.

The Program Quality Measures were combined with the result of the SWOT analysis

and Targets for Change to produce matrices for program improvement.

6.A. Unit Metrics:

Unit Metrics: EMGT Instructional Issues Metric *Lack of dedicated teaching facilities

*Development of a plan for dedicated teaching facilities in AY 2010-2011, and implementation by the start of AY 2012-2013

*Students need additional training in statistics and modeling

*Development of at least one course in each area by the end of AY 2010-2011, and the listing of the course as an elective for AY 2012-2013

*Distance learning pedagogical framework should be equal to the regular course delivery system

*Formally compare the EMGT DL structure with those of two other programs in 2010-2011; discuss the results of the comparison with EMGT graduates and the EMGT Advisory Board; develop any

85 | P a g e

agreed-upon responses to changes/additions; implement DL changes in AY 2011-2012

Unit Metrics: EMGT Administrative Issues Metric *KC market for EMGT much larger than current advertising capabilities can reach

*Development of an advertising/marketing campaign that can reach the entire KC Metro area; start discussions with the SoE Public Relations staff in AY 2010-2011; finalize plan by Summer 2011; implement plan during Spring 2012

*Interaction with KC corporations *Use 2010 DeSieghardt report results as an element in a plan to provide more real world experiences for EMGT students; develop plan structure in 2011-2012 and begin implantation in AY 2012-2013

*Career counseling should be part of the EMGT program

*Develop a structure for career counseling as a part of the advising process; implement formal career counseling effort in 2011-2012

*Demand for on-site instruction by private corporations and public agencies is increasing

*Develop course packages that can be used as lessons or extended content ad hoc delivery systems for corporations and public agencies

Unit Metrics: EMGT Programmatic Issues Metric *The time-to-degree has decreased, but it is still too long for some students

*Reduce time-to-degree to an average of 3 years; discuss additional course offerings, schedule changes, etc. with students in order to formulate plan; implement conclusion in AY 2012-2013; monitor degree completion figures

*Distance learning paradigm may not provide the learning quality level of the on-campus curriculum

*Establish a statistical framework for the comparison of DL and current delivery systems in AY 2011-2012; use report to carry out study in AY 2012-2013; implement any necessary changes in AY 2013-2014

*Instructional SCHR loads may have an effect on instructional quality

*Reduce SCHR production per FTE as new faculty enter the program

86 | P a g e

*Possible career advancement appears to be borne out by recent alumni questionnaire responses, but quantitative information to establish any career connection is not available

*Establish a continuing graduate survey plan in order to assess career advancement; report due AY 2011-2012

6.B. School Metrics:

School Metrics: SOE

Administrative Issues Metric

*EMGT is not part of an administrative

structure that would provide a means

and resources for goal attainment

*Establish SEEC as described in section

5

*EMGT does not occupy adequate or

appropriate spaces that would help

provide an increased sense of program

cohesiveness, and that would help

increase instructional capabilities

*Develop office/work spaces adequate for

instructional, advising, and career

planning functions

Programmatic Issues

*Current faculty and staff face

increasingly greater course loads as

EMGT develops

*Add 3 faculty and 2 staff positions to

current instructional program

*A large and growing market exists in

the Kansas City Metro area for

graduates trained in project

management

*Move proposed PMGT program through

the School/University/Board of Regents

approval processes; PMGT program

would begin in AY 2011-2012 in the BEST

building at Edwards

87 | P a g e

Appendices A.1. Reports and External Surveys Electronic Survey and Results of EMGT Alumni Survey Electronic Survey and Results for EMGT Advisory Board Survey Cohort Statistical Analysis A.2. DEMIS (AIMS), SOE and ASEE Data Resumes/CV‘s AIMS/DEMIS Report A.3. EMGT Programs in the USA ASEM Listing ASEE List of Graduates from EMGT MS Programs Selected EMGT Programs from other Universities KU EMGT Program Description MS-Level Professional Programs in the SOE

Admission Requirements for the PMGT Program

Project Management Institute MEM Consortium A.4. Student Teaching Evaluations Faculty Evaluations by Students A.5. Accredited/Certified Programs ABET Accredited programs ASEM Certified programs

88 | P a g e

A. 1. Cohort Statistical Analysis of the Alumni Survey

(By T. Bowlin, 23 May 2010)

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of statistical results gained from analyzing the alumni survey data that might be of value for the EMGT Program‘s self-review process.

The survey‘s 140 respondents represent (140/485=) 28.87 percent of the total of 485 valid e-mail addresses developed for purpose of conducting the survey, and the 485 valid e-mail addresses represent (485/598=) 81.10 percent of Program alumni. Further details of survey administration are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 (Counts/Percents and Column Percents):

1 2 3 [(2)/(1)] [(3)/(2)]

Graduation Years Interval

No. of Alumni

No. of Valid E-mail Addresses

No. of Survey Respondents

Valid E-mail Addresses as Percent of Alumni

Survey Respondents as Percent of Valid E-mail Addresses

05-09 169 28.26

166 34.23

54 38.57

98.22 32.53

00-04 169 28.26

153 31.55

41 29.29

90.53 26.80

95-99 159 26.59

103 21.24

28 20.00

64.78 27.18

Pre-95 101 16.89

63 12.99

17 12.14

62.38 26.98

Total 598 100.00

485 100.00

140 100.00

Survey data consists of self-reported information. Results from analyses of selected data are summarized, below, in four general areas relating to the self-review process: General/Demographics, ―What?‖, ―How?‖, and ―How Well?‖

General/Demographics

The representation of EMGT Program alumni among survey respondents is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 (Counts/Percents and Column Percents):

1 2 [(2)/(1)]

89 | P a g e


No. of Alumni

No. of Survey Respondents

Survey Respondents as Percent of Alumni

05-09 169 28.26

54 38.57

31.95

00-04 169 28.26

41 29.29

24.26

95-99 159 26.59

28 20.00

17.61

Pre-95 101 16.89

17 12.14

16.83

Total 598 100.00

140 100.00

100.00

The survey‘s 140 respondents represent 23.41 percent of the Program‘s 598 alumni.

The gender mix distribution of the survey respondents shown in Table 3, across the four graduation years intervals defined in the survey (per Survey Question #1), is statistically consistent (based on having conducted a Chi-square Test on gender vs. graduation years interval which yielded an insignificant result, p=0.815).

Table 3 (Counts & Column/Row Percents):


05-09 00-04 95-99 Pre95 Total

Male 44 81.48

34 82.93

23 88.46

15 88.24

116 84.06

Female 10 18.52

7 17.07

3 11.54

2 11.76

22 15.94

Unknown 0 0 2 0 2

Total (excl. Unknown)

54 39.13

41 29.71

26 18.84

17 12.32

138 100.00

―What?‖ Survey respondents‘ job status while in the EMGT Program (per Survey Question #7) is as shown in Table 4, with data summarized across the four graduation years intervals. As can be observed, the mix of job status among respondents remains relatively consistent over the four graduation years intervals.

Table 4 (Counts & Column Percents):

90 | P a g e

Graduation Years Intervals

05-09 00-04 95-99 Pre95 Total

Full-time Students Only

3 5.56

1 2.44

0 0.00

1 5.88

5 3.57

Entry-tier job/position

8 14.81

10 24.39

4 14.29

4 23.53

26 18.57

Intermediate-tier job/position

29 53.70

24 58.54

18 64.28

9 52.94

80 57.14

Senior-tier job/position

14 25.93

6 14.63

4 14.29

2 11.77

26 18.57

Executive-tier 0 0.00

0 0.00

2 7.14

1 5.88

3 2.14

Total 54 100.00

41 100.00

28 100.00

17 100.00

140 100.00

Table 4 results indicate that 135 (96.43 percent) of 140 respondents were working – either part- or full-time - while in the EMGT Program.

As observation of the current situation in the EMGT Program would suggest, the number of survey respondents indicating they were full-time students and not working while in the Program was higher in the graduation year interval 05-09 than in previous graduation year intervals: three such respondents were in the 05-09 interval, with only one respondent each in the two intervals 00-04 and Pre95.

―How?‖

Responses to Survey Question #5 provide an overview of how the survey respondents pursued the EMGT Program. Among the 152 responses relating to how many courses were generally taken per semester, 82 (53.95 percent) responses were ―One Class,‖ 60 (39.47 percent) responses were ―Two Classes,‖ and only ten (6.58 percent) responses were ―Three Classes.‖ Also, 19 (13.57 percent) of the 140 survey respondents indicated that the number of classes taken per semester ―Varied By Semester.‖

A second aspect of Survey Question #5 addressed whether or not classes had been taken in summer semesters. Only nine (6.43 percent) of the 140 respondents reported they‘d never attended a summer semester -- the implication thus being that 93.57 percent of the 140 respondents had been enrolled in at least one summer semester while in the EMGT Program.

The extent of participation in the EMGT Program‘s distributed (―distance‖) education arrangement was elicited in Survey Question #14. Among all 140 respondents, ten (7.14 percent) reported to be categorized as a ―distance learner‖ every semester they were in the Program, and an additional 17 (12.14 percent) respondents reported being categorized as a ―distance learner‖ for at least one semester. Thus, it can be said that, among survey respondents, 19.28 percent were involved as a ―distance learner‖ for at

91 | P a g e

least one semester of their EMGT Program. However, because the distributed education approach was not available in the earlier years of the Program, any overall percentage across survey respondents understates the more recent level of, and trend in distributed education activity. In fact, a total of 26 (27.38 percent) of the 95 respondents in graduation years intervals 05-09 and 00-04 reported being categorized a ―distance learner‖ in at least one semester, with ten (10.63 percent) reporting being in this category for all semesters.

―How Well?‖

Survey respondents‘ opinions of the level of performance of the EMGT Program were gathered through several survey questions.

Survey Question #11 concerned the perceived contribution of the Program in16 identified personal and professional ability areas associated with coursework. In all 16 areas the median responses by the respondents were in the ―Agree‖ category in relation to whether involvement in the Program produced improvement. Furthermore, in all 16 areas a minimum of 13.67 percent of respondents – and percentages of up to 42.03 percent – answered in the ―Strongly Agree‖ category – and, in nine of the ability areas more than 20.00 percent of responses were in the ―Strongly Agree‖ category.

Detailed examination of responses in Survey Question #11 was conducted, and the consistent median response of ―Agree‖ was found among respondents in each of the four graduation years intervals. As illustration, in relation to the ability area of ―Understanding the Financial Aspects of a Business,‖ respondents‘ opinions in all graduation years intervals were strongly positive, with a consistent median of ―Agree,‖ as shown in Table 5.



05-09 00-04 95-99 Pre95 Total

Strongly Agree

25 47.17

16 39.02

9 32.14

8 50.00

58 42.03

Agree 23 43.40

22 53.66

19 67.86

6 37.50

70 50.72

Neutral 5 9.43

3 7.32

0 0.00

2 12.50

10 7.25

Disagree 0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

Strongly Disagree

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

Missing 1 0 0 1 2

Total (excl.

Missing) 53

100.00 41

100.00 28

100.00 16

100.00 138

100.00

92 | P a g e

A Kruskal-Wallis Test (adjusted for ties) for consistency of opinion distributions‘ centers across the graduation years intervals data yielded an insignificant p=0.864, indicating statistically consistent distributions of respondent opinions.

Survey Question #17 asked respondents‘ opinions on the EMGT Program‘s preparation in relation to other similar Master‘s degrees, and these data – for respondents expressing an opinion – are shown in Table 6.



05-09 00-04 95-99 Pre95 Total

Better Prepared

27 67.50

19 57.58

15 65.22

11 68.75

72 64.29

About The Same

12 30.00

14 42.42

8 34.78

5 31.25

39 34.82

Not As Prepared

1 2.50

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

1 0.09

Total 40 100.00

33 100.00

23 100.00

16 100.00

112 100.00

A consistent pattern of opinion can be seen, with ―Better Prepared‖ being the most frequent opinion of respondents across all graduation years intervals.

Survey Question #18 asked for respondents‘ opinions on several aspects of Program performance. As to their opinion as to whether ―The quality of instruction was what I expected in graduate School,‖ the responses were as shown in Table 7.



05-09 00-04 95-99 Pre95 Total

Strongly Agree

19 35.18

17 41.46

11 39.29

7 41.18

54 38.57

Agree 30 55.56

23 56.10

17 60.71

8 47.06

78 55.71

Neutral 3 5.56

0 0.00

0 0.00

2 11.76

5 3.57

Disagree 2 3.70

1 2.44

0 0.00

0 0.00

3 2.14

Total 54 100.00

41 100.00

28 100.00

17 100.00

140 100.00

93 | P a g e

As can be seen from the data, the median opinion for all graduation years intervals is ―Agree‖ – and the Kruskal-Wallis Test (adjusted for ties) for consistency of opinion distributions‘ centers across graduation years intervals yielded an insignificant p=0.766, indicating opinion centers are statistically comparable.

Another element of Survey Question #18 asked for an opinion in relation to the statement ―Grading was fair and appropriate to the degree,‖ and the resulting data are shown in Table 8.



05-09 00-04 95-99 Pre95 Total

Strongly Agree

31 57.41

16 39.02

14 50.00

8 47.06

69 49.29

Agree 21 38.89

25 60.98

14 50.00

8 47.06

68 48.57

Neutral 1 1.85

0 0.00

0 0.00

1 5.88

2 1.43

Disagree 1 1.85

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

1 0.71

Total 54 100.00

41 100.00

28 100.00

17 100.00

140 100.00

For these data, the median opinion for the most recent graduation years interval (05-09) is ―Strongly Agree,‖ with ―Agree‖ being the median opinion for all prior graduation years intervals. The Kruskal-Wallis Test (adjusted for ties) for consistency of opinion distributions‘ centers across graduation years intervals yielded an insignificant p=0.477, indicating opinion centers are statistically comparable.

The final two survey questions which might be cited as giving general indications of the perceived performance of the EMGT Program among survey respondents are Survey Questions #20 and #21. In Survey Question #20 respondents are asked to answer ―Yes‖ or ―No‖ to the statement ―If I had to do it again, I would attend the EMGT Program at the University of Kansas.‖ The data for respondents is included in Table 9.



05-09 00-04 95-99 Pre95 Total

Yes 52 96.30

37 90.42

28 100.00

17 100.00

134 95.71

No 2 3.70

4 9.58

0 0.00

0 0.00

6 4.29

94 | P a g e

Total 54 100.00

41 100.00

28 100.00

17 100.00

140 100.00

While the proportions of ―Yes‖ responses are very high across all graduation years intervals – suggesting that respondents are consistently well-pleased with their decisions to pursue the EMGT Program – the fact that there are even a few ―No‖ responses for the 05-09 and 00-04 intervals justifies testing for a possible shift in opinion between the first two and last two intervals. To this end, a Chi-square Test for 2x2 contingency table (with correction for continuity) was conducted and led to rejection of the hypothesis that the proportion of ―Yes‖ opinions is lower in intervals 05-09 and 00-04 than in the 95-99 and Pre95 intervals.

In Survey Question #22 respondents are asked to answer ―Yes‖ or ―No‖ to the question ―Have you recommended the KU EMGT Master‘s degree to others?‖ The data for respondents is included in Table 10.



05-09 00-04 95-99 Pre95 Total

Yes 51 94.44

37 90.24

28 100.00

17 100.00

133 95.00

No 3 5.56

4 9.76

0 0.00

0 0.00

7 5.00

Total 54 100.00

41 100.00

28 100.00

17 100.00

140 100.00

While the proportions of ―Yes‖ responses are very high across all graduation years intervals – suggesting that respondents are consistently recommending the EMGT Program – the fact that there are even a few ―No‖ responses for the 05-09 and 00-04

intervals justifies testing for a possible shift in opinion between the first two and last two intervals. To this end, a Chi-square Test for 2x2 contingency table (with correction for continuity) was again conducted and led to rejection of the hypothesis that the proportion of ―Yes‖ opinions is lower in intervals 05-09 and 00-04 than in the 95-99 and Pre95 intervals.

Analyses of all the survey questions related to ―How Well?‖ yielded results tending to support the contention that the EMGT Program is perceived to be of high quality among a sizeable majority of its alumni, and regardless of their year of graduation from the Program.

95 | P a g e

A.2. DEMIS (AIMS), SOE and ASEE Data AIMS/DEMIS Report Resumes/CV‘s

96 | P a g e

A.2. AIMS/DEMIS Report

Credit Hour

Department Measure 1 Measure 2

FY

00-01

FY

01-02

FY

02-03

FY

03-04

FY

04-05

FY

05-06

FY

06-07

FY

07-08

FY

08-09

FY

09-10

Engineering

Management UG Credit Hours

Upper Division (300-

699) 24.0 57.0 27.0 36.0 78.0 54.0 102.0 99.0

Engineering

Management UG Credit Hours Undergraduate Total 24.0 57.0 27.0 36.0 78.0 54.0 102.0 99.0 0.0 0.0

Engineering

Management GR Credit Hours Graduate I (700-899) 1,600.0 1,585.0 1,803.0 1,580.0 1,374.0 1,290.0 1,394.0 1,563.0 1,648.0 1,476.0

Engineering

Management GR Credit Hours Graduate Total 1,600.0 1,585.0 1,803.0 1,580.0 1,374.0 1,290.0 1,394.0 1,563.0 1,648.0 1,476.0

Engineering

Management Total Credit Hours Total Credit Hours 1,624.0 1,642.0 1,830.0 1,616.0 1,452.0 1,344.0 1,496.0 1,662.0 1,648.0 1,476.0

Instructor Type


FY

00-01

FY

01-02

FY

02-03

FY

03-04

FY

04-05

FY

05-06

FY

06-07

FY

07-08

FY

08-09

FY

09-10

Engineering

Management By Instructor Type

% of Fall UG SCH taught by Ten/Ten

Trk Faculty 100.0% 100.0%

Engineering

Management By Instructor Type % of Fall UG SCH taught by GTAs 0.0% 0.0%

Engineering


% of Fall UG SCH taught by Other

Faculty 0.0% 0.0%

Engineering


% of Fall Grad SCH taught by Ten/Ten

Trk Faculty 28.2% 30.1% 31.6% 27.9% 34.0% 15.5% 18.8% 18.9% 4.5% 0.0%

97 | P a g e

By Major Type


FY

00-01

FY

01-02

FY

02-03

FY

03-04

FY

04-05

FY

05-06

FY

06-07

FY

07-08

FY

08-09

FY

09-10

Engineering Management By Major Type

% of Department SCH taken by

UG majors 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%



GR majors 74.5% 74.3% 78.3% 80.9% 77.6% 79.9% 72.5% 79.5% 80.2% 74.4%



non-majors 25.6% 25.7% 21.7% 19.1% 22.4% 20.1% 27.5% 20.5% 19.8% 25.6%

Engineering Management

At Edwards

Campus % of FY SCH at KUEC 98.5% 96.5% 98.5% 97.8% 94.6% 96.0% 93.2% 94.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Faculty


FY

00-01

FY

01-02

FY

02-03

FY

03-04

FY

04-05

FY

05-06

FY

06-07

FY

07-08

FY

08-09

FY

09-10

Engineering Management All Department Faculty Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0

Engineering Management All Department Faculty Other Faculty 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1

Engineering Management All Department Faculty Reg. Instructors/Lecturers 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 7

Engineering Management All Department Faculty Temp Instructors/Lecturers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Engineering Management All Department Faculty Total Department Faculty 10 9 9 9 9 9 7 9

Engineering Management All Department Faculty Total Dept. FTE 5.20 4.46 3.81 4.11 4.36 4.36 3.21 3.63


Tenured and Tenure

Track Faculty Tenured Faculty 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0


Tenured and Tenure

Track Faculty

% of Tenured Faculty that are

Women 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Tenured and Tenure

Track Faculty

% of Tenured Faculty that are

Minority 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Tenured and Tenure

Track Faculty

Non-tenured Faculty on Tenure

Track 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Tenured and Tenure

Track Faculty

% of Tenure-track Faculty that are

Women


Tenured and Tenure

Track Faculty

% of Tenure-track Faculty that are

Minority


Tenured and Tenure

Track Faculty Total Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0


Tenured and Tenure

Track Faculty Total Tenured/Tenure Track FTE 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.00 0.00


Demographic

Information % of Ten/TenTrk Faculty Full-time 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%


Demographic

Information

% of Ten/TenTrk Faculty that are

Women 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Demographic

Information


Minority 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Demographic

Information


International 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Demographic

Information

% of Ten/TenTrk Faculty with

Terminal Degrees 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Demographic

Information

Mean age of Ten/TenTrk Faculty

(for N>4)


Demographic

Information

Median age of Ten/TenTrk Faculty

(for N>4)

98 | P a g e

FTE and SCH


FY

00-01

FY

01-02

FY

02-03

FY

03-04

FY

04-05

FY

05-06

FY

06-07

FY

07-08

FY

08-09

FY

09-10

EMGT Instructional FTE Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Spring 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0

EMGT Instructional FTE Other Fall 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.6

EMGT Instructional FTE Other Spring 3.4 3.5 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 4.7 3.5

EMGT Instructional FTE Total Fall 5.2 4.5 4.1 4.4 4.7 4.7 3.5 3.6

EMGT Instructional FTE Total Spring 5.4 5.0 3.8 4.1 4.1 3.6 4.7 3.5

EMGT Instructional SCH Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Fall 255 197 214 90 144 163

EMGT Instructional SCH Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Spring 126 117 150 70 104 89

EMGT Instructional SCH Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Total AY 381 314 364 160 248 252

EMGT Instructional SCH Other Fall 754 510 454 534 520 572 716 619

EMGT Instructional SCH Other Spring 737 642 494 579 576 687 709 678

EMGT Instructional SCH Other Total AY 1,491 1,152 948 1,113 1,096 1,259 1,425 1,297

EMGT Instructional SCH Total Fall 1,009 707 668 624 664 735 716 619

EMGT Instructional SCH Total Spring 863 759 644 649 680 776 709 678

EMGT Instructional SCH Total Total AY 1,872 1,466 1,312 1,273 1,344 1,511 1,425 1,297

EMGT Organized Sections Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Fall 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0

EMGT Organized Sections Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Spring 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

EMGT Organized Sections Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Total AY 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0

EMGT Organized Sections Other Fall 14.1 10.0 9.0 12.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 12.0

EMGT Organized Sections Other Spring 14.0 14.5 11.5 11.0 9.0 10.0 12.0 10.0

EMGT Organized Sections Other Total AY 28.1 24.5 20.5 23.0 18.0 19.0 23.0 22.0

EMGT Organized Sections Total Fall 16.1 12.0 11.0 14.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 12.0

EMGT Organized Sections Total Spring 15.0 15.5 12.5 13.0 11.0 12.0 12.0 10.0

EMGT Organized Sections Total Total AY 31.1 27.5 23.5 27.0 23.0 24.0 23.0 22.0

EMGT SCH per FTE Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Fall 127.5 131.3 142.7 60.0 96.0 108.7

EMGT SCH per FTE Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Spring 63.0 78.0 100.0 46.7 69.3 89.0

EMGT SCH per FTE Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Total AY 190.5 209.3 242.7 106.7 165.3 197.7

EMGT SCH per FTE Other Fall 235.6 172.3 172.0 181.6 163.0 179.3 202.3 170.5

EMGT SCH per FTE Other Spring 219.4 181.7 214.8 222.7 221.5 264.2 151.5 196.5

EMGT SCH per FTE Other Total AY 455.0 354.0 386.8 404.3 384.6 443.5 353.8 367.0

EMGT SCH per FTE Total Fall 194.0 158.5 161.4 140.5 141.6 156.7 202.3 170.5

EMGT SCH per FTE Total Spring 161.0 150.8 169.5 158.3 165.9 215.6 151.5 196.5

EMGT SCH per FTE Total Total AY 355.1 309.3 330.8 298.8 307.4 372.3 353.8 367.0

EMGT Org. Sect. per FTE Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Fall 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.0 2.0

EMGT Org. Sect. per FTE Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Spring 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.3 2.0

EMGT Org. Sect. per FTE Tenure/Ten Trk Faculty Total AY 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.6 3.3 4.0

EMGT Org. Sect. per FTE Other Fall 4.4 3.4 3.4 4.1 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.3

EMGT Org. Sect. per FTE Other Spring 4.2 4.1 5.0 4.2 3.5 3.8 2.6 2.9

EMGT Org. Sect. per FTE Other Total AY 8.6 7.5 8.4 8.3 6.3 6.6 5.7 6.2

EMGT Org. Sect. per FTE Total Fall 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.2 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.3

EMGT Org. Sect. per FTE Total Spring 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.7 3.3 2.6 2.9

EMGT Org. Sect. per FTE Total Total AY 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.3 5.2 5.9 5.7 6.2

FTE and SCH continued 4-yr weighted avg

Engineering Management SCH per FTE KU ratio

Tenure/Ten

Trk Faculty 413421 142.7 60.0 96.0 108.7 101.8

Engineering Management Org. Sect. per FTE KU ratio

Tenure/Ten

Trk Faculty 414421 1.3 1.3 2.0 2.0 1.7

Engineering Management SCH per FTE KU ratio Dept Total 413421 161.4 140.5 141.6 156.7 149.8

Engineering Management Org. Sect. per FTE KU ratio Dept Total 414421 2.7 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.7

99 | P a g e

Aid


FY

00-01

FY

01-02

FY

02-03

FY

03-04

FY

04-05

FY

05-06

FY

06-07

FY

07-08

Engineering

Management Graduate/1st Prof

Total Aid Awarded (All

Types) $127,018 $110,851 $149,164 $186,176

Engineering


% of Students in this

Unit Receiving Any Type

of Aid 7.7% 9.4% 8.5% 10.3%

Engineering


Avg Total Aid Amt

Received (Kansas

residents) $10,460 $7,343 $11,693 $8,577

Engineering


Avg Total Aid Amt

Received

(Nonresidents) $7,472 $6,015 $6,275 $10,406

Engineering


Total Need-Based

Loans $26,111 $29,636 $45,119 $57,942

Engineering



Unit Receiving Need-

Based Loans 4.1% 4.7% 5.8% 4.6%

Engineering


Avg Amt Received in

Need-Based Loans

(Kansas residents) $2,886 $2,880 $4,522 $4,945

Engineering


Avg Amt Received in

Need-Based Loans

(Nonresidents) $5,842 $5,078 $3,598 $7,185

Engineering


Total Non-Need-Based

Loans (includes PLUS

and KUEA loans) $99,741 $78,865 $97,653 $128,234

Engineering



Unit Receiving Non-

Need-Based Loans 7.7% 7.6% 6.3% 9.8%

Engineering


Avg Amt Received in

Non-Need-Based

Loans (Kansas

residents) $8,967 $6,473 $8,429 $7,341

Engineering


Avg Amt Received in

Non-Need-Based

Loans (Nonresidents) $3,356 $4,713 $7,265 $5,735

Engineering


Total Institutional Grants

and Scholarships

(includes KU Tuition

Grant; excludes athletic

grants) $1,100 $2,900

Engineering



Unit Receiving

Institutional Grants and

Scholarships 1.2% 1.1%

Engineering


Avg Amt Received in


Scholarships (Kansas

residents) $400

Engineering


Avg Amt Received in


Scholarships

(Nonresidents) $700 $1,450

Engineering


% of Students

Receiving Aid Who Are

Minorities 53.8% 31.3% 31.3% 45.0%

Engineering


% of Students

Receiving Aid Who Are

Kansas Residents 76.9% 68.8% 56.3% 60.0%

Demographics


FY

00-01

FY

01-02

FY

02-03

FY

03-04

FY

04-05

FY

05-06

FY

06-07

FY

07-08

FY

08-09

FY

09-10

Engineering

Management -- Department Summary -- Masters FY Degrees 27 30 39 37 52 40 20 30 39

Engineering

Management -- Department Summary -- Masters % Minority 14.8% 10.0% 5.1% 10.8% 13.5% 22.5% 5.0% 33.3% 15.4%

Engineering

Management -- Department Summary -- Masters

% Am. Ind, Black,

Hisp. 0.0% 3.3% 5.1% 2.7% 3.8% 15.0% 0.0% 16.7% 7.7%

Engineering

Management -- Department Summary -- Masters % International 14.8% 20.0% 12.8% 2.7% 25.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.3%

Engineering

Management -- Department Summary -- Masters % Female 11.1% 3.3% 12.8% 18.9% 26.9% 12.5% 50.0% 16.7% 12.8%

Engineering


Mean Years to

Degree 4.4 3.7 3.9 4.9 4.5 5.0 5.0 3.9 4.6

Engineering


Median Years to

Degree 4.3 3.7 3.6 4.5 3.7 4.2 4.9 3.5 4.3

Engineering

Management Engineering Management Masters FY Degrees 27 30 39 37 52 40 20 30 39

Engineering

Management Engineering Management Masters % Minority 14.8% 10.0% 5.1% 10.8% 13.5% 22.5% 5.0% 33.3% 15.4%

Engineering

Management Engineering Management Masters

% Am. Ind, Black,

Hisp. 0.0% 3.3% 5.1% 2.7% 3.8% 15.0% 0.0% 16.7% 7.7%

Engineering

Management Engineering Management Masters % International 14.8% 20.0% 12.8% 2.7% 25.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.3%

Engineering

Management Engineering Management Masters % Female 11.1% 3.3% 12.8% 18.9% 26.9% 12.5% 50.0% 16.7% 12.8%

Engineering


Mean Years to

Degree 4.4 3.7 3.9 4.9 4.5 5.0 5.0 3.9 4.6

Engineering


Median Years to

Degree 4.3 3.7 3.6 4.5 3.7 4.2 4.9 3.5 4.3

100 | P a g e

Applied, Admitted, Enrolled


FY

00-01

FY

01-02

FY

02-03

FY

03-04

FY

04-05

FY

05-06

FY

06-07

FY

07-08

FY

08-09

FY

09-10

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Applied 29 34 33 55 45 41

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Applic % Minority 17.2% 17.6% 15.2% 12.7% 17.8% 12.2%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters

Applic % Am. Ind, Black,

Hisp. 10.3% 11.8% 6.1% 9.1% 13.3% 7.3%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Applic % International 20.7% 11.8% 15.2% 27.3% 33.3% 51.2%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Applic % Female 13.8% 20.6% 15.2% 23.6% 20.0% 9.8%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Applic Mean Verbal GRE 360.0 410.0 410.0 366.0 398.8 372.7

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Applic Mean Quant. GRE 680.0 600.0 670.0 628.0 721.3 716.4

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Applic % reporting scores 6.9% 2.9% 3.0% 9.1% 17.8% 26.8%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Admitted 28 32 31 45 34 23

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Admit % Minority 17.9% 18.8% 16.1% 13.3% 20.6% 13.0%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters

Admit % Am. Ind, Black,

Hisp. 10.7% 12.5% 6.5% 8.9% 14.7% 8.7%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Admit % International 17.9% 9.4% 12.9% 22.2% 14.7% 26.1%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Admit % Female 14.3% 21.9% 12.9% 22.2% 20.6% 0.0%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Admit Mean Verbal GRE 360.0 410.0 410.0 372.5 430.0 363.3

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Admit Mean Quant. GRE 670.0 600.0 670.0 617.5 696.7 696.7

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Admit % reporting scores 3.6% 3.1% 3.2% 8.9% 8.8% 13.0%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Enrolled 22 28 31 37 29 19

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Enrol % Minority 13.6% 21.4% 16.1% 13.5% 17.2% 15.8%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters

Enrol % Am. Ind, Black,

Hisp. 9.1% 14.3% 6.5% 8.1% 10.3% 10.5%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Enrol % International 9.1% 7.1% 12.9% 18.9% 10.3% 10.5%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Enrol % Female 13.6% 21.4% 12.9% 27.0% 17.2% 0.0%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Enrol Mean Verbal GRE 0.0 410.0 410.0 373.3 415.0 0.0

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Enrol Mean Quant. GRE 0.0 600.0 670.0 633.3 685.0 0.0

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Enrol % reporting scores 0.0% 3.6% 3.2% 8.1% 6.9% 0.0%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Applied to Admitted Yield 96.6% 94.1% 93.9% 81.8% 75.6% 56.1%

Engineering

Management

-- Department

Summary -- Masters Admitted to Enrolled Yield 78.6% 87.5% 100.0% 82.2% 85.3% 82.6%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Applied 29 34 33 55 45 41

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Applic % Minority 17.2% 17.6% 15.2% 12.7% 17.8% 12.2%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters

Applic % Am. Ind, Black,

Hisp. 10.3% 11.8% 6.1% 9.1% 13.3% 7.3%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Applic % International 20.7% 11.8% 15.2% 27.3% 33.3% 51.2%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Applic % Female 13.8% 20.6% 15.2% 23.6% 20.0% 9.8%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Applic Mean Verbal GRE 360.0 410.0 410.0 366.0 398.8 372.7

101 | P a g e


FY

00-01

FY

01-02

FY

02-03

FY

03-04

FY

04-05

FY

05-06

FY

06-07

FY

07-08

FY

08-09

FY

09-10

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Applic Mean Quant. GRE 680.0 600.0 670.0 628.0 721.3 716.4

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Applic % reporting scores 6.9% 2.9% 3.0% 9.1% 17.8% 26.8%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Admitted 28 32 31 45 34 23

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Admit % Minority 17.9% 18.8% 16.1% 13.3% 20.6% 13.0%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters

Admit % Am. Ind, Black,

Hisp. 10.7% 12.5% 6.5% 8.9% 14.7% 8.7%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Admit % International 17.9% 9.4% 12.9% 22.2% 14.7% 26.1%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Admit % Female 14.3% 21.9% 12.9% 22.2% 20.6% 0.0%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Admit Mean Verbal GRE 360.0 410.0 410.0 372.5 430.0 363.3

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Admit Mean Quant. GRE 670.0 600.0 670.0 617.5 696.7 696.7

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Admit % reporting scores 3.6% 3.1% 3.2% 8.9% 8.8% 13.0%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Enrolled 22 28 31 37 29 19

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Enrol % Minority 13.6% 21.4% 16.1% 13.5% 17.2% 15.8%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters

Enrol % Am. Ind, Black,

Hisp. 9.1% 14.3% 6.5% 8.1% 10.3% 10.5%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Enrol % International 9.1% 7.1% 12.9% 18.9% 10.3% 10.5%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Enrol % Female 13.6% 21.4% 12.9% 27.0% 17.2% 0.0%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Enrol Mean Verbal GRE 0.0 410.0 410.0 373.3 415.0 0.0

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Enrol Mean Quant. GRE 0.0 600.0 670.0 633.3 685.0 0.0

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Enrol % reporting scores 0.0% 3.6% 3.2% 8.1% 6.9% 0.0%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Applied to Admitted Yield 96.6% 94.1% 93.9% 81.8% 75.6% 56.1%

Engineering

Management

Engineering

Management Masters Admitted to Enrolled Yield 78.6% 87.5% 100.0% 82.2% 85.3% 82.6%

Applied, Admitted, Enrolled continued

102 | P a g e

A.2. Resumes/CV’s

Linda E. Miller

5703 Cherry 125L Regents Center

Kansas City, MO 64110 University of Kansas

816-523-4125 Overland Park, KS 66215

[email protected] 913-897-8575

Qualifications

Experience in Industrial Manufacturing, Professional Services and Not-for -Profit: General

Management, Strategic and Market Planning, Market Analysis, Market Research, Marketing

Communication, Direct Selling, Training, and Sales Management.

Education

M.B.A. University of Missouri Kansas City, 1981 Organizational Behavior

B.A. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1975 Marketing Management

Professional Experience

Academic Positions:

School of Engineering, University of Kansas 1989 – 2010

Teach courses on Business Development for Professional Engineers and Architects, Industrial Product Marketing, Personal Development for Engineers, Finance for Engineers and Business Relationship and Selling

Develop course curriculum for proposed M in Engineering Management

mailto:[email protected]

103 | P a g e

Promote initiatives related to student recruitment and retention by developing Student and Alumni newsletter and revisions to department web page and conducting a survey of alumni

Present non-credit workshops for regional engineering firms and professional societies and maintain contact with advisory board

Academic advising and matriculation, monitoring student progression Authored workbooks on Professional Services Marketing and Product Marketing

Act as chair on final capstone master’s degree projects

School of Journalism, University of Kansas 1996 – 2006

Oversee academic, administrative and communication planning and implementation of the Integrated Marketing Communications graduate program for working professionals in Marketing Communication

Develop and teach courses on Marketing for Communicators, Relationship Marketing, Branding, Innovation in Communication and act as chair on final capstone master’s degree projects

Manage alumni and advisory board relationships Authored workbooks on Marketing for Communicators and Relationship Marketing

2005 on-site J-School accreditation team review: "A superlative mid-career program in

integrated marketing communications at its Edwards campus."

Board Positions

Board of Directors MGP Ingredients 2000-2010

Previous consultant and current member of the Board of Directors. MGP

Ingredients is a publicly traded (NASDAQ) $300M commodity and specialty ingredient

manufacturer.

Premier Bank 2005-2009

Outside Board Member of one of the four independently owned financial

institutions of the Strum Financial Group with $165M in assets

Consultant:

Independent Consulting 1990 – 2010 Act as marketing and management consultant to various industries:

Telecommunications, Power, Healthcare, Geotechnical Engineering, General

Manufacturing, Associations and Military

Kiewit Power Engineers

Communication Skill Training for Civil Engineering and Design Group

104 | P a g e

Geotechnology, Inc.

Writing Workshops

Black & Veatch

Developed marketing and management policies and procedures for a newly

created division; hired executive staff in Marketing and Marketing Communications and

worked as an advisor to the President of the Division.

Mid-America Manufacturing Technology Center

Developed and presented seminars in KS, CO, MO and WY for MAMTC clients

Assisted MAMTC field engineers and their clients – reviewing marketing plans, video focus groups, developing sales strategies and resolving conflicts with marketing and manufacturing

Worked with Overland Park MAMTC Office on the staff training Workshop presenter for National Conference (Modernization Forum) for

Manufacturing Extension Centers

Presentations:

―Coaching and Feedback‖ Burns & McDonnell 2010 ―Building Professional Networks‖ Burns & McDonnell Professional Women's Exchange 2010, ―MSPE/ASCE Meeting 2010, ―ASEM Meeting 2009 ―How to Play in the Sandbox‖ ASEM Meeting 2008, Terracon National Sales Meeting 2008 ―Creativity‖ Kiewit Power Engineers Annual Conference 2008 ―The Secret to Successful Sales Forecasting‖ KU Continuing Education 2007 ―New Communication Methods in A/E: Blogs, Podcasts, YouTube‖ KU Continuing Education 2007 ―Golf, Rolex and Lake Homes The Successful Seller/Doer‖ KU Continuing Education 2007 ―The Successful Seller/Doer‖ Needham and Associates 2007 ―How YOU can Contribute to a Marketing Strategy‖ ASEM 2006

Industry Experience:

American Business Women’s Association 1990 – 1996

Managed company's long and short-term strategic plans, budget and policies and bylaws for 90,000 member national business association

Managed staff of 15

Researched, designed and implemented marketing plans to maintain market share in mature U.S. market, capture market share in new markets and developed plans to enter the International market

Developed marketing database to use in marketing programs and managed publications and marketing communication vehicles

Managed and coordinate activities of divisional directors and worked with and through

105 | P a g e

national board of directors

Increased membership renewal rate by 4% while reducing operating expenses,

implementing personnel performance standards program, refocusing marketing

communication vehicles to match the current market and writing and presenting seminars

and speeches for audiences up to 900.

American Hospital/Baxter/Caremark Homecare 1984 – 1989

Directed all marketing, sales and P & L functions for high-tech business with a hands-on team leader approach

Managed on-site and remote staff of pharmacy, nursing, reimbursement professionals throughout Kansas and Missouri through three corporate mergers

Develop partnerships and joint ventures with area hospital administrators

Managed a 5000 square foot warehouse and ―class 100 clean room‖ manufacturing process

Increased net revenues $4.8M, contributed controllable profit to the corporation of 24-40%

and maintained an accounts receivable collection rate below industry standards.

E.I. Dupont de Nemours 1977 – 1983

Participated as team member in Strategic Planning and Marketing Designed statistical program to forecast seasonal products that maximized product

earning

Designed and implemented qualitative research projects to redirect marketing strategy for mature product line

Planned market research study for European product introduction Coordinated selection of advertising media and performed advertising research Developed interactive system to coordinate marketing strategy, technical information with

customized sales techniques; developed ―blueprint for training new sales hires Designed and facilitated training seminars for sales and management personnel Reintroduced mature product line using innovative marketing techniques

R.H. Macy 1975 – 1977

Developed sales staff capable of maintaining daily business functions and together

exceeded company goals.

106 | P a g e

HERBERT R. TUTTLE 807 West 28th Terrace, Lawrence, KS 66046-4627

Office: (913) 897-8561 Fax: (913) 897-8682 Residence: (785) 865-5919

Cell: (785) 766-7462 E-mail: [email protected]

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Director and Assistant Professor 5/05 - Present

Graduate Engineering Management Program

The University of Kansas Edwards Campus, Overland Park, Kansas

Instructor KU Aerospace Program 4/04 – Present

KU Continuing Education Short Course Program, Lawrence, Kansas

Associate Director and Assistant Professor 8/95 –

5/05

Graduate Engineering Management Program


Plant / Engineering Manager 8/91 - 7/95

Wolferman's, Lenexa, Kansas

Senior Management Consultant 11/89 - 7/91

The Leawood Group, Ltd., Overland Park, Kansas

Production Manager 10/86 - 10/89

Hill‘s, Bowling Green, Kentucky

Operations Coordinator, Project Engineer and Industrial Engineer 12/80 – 9/86

Hill‘s, Topeka, Kansas

Industrial and Manufacturing Engineer 9/79 - 11/80

Gulf + Western Manufacturing, Ottawa, Kansas

EDUCATION

Doctoral Candidate in Industrial and Systems Engineering Present

With a concentration in Engineering Management

The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama Dissertation: The Relationship between Team Success and Team Virtuality of Technical Teams

Master of Science in Industrial Engineering (Engineering Management) August, 1992

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee

107 | P a g e

Master of Business Administration May, 1984

The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas

Master of Science in Industrial Technology August, 1979

Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology May, 1978

Buffalo State College, Buffalo, New York

Associate in Applied Science in Electrical Engineering Technology May, 1976

Alfred State, SUNY College of Technology, Alfred, New York

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Director and Assistant Professor - School of Engineering 5/05 - Present

Engineering Management Graduate Program


Responsibilities:

Manage a department budget of approximately $700K, supervise a staff of: Office Manager,

Academic Services Coordinator and Distance Learning Coordinator, Perform administrative

duties of Director (supervision, recruiting, hiring and planning) and Lead a faculty of: two full

time lecturers and eleven adjunct faculty.

Perform administrative duties of recruiting, advising, orientation and budget compliance

Instruct Graduate Courses in: EMGT 801 Management Theory and Practice for Engineering

Managers, EMGT 807 Labor and Employee Relations for Engineering Managers, EMGT

808 Quality Management, EMGT 809 Personal Development for the Engineering Manager,

EMGT 821 Strategic Analysis of Technology Projects, EMGT 823 Management of Internal

Engineering Projects, EMGT 830 Case Studies in Engineering Management , EMGT 835

Field Project (Master‘s Thesis)

EMGT 860 Special Problems in Engineering Management, EMGT 860M Math for

Engineering managers, EMGT 862 Manufacturing Systems Integration, EMGT 867

Advanced Operations Management, Distance Learning program Courses are either digitally

recorded and Streamed, class/lecture materials are posted on educational administration

system

Direct student independent, thesis and field project research

Accomplishments:

Successfully hired and mentored six new adjunct faculty

Lead department in credit hour generation, student evaluation and Thesis committee

chairmanship

Developed and delivered new course for EMGT 835, Masters Field Project (Thesis) to

improve graduate completion rate.

108 | P a g e

Hired the first new full time faculty member in six years (Dr. Bowlin)

Introduced new recruiting programs that contributed to growth in student credit hours.

Cooperatively developed and introduced a new student orientation program.

Worked with Edwards Campus staff to direct recruiting efforts toward Ft. Leavenworth

Command and General Staff College with the development of new brochure, web portal and

campus presence

Facilitated development new department brochures

Worked with Library staff to place all Field Projects (Master‘s Thesis) on KU Scholar Works

Web site, Engineering Management Field Projects account for 10% of Google searches for

this site

Worked with Edwards Campus staff to expand services and hours of the Writing Center on

the Edwards Campus.

Developed and implemented department strategic plan

Facilitated development (curricula, contract and instruction strategy) and instructed first

course at Black & Veatch University – Instruction was streamed live over the Internet to

Florida, Texas, Connecticut, Michigan, Beijing and Bangkok. This program is currently in its

fourth year.

Developed and introduced Professional Development Hour (PDH) programs to coincide with

Edwards Campus recruiting open house.

Chair of Engineering Management student Thesis that placed second in the Master‘s Thesis

category for the fall 2006 ASEM Conference (Travis Berkley – Virtual Teams).

Facilitated the re-establishment of the Engineering Management Advisory Board.

All classes instructed 100% paperless using the educational administration system.

Assistant Professor and Associate Director - School of Engineering 8/95 – 5/05

Engineering Management Graduate Program


Responsibilities:

Perform administrative duties as Associate Director (supervision, recruiting, hiring and

planning)

Instruct Graduate Courses in: Quality Management (EMGT 808), Management of Internal

Engineering Projects (EMGT 823), Manufacturing Systems Integration (EMGT 862),

Advanced Operations Management (EMGT 867), Personal Development for the

Engineering Manager (EMGT 809), Case Studies in Engineering Management (EMGT 830),

Strategic Analysis of Technology Projects (EMGT 821), Mathematics for the Engineering

Manager (EMGT 860 MA & MB)

Instruct Undergraduate course in Engineering Economy (ARCE 357)

Direct student independent, thesis and dissertation research at the MS and PhD level

Executive Director (Principle Investigator) for MAMTC (Mid-American Manufacturing

Technology Center®) Overland Park, Kansas. The office is composed of four Field

Engineers, a Director and Office Manager and provides manufacturing consulting services

to eastern Kansas and Kansas City.

109 | P a g e

Distance Learning program Courses are either Video Taped, Streamed Video and slides are

posted on the Internet and utilize Blackboard Learning System TM

Accomplishments:

Lead department in credit hour generation, student evaluation and Thesis committee

chairmanship

Interim Chairman of Department: Administration and management of the Engineering

Management Edwards Campus and Distance Learning programs (Summer and Fall ‘98)

Developed and delivered two new electives Labor Relations for Engineering Managers

(EMGT 800R-Summer, ‗01) and Management Theory and Practice for the Engineering

Manager (EMGT 800T – Fall, ‘01), both in Streaming Video and Live formats – Now

permanent (EMGT 807 & 801) courses

Developed two new electives for on-line use, Mathematics for Engineering Managers I

(EMGT 8060MA) and Mathematics for Engineering Managers II (EMGT 8060MB)

Developed all courses for Distance Education program utilizing Video Tapes, Streaming

Video and Internet based Instruction (first Professor in the School of Engineering to

achieve this)

As Chairman (Interim) was responsible for successful ―roll-out‖ of Distance Learning

program ‗95

Worked with EMGT Distance Learning Coordinator to Stream Courses Live on the Internet,

a first for the School of Engineering and the Edwards Campus

Instructor KU Aerospace Program: Continuing Education 4/04 – Present

Developed and Instructed five day short course: Project Management for Aerospace

Professionals, presented twice yearly. Bethesda, MD, Williamsburg, VA, San Diego, CA,

Seattle, WA

Project Management for US ARMY Design Engineers, Three day course prepared and

delivered for the US ARMY Redstone Military Arsenal, Huntsville, AL 2010

Project Management for Aerospace Professionals, Five day course prepared and

delivered for Lockheed Martin, Marietta, GA 2009

Project Management for Flight Test Engineers, Custom one day course prepared and

delivered for at Northrop Grumman,

El Segundo, CA 2006

Project Management for Those New to Project Management in Aerospace, Custom five

day course for Boeing, Bombardier/Learjet and Raytheon, Wichita, 2005

Plant / Engineering Manager 8/91 - 7/95

Wolferman‘s, Lenexa, Kansas

110 | P a g e

Responsibilities:

Responsible for manufacturing, engineering, maintenance, quality assurance,

research & development, inventories, purchasing, strategic planning, staffing,

subcontractors,

safety, security, budgeting for a 24 hour, 7 day manufacturing and distribution operation

Managed $6 million annual operations and $2 million capital budgets

Supervised purchasing, quality and manufacturing managers, plant engineer, seven

contract consultants and ninety hourly employees

Team developer / facilitator of manufacturing, customer service, finance and distribution

teams

Accomplishments:

Led winning team of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce Team Quality Award

1994

Instituted quality (SPC) program which reduced waste by 98% and complaints by 40%

Implemented self directed employee teams, utilizing team (Gain / Profit) sharing

Performed Manufacturing Benchmarking in New Zealand, Australia and Canada,

Introduced JIT manufacturing and inventory practices into this highly seasonal operation

Senior Management Consultant 11/89 - 7/91

The Leawood Group, Ltd., Management Consultants and Industrial Engineers,

Formerly Richard Muther Associates, Overland Park, Kansas

Accomplishments:

Designed material dehydration and rail–tie re-manufacturing plant for Harmon Industries,

under Black and Veatch contract

Developed manufacturing time standards for Deutz-Allis / AGCO / Heston / Gleaner

Combine harvester fabrication and assembly line, using MTM II computer system

Designed and relocated 240,000 ft.2 underground (Cave) manufacuring plant and

distribution center for Byrd & Fletcher, Inc.

Designed and implemented cellular manufacturing layout for military electronics and

Harley Davidson cable subcontractor (Wescon Division of Latshaw, Inc.)

Developed numerous training manuals and proposals

Performed automated material handling feasibility study (AGV) for Du Pont

Accomplishments, continued

Lead seminars in Kanban, JIT, SPC, TQM, Facility Design and Manufacturing Strategy for

SME/IIE

Production Manager 10/86 – 10/89

Hill‘s, Bowling Green, Kentucky

111 | P a g e

Responsibilities:

Managed 24 hour, 7 day material handling, storage, manufacturing and distribution

operation

Managed $7 million annual operating budget

Supervised six managers, three supervisors and 180 manufacturing employees

Accomplishments:

Started up ―green field‖ state of art manufacturing plant on time and under budget

Coordinated 100% plant capacity expansion within 18 months of original start-up

Interviewed, hired and trained 240 hourly and 40 middle and senior management employees

Project leader for process oriented MRP/ ERP/MES software selection team

Industrial Engineer 8/84 – 9/86


Responsibilities:

Responsible as assistant production manager for 250 employee operation

Chairman of union and management safety committee, reduced lost time accidents by 40%

Audited engineering and construction of Bowling Green, Kentucky facility

Responsible for quality and production schedule attainment at subcontractor facility

Accomplishments:

Performed time studies to justify 100% facility expansion

Designed manufacturing line for Japanese subcontractor

Project Engineer 3/81 - 8/84


Responsibilities:

Responsible for capital budget management for Topeka, KS, Los Angeles, CA and Miami,

FL plants

Supervised design, engineering, architectural and construction firms

Accomplishments:

Designed and supervised construction of R&D laboratory

Operations Coordinator 12/80 - 3/81


Responsibilities:

Developed master long range production schedules

Developed manufacturing budgets for Topeka, KS, Miami, FL and Los Angeles, CA facilities

112 | P a g e

Developed capacity expansion plans and facility design

Industrial and Manufacturing Engineer 9/79 - 11/80

Gulf + Western Manufacturing, Ottawa, Kansas

Responsibilities:

Determined methods, standards, plant layout from time and method studies

Performed time studies in assembly, fabrication, and sub-assembly areas

Coordinated activities with MIS, manufacturing, engineering for MRP system implementation

Accomplishments:

Designed and planned plant expansion to double daily production output

Developed kitting program for international operations

PRIOR UNIVERSITY TEACHING

Lecturer, Engineering Management Program, The University of Kansas 1993-

1995

Total Quality Management in Engineering Operations, (EMGT 808)

Management of Internal Engineering Projects, (EMGT 823)

Graduate Teaching Assistant, Industrial Technology, Illinois State Univ. 1978-

1979

Technology of Industrial Materials, (IT 311)

Teaching Assistant Electrical Fundamentals for Technicians, (IT 244)

Lab Assistant for Industrial Plastics, (IT 325)

MANAGERIAL / TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS

Project Management for Integrated Manufacturer and Constructor, Invited speaker for

Dearborn Midwest summer 2009 seminar, Overland Park, KS. 2009

Time Management for Project Managers, Invited speaker for the American Society of

Engineering Management fall 2009 Management Workshop, Overland Park, KS. 2009

Project Management Tools: The Phases of a Project Plan, Invited speaker for the American

Society of Engineering Management fall 2008 Management Workshop, Overland Park, KS.

2008

The Relationship Team Success and Team Virtuality, Present refereed paper to the fall

conference of the American Society for Engineering Management, Chattanooga, TN. 2007

113 | P a g e

The Relationship Team Success and Team Virtuality, Invited Speaker for the fall conference

of the American Society for Engineering Management – Kansas City Chapter, Overland Park,

KS. 2007

MANAGERIAL / TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS, CONTINUED

Management Training for Engineers. Cooperatively developed and presented a series of

Managerial courses with Continuing Education, KU Edwards Campus, Overland Park, KS. 2007

Team Building for Technical Teams, Invited Speaker for Waters Edge, Inc. Employee

development program, Overland Park, KS. 2007

Careers in Engineering, Invited Speaker for the Engineer for a Day Program Presented by the

Kansas Society of Professional Engineers, KU Edwards Campus Overland Park, KS. 2007

Virtual Project Team Performance, Invited Speaker for the Performance Edge Program at the

KU Edwards Campus, Overland Park, KS. 2007

Contented Cows and Discretionary Effort in Project Teams Invited Speaker for the

American Society for Engineering Management, Fall Management Workshop, KU Edwards

Campus, Overland Park, KS. 2006

Discretionary Effort in Project / Engineering Teams, Invited Speaker for National Society of

Black Engineers, Kansas City, MO. 2006

Project Management for Black and Veatch University, Developer and Instructor of Black and

Veatch University, Overland Park, KS. 2006

Management, Motivation and Leadership in Technical Project Teams, Invited Speaker for

Leawood Chamber of Commerce, Leawood, KS. 2006

Discretionary Effort in Project / Engineering Teams, Invited Speaker for Burns & McDonnell

Professional Engineer Seminar, Kansas City, MO. 2006

Management and Motivation, Invited Speaker for the American Society for Engineering

Management, Fall Management Workshop, KU Edwards Campus, Overland Park, KS. 2005

Teamwork in today’s workplace, Invited Speaker for the American Institute of Chemical

Engineers, Fall Program, Overland Park, KS. 2005

Engineers as Managers and Understanding Engineer Employers and Looking Into the

Future, Invited Speaker, Missouri Society or Professional Engineers, 68th Annual Convention,

Blue Springs. 2005

114 | P a g e

Project Team Performance: Managing Communication, Invited Speaker for Burns &

McDonnell Professional Engineer Seminar, Kansas City, MO. 2005

Virtual Project Team Performance, Invited Speaker for the American Society for Engineering

Management, Fall Management Workshop, KU Edwards Campus, Overland Park, KS. 2004

Engineering Employee Relations, Invited Speaker for the Kansas Association for Uniform

Traffic Control, Fall 2004 Meeting, The Lenexa Conference Center, Lenexa, KS. 2004

Engineers as Managers, Invited Speaker for the American Public Works Association, Annual

Fall Meeting, Dole Institute, The University of Kansas, KS. 2004

Motivation and Goal Setting for the Engineering Workforce, Invited Speaker for the

American Society for Engineering Management, September Meeting, KU Edwards Campus,

Overland Park, KS. 2004

Engineers as Managers, Invited Speaker for 86th Annual Kansas Transportation Engineering

Conference, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. 2004

Project Team Success, Invited Speaker for Burns & McDonnell Professional Engineer

Seminar, Kansas City, MO. 2004

MANAGERIAL / TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS, CONTINUED

Performance Management and Career Development, Invited Speaker for Kansas Consulting

Engineers Fall Seminar, Topeka, KS. 2003

Team Based Work Systems, Sponsored by the Kansas City Manufacturing Network, Overland

Park, KS. 2003

Technical Project Teams and Work Place Design, Presented at the 22nd ASEM National

Conference, Sponsored by The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL. 2001

Managing Your Engineering Management Career, Presented at the 22nd ASEM National


Mastering Project Management, Sponsored by the Kansas City Manufacturing Network,

Overland Park, KS. 2001

Early Career Planning for Engineering Management Students, Presented at the 21st ASEM

National Conference, Sponsored by The George Washington University, Washington, DC. 2000

Project Management for Marketers, Sponsored by the William Allen White School of

Journalism and Mass Communications, Overland Park, KS. 2000

115 | P a g e

Internet Tools for Project Managers, Sponsored by the Society of American Military

Engineers, 1999 SAME Missouri River Regional Conference, Kansas City, MO. 1999

Engineering Your Career, Sponsored by the Missouri Society of Professional Engineers, 61st

Annual Conference, Branson, MO. 1998

Career Planning, Sponsored by Black and Veatch and the American Society of Engineering

Management, Overland Park, KS. 1997

Info 97 (Technology and Internet Program), Sponsored by The University of Kansas, 1997

Career Cycle/Personal Development, Sponsored by the American Society of Engineering

Management, ASEM Fall Conference, Overland Park, KS. 1996

From Engineer to Manager, Sponsored by the Air & Waste Management Association, 1996

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Kansas City, MO, September, 1996

From Engineer to Manager, Sponsored by the Institute of Industrial Engineers, 47th

International Industrial Engineering Conference and Exposition, Minneapolis, MN, May, 1996

High Technology Project Implementation With Teams, Sponsored by the Institute of

Industrial Engineers, 12th International Maintenance Conference, San Antonio, TX, October,

1995

Developing Your Manufacturing Strategy, Sponsored by the Society of Manufacturing

Engineers, Orlando, FL, January, 1990

Integrated Layout & Material Handling Planning, Sponsored by the Society of Manufacturing

Engineers, Charlotte, NC, 1990

Statistical Process Control, Sponsored by the Industrial and Plant Engineering Show,

Kansas City, MO, 1990

PUBLICATIONS

The Relationship Team Success and Team Virtuality, Proceedings, 28th ASEM National

Conference, Sponsored by The University of Tennessee Space Institute / Chattanooga, TN.

2007

The Internet Encyclopedia, Bidgoli, Hossein (Editor), Authored Video Streaming Chapter,

Prentice-Hall. 2003

116 | P a g e

Technical Project Teams and Work Place Design, Proceedings, 22nd ASEM National


Managing Your Engineering Management Career, Proceedings, 22nd ASEM National


Handbook of Industrial Automation, Shell, Richard L. and Hall, Earnest L. (University of

Cincinnati), Co-authored Chapter IX. Material Handling and Storage Systems, William Wrennall

and Herbert Tuttle, Marcel - Dekker, Inc. New York. 2000

Facilities and Workplace Design An Illustrated Guide, Engineers in Business Series,

Quarterman Lee, Arild Amundsen, William Nelson and Herbert Tuttle, Engineering and

Management Press. 1997 (Selected by New Equipment Digest Magazine as one of 1998's "Best on New Equipment Digest" books.)

From Engineer to Manager, Institute of Industrial Engineers, Proceedings 47th International

Industrial Engineering Conference. 1996

High Technology Project Implementation With Teams, Proceedings 12th International

Maintenance Conference, Institute of Industrial Engineers. 1995

Handbook of Commercial and Industrial Facilities Management, William Wrennall and

Quarterman Lee, McGraw Hill. 1994, Prepared Chapter Eleven: Decision Tree Analysis

Handbook of Industrial Engineering, Gavriel Salvendy, John Wiley & Sons. 1992

Performed Computer Decision Analysis for Chapter 71, ―Office Layout‖

FACULTY RESEARCH

Program Director (Principle Investigator) for MAMTC (Mid-American Manufacturing

Technology Center®) Overland Park, Kansas.) The office is composed of five Field Engineers,

a Director and Office Manager and provides manufacturing consulting services to eastern

Kansas and Kansas City.

Total Annual Federal and State Funding (Manufacturing Extension Partnership/National Institute

for Standards and Technology) $420,000 to $ 670,000 (1999 - 2005)

CO-PI for Economic feasibility of using KDOT fiber optic infrastructure for the transmission of

KDOT data. To determine the economics and benefits of transmitting video and data from

KDOT field devices back to Topeka via a data communication network. The estimated duration

of the project is 12 months and the estimated funding level is $38,000. (2003)

117 | P a g e

BOOK / MANUSCRIPT REVIEWER

LaChina Publishing Services (Teamwork and Project Management) 2005

Sage Publications (Unions in America, by Gary Chaison) 2003 & 2004

Prentice Hall (Integrated Operations Management, Hanna and Newman) 2002

Cornell University Press (The Performance Culture, by Darrel Ray) 2000

BOOK / MANUSCRIPT REVIEWER

Prentice Hall Publishing (Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Second Edition,

by Rehg and Kraebber) 1999

Engineering and Management Press (Team Organizations) 1996

GRADUATE RESEARCH

Organizational Capability and Effective Implementation of Fast-Cycle-Time Teams, A

Collaborative Research Proposal with the School of Business at The University of Kansas, for

the National Science Foundation, submitted February, 1998

Behaviors and Work Place Characteristics of High Performance Teams, Herbert Tuttle and

Jerry Westbrook, a paper submitted to the Engineering Management Journal for peer review,

December,1998

Quality Structured Manufacturing Operations, A Masters Capstone Project, The University of

Tennessee, Knoxville Tennessee, April, 1992.

Inventory Management in the Processing Industry, A MBA Independent Study, The

University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, July, 1982.

Factors That Will Influence the Cost Of Electrical Energy In The Future, A Delphi Study.

Masters Thesis, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, July, 1979.

GRANTS / AWARDS - University of Kansas

Recipient of a Bellows Scholar Award from the School of Engineering Dean 1999, 02, 03,

04

Selected as a Miller Scholar (for 2000-2001 & 2001-2002) 2000-02

118 | P a g e

Received Streaming Video Course Development Grant $6000 2001

Selected as Participant in Wheat State Whirlwind Tour 2000

Recipient of THE QUEST FOR THE BEST 1997 (Awarded in February 1998), 1998

sponsored by ASTUTE, received $4000 Grant

Selected for the ASTUTE Summer Institute and received $1000 Grant 1997

EXPERT WITNESS

Testified in Wrongful Termination Litigation 1995

Testified in Workman‘s Compensation Damage Determination 1982

ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES

KU Wellness Committee 2008 - Present

Chair Search Committee for School of Engineering Graduate Recruiter 2007

Edwards Campus representative for School Engineering Graduate Coordinator 2007

Cooperatively worked with KU Continuing Education to Develop and Present 2007

a Series of courses for Professional Engineers: Management Showcase

Edwards Campus Representative for the Director of the 2007

ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES,CONTINUED

KU Writing Center Search Committee

Developed and Presented Project Team Development Program 2006

For FIRST Robotics for High School student Teams and Advisors

sponsored by KU School or Engineering

Developed and Presented Team Development Program 2003

For NASA sponsored Kansas Universities Technology Evaluation Satellite:

Pathfinder Mission

Faculty Advisor for the KU Ski and Snowboard Club 2003-2008

119 | P a g e

Scheduling Officer for Engineering Management 2000-2005

The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 1995-98

A special task force of faculty and administrators with a goal to create the KU Center for

Advanced Leadership Studies

A recruitment and hiring committee to identify the Director of the Engineering Management

Program

A recruitment and hiring committee Chair to identify the Adjunct faculty for the

Engineering Management Program (3)

CERTIFICATIONS

Instructor in EASE, Engineering Assembly Standards and Estimates, a PC Based MTM II

System

Assistant Examiner for the Kansas Award of Excellence (Malcom Baldridge Affiliate) 2002

ACTIVITIES

Member of the American Society for Engineering Management (Faculty Adv.) 1995-Pres.

ASEM South Central Regional Director 2001-02

120 | P a g e

A.3. EMGT Programs in the USA List of EMGT programs in the USA ASEM Listing ASEE List of Graduates from EMGT MS Programs Selected EMGT Programs from other Universities KU EMGT Program Description MS-Level Professional Programs in the SOE

Project Management Institute MEM Consortium

121 | P a g e

A.3. American Society of Engineering Management List of Programs

122 | P a g e

123 | P a g e

124 | P a g e

125 | P a g e

126 | P a g e

127 | P a g e

128 | P a g e

A.3. American Society of Engineering Management List of Graduate Numbers from EMGT MS Programs

Master‘s Degrees Awarded in Engineering Management, 2008-2009 (ASEE, 2010).

School Total Master's State Sort Key Rank

Old Dominion University 163 VA OLD DOMINION 1

University of Bridgeport 135 CT BRIDGEPORT 2

The George Washington University 124 DC GEORGE WASHINGTON 3

Duke University 116 NC DUKE UNIVERSITY 4

Florida Institute of Technology 108 FL FLORIDA INSTITUTE 5

New Jersey Institute of Technology 91 NJ NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE 6

Northwestern University 88 IL NORTHWESTERN UNIVERS 7

California State University-Northridge 76 CA CALIFORNIA STATE, NORTHRIDGE 8

Missouri University of Science and Technology 74 MO MISSOURI 9

University of Waterloo 57 ON WATERLOO 10

Florida International University 55 FL FLORIDA INTERNATIONA 11

Portland State University 53 OR PORTLAND STATE UNIVE 12

University of Southern California 52 CA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 13

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 48 MA MASSACHUSETTS INSTIT 14

Santa Clara University 47 CA SANTA CLARA 15

Dartmouth College 46 NH DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 16

Stevens Institute of Technology 44 NJ STEVENS INSTITUTE OF 17

Southern Methodist University 43 TX SOUTHERN METHODIST 18

University of Michigan-Dearborn 40 MI MICHIGAN 19

University of Pennsylvania 40 PA PENNSYLVANIA 20

University of Kansas 39 KS KANSAS 21

Case Western Reserve University 37 OH CASE WESTERN 22

The University of Texas at Austin 36 TX TEXAS, AUSTIN 23

University of South Florida 36 FL SOUTH FLORIDA 24

Columbia University 36 NY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 25

Tufts University 35 MA TUFTS UNIVERSITY 26

University of Colorado at Boulder 33 CO COLORADO 27

University of Ottawa-Faculty of Engineering 32 ON OTTAWA 28

Washington University 32 MO WASHINGTON U 29

University of Dayton 30 OH DAYTON 30

University of Alabama at Birmingham 29 AL ALABAMA 31

Lawrence Technological University 29 MI LAWRENCE TECHNICAL 32

Drexel University 28 PA DREXEL UNIVERSITY 33

Northeastern University 27 MA NORTHEASTERN UNIVERS 34

Cornell University 26 NY CORNELL UNIVERSITY 35

Western Michigan University 25 MI WESTERN MICHIGAN 36

Colorado School of Mines 24 CO COLORADO SCHOOL 37

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 24 IN ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUT 38

Washington State University 24 WA WASHINGTON S 39

University of Tennessee-Chattanooga 21 TN TENNESSEE, CHATTANOOGA 40

129 | P a g e

Air Force Institute of Technology 20 OH AIR FORCE 41

Oakland University 19 MI OAKLAND UNIVERSITY 42

Saint Cloud State University 19 MN SAINT CLOUD STATE 43

University of Louisville 19 KY LOUISVILLE 44

The Ohio State University 16 OH OHIO STATE 45

University of Detroit Mercy 13 MI DETROIT 46

University of New Orleans 12 LA NEW ORLEANS 47

Mercer University 10 GA MERCER UNIVERSITY 48

University of Maryland-Baltimore County 10 MD MARYLAND 49

California State Polytechnic University-Pomona 10 CA CALIFORNIA STATE POL 50

Kansas State University 9 KS KANSAS STATE 51

Wayne State University 9 MI WAYNE STATE 52

Marquette University 9 WI MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY 53

Saint Martin's University 6 WA SAINT MARTIN 54

McNeese State University 6 LA MCNEESE STATE 55

Louisiana Tech University 6 LA LOUISIANA TECH 56

Widener University 5 PA WIDENER UNIVERSITY 57

University of Miami 5 FL MIAMI 58

The Catholic University of America 4 DC CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY 59

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4 IL ILLINOIS 60

University of North Carolina-Charlotte 4 NC NORTH CAROLINA, CHARLOTTE 61

Saint Mary's University 3 TX SAINT MARY'S 62

Western New England College 3 MA WESTERN NEW ENGLAND 63

University of Alaska Fairbanks 2 AK ALASKA 64

FAMU-FSU College of Engineering 2 FL FAMU 65

Wichita State University 1 KS WICHITA STATE 66

Rowan University 0 NJ ROWAN UNIVERSITY 67

Worcester Polytechnic Institute 0 MA WORCESTER POLYTECHNI 68

California Polytechnic State University 0 CA CALIFORNIA POLYTECHN 69

Wilkes University 0 PA WILKES COLLEGE 70

Gannon University 0 PA GANNON UNIVERSITY 71

University of California-Santa Cruz 0 CA CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ 72

Syracuse University 0 NY SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY 73

The Johns Hopkins University 0 MD JOHNS HOPKIN 74

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 0 CO COLORADO 75

University of Massachusetts Amherst 0 MA MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST 76 A.3. Selected EMGT Programs at Other Universities Drexel University (National Graduate Degree Production Rank: 33) Curriculum The program consists of 16 graduate courses (11 core and 5 elective courses); face to face classes are occasionally available on campus, and our online classes are an alternative for students on the go. Students earn in total 48 credits (33 credits in required core courses and 15 graduate elective credits). Six or more of these credits are in a major area of interest. Students who wish to specialize in a particular area of interest are free to select any 6- to 15-credit sequence with the approval of the program director. Students may also complete the balance of required elective credits by taking any other graduate-level course in engineering, business, or other discipline. Students may also simultaneously pursue the M.S. in engineering management and another degree. In this case, they need to satisfy program requirements for each degree, with a maximum of 15 credits transferred from one program to the other.

130 | P a g e

Distance Learning The Engineering Management Program has been offering a distance learning experience since its inception in 1987. Live classes with on-campus students are recorded in our professional studios and offered asynchronously to distance students. In addition, an Internet-based class management tool is used to facilitate the interaction between on-campus students, distance students and the professor. In addition to recorded classroom sessions, an online service called eCollege is used for all Engineering Management courses. This is a password-protected site that enables on-campus and distance students to interact with each other through e-mail, chat rooms, document sharing, threaded discussion, and more. Professors use this to post class readings, distribute and collect homework, post grades, create class announcements and create shared work space for class project teams. On-Campus Students may attend classes at the College of Engineering and Applied Science main building. In addition to classes, students will use an online service called eCollege. This Internet-based course management tool is used for all Engineering Management courses. Professors use this to post class readings, distribute and collect homework, post grades, create class announcements and create shared work space for class project teams. ADMISSIONS

An undergraduate degree with a GPA of 3.0 from an accredited engineering program. If GPA is below 3.0, GRE scores must be provided for provisional admission. Degrees in technically oriented areas such as physics, applied mathematics, and computer science are also acceptable. Prospective degree students who do not have an undergraduate degree in engineering or a technical field, have an opportunity to take some pre-entrance courses to qualify for admission into the degree program.

If the applicant does not have a technical collegiate background there are some prerequisites required. To review these see the Non-Technical Prospective Applicants page.

A working knowledge of applied statistics.

Minimum of two years of professional work experience.

Demonstrated proficiency in writing.

Four letters of recommendation from two academic and two professional sources. Degree Capstone A student can complete their degree with either the Capstone Project sequence or by taking a fourth Engineering Management elective plus a Master's Exam. The final capstone consists of a two-semester project which includes EMEN 6805, Capstone Preparation and EMEN 6810, Capstone Completion. The courses are taken sequentially, not concurrently. Both EMEN 6805 (1 credit) and EMEN 6810 (2 credits) are graded courses. Program Requirements

The Engineering Management Program at Drexel University has certain requirements for our students: • Have their textbooks prior to the start of the term. • Read and understand the syllabus for the class • Listen to and absorb the lecture material. • Read all textbook assignments • Submit all work on time and with the quality that is to be expected of graduate students. • Submit work within WebCT Vista unless otherwise directed by the professor. Requirements for the M.S. Degree 1. M.S. Degree Requirements M.S. Courses The minimum course requirement for the M.S. Degree is 48 quarter credits. Students may transfer a maximum of 2 core courses (6 credits), and 3 elective courses (9 credits) (equivalent to 10 semester credits) from approved institutions or 2 core courses (6 credits) and 3 elective courses (9 credits) from a previous M.S. at Drexel, provided they follow the rules and regulations described in the Drexel University Graduate Curricula. These 48 credits

http://ecollegedirect.ecollege.com/


http://emp.colorado.edu/prospective/admissions/non-technical.htm

http://emp.colorado.edu/prospective/admissions/statistics.htm

http://emp.colorado.edu/prospective/admissions/writing.htm

http://emp.colorado.edu/current/mastersexam.htm

131 | P a g e

consist of the required 33 credits of core area credits (36 credits if EGMT 571 is required), defined in Section 1, and the remaining 15 credits of elective courses, described below. 2. M.S. Elective Requirements In addition to the required core courses, each M.S. degree candidate must complete 15 credits of elective courses, at least six credits of which must be in a major area of interest. The elective courses required may come from any graduate-level course(s) in the engineering, business or other colleges for which the student has adequate preparation (pre-requisites) and can obtain approvals from the appropriate college and the Engineering Management program.

MIT (National Graduate Degree Production Rank: 14) Overview Master of Science in Engineering and Management Created in 1996 in response to industry‘s need to develop the next generation of leaders, SDM is at the forefront of graduate education at MIT. SDM combines cutting edge courses from the MIT Sloan School of Management and MIT‘s School of Engineering, flexible matriculation options and an interdisciplinary perspective. The centerpiece of SDM‘s portfolio is its rigorous 13- to 24-month graduate program. The SDM curriculum is built on a foundation of core courses in system architecture, systems engineering, and system and project management—integrated with management courses tailored to students with significant industry experience and a solid technical background—and complemented by engineering and management electives. MIT Sloan and the MIT School of Engineering jointly grant the resulting Master of Science degree. All students begin in January with an intensive session on campus designed to lay the foundation for re-entry into academia and build lasting partnerships with all members of the class. Following the January session, students either stay on-campus to study full-time or choose a flex option, if they want to immediately apply knowledge from the program in their workplaces. SDM‘s flex options, which allow students to remain engaged in their careers, include commuting from local worksites to attend classes on the MIT campus or engaging in SDM‘s unique style of synchronous video delivery that enables distance students to participate in real time with their on-campus classmates. All SDM Fellows, wherever they may live, work together in global teams for the duration of their programs. Currently, about half choose the full-time, on campus options, with the other half choosing one of the flex alternatives. All options keep students directly engaged in classroom discussions and activities.

The required courses span a combination of engineering and management topics, with leadership and teamwork modules interwoven in the curriculum. Core subjects include ESD.34J System Architecture, ESD.33J Systems Engineering, and ESD.36J System and Project Management. The remainder of the required subjects are one quantitative methods course (typically ESD.721 Engineering Risk-Benefit Analysis), ESD.762 Systems Optimization, one product development course (typically ESD.40 Product Design and Development), 15.381 The Human Side of Technology, ESD.763 Operations and Supply Chain Management or another operations course, 15.969 User-centered Innovation in the Internet Age, 15.905 Technology Strategy for SDM, and 15.514 Financial and Managerial Accounting. The ideal applicant for the SDM program will have a master's degree in engineering or the equivalent and three or more years as a product development professional, including experience as a team leader. Students with a bachelor's degree and five years of professional experience, including leadership experience, are encouraged to apply. SDM Program Admissions Each year, the MIT System Design and Management Program (SDM) enrolls an elite group of 50 to 55 high-potential, early- to mid-career professionals. SDM fellows hail from diverse academic and professional backgrounds. The typical SDM student is an engineering professional in his/her mid-30s (range 25-50+) with 10 or more years of work experience (range 3-20+). SDM‘s 2009 cohort comprises students from 12 countries. Qualifications

132 | P a g e

To qualify for MIT‘s System Design and Management Program, candidates must either:

Hold an MS in engineering or an equivalent degree and have three or more years of professional experience in a technical field, including some leadership experience, OR

Hold a BS degree in engineering or a hard science and have five or more years of professional engineering experience, preferably combined with some graduate engineering education

In addition, candidates should:

Have experience contributing to a product or system development initiative

Have had some responsibility as a group or team leader

UT Austin (National Graduate Degree Production Rank: 23) Benefits Program Overview These two-year programs provide the unique opportunity to pursue a master‘s degree while continuing to work full-time. The Engineering Management Program (MSE EM) is designed to meet the growing demand for technical managers with strong engineering, science and technical backgrounds as well as a demonstrated understanding in management and financial issues. Students will grasp core business fundamentals through challenging courses that are uniquely tailored to an engineers‘ background and future needs. A solid foundation will be built in economics, negotiations, marketing, and decisions analysis and risk assessment to lead to an executive perspective on how to successfully bring a new product to market. Students will learn to negotiate with internal and external customers and obtain the knowledge to recognize the potential success or failure of an engineering project with respect to financing the venture. Finally, the program looks at product liability, patents, and copyright issues that affect the design of engineering products and services. The final result is an executive perspective to respond quickly to better manage technical, business, and human performance processes to achieve corporate goals. Upon completion of the program requirements, a student is awarded a Master of Science in Engineering degree with a major in Engineering Management. The program is administered by the Center for Lifelong Engineering Education (CLEE). The Engineering Management Program is geared towards the engineer who is currently managing technical, business, or human performance processes to achieve corporate goals. Candidates should have a BS degree in engineering, computer science, natural science, or a related field. Applicants to the Engineering Management program should:

Hold a BS degree in Engineering, Computer Science, Natural Science, or related field.

Have a minimum GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale in upper-division undergraduate and any graduate coursework.

Have a minimum of 18 months of industry experience. Degree Requirements The program is comprised of a total of 30 credit hours resulting from eight semester-long courses (24 credits) and a thesis (6 credits) divided evenly over two summer semesters. Financial Assistance The Engineering Master‘s Degree Programs do not provide direct financial assistance to students. Tuition fees Engineering Management Program Tuition Fees The total fee for the Engineering Management Program (EM) is $36,000 ($18,000 per year).

Kansas State University (National Graduate Degree Production Rank: 51) Master‘s in Engineering Management

Description Equips practicing engineers with knowledge and skills to assist in managing other engineers and technical resources

Course Delivery Online

Application Requirements

Bachelor‘s degree in engineering or natural science

Undergraduate GPA of 3.0 or above for the last 60 hours of courses taken

133 | P a g e

Other requirements Completion Requirements

30 credit hours with 3.0 minimum GPA Admission Requirements Engineering Management courses are offered for graduate credit leading to a master‘s degree in Engineering Management. All application materials should be sent directly to the Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering department. Degree-Seeking Students Students entering this program must meet the following requirements:

5. A bachelor‘s degree in Engineering or Natural Science 6. A calculus course 7. A statistics course 8. Students must have at least three years of full-time industrial (work) experience by the time they

complete the program. Students not meeting these requirements may be considered if they can demonstrate equivalent evidence of an appropriate background. Contact the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering to discuss. The Master‘s in Engineering Management (MEM) program is offered by the Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering department (IMSE) at Kansas State University to off-campus students residing both in and out of the United States. The program is designed to be a part-time program and typically requires two to four years to complete. The curriculum is a set of integrated engineering and engineering management topics that develop a student‘s skill base focused on effective management of technical resources in engineering environments. Students will develop an economic, technical, and human resource perspective for the technical managerial decisions that they will face.

Univ Col Boulder (National Graduate Degree Production Rank: 27) Distance or Campus? The EMEN graduate degree program provides an excellent curriculum that offers both Schedule and geographic flexibility which is ideal for the working student. Since its inception, we have offered cost effective educational options through both distance learning and on-campus. Distance Learning The Engineering Management Program has been offering a state-of-the-art distance learning experience since its inception in 1987. Live classes with on-campus students are recorded in our professional studios and offered asynchronously to distance students. In addition, an Internet-based class management tool is used to facilitate the interaction between on-campus students, distance students and the professor. You get the benefit of the classroom experience and interactions with the flexibility to study during the week when it's most convenient for you. Online courses are delivered by the Center for Advanced Engineering and Technology Education (CAETE), the distance learning and professional studies arm of the College of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder. In addition to recorded classroom sessions, an online service called eCollege is used for all Engineering Management courses. This is a password-protected site that enables on-campus and distance students to interact with each other through e-mail, chat rooms, document sharing, threaded discussion, and more. Professors use this to post class readings, distribute and collect homework, post grades, create class announcements and create shared work space for class project teams. eCollege is the primary vehicle facilitating interaction between distance students and their instructors. On-Campus Students may attend classes at the College of Engineering and Applied Science main building at the University of Colorado's scenic Boulder campus. Here you'll have the opportunity to interact directly with members of our Faculty and technical professionals from other leading technology organizations. In addition to classes, students will use an online service called eCollege. This Internet-based course management tool is used for all Engineering Management courses. Professors use this to post class



134 | P a g e

readings, distribute and collect homework, post grades, create class announcements and create shared work space for class project teams. ADMISSIONS Degree Criteria:

An undergraduate degree with a GPA of 3.0 from an accredited engineering program. If GPA is below 3.0, GRE scores must be provided for provisional admission. Degrees in technically oriented areas such as physics, applied mathematics, and computer science are also acceptable. Prospective degree students who do not have an undergraduate degree in engineering or a technical field, have an opportunity to take some pre-entrance courses to qualify for admission into the degree program.

If the applicant does not have a technical collegiate background there are some prerequisites required. To review these see the Non-Technical Prospective Applicants page.

A working knowledge of applied statistics.

Minimum of two years of professional work experience.

Demonstrated proficiency in writing.

Four letters of recommendation from two academic and two professional sources.

Certificate students interested in transitioning to the degree program are required to maintain a 3.0 GPA in their certificate coursework.

Degree Capstone A student can complete their degree with either the Capstone Project sequence or by taking a fourth Engineering Management elective plus a Master's Exam. The final capstone consists of a two-semester project which includes EMEN 6805, Capstone Preparation and EMEN 6810, Capstone Completion. The courses are taken sequentially, not concurrently. Both EMEN 6805 (1 credit) and EMEN 6810 (2 credits) are graded courses. Topic Guidelines: The capstone offers students an opportunity to develop an applications oriented project or a business plan orientated project.

1. Application Option If you select an applications capstone, the work requirement is to create and provide your primary advisor with a Capstone Proposal including:

o Description of central focus, including the statement of the problem and the application question(s) to be answered or hypothesis(es) to be tested in the study.

o Brief statement of the value-added deliverable of the project. o Methodology for answering the application questions. Discussion of methodology should

include a description of how the capstone data will be collected and analyzed. Any research involving human subjects must be reviewed and approved by the University of Colorado HRC.

o Preliminary table of contents referring to the literature in the field you have selected for the project.

o Summary of the literature reviewed. o Draft of the Introduction and Background sections. o One-page Gantt-type chart listing the major milestones and dates for completing the

project. 2. Business Plan Option

If you choose a business plan capstone, the required work in this semester is to create and provide to your primary advisor a Capstone Proposal including:

o " From whom the funding will be sought, e.g. angel investor, venture capital firm, existing company, self-funded

o Product(s) or service(s) to be offered and the anticipated competitive advantages o Target market(s) o Competitors in the chosen market(s) o Proposed basis for differentiation o Preliminary table of contents referring to the literature in the field you have chosen to

study

135 | P a g e

o One–page Gantt-type chart listing the major milestones and dates for completing the project

MIT (National Graduate Degree Production Rank: 14) Overview

Master of Science in Engineering and Management Created in 1996 in response to industry‘s need to develop the next generation of leaders, SDM is at the forefront of graduate education at MIT. Not an MBA, SDM combines cutting edge courses from the MIT Sloan School of Management and MIT‘s School of Engineering, flexible matriculation options and an interdisciplinary perspective. SDM prepares graduates to think creatively, lead across organizational boundaries and inspire others to collaborate and innovate in both technical and non-technical arenas. The centerpiece of SDM‘s portfolio is its rigorous 13- to 24-month graduate program. The SDM curriculum is built on a foundation of core courses in system architecture, systems engineering, and system and project management—integrated with management courses tailored to students with significant industry experience and a solid technical background—and complemented by engineering and management electives. MIT Sloan and the MIT School of Engineering jointly grant the resulting Master of Science degree. All students begin in January with an intensive session on campus designed to lay the foundation for re-entry into academia and build lasting partnerships with all members of the class. Following the January session, students either stay on-campus to study full-time or choose a flex option, if they want to immediately apply knowledge from the program in their workplaces. SDM‘s flex options, which allow students to remain engaged in their careers, include commuting from local worksites to attend classes on the MIT campus or engaging in SDM‘s unique style of synchronous video delivery that enables distance students to participate in real time with their on-campus classmates. All SDM Fellows, wherever they may live, work together in global teams for the duration of their programs. Currently, about half choose the full-time, on campus options, with the other half choosing one of the flex alternatives. All options keep students directly engaged in classroom discussions and activities. SDM students are among the best and brightest of their generation, carefully selected for the ability to think holistically and to succeed in SDM‘s unique, demanding, interdisciplinary curriculum. Upon graduation, many SDM alumni capitalize on their state-of-the-art skills in systems thinking and innovation to take on leadership roles in a wide range of organizations and domains. All SDMs participate in a vibrant lifelong learning community where students, alumni, Faculty and industry partners share knowledge, work to improve the SDM program and support each other in creating new strategies for success. MIT‘s SDM program presents a systems approach to leadership and innovation, which is the beginning of a new way of thinking and a new approach to successful lives.

Master's Programs System Design and Management Program MIT's System Design and Management (SDM) program, offered jointly by the School of Engineering and the MIT Sloan School of Management, is a master's degree program for technical professionals who seek to build upon their backgrounds and experience in order to advance to positions of leadership in their profession. The SDM program offers the degree of Master of Science in Engineering and Management. Students take subjects drawn from three areas: systems (systems engineering, architecture, and optimization), management, and a technical area of the student's choosing. SDM provides both on-campus instruction for resident degree students and distance learning instruction for technical professionals who are continuing in their positions at remote locations while enrolled in the program. The 13-month full-time program that begins in January requires 11 courses, 3 electives, a thesis seminar, and a thesis. The distance learning program requires 24 months to complete, with an initial January on campus followed by five semesters of distance education classes; students spend one semester in residence at MIT, and the total course requirements, including thesis, are the same as for the full-time, 13-month program. The required courses span a combination of engineering and management topics, with leadership and teamwork modules interwoven in the curriculum. Core subjects include ESD.34J System Architecture,

136 | P a g e

ESD.33J Systems Engineering, and ESD.36J System and Project Management. The remainder of the required subjects are one quantitative methods course (typically ESD.721 Engineering Risk-Benefit Analysis), ESD.762 Systems Optimization, one product development course (typically ESD.40 Product Design and Development), 15.381 The Human Side of Technology, ESD.763 Operations and Supply Chain Management or another operations course, 15.969 User-centered Innvoation in the Internet Age, 15.905 Technology Strategy for SDM, and 15.514 Financial and Managerial Accounting. All required subjects are taught on campus and via distance education. Elective selection is driven by the student's career objectives in consultation with the SDM program executive director. Students take one engineering and one management elective, and one design or product development elective, in addition to selected courses to fill the leadership requirement. The ideal applicant for the SDM program will have a master's degree in engineering or the equivalent and three or more years as a product development professional, including experience as a team leader. Students with a bachelor's degree and five years of professional experience, including leadership experience, are encouraged to apply.

SDM Program Admissions Each year, the MIT System Design and Management Program (SDM) enrolls an elite group of 50 to 55 high-potential, early- to mid-career professionals. SDM fellows hail from diverse academic and professional backgrounds, but all share common goals: they want to be systems thinkers and they want to lead. Successful SDM applicants demonstrate strong leadership potential, systems thinking capability and the propensity to excel in integrating engineering and management. Many SDM fellows already hold one or more advanced degrees. Most have held responsible positions in organizations that span a wide range of industries, from software, hardware and networking to aerospace, financial services and government. They have worked as product development managers, systems engineers, analysts—even vice presidents and CEOs. The typical SDM student is an engineering professional in his/her mid-30s (range 25-50+) with 10 or more years of work experience (range 3-20+). SDM‘s 2009 cohort comprises students from 12 countries. SDM‘s emphasis on cohort-building and team assignments means students learn not only in classes, but also from their classmates. SDM fellows bring with them a diversity of cultural backgrounds, knowledge and experience that enhances the vibrant and rich learning environment at MIT.

Qualifications To qualify for MIT‘s System Design and Management Program, candidates must either:

Hold an MS in engineering or an equivalent degree and have three or more years of professional experience in a technical field, including some leadership experience

OR

Hold a BS degree in engineering or a hard science and have five or more years of professional engineering experience, preferably combined with some graduate engineering education

In addition, candidates should:

Have experience contributing to a product or system development initiative

Have had some responsibility as a group or team leader All factors in an applicant's record—both educational and professional—are important. In the final analysis, the SDM program considers not only an applicant's suitability but also the contribution that each individual can make to the class.

UT Austin (National Graduate Degree Production Rank: 23) Benefits The Engineering Management Master‘s Degree Program will give students:

Executive perspective to better manage technical, business, and human performance processes to achieve corporate goals

Core business fundamentals in areas including economics, negotiations, marketing, and decision analysis and risk assessment

Understanding of the marketing risks, financing the venture concerns, and legal issues related to new projects

137 | P a g e

Expertise in the management of innovation

Analytical techniques and functional tools to lead, redesign, anticipate, and manage organizational change

Program Overview Tailored for busy Schedules, these two-year programs provide the unique opportunity to pursue a master‘s degree while continuing to work full-time. What‘s more, you will receive the same Master‘s Degree that a traditional, full-time graduate student at The University of Texas at Austin receives. Students are presented with the best the top ranked Cockrell School of Engineering has to offer: rigorous coursework that encompasses the latest advances and core fundamentals. It is the combination of challenging curriculum, immediately applicable tools, and national recognition that prepares tomorrow‘s leaders for success while equipping them with an educational experience ranked among the finest in the nation. The Engineering Management Program (MSE EM) is designed to meet the growing demand for technical managers with strong engineering, science and technical backgrounds as well as a demonstrated understanding in management and financial issues. Students will grasp core business fundamentals through challenging courses that are uniquely tailored to an engineers‘ background and future needs. A solid foundation will be built in economics, negotiations, marketing, and decisions analysis and risk assessment to lead to an executive perspective on how to successfully bring a new product to market. Students will learn to negotiate with internal and external customers and obtain the knowledge to recognize the potential success or failure of an engineering project with respect to financing the venture. Finally, the program looks at product liability, patents, and copyright issues that affect the design of engineering products and services. The final result is an executive perspective to respond quickly to better manage technical, business, and human performance processes to achieve corporate goals. Upon completion of the program requirements, a student is awarded a Master of Science in Engineering degree with a major in Engineering Management. The program is administered by the Center for Lifelong Engineering Education (CLEE). Candidate Profile Students come from diverse cultural and geographical backgrounds and are among the most highly qualified in the country — UT Austin attracts the second highest number of National Merit SCHRolars in the nation. The Engineering Management Program is geared towards the engineer who is currently managing technical, business, or human performance processes to achieve corporate goals. Candidates should have a BS degree in engineering, computer science, natural science, or a related field. Applicants to the Engineering Management program should:

Hold a BS degree in Engineering, Computer Science, Natural Science, or related field.

Have a minimum GPA of 3.0 on a 4.0 scale in upper-division undergraduate and any graduate coursework.

Have a minimum of 18 months of industry experience. Degree Requirements Students entering the Engineering Management degree program January 2009 or later are subject to the following degree requirements: The program is comprised of a total of 30 credit hours resulting from eight semester-long courses (24 credits) and a thesis (6 credits) divided evenly over two summer semesters. At the end each summer semester, students will also be required to present on their thesis topic to the Faculty and fellow students. Students are required to complete a Master‘s Thesis in the final semester enrolled. Financial aid Financial Assistance The Engineering Master‘s Degree Programs do not provide direct financial assistance to students. Tuition fees Engineering Management Program Tuition Fees The total fee for the Engineering Management Program (EM) is $36,000 ($18,000 per year). This amount covers the following items for the entire two-year program: tuition and fees, orientation, summer seminar courses, and summer project course, textbooks, software and other course materials, master's report course, graduation, a supplemental on-line learning environment, and access to The University of Texas at Austin resources.

138 | P a g e

139 | P a g e

A.3. KU Master of Engineering Management Degree Description Master of Science Degree in Engineering Management

Program Requirements

Engineering Management (EMGT) does not require the GRE or GMAT.

EMGT classes may be taken for undergraduate credit (enrollment form and class prerequisites required), for graduate credit (non-degree seeking or as an elective for another graduate program), or as degree-seeking.

The Master of Science program in Engineering Management requires the completion of 33 credit hours. Courses are divided into three categories: Core Courses (18 hours), Elective Courses (12 hours), Field Project (3 hours). The elective course work allows students to concentrate one of three areas (Consulting Engineering Services, Manufacturing/Process Industry, Systems and Information Technology) which mirror the principal professional areas from which EMGT students come. Engineering Management is flexible with respect to students‘ choice of electives and encourages students to select courses that meet one of our emphasis areas or technical courses from Business Administration, Public Administration, Engineering or Computer Science programs. All such elective courses must be listed as graduate courses, taken for graduate credit, and approved by an EMGT Faculty member in order to apply toward the Master of Science in Engineering Management degree. The curriculum is designed to make its graduates sensitive to customer needs and to changes in business and industry and government. Throughout the EMGT program, emphasis is placed on team-based approaches, written and oral communications skills, management of technology and continuous improvement. Case studies and a field project encourage the practical application of concepts. EMGT students are

encouraged to choose work-related topics for their field projects.

Admission Requirements To enter KU's Master of Science in Engineering Management program, applicants must have:

9. Bachelor of Science undergraduate degree in engineering or related science from an accredited institution. Technology degrees are considered only with a very high (e.g. 3.8) GPA and substantial experience (8-10 years).

10. A 3.0 or higher grade point average (on a 4.0 scale). Admission may be granted on a probationary basis if your GPA is between 2.75 and 2.99 or provisional basis if your GPA is between 2.50 and 2.74.

11. Two year's full-time, post-undergraduate work experience in a technological environment. 12. International students must also meet the English, visa/I20, and financial support requirements

described in the "Admission" section.

EMGT Course Requirements

EMGT Core Courses: 18 Credits Required

Required Courses: EMGT 806 (3) Finance for Engineers EMGT 809 (4) Personal Development for Engineering Managers

Courses with Prerequisites: EMGT 821 (3) Strategic Analysis of Technology Projects (prerequisite: EMGT 806) EMGT 830 (2) Case Studies in Engineering Management (prerequisite: complete 21 credits hours)

Choose One of these for Core Quantitative Course Requirement: EMGT 810 (3) Applications of Quantitative Analysis in Decision Making EMGT 811 (3) Engineering Systems Simulation

Choose One of these for Core Project Management Course Requirement: EMGT 813 (3) Design Project Management EMGT 823 (3) Management of Internal Engineering Projects

140 | P a g e

EMGT Electives: 12 Credits Required All elective courses outside of the EMGT department must be listed as graduate courses, taken for graduate credit, and approved by an EMGT Faculty member in order to apply toward the Master of Science in Engineering Management degree. Approved EMGT elective courses are listed below: EMGT 801 ( 800T) - Management Theory and Practice for Engineering Managers EMGT 802 - Statistical Analysis and Prediction of Engineering Systems EMGT 803 - Technological Forecasting and Assessment EMGT 804 - Business Development and Marketing of Professional Services EMGT 805 - Management of Innovation EMGT 807 ( 800R) - Labor and Employee Relations for the Engineering Manager EMGT 808 - Quality Management EMGT 812 - Law and the Design Professional EMGT 824 - Product Marketing for Engineering Managers EMGT 840 - Systems Approach to Engineering EMGT 850 - Environmental Issues for Engineering Managers EMGT 860 - Special Problems in Engineering Management EMGT 862 - Manufacturing Systems Integration EMGT 867 - Advanced Operations Management EMGT 800V - Leadership Techniques and Methods for the Engineering Manager

EMGT Field Project: 3 Credits Required 1-3 credits may be taken per semester. You must enroll for credits continually (excluding Summer semesters) until the Field Project is complete.

Total EMGT Degree Program: 33 Credits Required

141 | P a g e

Master of Engineering Management Programs Consortium

On-Line / Distance Learning Masters in Engineering Management

Programs in North America

D

Duke University - MEM

M

MIT - Leaders for Global Operations Program at MIT Engineering MIT - System Design and Management Program at MIT School of Engineering and Sloan School

of Management

P

Purdue University - MSE Engineering Management and Leadership Specialization

S

142 | P a g e

Southern Methodist University - Master of Science in Engineering Management

U

University of Colorado at Boulder - Masters of Engineering in Engineering Management Program University of Texas - Engineering Management Program University of Michigan - Engineering Management Program University of Southern California - Master of Science in Engineering Management University of Wisconsin - Master of Engineering in Professional Practice

On campus Masters in Engineering Management Programs in North

America

C

Carnegie Mellon University - Engineering & Technology Innovation Management Program Case Western Reserve University - Master of Engineering and Management Christian Brothers University - MEM and MSEM Programs Columbia University - Master of Science in Engineering Management Systems

D

Dartmouth College - Master of Engineering Management Duke University - Master of Engineering Management

F

Florida International University -- Master of Science in Engineering Management

G

George Washington University - Engineering Management and Systems Engineering Program

K

Kansas State University - Master of Engineering Management

M

Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) - M.S.in Engineering Management; M.S. in New Product Management; M.S. in Marketing and Export Management; M.S.in Construction and Business Management

Missouri University of Science and Technology - Engineering Management and Systems Engineering

MIT - Leaders for Global Operations Program at MIT Engineering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_International_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_State_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milwaukee_School_of_Engineering_%28MSOE%29&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_University_of_Science_and_Technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT

143 | P a g e

MIT - System Design and Management Program at MIT School of Engineering and Sloan School of Management

N

Northwestern University - Master of Engineering Management Program New Jersey Institute of Technology - Master of Engineering Management Program

O

Old Dominion University - Engineering Management Program Oakland University - Master of Science in Engineering Management

P

Penn State Great Valley - The Master of Engineering Management Program Portland State University - Master of Engineering in Engineering Management Purdue University - MSE Engineering Management and Leadership Specialization

R

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology - MEM and MSEM Programs

S

Southern Methodist University - Master of Science in Engineering Management Saint Cloud State University - Master of Science in Engineering Management Program Saint Martin's University - Masters of Engineering Management Program

T

Tufts University - Masters of Science in Engineering Management

U

University of Colorado at Boulder - Masters of Engineering in Engineering Management Program University of Florida - Outreach Engineering Management Program University of Kansas - Master of Science in Engineering Management Program University of Michigan - Engineering Management Program University of Southern California - Master of Science in Engineering Management University of Texas - Engineering Management Program University of Wisconsin - Engineering Management

W

Western Michigan University - Master of Science in Engineering Management Program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Institute_of_Technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Dominion_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_Great_Valley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_State_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose-Hulman_Institute_of_Technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Methodist_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cloud_State_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Martin%27s_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tufts_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Colorado_at_Boulder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Florida

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Kansas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Southern_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Wisconsin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Michigan_University

144 | P a g e

145 | P a g e

A.4. Student Teaching Evaluations Faculty Evaluations by Students

146 | P a g e

COURSE EVALUATIONS

COURSE NAME: 801 INSTRUCTOR: Bowlin

CLASS NUMBER: 43974 SEMESTER: FA08

THINGS THE INSTRUCTOR DID WELL:

.Great class. Movie in class to clarify his points.

Dynamic and insightful. Great knowledge of material and personal anecdotes.

He brought the information into a good perspective.

Provided a lot of real world examples.

Understood subject matter. TALK/Present. Kept things interesting.

Excellent teacher! The class was what I expected a graduate level course to be. Class

interaction, practical real world experiences shared by instructor. Understandable,

knowledgeable and good deliver skills. Good mix of materials.

Tried to make sure the class was involved. Changed class tactics to find what worked.

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS:

Have only one paper.

2nd

book was outdated and could be revised.

Get rid of the F.A.N. book.

Different readings.

Lose the journal approach. More student presentations/papers.

None.

Eliminate the “pink” book. Try to make class more discussion and not as much lecture.

The first couple of classes were good discussion but then it turned more into a lecture.

Use books that talk about current topics. Why do we have to read tons of pages of a book

that is not even publishing now?

147 | P a g e

COURSE EVALUATIONS

COURSE NAME: 806 INSTRUCTOR: Miller



Organized the class well.

Great at communicating expectations and course requirements.

Everything.

I thought the instructor taught the material very well.

Provided a good environment for engaging discussions.

Demonstrated confidence in subject. Engendered discussion and learning.

Class discussion. Student interaction.

Class discussions were great. They really brought the topics in relevance for our daily lives.

Was flexible and worked with students.

Lead discussion in the class. Provided direction to the economy in the current subject of matter.

Very flexible.

Great in-class discussions. Really increased my knowledge of the financial system.

Aided with discussion. Shared experience and knowledge.

Generated lots of discussion in the class. More practical knowledge.

She was very knowledgeable and engaged the class well. We covered a wide range of topics and the

coursework was reasonable. I liked the in-class discussions and felt that I learned a lot about how

things all fit together in US and world economics.

Great group work. A lot of basic personal knowledge.

Group discussions and topics.

She did excellent.


Focus more towards “engineer finance” rather than “corporate finance”.

Study cases for students.

Make homework due before the class discussion.

Make assignments due or else we won‟t complete them.

A little more organization.

Homework due before class.

Shorter homework assignments.

Things mentioned in class, homework issue.

I think it would help to require homework to be completed before the lecture on that chapter in class.

Then, you could re-work problems you had difficulty with the following work.

Work the test questions out prior to giving the test.

No improvement.

148 | P a g e

COURSE EVALUATIONS

COURSE NAME: 809 INSTRUCTOR: Tuttle



Very well organized. I enjoyed it.

Showed lots of enthusiasm and energy during lectures which is important to keep students

engaged.

Instructor was very hands on with the subject matter. Did a great job making us comfortable

during the course. His experience was put forth very well and at every juncture during the

course. Overall I felt very welcomed.

Instructor is very helpful and understanding. He explained the entire course content. I was very

pleased in his delivery.

Herb was able to project the course in a very interesting manner. At the beginning of the course,

I thought it is going to be a boring semester, but my perception changed. Herb‟s teaching style

is really exceptional.

Made class fun and comfortable, helped to ease into returning to school. Used good examples

and discussed topics well. I enjoyed you as an instructor and am excited about this program.

Herb was very accommodating to the professional schedule. Length of assignments was good

and did not consume a lot of time.

Professor Tuttle is a wonderful instructor. His power to get the class motivated and excited about

the topics is truly what sets him apart from others. As a class, we are very fortunate to have

Professor Tuttle for guidance, advice, and our learning experiences.

Presented material well and thoroughly. Made it understandable to the students. Very flexible

with student‟s needs.

I was panicking at the first day of class but he made it more comfortable by distinguishing

pedagogy from anagogy—after that I was at ease and I knew then that I can have „success‟.

Professor Tuttle is so far the most influential professor I ever had. I am hoping to do more

classes with him.

Brought in good real world examples. Covered good examples.

Great real world examples. Very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about topic.

Let the students think for themselves.

Energy: Brought a certain vibe to the classroom.


A little less writing. Some assignments became tedious and somewhat un-needed.

The topics for the presentations may be updated.

Overall the course structure was very well defined and I think this is over a long time of teaching

experience. Improvements overall is the timing of the course. I thought it was too long.

Be a little more strict in assignment deadlines to instill a little discipline among the students.

Also, if grading assignments will be equally quick, then I think it is better.

Discuss assignments more after graded, what could be done better. Grades more on time.

Less busy-work assignments.

Promote healthier snacks.

Perhaps mix up the teams with each different presentation, or assign roles?

149 | P a g e

COURSE EVALUATIONS

COURSE NAME: 810 INSTRUCTOR: Bowlin



Was very understanding and helpful when had to miss class due to unexpected work conflicts!

Very knowledgeable and has great passion for the subject.

Well organized. Meaningful assignments.

Taught the class students could learn the material.

Well organized material, information and knowledge. The way the project presented. Encouraging

teamwork and application of knowledge.

Explained things well. Always available. Related materials to the real world.

Always prepared. Gave good examples. Appreciated the fact that he did not repeat himself (we did

not hear the same stories over and over again) like other classes.

Very available for help. Very good energy and enthusiasm for the subject matter.

In my experience with the EMGT program (I‟m graduating this December), Tom Bowlin is by far the

best instructor in the program. He is excellent in reading (observing) the students to know when they

are following the material and when they are lagging behind and need more examples and/or further

explanation. One aspect that makes Tom Bowlin a great instructor is that he uses examples that

relate to different students. Some instructors use only one type of example (e.g. information

technology or manufacturing) when there are a variety of disciplines of students (e.g. consulting).

Tom was very good at using examples in this class that related to me and other students, especially

since the book covered primarily manufacturing focus—this was a great help. I plan to use what I

learned in this class in several aspects of my job---it was so valuable!


None.

To see if there is a software improvement (not a professor problem).

This class has a reputation of being difficult. It was tough, but not unbearable. Rumors that I heard

were wrong. Fix the reputation if possible.

Not have a semester project.

Instructor is not technology savvy! Concentrate on concepts, not the silly procedure of doing stuff.

Stop the (Army) attitude, it makes students not feel like contacting professor. I gave up and lost

interest in this class. Material is good, but teacher‟s attitude spoilt it!

Course material very complex. Most difficult class in the program. Forced to take class as it‟s a

requirement. Very complicated and complex teaching style.

150 | P a g e

COURSE EVALUATIONS

COURSE NAME: 812 INSTRUCTOR: Richardson



Communicated well with students. Did not talk over our heads. Taught the class with good

examples of cases.

Excellent discussions, provided very applicable examples and scenarios, engaging in the way he

presented material, and very accessible when required. Really liked class at Burns & McDonnell

location. Would and will recommend this class to others.

Did a very good job familiarizing us with contract law basics. Taught us how to research for

ourselves.

Very enthusiastic about the subject. Very knowledgeable about the subject. I liked the format of the

class as we went on tangents if that is where the discussion went. (Not set in a total lecture style).

Very engaging and open to comments and questions. Keeps the class period moving. Made

accommodations for work travel. Applied the topics to those of us in the classroom, rather than

strictly by the book.

Seemed very motivated to provide content in a non-traditional manner; this approach was well

received by the entire class. Able to tackler difficult topics and explain to our level.

I enjoyed the open discussion every week. I definitely liked working through the problems as a

group when we would go over our questions we had to come up with.

I specifically took this class because Marc was the professor and he always teaches engaging classes

that are directly applicable to my engineering career. He is fair and approachable and is

understanding to our jobs when they conflict with school.


Review the assigned readings (handouts) in class and discuss them.

Final paper assignment is a bit long. A 5-10 page paper would have been a bit more feasible.

Hard to make up for missed sessions with the open style. Not sure how to fix this.

More timely response to how we are doing in the class, even thought I like having everything due at

the end in a binder.

Although the facilities at Burns & Mac are above average, the location was a further commute;

additionally the location hinders the opportunity to use KU Edwards services.

A few questions about the reading for each week. 3-5 questions to go over which would have helped

gear us for what to expect on the test.

A course that is an advanced section to further our study in A/E contract law.

Meeting at Burns & Mac was not too big of a problem but it would have been nice to be able to take

the bus.

151 | P a g e

COURSE EVALUATIONS

COURSE NAME: 813 INSTRUCTOR: Flanagan/Wilcoxon



Appreciate topics that actually apply to my daily functions and can offer improvements in my

processes.

Good explanations and real world examples.

Engaging discussions, good pacing.

Good class. Got input from 2 instructors!

Good examples. Good notes.


Textbook was an issue.

Use of technologies for review and distance learning.

152 | P a g e

A.5. Accredited/Certified Program Requirements Accredited programs by ABET Certified programs by ASEM

153 | P a g e

A.6. Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology

Table 48. General Criteria for Master’s Level Programs

II. GENERAL CRITERIA FOR MASTER’S LEVEL PROGRAMS

° Master’s level programs must develop, publish, and periodically review,

educational objectives and program outcomes. The criteria for Master’s-

level programs are fulfillment of the baccalaureate level general criteria,

fulfillment of program criteria appropriate to the Master’s level

specialization area, and one academic year of study beyond the

baccalaureate level. The program must demonstrate that graduates have

an ability to apply Master’s level knowledge in a specialized area of

engineering related to the program area.

A.6. American Society for Engineering Management Master‘s Program Certification Academic Standards A. Faculty: 1. There will be at least one full-time EM Faculty member responsible for the program. 2. Full-time Faculty members will teach one-third or more of the courses. State how many of these are Faculty members are designated Engineering Management. 3. The Faculty workload must be reasonable and appropriate for the stated mission of the program.

B. Curriculum Requirements 1. A balance between qualitative and quantitative courses 2. At least one third of the curriculum will be management and management related courses. 3. Courses designated ―Engineering Management‖ are in the academic catalog. 4. Course material must be directly related to technology driven organizations. 5. The curriculum must require each student to demonstrate a command of written and oral communication skills in English. 6. Courses must relate to knowledge workers in a global environment. 7. Each student is required to perform a capstone project or thesis using analysis and integration of Engineering Management concepts. 8. A minimum of one course in probability and statistics 9. A minimum of one course in engineering economy 10. Two courses in quantitative analysis courses are required.

C. Students Admission Requirements 1. Two years of engineering experience in a company based in a developed country Or current full-time employment in a US company as an engineer. 2. For unqualified admission, a 3.0 grade point average from and ABET accredited undergraduate program. 3. Other students may be admitted provisionally with an appropriate mathematical background equivalent to two years of calculus. 4. Administration Students must have access to an academic advisor for the purpose of planning a program of study that meets both degree and the student‘s professional requirements. 5. Support The student must have access to appropriate literature. This usually means access to a library with a collection of books and periodicals appropriate to engineering management theory and practices.

D. Administrative Support

154 | P a g e

The program must have access to sufficient resources and facilities to meet the needs of the targeted student population. Resources generated by the program are sufficiently reinvested in the program.

Certification Process The Certification Visit The Certification College of ASEM will select an evaluation team for each program making application to be certificated. The team makeup will be discussed with the chair of the applying program. Adjustments in committee makeup will be made as necessary. Three evaluators will be selected to make the visit. They will use the criteria adopted by ASEM in making the assessment. Certification Results

Programs found to be in conformance to the criteria will receive a four-year certification.

Those programs with minor infractions that may be corrected within a short period of time – one academic year for example will receive a two-year certification. If necessary, a follow-up visit may be required to assess the value of changes made. The follow-up visit will be made by one visitor.

Submission of evidence of appropriate correction will result in a four - year certification from the date of the initial visit.

Meritorious programs that do not conform to all Engineering Management certification requirements may be certified as an alternative program. Management of Technology programs are evaluated according to standards that have minor differences for those used to evaluate EM programs.

Alternative Program Certification is for programs (such as Management of Technology Programs) that have a well-designed curricula, that have a specified and limited mission and that meet most of the EM certification requirements.

All certified programs will be listed in the EMJ annually. Program Certification Costs Fees Each visit will cost $2,500 plus the cost of the team travel. Follow-up visits will be $1,500.The institution seeking certification will cover travel expenses of visitors in both initial and follow-up visits.