Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Annual Update | 1
PREACCREDITATION ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Business and Information Technology Department
Missouri University of Science and Technology
FY 2010
| Annual Update 2
Table of Contents
Section I. Applicant Data ................................................................................................................................ 4
Section II. Accreditation Process Data ............................................................................................................. 4 Section III. Number of Degrees Conferred ....................................................................................................... 5 Section IV. Business Program Enrollment ........................................................................................................ 5
Section V. Annual Faculty Updates ................................................................................................................. 6 Year 1: July 2006‐June 2007 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Year 2: July 2007‐June 2008 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Year 3: July 2008‐June 2009 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Year 4: July 2009‐June 2010 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Five‐Year Summary of Intellectual Contributions .................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2.1 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 9‐1 (Spring 2009) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 9‐1 (Fall 2009) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 9‐1 (Spring 2010) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 10‐1 (Spring 2009) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 10‐1 (Fall 2009 & Spring 2010) ................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Table 10‐2 (Spring 2009) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 10‐2 (Fall 2009) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Table 10‐2 (Spring 2010) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
2. Responses to IAC Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 22 Qualified Faculty ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Assurance of Learning ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Table of Assurance of Learning Results ............................................................................................................................................................... 24 Sri Lanka ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Background ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Operation Procedures ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Early Assessment Results ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Mentor ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27
3. Action Plan Summary/Time Frame ........................................................................................................... 27
4. Environmental Scan and Changes ............................................................................................................. 28 Job Market ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Budget ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Applications and Enrollments ............................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Student Recruitment .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Local Outreach ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 International Outreach ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Development ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
5. Improvements in existing strengths ......................................................................................................... 32 Business Essentials .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Annual Update | 3
Interdepartmental Collaborations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Corporate Relationships ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Advisory Board ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Student and Faculty Involvement with the Business Community ............................................................................................................. 35
6. New Areas of Necessary Improvement ..................................................................................................... 36 Development ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Communication ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Organization .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
7. Adjustments to the Plan ............................................................................................................................ 37 8. Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38
| Annual Update 4
Applicant Profile Sheet 15 May 2010
Section I. Applicant Data
Institution: Missouri University of Science and Technology
Location: Rolla, MO
Name of Business Academic Unit: Business & Information Technology Department
Name/Title of Business Academic Unit Head: Caroline Fisher, Chair
Name/Title of Provost/Academic Vice President: Dr. Warren K. Wray, Provost
Name/Title of Chief Executive Officer/President/Chancellor: Dr. John Carney, Chancellor
Section II. Accreditation Process Data
Date Eligibility Application was Accepted:
July 11, 2006
Mentor: Dr. Krishna S. Dhir
Date Accreditation Plan was accepted by Initial Accreditation Committee:
April 18, 2008
Projected Year of visit: 2011
Peer Review Team Chair/Advisor:
Peer Review Team Member:
Peer Review Team Member:
Section III. Degree Programs Offered by Business Academic Unit
Academic Unit Program
Undergraduate:
Bachelor of Science in Business and Management Systems Bachelor of Science in Information Science and Technology
Master’s:
Master of Business Administration Master of Science in Information Systems and Technology
Doctoral: None
Annual Update | 5
Section IV. Annual Enrollment Updates
Number of Degrees Conferred (Business Academic Unit) – Total Per Year
Year
Degree
Year 1
Accreditation process
July 2006‐June 2007
Year 2
Accreditation process
July 2007‐June 2008
Year 3
Accreditation process
July 2008‐Dec. 2008
Year 4
Accreditation process
July 2009 –June 2010
Year 5
Accreditation process
(Dates)
Year 6
Accreditation process
(Dates)
Year 7
Accreditation process
(Dates)
Undergraduate 46 71 47 68
Master’s 30 58 43 32
Doctoral 0 0 0 0
Business Program Enrollment – Please indicate term of record:
Year
Enrollment
Year 1
Accreditation process
July 2006‐June 2007
Year 2
Accreditation process
July 2007‐June 2008
Year 3
Accreditation process
July 2008‐June 2009
Year 4
Accreditation process
July 2009 –June 2010
Year 5
Accreditation process
(Dates)
Year 6
Accreditation process
(Dates)
Year 7
Accreditation process
(Dates)
Headcount
Undergraduate 212 216 208 218
Master’s 53 84 104 119
Doctoral 0 0 0 0
Total Headcount 265 300 312 337
Amount of teaching1
Undergraduate 3691 3648 3892 4456.5
Master’s 1021 1517.5 1351 1625
Doctoral 0 0 0 0
Total SCH 4712 5165.5 5243 6081.5
Total Participating Faculty
18.5 17.5 17.5 16
1 Amount of teaching is measured using Student Credit Hours (SCH)
| Annual Update 6
Section V. Annual Faculty Updates
Year 1: July 2006‐June 2007 (Provide data directly from Table 9‐1. Provide only totals, not individual faculty data.)
Faculty Sufficiency
Field of Instruction
Total Amount of Teaching if Participating
(P)
Total Amount of Teaching if Supporting (S)
P/(P + S)
Information Technology Disciplines
Enterprise Resource Planning 18 3 86%
Human Computer Interaction 9 3 75%
Information Science & Technology 42 42 50%
TOTAL IT 69 48 59%
Accounting 21 3 87.5%
Finance 15 0 100%
Management 19 27 41%
Marketing 21 0 100%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR SCHOOL 145 78 65%
(Provide data directly from Table 10‐2. Provide only totals, not individual faculty data.)
Faculty Sufficiency
Field of
Instruction
AQ Faculty ‐ % of Time Devoted to Mission
PQ Faculty ‐ % of Time Devoted to Mission
Other Faculty – % of Time Devoted to Mission
(AQ + PQ)/(AQ + PQ + O)
AQ/(PQ + AQ + O)
IT Disciplines
ERP2 150 0 12.5 92% 92%
HCI3 100 12.5 0 100% 89%
IST4 225 150 125 75% 45%
TOTAL IT 475 162.5 125 84% 62%
Accounting 200 50 12.5 95% 76%
Finance 200 0 0 100% 100%
Management 375 87.5 0 100% 81%
Marketing 200 0 0 100% 100%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR SCHOOL
1450 300 150 92% 76%
2 ERP stands for Enterprise Resource Planning 3 HCI stands for Human-Computer Interaction 4 IST stands for Information Science and Technology
Annual Update | 7
Section V. Annual Faculty Updates (continued)
Year 2: July 2007‐June 2008 (Provide data directly from Table 9‐1. Provide only totals, not individual faculty data.)
Faculty
Sufficiency
Field of
Instruction
Total Amount of Teaching if Participating (P)
Total Amount of Teaching if Supporting (S)
P/(P + S) =
IT Disciplines
ERP 30 0 100%
HCI 12 3 80%
IST 57 30 66%
TOTAL IT 99 33 75%
Management 46 15 75%
Accounting 30 0 100%
Finance 15.5 0 100%
Marketing 19.5 0 100%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR SCHOOL
210 48 81%
(Provide data directly from Table 10‐2. Provide only totals, not individual faculty data.)
Faculty
Sufficiency
Field of
Instruction
AQ Faculty ‐ % of Time
Devoted to Mission
PQ Faculty ‐ % of Time
Devoted to Mission
Other Faculty –
% of Time Devoted to Mission
(AQ + PQ)/(AQ + PQ + O)
AQ/(PQ + AQ + O)
IT Disciplines
ERP 200 0 0 100% 100%
HCI 100 12.5 0 100% 89%
IST 250 175 150 74% 43%
TOTAL IT 462.5 187.5 150 81% 58%
Accounting 100 100 0 100% 50%
Finance 112.5 0 0 100% 100%
Management 300 62.5 0 100% 83%
Marketing 200 0 0 100% 100%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR SCHOOL
1300 350 150 92% 72%
| Annual Update 8
Section V. Annual Faculty Updates (continued)
Year 3: July 2008‐June 2009 (Provide data directly from Table 9‐1. Provide only totals, not individual faculty data.)
Faculty
Sufficiency
Field of
Instruction
Total Amount of Teaching if Participating (P)
Total Amount of Teaching if Supporting (S)
P/(P + S) =
IT Disciplines
ERP 27 0 100%
HCI 12 0 100%
IST 63 9 88%
TOTAL IT 102 9 92%
Accounting 15 6 71%
Finance 12 1.5 80%
Management 46 19.5 70%
Marketing 24 1.5 94%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR SCHOOL
199 39 84%
(Provide data directly from Table 10‐2. Provide only totals, not individual faculty data.)
Faculty
Sufficiency
Field of
Instruction
AQ Faculty ‐ % of Time Devoted
to Mission
PQ Faculty ‐ % of Time Devoted to Mission
Other Faculty –
% of Time Devoted to Mission
(AQ + PQ)/(AQ + PQ + O)
AQ/(PQ + AQ + O)
IT Disciplines
ERP 200 200 0 100% 50%
HCI 100 0 0 100% 100%
IST 625 275 200 57% 82%
TOTAL IT 925 475 200 87.5% 58%
Accounting 200 50 0 80% 100%
Finance 200 25 0 89% 100%
Management 900 125 19 85% 96%
Marketing 400 12 0 97% 100%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR SCHOOL
2725 687 238 75% 93%
Annual Update | 9
Section V. Annual Faculty Updates (continued)
Year 4: July 2009‐June 2010 (Provide data directly from Table 9‐1. Provide only totals, not individual faculty data.) Faculty
Sufficiency Field of Instruction
Total Amount of Teaching if
Participating (P)
Total Amount of Teaching if
Supporting (S)
P/(P + S) =
IT Disciplines
ERP 30 0 100%
HCI 12 0 100%
IST 63 9 88%
TOTAL IT 105 9 92%
Accounting 12 0 100%
Finance 12 0 100%
Management 30 12 71%
Marketing 15 1.5 91%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR SCHOOL 174 22.5 89%
(Provide data directly from Table 10‐2. Provide only totals, not individual faculty data.)
Faculty
Sufficiency
Field of
Instruction
AQ Faculty ‐ % of Time Devoted to
Mission
PQ Faculty ‐ % of Time Devoted to Mission
Other Faculty –
% of Time Devoted to Mission
(AQ + PQ)/(AQ + PQ + O)
AQ/(PQ + AQ + O)
IT Disciplines
ERP 200 200 0 100% 50%
HCI 200 0 0 100% 100%
IST 850 275 0 100% 75.5%
TOTAL IT 1250 475 0 100% 72.5%
Accounting 200 0 0 100% 100%
Finance 200 0 0 100% 100%
Management 500 175 25 96.4% 71.4%
Marketing 200 0 0 100% 100%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR SCHOOL
2350 650 25 99.2% 77.7%
| Annual Update 10
Five‐Year Summary of Intellectual Contributions5
Table 2.1
Faculty
Portfolio of Intellectual Contributions Summary of Types
of ICs
Peer Reviewed Journals
Research M
onograp
hs
Books
Chap
ters
Peer Reviewed
Proceedings
Peer Reviewed Research
Presentations
Faculty Research Seminar
Non‐Peer Reviewed
Journals
Other
Learning & Pedagogical
Research
Contributions to Practice
Disciplin
e‐Based Research
Accounting
Li Li Eng 8 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 13
Finance
Yingchou Lin 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 7
ERP
Yu‐Hsien Chiu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Bih‐Ru Lea 8 0 0 0 11 6 0 0 2 0 1 26
HCI
Richard Hall 7 0 0 0 24 2 0 0 4 1 2 34
IST
Carla Bates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Barry Flachsbart 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 6
Mike Hilgers 2 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
Bill Kehr 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3
Chris Merz 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eun Soo Park 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5
Hong Sheng 10 0 0 0 20 3 0 0 6 0 2 37
Vincent Yu 7 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 6 0 1 22
Management
Eric Anderson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bonnie Bachman 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Robert Berry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cassie Elrod 3 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 1 1 8
Caroline Fisher 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 5
Chihmao Hsieh 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Ray Kluczny 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Marketing
Morris Kalliny 18 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 4 1 2 43
5 Faculty members are required to maintain either AQ or PQ status. These qualifications are well defined in the department and serve as a guide in the development of intellectual contributions.
Annual Update | 11
Summary of Faculty Sufficiency (P6 or S7) By Discipline and School
Table 9‐1 (Spring 2009)
6 Participating faculty are those who are involved in teaching, research, and the governance of the department in terms of serving on faculty committees and helping determine the department strategic plan. Participating faculty would be committed to the department above any other employer 7 Supporting faculty are those who are primarily just involved in one of the three faculty responsibilities (teaching, research, and service). These faculty members are usually called adjunct faculty and may be working for another organization or be retired from S&T or a business organization. They normally work for the university half time or less.
Faculty Sufficiency Faculty Name & Discipline
Participating or Supporting (P or S)
Amount of teaching if P (% full time)
Amount of teaching if S (% full time)
P/(P + S) must be > 60%
Accounting
Li Li Eng P 4.5
TOTAL ACCOUNTING 4.5 0 100.00%
Finance
Yingchou Lin P 7.5
TOTAL FINANCE 7.5 0 100.00%
ERP (IT Discipline)
Yu‐Hsien Chiu P 12
Bih‐Ru Lea P 6
TOTAL ERP 18 0 100.00%
HCI (IT Discipline)
Richard Hall P 6 100.00%
TOTAL HCI 6 0 100.00%
IST (IT Discipline)
Carla Bates S 3
Barry Flachsbart P 6
Mike Hilgers P 3
Bill Kehr P 9
Chris Merz S 3
Eun Soo Park P 3
Hong Sheng P 6
Vincent Yu P 6
TOTAL IST 33 6 84.62%
TOTAL IT DISCIPLINES 57 6 90.48%
Management
Eric Anderson S 3
Cassie Elrod P 6
Caroline Fisher P 0.5
Chihmao Hsieh P 6
Ray Kluzny S 3
Julie Patock‐Peckham P 3
Roger Solano P 3
TOTAL MANAGEMENT 18.5 6 75.51%
Marketing
Lance Gentry P 6
Morris Kalliny P 3
TOTAL MARKETING 9 0 100.00%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR DEPARTMENT 96.5 12 88.94%
| Annual Update 12
Summary of Faculty Sufficiency by Discipline and School
Table 9‐1 (Fall 2009)
Accounting
Li Li Eng P 6
TOTAL ACCOUNTING 6 0 100.00%
Finance
Yingchou Lin P 6
TOTAL FINANCE 6 0 100.00%
ERP (IT Discipline)
Yu‐Hsien Chiu P 9
Bih‐Ru Lea P 6
TOTAL ERP 15 0 100.00%
HCI (IT Discipline)
Richard Hall P 6
TOTAL HCI 6 0 100.00%
IST (IT Discipline)
Carla Bates S 3
Barry Flachsbart P 6
Mike Hilgers P 6
Bill Kehr P 6
Hong Sheng P 6
Vincent Yu P 6
TOTAL IST 30 3 90.91%
TOTAL IT DISCIPLINES 51 3 94.44%
Management
Eric Anderson S 3
Robert Berry S 3
Cassie Elrod P 6
Caroline Fisher P 3
Chihmao Hsieh P 6
Ray Kluczny S 3
TOTAL MANAGEMENT 15 9 62.50%
Marketing
Morris Kalliny P 6
TOTAL MARKETING 6 0 100.00%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR DEPARTMENT
84 12 87.50%
Faculty Sufficiency Faculty Name & Discipline
Participating or Supporting (P or S)
Amount of teaching if P
(% full time)
Amount of teaching if S
(% full time)
PA/(PA + SA) must be > 60%
Annual Update | 13
Summary of Faculty Sufficiency by Discipline and School
Table 9‐1 (Spring 2010) Faculty Sufficiency Faculty Name & Discipline
Participating or Supporting (P or S)
Amount of teaching if P (% full time)
Amount of teaching if S (% full time)
PA/(PA + SA) must be > 60%
Accounting
Li Li Eng P 6
TOTAL ACCOUNTING 6 0 100.00%
Finance
Yingchou Lin P 6
TOTAL FINANCE 6 0 100.00%
ERP (IT Discipline)
Yu‐Hsien Chiu P 9
Bih‐Ru Lea P 6
TOTAL ERP 15 0 100.00%
HCI (IT Discipline)
Richard Hall P 6 100.00%
TOTAL HCI 6 0 100.00%
IST (IT Discipline)
Carla Bates S 3
Barry Flachsbart P 6
Mike Hilgers P 3
Bill Kehr P 9
Chris Merz S 3
Eun Soo Park P 3
Hong Sheng P 6
Vincent Yu P 6
TOTAL IST 33 6 84.62%
TOTAL IT DISCIPLINES 54 6 90.00%
Management
Eric Anderson S 3
Bonnie Bachman P 3
Cassie Elrod P 6
Caroline Fisher P 6
TOTAL MANAGEMENT 15 3 83.33%
Marketing
Morris Kalliny P 9
TOTAL MARKETING 9 0 100.00%
OVERALL TOTAL FOR DEPARTMENT
90 9 90.91%
| Annual Update 14
SUMMARY OF FACULTY QUALIFICATION, INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS, AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES8
Table 10‐1 (Spring 2009)
Name
Highest Earned Degree & Year
Date of First Appointment to School
Percent of Time Dedicated to the School's Mission ‐ Spring 2009 A
cademically
9Qualification
Professional
10Qualification
Other
TOTAL Number of Contributions during the last 5 years
Normal Professional Responsibilities
Learning & Pedagogical Scholarship
Discipline‐Based
Scholarship Contributions to Practice
PRJ OIC PRJ OIC PRJ OIC
Accounting
Li Li Eng PhD 1995 9/1/2008 100 Yes 0 0 8 5 0 0
UG/GR Res Ser
Finance
Yingchou Lin
PhD 2007 9/1/2007 100 Yes 0 0 2 5 0 0
UG/GR Res Ser
ERP
Yu‐Hsien Chiu
MS 1991 1/1/2007 100 Yes 0 0 0 1 0 0
UG/GR Ser
Bih‐Ru Lea PhD 1998 9/1/2003 100 Yes 0 0 8 18 0 1
UG/GR Res ADM Ser
HCI
Richard Hall
PhD 1988 1/1/2002 100 Yes 0 1 7 27 0 2
UG/GR Res ADM Ser
IST 0 0 0 0 0 0
Carla Bates
MS 2005 3/1/2004 25 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 UG
Barry Flachsbart
PhD 1966 1/1/2003 100 Yes 0 0 3 3 0 0
UG/GR Res Ser
Mike Hilgers
PhD 1992 1/1/2002 100 Yes 0 0 2 13 0 0
UG/GR Res ADM Ser
Bill Kehr PhD 2002 9/1/2002 100 Yes 0 0 1 2 0 0
UG/GR Ser
Chris Merz
PhD 1998 9/1/2003 25 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 GR
Eun Soo Park
PhD 1993 9/1/1999 50 Yes 0 0 3 2 0 1
UG/GR Res Ser
8 We used the prior form of Table 10-1 because we believed it to be the appropriate one in Spring 2009. 9 Initial academic qualification is achieved by earning a Ph.D. (or highest degree available appropriate for the teaching discipline) from an accredited institution in the area of teaching. This initial academic qualification continues for a period of five years from earning the Ph.D. Continuing academic qualification requires intellectual contributions in the teaching area of at least five intellectual contributions and validating experiences within the prior five years. At least two of these intellectual contributions must be quality publications. 10 Professional qualifications are initially judged on an individual basis. A faculty member in the Department of Business and Information Technology will be considered professionally qualified if that member possesses at least a masters degree in a topic related to the area of instruction and professional experience that is significant in duration (3 years or longer) and level of responsibility at the time of hiring. Continued professional qualification after meeting the initial professional qualification standards described above would require either (1) continuing work at the same professional level as above, full time or part time; (2) paid consulting with a for-profit organization of at least 30 days a year, or (3) completion of at least one validating experience (see examples below) or quality publication over the past five years.
Annual Update | 15
Hong Sheng
PhD 2006 9/1/2006 100 Yes 0 0 10 27 0 2
UG/GR Res Ser
Vincent Yu
PhD 2003 9/1/2003 100 Yes 0 0 7 15 0 1
UG/GR Res Ser
Management
Eric Anderson JD 1998 1/1/2004 25 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 UG Ser
Robert Berry
PhD 1980 9/1/2009 0 Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0
UG/GR
Cassie Elrod
PhD 2007 9/1/2007 100 Yes 0 1 3 5 0 1
UG/GR Res Ser
Caroline Fisher
PhD 1975 8/1/2005 100 Yes 0 0 4 1 2 2
UG/GR ADM Ser
Chihmao Hsieh
PhD 2007 9/1/2006 100 Yes 0 0 2 6 0 0 UG Res Ser
Ray Kluczny
PhD 1979 9/1/2001 0
Yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 UG
Julie Patock Peckham
PhD 2005 9/1/2005 50 Yes 0 0 7 14 0 0 UG Res Ser
Roger Solano
PhD 2008 9/1/2008 100 Yes 0 0 0 2 0 0
UG/GR Res Ser
Marketing
Lance Gentry
PhD 2003 9/1/2003 100 Yes 0 0 2 2 0 6 UG Res Ser
Morris Kalliny
PhD 2005 9/1/2005 100 Yes 0 1 18 25 0 2
UG/GR Res ADM Ser
| Annual Update 16
SUMMARY OF FACULTY QUALIFICATION, INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS, AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Table 10‐1 (Fall 2009 & Spring 2010)
Highest Earned Degree &
Year
Date of First Appointm
ent
to School
Percent of Time Dedicated
to the School's M
ission ‐ Fall
2009
Percent of Time Dedicated
to the School's M
ission ‐
Spring 2010
Academically Qualified11
Professionally Qualified12
Other
Five‐Year Summary of Development Activities
Supporting AQ or PQ Status
Name Intellectual
Contributions
Professional
Experience
Consulting
Professional
Development
Other
Professional
Activities
Normal Professional Responsibilities
Accounting
Li Li Eng PhD 1995 9/1/2008 100 100 Yes 13 UG/GR Res Ser
Finance
Yingchou Lin PhD 2007 9/1/2007 100 100 Yes 7 UG/GR Res Ser
ERP
Yu‐Hsien Chiu MS 1991 1/1/2007 100 100 Yes 1 12+ years 2 UG/GR Ser
Bih‐Ru Lea PhD 1998 9/1/2003 100 100 Yes 27 UG/GR Res ADM Ser
HCI
Richard Hall PhD 1988 1/1/2002 100 100 Yes 37 UG/GR Res ADM Ser
IST
Carla Bates MS 2005 3/1/2004 25 25 Yes 0
14+ years
* 1 UG
Barry Flachsbart
PhD 1966 1/1/2003 100 100 Yes 6 UG/GR Res Ser
Mike Hilgers PhD 1992 1/1/2002 100 100 Yes 15 UG/GR Res ADM Ser
Bill Kehr PhD 2002 9/1/2002 100 100 Yes 3
25+ years 1 UG/GR Ser
Chris Merz PhD 1998 9/1/2003 0 25 Yes 0
10+ years
* GR
Eun Soo Park PhD 1993 9/1/1999 0 50 Yes 6 UG/GR Res Ser
11 Initial academic qualification is achieved by earning a Ph.D. (or highest degree available appropriate for the teaching discipline) from an accredited institution in the area of teaching. This initial academic qualification continues for a period of five years from earning the Ph.D. Continuing academic qualification requires intellectual contributions in the teaching area of at least five intellectual contributions and validating experiences within the prior five years. At least two of these intellectual contributions must be quality publications. 12 Professional qualifications are initially judged on an individual basis. A faculty member in the Department of Business and Information Technology will be considered professionally qualified if that member possesses at least a masters degree in a topic related to the area of instruction and professional experience that is significant in duration (3 years or longer) and level of responsibility at the time of hiring. Continued professional qualification after meeting the initial professional qualification standards described above would require either (1) continuing work at the same professional level as above, full time or part time; (2) paid consulting with a for-profit organization of at least 30 days a year, or (3) completion of at least one validating experience (see examples below) or quality publication over the past five years. * Currently practicing
Annual Update | 17
Hong Sheng PhD 2006 9/1/2006 100 100 Yes 39 UG/GR Res Ser
Vincent Yu PhD 2003 9/1/2003 100 100 Yes 23 UG/GR Res Ser
Management
Eric Anderson JD 1998 1/1/2004 25 25 Yes 0
10+ years
* UG Ser
Bonnie Bachman
PhD 1995 9/1/2009 0 100 Yes 3
28+ years 1 3 UG/GR Res Ser
Robert Berry
PhD 1980 9/1/2009 25 0 Yes 0
30+ years
* UG/GR
Cassie Elrod
PhD 2007 9/1/2007 100 100 Yes 10 UG/GR Res Ser
Caroline Fisher
PhD 1975 8/1/2005 100 100 Yes 9 UG/GR ADM Ser
Chihmao Hsieh
PhD 2007 9/1/2006 100 0 Yes 8 UG Res Ser
Ray Kluczny
PhD 1979 9/1/2001 25 0
Yes 0 UG
Marketing
Morris Kalliny
PhD 2005 9/1/2005 100 100 Yes 46 UG/GR Res ADM Ser
| Annual Update 18
CALCULATIONS RELATIVE TO DEPLOYMENT OF QUALIFIED FACULTY (RE: Standard 10)
Table 10‐2 (Spring 2009)
NAME
Qualification (Academic=AQ, Professional=PQ,
Other=O) (From Table 10‐
1)
AQ Faculty % of Time
Devoted to Mission
(From Table 10‐1)
PQ Faculty % of Time
Devoted to Mission
(From Table 10‐1)
Other Faculty % of Time Devoted to Mission
(From Table 10‐1)
Qualification Ratios per Standard 10
Stan
dard
Accounting
Li Li Eng AQ 100
TOTAL ACCOUNTING 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
Finance
Yingchou Lin AQ 100
TOTAL FINANCE 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
ERP
Yu‐Hsien Chiu PQ 100
Bih‐Ru Lea AQ 100
TOTAL ERP 100 100 0 AQ 50.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
HCI
Richard Hall AQ 100
TOTAL HCI 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
IST
Carla Bates PQ 25
Barry Flachsbart AQ 100
Mike Hilgers AQ 100
Bill Kehr PQ 100
Chris Merz PQ
Eun Soo Park AQ 50
Hong Sheng AQ 100
Vincent Yu AQ 100
TOTAL IST 450 125 0 AQ 78.3% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
Management
Eric Anderson PQ 25
Cassie Elrod AQ 100
Caroline Fisher AQ 100
Chihmao Hsieh AQ 100
Ray Kluczny O 25
Julie Patock‐Peckham AQ 50
Roger Solano AQ 100
TOTAL MANAGEMENT 450 25 25 AQ 90.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 95.0% >90%
Annual Update | 19
Marketing
Morris Kalliny AQ 100
Lance Gentry AQ 100
TOTAL MARKETING 200 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
TOTAL FOR DEPARTMENT 1500 250 25 AQ 84.5% >50%
AQ+PQ 98.6% >90%
| Annual Update 20
CALCULATIONS RELATIVE TO DEPLOYMENT OF QUALIFIED FACULTY (RE: Standard 10)
Table 10‐2 (Fall 2009)
NAME
Qualification (Academic=AQ, Professional=PQ,
Other=O) (From Table 10‐
1)
AQ Faculty % of Time Devoted to Mission
(From Table 10‐1)
PQ Faculty % of Time Devoted to Mission
(From Table 10‐1)
Other Faculty % of Time
Devoted to Mission
(From Table 10‐1)
Qualification Ratios per Standard 10
Stan
dard
Accounting
Li Li Eng AQ 100
TOTAL ACCOUNTING 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
Finance
Yingchou Lin AQ 100
TOTAL FINANCE 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
ERP
Yu‐Hsien Chiu PQ 100
Bih‐Ru Lea AQ 100
TOTAL ERP 100 100 0 AQ 50.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
HCI
Richard Hall AQ 100
TOTAL HCI 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
IST
Carla Bates PQ 25
Barry Flachsbart AQ 100
Mike Hilgers AQ 100
Bill Kehr PQ 100
Hong Sheng AQ 100
Vincent Yu AQ 100
TOTAL IST 400 125 0 AQ 76.2% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
Management
Eric Anderson PQ 25
Robert Berry PQ 25
Cassie Elrod AQ 100
Caroline Fisher AQ 100
Chihmao Hsieh AQ 100
Ray Kluczny O 25
TOTAL MANAGEMENT 300 50 25 AQ 80.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 93.3% >90%
Marketing
Morris Kalliny AQ 100
TOTAL MARKETING 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
TOTAL FOR DEPARTMENT 1200 275 25 AQ 80.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 98.3% >90%
Annual Update | 21
CALCULATIONS RELATIVE TO DEPLOYMENT OF QUALIFIED FACULTY (RE: Standard 10)
Table 10‐2 (Spring 2010)
NAME
Qualification (Academic=AQ, Professional=PQ,
Other=O) (From Table 10‐
1)
AQ Faculty % of Time Devoted to Mission
(From Table 10‐1)
PQ Faculty % of Time Devoted to Mission
(from Table 10‐1)
Other Faculty % of Time
Devoted to Mission
(From Table 10‐1)
Qualification Ratios per Standard 10
Stan
dard
Accounting
Li Li Eng AQ 100
TOTAL ACCOUNTING 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
Finance
Yingchou Lin AQ 100
TOTAL FINANCE 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
ERP
Yu‐Hsien Chiu PQ 100
Bih‐Ru Lea AQ 100
TOTAL ERP 100 100 0 AQ 50.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
HCI
Richard Hall AQ 100
TOTAL HCI 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
IST
Carla Bates PQ 25
Barry Flachsbart AQ 100
Mike Hilgers AQ 100
Bill Kehr PQ 100
Chris Merz PQ 25
Eun Soo Park AQ 50
Hong Sheng AQ 100
Vincent Yu AQ 100
TOTAL IST 450 150 0 AQ 75.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
Management
Eric Anderson PQ 25
Bonnie Bachman PQ 100
Cassie Elrod AQ 100
Caroline Fisher AQ 100
TOTAL MANAGEMENT 200 125 0 AQ 61.5% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
Marketing
Morris Kalliny AQ 100
TOTAL MARKETING 100 0 0 AQ 100.0% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
TOTAL FOR DEPARTMENT 1150 375 0 AQ 75.4% >50%
AQ+PQ 100.0% >90%
| Annual Update 22
ANNUAL REVIEW 15 May 2010
2. Responses to IAC Concerns
Qualified Faculty The IAC stated:
The committee recognizes the progress you have made in deploying Academically Qualified faculty. Please report on your continued progress with improving the number of Academically Qualified faculty, specifically in the Information Science and Technology discipline. (Standard 10: Faculty Qualifications)
The faculty members in Information Science who had not kept up their academic qualifications have worked on research and publications. Both have at least two journal articles submitted; once these are accepted they will meet our minimum for academic qualification. Dr. Barry Flachsbart has reacquired his AQ status. He had three journal publications plus one peer‐reviewed proceeding and two peer‐reviewed presentations during the last five years. In terms of professional qualification, Dr. Kehr ran a telecommunications company for 21 years. Currently, he is consulting with a telecommunications company. Furthermore, he had one article published in an applied professional journal in January 2009, one article published in a peer‐reviewed journal, and one peer‐reviewed paper presentation at a conference. He is now professionally qualified by our definition. He has responded well to the need for publications although his intent is to retire in one year.
Assurance of Learning
Another item stated in the letter from the IAC is:
Please continue to work on implementing your Assurance of Learning plan and report assessment results to the committee along with curricular changes made as a result of the assessments. (Standards 15‐20: Assurance of Learning)
The assurance of learning program has been fully implemented. Rubrics and assessment instruments for all outcomes are in place. For most learning outcomes, the assessment instrument is an in‐class assignment. For others, students complete the instrument as part of a graduation requirement. The in‐class assessment instruments are used in required courses every semester or year, depending on the course schedule. We plan to assess only a sample against our rubrics and only assess some outcomes once every few years in the future. One assessment cycle is completed. All our degrees used assessment instruments that were marked based on the associated rubrics. We scored whether the students were unsatisfactory, satisfactory, or outstanding on each item in a rubric and on the assignment overall. Where possible, we used two or more assessors and judged the inter‐rate reliability
Annual Update | 23
of the marks. Our goal is to have at least 70% perform at the satisfactory or outstanding level on the overall assignment. When our outcome assessment did not show at least that level of performance, we reviewed our curricula and determined a plan for improvement.
Improving the Outcome Assessment Process As this was our first complete assessment cycle, the assessment process itself was subject to examination. Perhaps the most significant lessons learned addressed how to improve the process.
1. In Fall 2008 and Spring 2009, results of the Written and Oral Communication
Assessments were given on a continuous scale of 1‐3. Required levels to attain
Outstanding, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory results were not clear. For example, to
achieve “Outstanding”, the sample had to have a perfect score of 3. This was changed in
later assessments to show clear ranges of scores for each level.
2. Rubrics for Oral Communication did not apply well to presentations given by groups.
The rubrics were modified to accommodate this so that an individual within a group
presentation can be adequately assessed.
3. Rubrics for Written Communication were clarified to attain more objectivity by including
specifics. For example, the number of grammar and spelling errors were tallied, etc.
4. In Spring 2010, a steering committee for oversight of the outcome assessment process
was created, rather than using a somewhat decentralized network process. This
steering committee organizes the schedule to ensure that the assignments for
assessment are given in a manner suitable for the annual class schedule. It collects
results and oversees the scoring of the assignments according to the rubrics. If items
seem to warrant further review, the steering committee will pass the results to the
curriculum committee.
5. For each outcome, hard copies of rubrics, sample instruments or assessed documents,
and detailed results are centrally kept. A master results table and schedule table were
created to take the place of multiple previous documents.
Closing the Loop: Improving Student Learning 1. Due to dissatisfaction with our results from the communication outcome items, we began
a “Business Basics” seminar series in Spring of 2009. Several seminars have been given by
campus experts on topics such as writing and presentation skills. These were scheduled
outside of regular classes, but some instructors gave class credit for attendance. They
were also made available online. Communication scores have shown some improvement
compared to a year ago. These will be repeated every two years.
2. Also in conjunction with the communication outcome items, instructors are encouraged
to add more writing assignments or modify existing writing assignments in their courses.
This has been implemented in IST 51 and 151 and Bus 110 for the undergraduates.
| Annual Update 24
3. Nearly all the items on the MS IST assessment showed 100% of the students as
satisfactory or outstanding, indicating our students are successfully meeting our learning
goals. The IST faculty felt these students could be held to an even higher standard. MS
IST rubrics and scoring were revised so that the level of mastery needed is even higher
than previously used.
4. In order to broaden student knowledge and help students attain a more global
perspective, an international business course has been added to the undergraduate
business curriculum as a required course. This change began as a simultaneous
suggestion from both our faculty and our Student Advisory Board. The faculty had noted
scores that were lower than desired on the international section of the area exam we
give to all graduating seniors in our two undergraduate majors. The change was fully
discussed and is approved for incoming freshmen starting in Fall 2010.
5. While the overall scores on critical thinking are satisfactory, we have noted a weakness in
the Evaluation subscale with 50% of the scores for undergraduates being unsatisfactory in
Spring 2010. We will pass this information to the curriculum committee to consider.
Table of Assurance of Learning Results
Program Outcome Semester %
Satisfactory Action
Undergraduate
Oral Communication
FS09 100% No change needed.
Written Communication
FS09 92% No change needed
Technology Skills
FS09 86% No change needed
Critical Thinking
SP10 96% No change needed
Teamwork FS08 100% No change needed
MBA
Oral Communication
FS09 100% No change needed
Written Communication
FS09 100% No change needed
Technology Skills
SP09 100% No change needed
Teamwork FS08 100% No change needed
Leadership FS08 86% No change needed
Critical Thinking
FS09 94% No change needed
MS IST*
Oral Communication
FS09 100% No change needed
Written Communication
SP09 100% No change needed
Digital Communication
FS08 100% No change needed
Teamwork FS08 100% No change needed
IT Impact Knowledge
FS08 70% No change needed
Leadership SP09 100% No change needed
Annual Update | 25
Sri Lanka In annual response from the IAC in 2009, it was stated
Your accreditation plan states: “The Department of Business Administration is beginning a relationship with American National College in Sri Lanka. The Department will offer its BS in Information Science & Technology (IST) in the near future. The Department will offer its IST courses via distance delivery to students in Sri Lanka”. Please continue to provide regular updates on the development of these programs to the Committee in order to determine when the programs should be added to the scope of accreditation. (Standard 4: Continuous Improvement Objectives and eligibility criterion C: scope of accreditation)
The program of education in association with Sri Lanka has begun. In the spring of 2010, the first course went online with a second to follow quickly on its heels in the summer of 2010.
Semester Courses Offered to Sri Lanka via Distance
Spring 2010 IST 50 Information Systems
Summer 2010 IST 51 Implementation of Information Systems I
Fall 2010 IST151 Implementation of Information Systems II
IST 231 Introduction to Databases
Spring 2011
IST 50 Information Systems
IST 233 Networks and Communications
IST 286 Web & New Media Design & Development
Summer 2011
ERP 246 Introduction to Enterprise Resource Planning
IST 241 E‐commerce
IST 243 Systems Analysis
IST 51 Implementation of Information Systems I
Fall 2011
BUS 397 Senior Design I
ERP 246 Introduction to Enterprise Resource Planning
IST 223 Database Management
IST 353 Modular Software Systems in Java
IST 151 Implementation of Information Systems II
Spring 2012
BUS 398 Senior Design II
IST 321 Network Performance Design and Management
IST 361 Information Systems Project Management
IST 233 Networks and Communications
IST 286 Web and New Media Design and Development
IST 50 Information Systems
As shown in the table, Fall 2010 will see two courses taught, and this number keeps increasing. By the spring of 2012, we plan to offer six courses a semester to Sri Lanka via distance.
| Annual Update 26
The first question of concern is whether we have a process in place to ensure the necessary amount of control over the Sri Lanka program. Another important question is whether or not this process is successful in achieving the associated goals.
Background
IST50, Introduction to Management Information Systems, was offered at ANC Sri Lanka in Spring 2010. This is the first S&T IST class to be delivered at ANC Sri Lanka via distance learning. Due to the difference in academic calendars and the time difference, this class is not offered to ANC Sir Lanka live (synchronously). The instructor at S&T records it in advance. The lecture recordings are then uploaded to WebEx, a distance learning delivery channel. The instructor at ANC Sri Lanka downloads and plays the archives to the students, and conducts class events accordingly.
Operation Procedures
The execution of one course between S&T and ANC includes: (1) instructor recruitment, (2) student enrollment, and (3) class delivery and evaluation. The flowcharts in the appendix illustrate the process flow for each phase.
Early Assessment Results
Only the results for the Microsoft Access lab are available at the time of this report. The result for Microsoft Excel lab will be available shortly after the end of the semester.
Technology (Microsoft Access) Result Comparison: S&T IST 50 ANC IST50
Raw Score
Evaluation (%)
Raw Score Evaluation (%)
Outstanding 16 43% 10 77%
Satisfactory 11 30% 0 0%
Unsatisfactory 10 27% 3 23%
Sample Size 37 13
From our perspective, there were some challenges:
There were administrative difficulties in getting the Sri Lanka instructor established with S&T IDs for use with systems such as Blackboard.
ANC’s trimester system has different start, end, and holiday dates. This makes synchronous behavior with S&T nearly impossible.
There are cultural differences that interfere with examples used.
Expectations in the classroom are different. Traditionally in Sri Lanka, there are no tests or collected work during the trimester. Rather, assessment happens at the end of term in a long final. For our courses, Sri Lankan students must adapt to our structure.
Annual Update | 27
S&T had resource issues in trying to find a classroom that offered both computers for assignment work as well as distance capability.
Mentor The annual report guideline states:
The Mentor will provide an evaluation of information and outcomes reported by the applicant in the form of updates on the applicant’s progress reports to the IAC (or AAC) liaison. This practice ensures a continuous dialogue and facilitates the flow of accurate information between the applicant and IAC (or AAC).
We will be sure to advise him of any changes to our plan. We are in email and phone contact whenever a question or issue arises. Dr. Dhir visited our campus in May 2010.
3. Action Plan Summary/Time Frame
Accreditation Plan Time Line Revised13
Missouri University of Science and Technology Projected Completion
Date Activity Responsible Persons Status
Completion Date
Spring 2009 Implement assessment plan for MS IST
Faculty Complete Spring 2009
Spring 2009 Evaluate MBA student progress on outcomes
Faculty Complete Spring 2009
Spring 2009 Evaluate MS IST student progress on outcomes
Faculty Complete Spring 2009
Spring 2009 Assess learning outcomes and develop curricula changes
Faculty Complete Spring 2009
Spring 2011 Review all curricula with Advisory Board
Fisher Complete Fall 2009
Spring 2011 All full‐time faculty in IST will be either AQ or PQ
Fisher Complete Spring 2009
Spring 2011 Review all curricula with Advisory Board
Fisher Complete Fall 2009
2010/2011 Self Study Faculty
Fall 2011 Site Visit by AACSB Team
13 Updated 10 May 2010
| Annual Update 28
4. Environmental Scan and Changes
The most critical changes in our environment are related to the economic downturn. The economy impacts us in four critical areas: job market for our students, budgets, applications and enrollments, and development.
Figure 1 College Hiring trends14
Job Market Painting the job market in broad strokes produces a rather gloomy picture. The national average unemployment in March 2010 was 9.7%15. Furthermore, on average the number of people who have been hired upon graduation has dropped significantly. In the Spring 2009 semester, there was a drop in hiring of over 20%16. A further decrease of 7% was predicted for Fall 2010 (see Figure 1). Another complicating factor is that only 30% of employers nationwide have firm plans to do on‐campus recruiting in Spring 2010, which is down from 50% in Spring 2009. When it comes to the overall unemployment statistics, however, another aspect to observe is regional considerations. Unemployment is much lower in the Midwest than on areas of the coasts, as can be seen in Figure 2. This is a very positive observation because the primary employers of S&T students are located in the Midwest. Hence, our college graduates will be facing less competition from displaced workers.
14 Data drawn from the National Association of Colleges and Employer (NACE) Job Outlook 2010 15 Bureau of Labor Statistics 16 Nace Job Outlook 2010
Annual Update | 29
In order to understand the job market faced by the graduates of BIT, a more detailed examination is required. A significant influence on the job market for students is their major. Consider the information in the following table18.
Major of Graduates that were most in demand in 2009
Ranking Major Salary
1 Accounting $48,334
2 Mechanical Engineering $58,648
3 Electrical engineering $57,404
4 Computer Science $56,128
5 Business Administration /Management $45,887
6 Economics/Finance $49,794
7 Information Science and Systems $49,167
8 Computer Engineering $59,803
9 Management Information Systems $52,817
10 Marketing/Marketing Management $43,334
17 The graphic from the Bureau Labor Statistics. 18 Data drawn from a CNBC report
Figure 2: Regional Unemployment Rates17
| Annual Update 30
Even though the market is in a downturn, Business & Information Technologies hold 5 of the 10 most sought‐after majors.
It can be argued that graduating with a high‐demand major still does not mean an increase in the number of offers that a student receives. Looking at a few of the majors listed above we see that growth prospects for several of our discipline sub‐fields are expected to enjoy a long‐term trend of growth in jobs19.
Employment Change Projected from 2008 to 2018
Major being hired Percentage change
Marketing 13%
Information Systems Management 17%
Financial Analysis 20%
Accountants 20%
Computer network & Systems 30%
Budget Budget is a major concern for our department, as it is for all universities today. The economic downturn has resulted in budget cuts for most state systems, including ours. In particular, we are facing a five percent cut for next year in our state funding. We have been working on a plan to minimize the impact of this budget cut on our faculty and programs. Though difficult, we are cutting a three‐quarters time administrative assistant position and plan to automate more of our processes, especially graduate recruiting and admissions. Furthermore, we are pursuing every available source of additional funds available through the University of Missouri system. One saving factor for us is that state funding represents only 27% of our university budget. Another is that we earn considerable extra funds ($100,000 last year) through our distance education programs. As we increase our distance offerings (excluding the Sri Lanka program), we bring in ever greater funds, which can be used to help support the faculty through graders, graduate research assistants, and development (travel and more) funds. We expect to be able to continue providing graduate research assistants to all non‐tenured tenure‐track faculty, graders for those with large classes, and a minimum of $1,000 in development funds for each tenure‐track faculty member.
Applications and Enrollments We really do not have a good grasp on what impact the economy will have on applications and enrollments. Our university attracts a large number of students from families with limited incomes; 24% qualify for Low Income Pell Grants and 30% have family incomes below $50,000. Many (35% Fall 2008) are the first members of their families to attend college. These students could have a harder time finding adequate funds to cover college expenses, especially if State support decreases.
19 “The 2008-2018 job outlook in brief,” Occupational Outlook Quarterly, U.S. Department of labor, Spring 2010
Annual Update | 31
We have seen some growth in interest in the MBA program because of the financial situation. Undergraduate students are considering attending the MBA program immediately upon graduation if the job market proves to be soft. Some people who have recently lost jobs have also applied for the program. In addition, we have seen some students continuing their graduate studies, rather than finishing the degree in the shortest amount of time.
Student Recruitment Due to the economic situation, we have made a number of changes in our admission and recruitment area. Strategic Goal 2.1 has progress indicators such as enrollment figures, number of recruiting events attended by faculty, external funding, and in‐kind contributions. Based upon these indicators, in the last year, the department focused on the areas listed below.
Local Outreach
There are several activities pointed toward recruiting in the local market. We track professor involvement in these and encourage department‐wide participation:
Departmental Open House and PRO day sessions. Typical demonstrations are performed such as those in our eye‐tracker lab.
Computer High‐Intensity Programming Camp (or CHIP Camp). Professor Hilgers is the director of this summer camp that encourages students to enter the IST program (http://precollege.mst.edu/chip.html).
Career Fair. Our Career Opportunity Center leads a career fair that is among the best in the nation (http://career.mst.edu/). In the last year, both our MBA program and the ERP center have had booths and receptions during the fall career fair for potential students and employers (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erpcenter/sets/72157623444490526/).
Graduate Fair. This fair is in its second year on our campus. Our two graduate degree programs are represented at a booth.
In the past year, BIT has addressed our strategic goal of growing enrollment by making industry aware of more of the degrees and certificates we offer. Examples include:
ASUG (American SAP User Group) meeting in St. Louis. The ERP center had a strong presence at this meeting. A common remark was that people had not been aware of our program ERP and found it quite intriguing. http://www.flickr.com/photos/erpcenter/sets/72157623569273902/ presents material about the meeting.
Corporate events. The ERP center maintains a list of corporate events for students and members of industry. Examples are found at http://erp.mst.edu/events.
News feeds. The ERP center maintains an RSS feed for all news and events found at http://erp.mst.edu/news/.
| Annual Update 32
International Outreach
Over the last several years, our faculty members have made trips abroad with our Vice Provost of Global Learning. These trips have included China, India, Oman, and Sri Lanka. No one has gone in the last year.
Another effort that has developed in the last year is a relationship between our ERP center and HES Amsterdam. (See <http://news.mst.edu/2010/02/st_students_strategize_with_am.html> for a news article about this endeavor.
Development The campus is nearing the end of a seven year campaign to raise $207 million. This has been ambitious given the economic downturn. However, after more than six years the campus has more than met its goal. There are a couple of reasons for the success of the program. We have loyal alumni and a focused Development department. With that said, this success does not translate well to our department. As a young department, we have few alumni to whom we can appeal for support. Furthermore, Development does not seem to have us as a priority. This could be due our small number of alumni, most of whom are very young and have just started their careers. We are not without hope. Roughly five percent of S&T graduates are entrepreneurs. Many no longer work in their degree field. The Business and Information Technology department seems to be a logical choice for their support as evidenced by a number of the members of our business advisory board.
5. Improvements in existing strengths
Business Essentials In the past year, the essential courses were converted to being strictly online rather than online plus classroom. There are six main reasons for this as given below.
Relieve classroom capacity issues and decrease costs.
Increase research capabilities through professor workload re‐organization.
Increase enrollment in MBA programs across the University of Missouri System.
Decrease lead‐time for professionals or students wishing to pursue an MBA degree from S&T.
Leverage the graduate certificate in Business Essentials for non‐degree seeking professionals to enter into the executive education market through open enrollment programs.
Annual Update | 33
Enrollment trends in Business Essentials
Enrollment Projection
Course 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Accounting 12 14 19 25 35 40
Management 15 9 12 14 25 32
Operations 13 16 16 17 18 25
Statistics 9 9 8 9 12 30
MIS 12 9 21 22 25 32
Marketing 11 10 15 20 28 35
Finance 14 15 14 22 32 40
Economics 7 8 9 10 15 20
TOTAL 93 90 114 139 190 254
The original concept of these courses was to offer 8 classes of 1.5 hours each that serve the purpose of readying students for entrance into the MBA degree program. Offering the essentials not only required either finding qualified adjuncts or having full‐time professors teach an overloaded schedule each semester, but it stressed the scheduling process due to the irregularity of the format. Nearly a third of all engineers get an MBA. Hence the campus provides an ample recruiting ground for our program. A study was made of this student population, and it was noticed that an unsatisfactory number of engineering students were enrolling in the essential classes. A couple of reasons were identified. One was of basic communication. The engineers were not aware of this entryway into the MBA. Another was their complex scheduling needs. We increased their awareness of the MBA program through offering these short business courses that fit into their packed schedules better than three‐hour options. This suggested that we offer the essentials courses completely online. The on line, self‐paced nature of these courses is attractive to working professionals as well as undergraduate engineering majors. By making the essentials asynchronous and on‐demand, the needs of our target populations could be better met. This is a work in progress. After studying the actual enrollment numbers this summer and fall, we will be able to determine the overall success of these activities and whether further refinement is required.
Interdepartmental Collaborations Being at a top five technological school affords the faculty of Business and Information Technology numerous opportunities for collaboration with other departments. Such collaboration strengthens the research of the department and allows students to see application of the concepts being taught. What follows is a list of selected interdepartmental collaborations by the faculty of Business and Information Technology. Much of this research was performed under the auspices of the Center for Technology‐Enhanced Learning (CTEL).
| Annual Update 34
Collaborative information seeking In modern organizations, work is increasingly organized around teams. One important aspect of collaborative teamwork is information seeking. However, there is little empirical understanding of how team members collaborate to find needed information, nor tools to support this type of collaboration.
Enhancing engineering mechanics instruction with interactive 3D virtual models
The purpose of this project is to develop computer‐based instructional modules for Statics and Mechanics of Materials, two core‐engineering courses. The project is funded by the National Science Foundation's Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program, and builds on a previous project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education.
A learning system to Integrate GIS into civil engineering curricula CTEL carried out the development of a prototype tool for teaching Civil Engineers to use GIS software within the context of a Civil Engineering Geotech course, and the center carried out both usability and formative evaluation of the system. This initial project was funded by a proof‐of‐concept grant from the National Science Foundation, and, due to the success of this project, NSF just funded the expansion of the project so that it includes a number of Civil Engineering courses.
Development and evaluation of a virtual reality system for teaching mine safety practices
The purpose of this five‐year project is to develop an augmented reality training system to teach mining safety techniques. The augmented reality system consists of the integration of “real world” tools, such as a drill, and a virtual mine, which consists of a three‐sided wooden structure that can be modified in various ways to simulate different types of mining environments. The development of the system is currently being completed, and will be followed by a series of evaluation studies. The National Institute funds the project for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
Corporate Relationships Another strength of the Business and Information Technology department is its relationship with numerous corporate partners that manifests in two ways. One is the department’s advisory board of corporate leaders. The other is the employment opportunity enjoyed by the students of the department. The two are intertwined as the advisory board members represent companies that frequently employ the department’s graduates.
Annual Update | 35
Advisory Board
We are growing our business advisory board gradually, selecting individuals who are highly interested in our programs and willing to give of their time to help us develop. We are targeting companies that are likely to employ our graduates. Currently, we are working on adding members from ExpressScripts and Wal‐Mart.
Board Member Title Company Year Joined
Brinkmann, Darryl
Data Center Facility Services Manager Caterpillar 2006
Clark, Vinisha Executive Director, Customer Satisfaction & Business Planning
AT&T 2008
Fox, Michael Partner Accenture 2002
Hopper, Scott Manager Enterprise Holdings, Inc.
2009
Jordan, Mark Vice President, Information Technology Monsanto 2007
Marker, Jeff Principal Junction Solutions 2008
Marshall, Bill President & CEO Phelps County Bank
2007
Smyth, Kevin Vice President & CIO Cerner Corporation
2006
Stark, Jeff Senior Business Leader MasterCard 2009
Thelen, Stefanie
Partner CSC 2009
Wilson, Patrick Principal Manager, Software Engineering Boeing 2008
Woessner, Mike
President Investment Realty 2008
Student and Faculty Involvement with the Business Community
We have a very special relationship with Phelps County Bank. The Bank works with our capstone courses to help students develop business plans one semester and implement them the second semester. Phelps County Bank provides loans for the best business plans. A loan officer from Phelps County Bank meets with the students periodically during the semester and evaluates their final presentations and loan proposals both semesters. Dr. Fisher had student teams work on consulting projects with Investment Realty, Lee’s Chicken, and a local t‐shirt company during the Spring semester for BUS 398. Stephanie Fitch had members of our Business Advisory Board work as mentors for business teams that were implementing businesses for BUS 398 during the spring. Dr. Lea had individuals from the following companies serve as judges for ERP 446:
Applications Management and Development Director, Capgemini (via WebEx)
Partner, Accenture
Manager, Enterprise Holding Inc.
| Annual Update 36
Sr. VP ‐ Multi‐Channel Retail, Junction Solutions
Principal Mgr. ‐ Software Eng. Tools & Eng., Boeing In addition, the following faculty had business people involved in their classes.
Dr. Flachsbart had a local businessman speak with one of his classes five times this spring semester.
Dr. Kalliny had the marketing manager of Phelps County Bank and an advertising person from the Rolla Daily News visit his class.
Dr. Bachman had the president and the chief financial officer of Store Supply Warehouse evaluate student presentations in one of her classes this spring. She also had the same chief financial officer and the marketing director for Xtreme participate in her class.
Dr. Hall had several people from ExpressScripts present to his class in spring 2010. Our student organizations arranged to have the following speakers come to campus during the past year:
Partner, Accenture
Boeing
Financial Advisor, EdwardJones
Director for Department of Instruction, U.S. Army Engineer School
Nucor
6. New Areas of Necessary Improvement
Development We have a very small development fund for the department and a limited number of endowed scholarships. The university development office worked with us to create a department profile and a plan for funding priorities. Our department chair has begun making calls on prospective donors with a member of the development office. A plan has been developed to approach alumni about endowing a first‐class distance education classroom in our building, necessitated by the increasing number of distance courses we are offering, partially due to the program in Sri Lanka.
Communication Communication is an ongoing difficulty, as it is in most organizations. We strive for transparency, and department documents and data are stored on a shared drive to which all faculty and staff have access. However, many report difficulty finding the documents they need. We have begun a guide to the shared drive to help everyone find the documents. We hold faculty meetings once a month; we will consider holding them more frequently to facilitate communication.
Annual Update | 37
Organization We have struggled with the organization of the department since the two departments of Business Administration and Information Science and Technology merged in 2007. We originally had one department chair and two program directors. The program directors represented the two original departments that merged so that faculty members in each former department would have someone to represent their interests. We added an associate chair in 2009 to help with the administrative workload. Recently, we decided to eliminate program directors for next year. We no longer believed they were required under the belief that everyone had become comfortable with the single department working together. Next year will test this new organization with a chair and associate chair only. We will also have only two administrative staff instead of 2.75. We will monitor the administrative functions and faculty satisfaction to be sure that this new organization is working for us.
7. Adjustments to the Plan The only real adjustment to our plan to this point in time is an extension of the time line. We feel ready to move forward with self study and a site visit in the near future.
| Annual Update 38
APPENDIX
Process Flowcharts for ANC Classes
Instructor Recruitment
Student Enrollment
S&T ANC
S&T Registrar Office creates course on Joe’SS.
Students enroll in class.
S&T BIT screens resume and interviews candidates.
ANC arranges facilitator. ANC posts vacancy and collects resume if necessary.
ANC appoints the facilitator. The facilitator fills out forms for applying S&T User ID.
S&T assigns User ID to the instructor.
S&T ANC
Annual Update | 39
Class Delivery and Evaluation
S&T ANC
S&T instructor sets up an opening meeting with facilitator at ANC to go over course objectives, plans, syllabus, schedule, etc. one to two weeks before the semester begins.
ANC facilitator revises materials and sends to S&T instructor for reviewing, if necessary.
S&T instructor prepares blackboard by copying course materials, including course archives, assignments, course materials, exams, etc. to ANC session.
S&T instructor reviews revisions. ANC facilitator plays archives to students. Facilitator adds supplements when necessary.
ANC facilitator revises assignment or exam if necessary.
S&T instructor reviews revisions.
ANC facilitator collects and grades assignments and exams.
S&T instructor reviews grading items.
ANC facilitator drafts final letter grade.S&T instructor reviews and approves final letter grade.
S&T instructor sets up a closing meeting with ANC facilitator to go over student performance, teaching effectiveness, and area for improvements.
S&T instructor offers second‐tier office hours to students.
ANC facilitator offers first‐tier office hours to students.
