|
CHAPTER II
Strategic Plan – Mission and Overview
Starting in the mid-1990s, and increasingly in the past five years, the Department has followed a well thought-out plan to enhance its standing and to improve the educational experience of the students. The last ten-year review was the starting point for this transformation. 2.1 The Last Ten Year Review Of The Department The last ten-year review of the Department was conducted in 1993. This review provided a critical and comprehensive assessment of the Department’s strengths and weaknesses. The summary of this review is presented here.
§ New faculty hires that bring to the department exciting research, enthusiasm and concern for future.§ Superb physical plant.§ Graduate students were informed, articulate and properly concerned with the operation and future of the department.§ Excellent alumni program.§ No consistent vision of the future, especially when hiring new faculty.§ Opportunities for campus-wide leadership exist in many areas but have not been realized.§ Absence of a unified polymer pathway. Addressing this is long overdue.§ The Ph.D. qualifying exam should be reviewed.§ Mentoring of faculty and guidance for graduate students.§ Access to research and teaching equipment.§ Department should consider a non-thesis MS.All of these concerns have been addressed in the last ten years. Details are provided in this document.
2.2 A Strategic Vision For The Department
In the spring of 1998, Prof. Bordia was appointed Chair of the Department. Before this appointment, the Dean asked for a strategic vision of the department. The following vision statement was submitted by Prof. Bordia to the Dean and the faculty of the Department.
B. Context: Interdisciplinary Materials Science and Engineering The interdisciplinary nature of MSE provides both a challenge and an opportunity for any MSE department. In the past, (in some cases even now) the MSE departments were focused on Metallurgical or Ceramic Engineering and were not very interdisciplinary. Some Departments continue to focus on these areas but a vast majority of the Departments are Materials Science and Engineering Departments.
1. Challenge of an Interdisciplinary MSE DepartmentIn my opinion, the biggest challenge of an interdisciplinary field is that most other CoE Departments and Physical Science Departments can claim that they do MSE and thereby the MSE department could lose its justification to exist. Unlike any other Engineering Department, there is no single "technology area" that MSE Departments have unique identification with (except the traditional areas of metals and ceramic processing). What I mean to say is that for every other department there are areas which unquestionably belong to that Department (e.g. static structures to CEE, circuit design to EE). This is not the case with modern MSE departments. The technology areas that we are now interested in (e.g. advanced metals and ceramics, environmental MSE, bio-materials, composites, electronic materials, surface science and engineering) all draw interest from other Departments.
2. Unique Characteristics of MSEHaving said that there are no "technology areas" that are unique to MSE, we need to focus on what is the essence of our field. In my opinion, it is the approach that we take to materials- related problems. A true materials scientist or engineer has a characteristic way of looking at materials. We approach materials problems with the paradigm of the links and inter-relationships between processing, microstructure, and properties. It is this approach that makes us quite different from the rest. One feature of our approach is that because of this underlying paradigm, we are not so closely tied to the specific material. The best material scientists that I know have one or more core strengths that can be applied to a variety of problems and a variety of materials. One of the goals of our educational programs should be to mentor students in identifying their own core strength.
3. Opportunities of Being InterdisciplinaryThe interdisciplinary nature of our field provides us with the opportunity to interact with the very best from other departments and to lead or participate in truly exciting research fields. In addition, it provides us the opportunity to attract a more diverse group of students. This is because in addition to being an engineering department, we have a science focus and groups that have traditionally found science more appealing than engineering can be attracted to our Department. As a Department, we have to ensure that we identify areas in which we should have core strengths and have faculty in these areas. In addition, we should lead multi-user materials characterization facilities. Our educational programs should focus much more on these core characteristics and less on the specific materials. The Department should be the hub and focus of materials activities with significant interactions with other departments.
C. Challenges Common to All Academic Programs at Public Institutions
1. Public AccountabilityThe academic departments must be sensitive to the tax paying public and the legislator. We need to be among the best in the metrics that are currently used and will be used in the future to access the health of Departments. These include: number of students per faculty; the diversity of the department; amount of research funding per faculty; and the relevance of the Department to the local industry (technology development for the regional industry and placement of students). The Departments that will continue to get more resources will be the ones that shine above the rest in these criteria. I also think that with proper leadership, our Department could help in defining more appropriate accountability standards that relate to quality of student learning rather than input side parameters mentioned above.
2. Sensitivity to Changing Funding PrioritiesAll Departments have to be sensitive to changes in the funding priorities. Some of these changes are: increased level of support for research teams at the expense of individual research program (e.g. MRSEC, STC, MURI); increased emphasis on integration of research and education in all programs; and increased emphasis on research relevant to the national industrial base (e.g. GOALI, NATT). Successfully responding to these trends requires a strong, passionate interest in teaching, ability to conduct research in groups and the flexibility to work with industry and national laboratories.
3. Responsiveness to the Continuing Educational Needs and Research Needs of the Local IndustryThe continuing educational needs in MSE are nationally under-exploited. There is a rich pool of highly motivated graduate students in industry who need to be attracted to the program with flexible scheduling of the best and relevant course offerings. Innovative use of technology will play a significant role in addressing the needs of this group. In addition, as we embrace new research and educational directions, we should be sensitive to the needs of existing regional relationships and the potential for new relationships.
D. Leveraging the Materials Activities in Other Departments This is an area where significant effort needs to be placed. The broad goal is to ensure that the Department is considered as a strong participant, collaborator and focal point of materials- related activities on campus. A related goal is to ensure that there are strong interactions with industry and national laboratories including personnel exchange. Some ways of achieving these goals include: establishment of well run, open multi-user facilities; collaborative research programs; promotion of our faculty to be Adjunct faculty members in other Departments; strong Adjunct and Affiliate faculty programs for our Department; identification and publicizing of courses in our Department that students from other Department can take (jointly listed courses) and identification of courses from other Departments that our students can take.
Thinking about MSE in the way outlined in this statement leads to a breakdown of many traditional boundaries. For example, in the past we used to think of material specific sub-fields (i.e. metals, ceramics, semiconductors and polymers). We should now look at our needed strengths in terms of core competencies required for processing, characterization and properties at various length scales. This approach emphasizes our strength of being able to work on systems that require more than one material class (e.g. composites, coatings, electronic packaging). Finally, a personal conviction is that people trained as materials scientists and engineers should be uniquely qualified to deal with heterogeneous materials systems and integration of microstructure and property in process control.
2.3 Development of the Strategic Plan
After the strategic vision statement was submitted to the Dean and the faculty, the Chair conducted individual discussions with departmental faculty and students during the spring and Summer of 1998. A questionnaire was also used to focus the discussions. A strategic plan was developed based on the discussions.
The goal of the strategic plan is to improve the educational experience of the students and improve the Department with respect to clearly identified matrices.
The strategic plan should: § Have correspondence with University and College strategic goals,§ Be informed by an assessment of the national and international trends in the field,§ Be informed by our local (i.e. regional and University) assessment of strategic opportunities and the interest of the faculty.
1. University Strategic GoalsThe University of Washington has clearly identified strategic priorities. In consultation with faculty and students, from the University’s priorities, the following were identified that were applicable for the Department: § Enhance program quality and national competitiveness,§ Ensure continued distinction in research,§ Interdisciplinary work in areas of UW comparative advantage,§ Cooperation with other educational institutions, including K-12,§ Strengthen our students' educational experiences and shorten time to degree,§ Integration of research and teaching,§ Increasing access,§ Accountability (benchmarking).
2. College Strategic GoalsThe College of Engineering also has clearly articulated strategic priorities. In addition to the University’s strategic goals, the following sub-set of the College’s strategic priorities were identified as important for the Department: § Primary focus on learning rather than teaching,§ Student centered,§ Experiential learning,§ Novel career pathways including interdisciplinary programs,§ Focus on ABET 2000,§ Focus on diversity and retention,§ Focus on mentoring and professional development,§ Sophisticated assessment strategies.
3. National and International Trends in the FieldThe key points regarding national and international trends were generated based on discussions with faculty, colleagues from other institutions and from a report called "International Benchmarking of U.S. MSE Research" (published by the National Materials Advisory Board of the National Research Council in 1998). Based on these discussions, the following trends were identified: § Inter-related and interdisciplinary nature of the field,§ U.S. has leadership position in most sub-fields of research,§ MSE research in the U.S. is highly flexible (funding from many different sources, collaborative research etc.),§ Entrepreneurial nature of the researchers drives the field,§ Collaborations with basic science, engineering, national labs and industry,§ Intellectual and human diversity is a strength,§ Increased support for research teams (e.g. MURI, MRSEC, GOALI) ,§ Support for both research and education and their integration (e.g. IGERT, CAREER),Concerns are: shifting funding priorities, reduction in access to foreign talent and deteriorating facilities.
4. Local AssessmentThe Ten Year Review of the Department (1993) provided a comprehensive and critical assessment of the Department’s strength and weaknesses. The Department agreed with the key features of this review and decided to address the areas of concern in this report. In particular, it was decided that we will address the following areas of concern in this strategic plan:
§ No vision for the future, especially in faculty hiring,§ Opportunities exist for department to take on university-wide leadership role in interdisciplinary programs, but are currently under-developed,§ Absence of polymer program.
Based on discussions with faculty and students, it was noted that there is strong and diverse materials industry in the region (e.g. aerospace, electronic and bio-tech). In addition, there are strong regional materials research programs (Pacific Northwest National Laboratories). Finally, it was noted that our Department is the only broad based Materials Science and Engineering Department in a very large geographic region. We also noted that there is a very large group of active materials researchers on the campus. In order to get a better sense of this, the Chair met with Chairs of eight other departments (in summer of 1998). The discussion was broad based and included topics for educational and research collaborations. It also focused on strategic issues including future directions for their departments and partnership opportunities with our Department. One of the questions the chair asked them was "what fraction of faculty in your department do materials research?" The follow-up question was what are the topics in which these faculty members work. The answers to these were very revealing.
§ About 30% of the faculty in Chemical Engineering identify materials as their primary research interest,§ About 25% of the faculty in Mechanical Engineering identify materials as their primary research interest,§ About 30% of the faculty in Bio Engineering identify materials as their primary research interest,§ In Physics, Chemistry, Electrical Engineering, Aeronautics & Astronautics, and Civil & Environmental Engineering this number ranged from 10 to 20%.
The Chairs noted that in their departments, the strength of their materials programs were in polymers, composites, bio-materials, electronic materials, surface science and materials chemistry. It was also noted that there were already strong collaborations in surface science and composites but there were many more opportunities.
The final part of the local assessment was an in-depth discussion (with the help of an outside consultant) with faculty, staff and graduate students of the Department. The summary of these discussions is presented below (the groups who made the specific observations are noted in parentheses):
a. Summary of Positive trends about the Department § Seattle area, UW campus and resources (faculty, staff, students),§ Pursuing areas of research interest (faculty),§ Teaching, student interactions and excellence in educational programs (faculty, staff, students),§ Seeing students learn, having influence on student learning and watching their success (faculty, staff, students),§ Using research as a teaching tool (faculty),§ Independence to focus on important problems (faculty)§ Small intimate nature of the department (staff, students),§ Supportive faculty and staff (students).b. Common mission/purpose (faculty, staff, students) § Education/learning,§ Students are central,§ Build a strong Department,§ Focusing on the unique approach that MSE takes to looking at problems.c. Things to change § Recruit new faculty: technically strong, collaborative and good teachers (faculty, students),§ Develop existing faculty: communications, collaboration, respect for each other (staff, students),§ More grant money, upgrade facilities (faculty, students),§ Strategic plan, clear Department mission (faculty),§ Increase student input/involvement (students),§ Increase staff input/involvement (staff).
The following strategic goals were identified in the summer of 1998 and adopted by the faculty at the 1998 Annual retreat of the faculty.
§ Hiring of new faculty, consonant with strategic assessment of our needs and goals,§ Establish the single Materials Science and Engineering Bachelor’s degree,§ Increase external support for the department's research programs,§ Focus on increasing leadership from department in University-wide efforts, and on improving the external image of the Department,§ Restructure the administrative and technical staff to better serve the department students and faculty,§ Develop well defined, transparent polices and procedure for routine operations of the department.
Benchmarking Peer Group and Matrices We decided that we need to keep good statistics about the department. It was also decided that on an annual basis, we will monitor both our progress and benchmark ourselves with respect to materials science and engineering departments across the country and with respect to College of Engineering average. For the external peer group, it was noted that the University Materials Council (a national group whose members are Chairs (or Heads) of Materials Science and Engineering (or equivalent) Department’s across the country) conducts periodic survey of the MSE departments. We decided to participate in this survey on a regular basis and use the results of this survey for benchmarking. Thus, the broad peer group would be the schools that participate in the survey. The department would pay particular attention to the top twenty undergraduate and graduate programs (U.S. News and World Report). It was agreed that the list of the peer departments will be reviewed on a periodic basis by the faculty at the annual retreat. The current list of our peer departments (35) is provided in Table 2 (page 18). We also decided that all data should be normalized by the size of the faculty (since the department sizes are so different). The matrices to be used are:
§ The size of the undergraduate and graduate programs (measured by the number of students and number of degrees awarded per faculty member),§ Research expenditure and awards,§ Quality of the program (assessed from exit interviews with graduates, feedback sessions with current students and awards for students, faculty and staff),§ Selectivity of the program (measured by a variety of techniques including the GPA of incoming freshmen, GRE of incoming graduate students),§ Graduation efficiency and time to degree,§ Research productivity and quality (e.g. number of publications, quality of publications, awards for faculty and students),§ Diversity of the student body. Particular focus on increasing the percentage of underrepresented minorities.
It was decided that the department needed to be very strategic in the recruitment of new faculty members. The first focal point has to be areas of expertise for future faculty recruits. We developed a new approach for this which is outlined below. There are a number of ways to characterize the expertise of a material scientist and engineer. These include:
§ Class of materials that they have expertise in (e.g. metals, polymers, etc.),§ Functional characteristics of their expertise (structural, electronic, etc.),§ Nature of research expertise (e.g. processing, characterization, etc.),§ Core expertise (e.g. thermodynamics, computational MSE, etc.).
Traditionally, faculty members have been characterized by looking only at the class of materials in which they have expertise. In reality, a faculty member would have expertise in one or more areas from each column. By looking at our field from these multiple angles, we might achieve a balanced picture of how to realize a broad-based materials science and engineering department, with a faculty of such limited size. The complete chart that was used for this discussion is presented in Table 1.
The faculty members in the Department in 1998 completed this chart and, based on it, a composite of the strengths of the department was generated. Careful examination of this revealed areas in which expertise did not exist in the department. Finally, this was weighed against other strategic components (particularly the national and international trends in the field and the strength of materials research in other departments).
As a result of this, it was concluded that we needed to recruit faculty members which met the following needs:
Class of materials that they have expertise in: Polymers, semiconductors and metals Functional characteristics of their expertise: Electronic, optical, magnetic and biological, Nature of Research: Processing, characterization, Core expertise: Nanotechnology, macromolecules.
In addition to meeting the expertise needs of the department, the new faculty members should also meet other strategic goals. Thus, we should recruit faculty members who are:
True educators, i.e. dedicated to pursuing their research within an educational environment of a public institution, People with a materials perceptive, Demonstrated excellence in research, Should be competent to teach at least some of our core courses, Should have programmatic resonance with at least a few faculty members, Should have the potential to participate and lead interdisciplinary activities, Should be enthusiastic about collaboration in both research and teaching, Preference for junior faculty (Assistant or Associate) but open to senior.
The primary mission of the University of Washington is the preservation, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge. The mission of the College is to provide Engineering leadership through innovative learning, world-class research and responsible public service.
The mission of the Department (Appendix B) is to be a preeminent student-centered organization that serves the industrial and academic needs of the University, the State of Washington, the nation and the international community by:
Serving as the focal point and catalyst for the development of high quality, coordinated and visionary research and educational programs for materials-oriented students and faculty throughout the University;
Providing the highest quality educational programs in materials science and engineering for materials professionals at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
The Department of Materials Science and Engineering is currently one of ten departments in the College of Engineering at the University of Washington. The department currently offers the following degrees: BSMSE: Bachelor of Science in Materials Science and Engineering, MSMSE: Master of Science in Materials Science and Engineering, PhD: Doctor of Philosophy in Materials Science and Engineering, PhD: Doctor of Philosophy in Materials Science and Engineering/ Nanotechnology.
The department instituted its single degree curriculum in September of 2002. Prior to that the following degrees were offered:
Bachelor of Science in Ceramic Engineering, Bachelor of Science in Metallurgical Engineering, Master of Science in Materials Science and Engineering, Master of Science in Materials Science and Engineering (Ceramic), Master of Science in Materials Science and Engineering (Metallurgical), Doctor of Philosophy (Ceramic), Doctor of Philosophy (Metallurgical).
The department’s undergraduate program is accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). The last ABET review took place in 2001 and the last internal review by the University occurred in 1993.
The Department of Materials Science and Engineering is a small-sized department. In the summer 2002 to spring 2003 academic year there were:
10 tenure track faculty members, 4 research faculty members, 81 undergraduate students (juniors and seniors) 26% women; 17% underrepresented minorities), 55 graduate students (31% women; 13% underrepresented minorities; 35% international), 4 technical staff members and 4.5 administrative staff members, 7 adjunct faculty, 12 affiliate faculty, and 9 emeritus faculty, 15 research associates (postdoctoral fellows); 7 visiting scientists and scholars; and 1.5 staff members supported by grant and contract funds, Awarded 49 BS degrees (23% to women; 18% to underrepresented minorities), Awarded 13 MS degrees (31% women; 8% underrepresented minority; 0% international), Awarded 8 PhD degrees (38% to women; 0% underrepresented minority; 75% to international).
The total annual expenditures of the department in 2002-03 were approximately $7 million. The sources of the funds were as follows:
$1.8M from state funds (26%), $3.3M from federal & industrial research grants & contracts (47%), $.27M from Washington Technology Center for research (4%), $1.3M Gifts and Endowments (19%), $.3M from State support for research (4%). $.02M Self-Sustaining Income, including Electron Microscopy Center (<1%),
The Department is a student-centered, broad-based materials science and engineering department with educational program at all levels. Although its size is small, it covers almost all aspects of materials science and engineering by collaborating with colleagues from other departments and outside the University. The Department of Materials Science and Engineering has an excellent and large undergraduate program. On average, it has awarded 34 undergraduate degrees per year in the last three years. From autumn 2001 to summer 2002, we awarded the second highest number of degrees in the country (only University of Missouri, Rolla awarded more degrees). Further details in Chapter 7 and Appendix Q-1, Q-2, Q-3, Q-4, Q-5. This is quite remarkable considering that the department has one of the smallest number of faculty members. The number of BS degrees per faculty member is highest among peer institutions (see Table 2) and almost a factor of 3.75 higher than the average of peer departments (data for 2001-02). The department student body is very diverse. It has the highest percentage of underrepresented minorities of any department in the College of Engineering and the percentage is women is a slightly higher than that for the College of Engineering. Table 2. List of Peer Departments, 2002-03
The undergraduate educational program has recently been completely transformed. The two degrees that it used to offer (BS in Ceramic Engineering and BS in Metallurgical Engineering) have been merged into a single BS degree in Materials Science and Engineering (the first of the new degrees were awarded in autumn of 2002). The educational program emphasizes experiential learning, research, communication skills and team-based laboratory work and projects. The Department continues to be a leader in educational innovation at the undergraduate level. For example, faculty from the Department led and actively participated in the 10-year multi-institute ECSEL Coalition. This program, funded by NSF (until 2001), had the twin goals of increasing the design component in engineering education and increasing the diversity of the student body. Currently, the department is a leader in developing novel pathways for international educational experiences for our students.
On average, the Department has awarded 8.4 MS per year and 4.4 PhD per year in the last 5 years. Its degree production rate per faculty member (.84 MS/per faculty; and .44 PhD per faculty) places it in the top 10 for MS and top 12 for PhD among peer institutions (data for 2001-02).
The graduate program and the research offerings of the department are rapidly evolving and improving. The Department recognizes and cherishes its interdisciplinary strengths and is committed to participating and leading collaborative research programs. In the last three years, new well-funded and collaborative research programs have been added in nanotechnology, photonics, biomaterials and magnetism. These programs together with existing programs have broadened the range of research and educational offerings for the students. In addition, the Department is a strong participant in the newly established nanotechnology graduate program. Last year, of the 8 total PhD’s awarded by the Department, 3 were dual degrees in Materials Science & Engineering and Nanotechnology.
Post doctoral research associates and visiting scientists are an integral part of the department’s research and education efforts. They provide expertise to research programs and mentoring to undergraduate and graduate students. The experience that research associates gain in the department prepares them well for independent research careers in academia, national labs and industry.
Over the next ten years, the Department is expected to face the challenges of a growing and strengthening program. These include maintaining expertise in core areas while continuing to pursue new research opportunities, and maintaining adequate space and administrative resources for the Department’s growing programs. It is also recognized that absolute size of the Department is important in being nationally and internationally recognized. The Department faculty size should increase significantly so that it becomes a medium-sized department (approximately 15 tenure track faculty members).
2.7 Summary of Significant Changes In the last ten years, the Department has changed significantly. It has evolved into an integrated materials science and engineering department and has become a leader and participant in interdisciplinary materials research. Specific example of these will be presented in this document.
Since 1991, eight tenured faculty have left the department and six tenure-track faculty have joined the department. Table 13 in Chapter 5 (Faculty) shows the changes in both tenure track and research faculty.
|