CHAPTER  VII

Benchmarking and Strategic Planning

The purpose of this chapter is to take a careful look at the Department in comparison to peer departments and to the College, summarize the progress and significant changes in the Department in the last five years (since the last strategic plan of 1998) and the challenges that the department faces and planning for the future.

7.1 Benchmarking with Peer MSE Departments

In the U.S., there are about 80 Departments that grant a PhD in Materials Science and Engineering (Source is ASEE). There are approximately 65 Departments with ABET accredited programs in MSE or closely related fields (Source ABET). There are only about 50 Departments that offer both a PhD and an accredited BS degree. The Materials Science and Engineering Department at the University of Washington is in this group.

On an annual basis, we benchmark the Department against our peer departments. We use data primarily from ASEE and UMC survey. The group of Departments that we benchmark ourselves against include most of the top twenty UG and graduate programs (as rated by the US News and World Report). The current list of peer departments is presented in Table 26 (the same list presented in Table 2, Chapter 2).

Table 26: Current List (2002-03) of Peer Departments

Institution

Case Western Reserve University

University of California, Los Angeles

Colorado School of Mines

University of California, Berkeley

Cornell University

University of California, Santa Barbara

Drexel University

University of Cincinnati

Georgia Tech

University of Connecticut

Johns Hopkins University

University of Delaware

Lehigh University

University of Florida

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Michigan Tech University

University of Maryland

North Carolina State University

University of Michigan

Northwestern University

University of Missouri, Rolla

Ohio State University

University of Pennsylvania

Penn State University

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Purdue University

University of Utah

Stanford University

University of Wisconsin, Madison

University of Alabama

Virginia Polytechnic

University of Arizona

Washington State University

Using data from Engineering Trends for 2001-02 (the most recent available), we have compared the Department with respect to the peers on a variety of metrics. These results sorted in descending order for various categories are presented in Appendix Q. For our Department, we have included data for both 2001-02 and 2002-03 (autumn-summer). The summary of this comparison is:

  • Appendix Q-1: Number 1 in terms of BS degrees/faculty (second in number of BS degrees/year)

  • Appendix Q-2: Number 6 (02-03) and 12 (01-02) in terms of MS/faculty

  • Appendix Q-3: Number 5 (02-03) and 21 (01-02) in terms of Ph.D./faculty

  • Appendix Q-4: Number 12 (02-03) and 18 (01-02) in terms of Research funding/faculty

  • We have also included a summary of the top graduate programs, Appendix Q-5, which are in our peer group together with the average for them in various categories. From this chart for the total numbers,

  • The average number of faculty members in the highly rated graduate programs is about 20. We have 10 faculty members.

  • The average number of BS degrees is 17.75. We have awarded 45 degrees is 2001-02 and 37 in 2002-03.

  • The average number of MS degrees is 13.25. We have awarded 7 in 2001-02 and 10 in 2002-03.

  • The average number of PhD degrees is 10.44. We have awarded 3 in 2001-02 and 8 in 02-03.

  • The average of research funding is $ 7.476 Million. We have $ 2.635 Million in 2001-02 and $ 3.586 Million in 2002-03.

  • In terms of statistics per faculty member,

  • The average number of BS/faculty is 0.946. We have awarded 4.5 and 3.7 BS/faculty in 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively.

  • The average of number MS/faculty is 0.728. We have awarded 0.7 and 1.0 MS/faculty in 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively.

  • The average number of PhD/faculty is 0.506. We have awarded 0.3 and 0.8 PhD/faculty in 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively.

  • The average research funding is $ 369,000/faculty. For our Department, it is $ 263,500 and $ 358,600 per faculty for 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively.

  • From all these results, we conclude that the faculty size of the department is much smaller than its peers and the number of BS degrees is much larger than the peers. The number of MS, PhD degrees per faculty and the research funding per faculty member are comparable to the average for most of the top twenty programs in the country. There is a clear correlation between the program ranking and the size of the faculty. This correlation is particular apparent for public institutions.

    7.2 Benchmarking with College of Engineering

    The Department is a small Department in the College of Engineering. For the benchmarking for this report, we have used the Academic profiles from 2001. These were the latest ones available at the time of writing of this report. Since the department has seen a rapid growth in research expenditure, this data part of the data is not representative. At the time of the visit, this part of the report will be updated based on the most recent statistics. The Department academic profile and the charts comparing the Department with the College are included in Appendix R-1, R-2, R-3. The important observations are:

     

  • The Department is about 4% of the College in terms of state budget and the number of faculty and staff positions.

  • Our degree production is slightly less than 4% (these percentages are expected to be higher with more recent data).

  • Student credit hours are approximately 4%. Appendix S presents student credit hours from 92-93 to 01-02.

  • Grant and contract expenses are about 2.5%. This number will be significantly higher with more recent data.

  • In terms of the quality of the program, on all the matrices, our program is rated roughly at the same level as the College. The quality of the graduate program in the department is slightly better than the College and so is the quality of instruction in the major at the undergraduate level.

    7.3 Progress with Reference to the Concerns in the Last Review

    In the last review of the Department (in 1993), a set of concerns were identified. Here, we discuss the actions taken to address them.

  • Faculty Hiring needs Consistent Vision of the Future
    The strategic plan that we developed in 1998 presented a clear vision for the department’s future. In particular, we developed a highly collaborative, engaged with the broader materials community, student focused and integrated department. The faculty hires that we have made since then are very well aligned with this vision. Details of this are provided in Chapter II.

  • Campus-wide Leadership Opportunities Have Not Been Realized
    The
    Department faculty has taken lead in several different areas including photonics, magnetism, molecular electronics, engineering education and developing international collaborative educational programs. Details of these are provided in Chapter V.

  • Establish a Unified Polymer Pathway
    We
    have taken the first steps in addressing this issue. We have recruited an outstanding faculty member in this area (Prof. Jen). In addition, several new research programs have been initiated in the area of polymers. Our new single-degree program is attempting to integrate education about polymers in most of the classes. Complete integration of polymers and other soft materials into the research and education of the department is one of the key challenges and opportunities for the future of the Department.

  • Review the Ph.D. Qualifying Exam
    This
    has been done and a new procedure is in place. Details of the new qualifying procedure are in Appendix T.

  • Improve Mentoring of Faculty and Graduate Students
    A
    formal
    process for mentoring junior faculty has been established and is in use (details in Chapter V, section 5.3.G). The mentoring of graduate students is an ongoing process and faculty is aware of the need for better mentoring. We believe progress has been made in this area. The exit interviews with our graduate students, and survey by the graduate school indicate that mentoring is improving. In addition, the large number of significant awards and competitive fellowships received by students is an indication of good mentoring.

  • Improve Access to Research and Teaching Equipment
    Significant progress has been made in this area. All the teaching and Department-maintained
    research labs are accessible to all qualified users (graduate and UG students and post docs). Due to increase in collaborations, many of the pieces of research equipment in individual research groups are also shared by multiple investigators. Significant upgrades have been made to computing resources in the Department. In addition, we are developing multi-user facilities with staff support for significant pieces of equipment. An example of this is the Electron Microscopy Center.

  • Consider Establishing a Non-Thesis MS
    This
    program has been developed and started. Details are in Chapter IV, Graduate Program.

  • 7.4 Progress With Respect To The Strategic Plan

    In 1998, the Department developed a strategic plan. This plan had specific goals. The details of the plan are presented in Chapter II. Here we summarize the progress that has been made in achieving those goals.

  • Hiring Of New Faculty, Consonant With Strategic Assessment Of Our Needs And Goals
    Since 1999, we have hired three new faculty members (Alex Jen, Miqin Zhang and Kannan Krishnan). All these hires have been with careful consideration of the strategic plan. These three hires have helped us make significant progress in other strategic goals (enhanced leadership, collaborations with broader materials community and increased external support).
     

  • Establish The Single Materials Science And Engineering Bachelor’s Degree
    This has been completed. We developed the new single degree program, got it approved at all levels, offered all the courses and graduated our first UG students under the new degree in December 2002.

  • Increase External Support For The Department's Research Programs
    This is an ongoing goal. Significant progress has been made in the last five years. Research expenditure has increased by a factor of 3.25 (from $ 1.022 million (97-98) to $ 3.329 million (02-03).
     

  • Focus On Increasing Leadership From Department In University-Wide Efforts, And On Improving The External Image Of The Department.
    This is also an ongoing goal. Significant progress has been made in the last five years. The Department faculty has taken lead in several areas including photonics, magnetism, molecular electronics, engineering education and developing international collaborative educational programs. Details of these are provided in Chapter V.
     

  • Restructure The Administrative And Technical Staff To Better Serve The Department Students And Faculty
    This has been completed. As a result of this restructuring, we have created an academic counselor position and redefined the roles of the technical staff members. We also obtained additional support for a manager for the Electron Microscopy Center. Details of this are presented in Chapter VI, Departmental Considerations.
     

  • Develop Well Defined, Transparent Polices And Procedure For Routine Operations Of The Department
    This is an ongoing process. Some examples of the policies and procedures that have been established are:

  • Merit review procedure for faculty

  • Teaching effectiveness

  • Computer lab use policy for students

  • Computer support policy for staff and faculty

  • Indirect cost return policy

  • Procedures for staff reviews and updates of job descriptions

  • 7.5 Challenges and Planning for Excellence

    As discussed in this Chapter, we have completed the implementation of the strategic plan that was developed in 1998. This implementation has had a very positive impact on the morale and the standing of the Department. The Department has become stronger and its overall image has improved significantly both within and outside the University.

    We have just started thinking about the next phase in the evolution of the Department. Discussions will be initiated at the Retreat in 2004 and by the end of 2004 we will develop a new strategic plan. Some of the elements and components of this plan are addressed here.

    Faculty Size and Expertise

    The challenges that we face from this are at both the programmatic level and the operational level. Most of them arise from being a very small but broad expertise department.

    At the programmatic level, the most significant challenge that we face is the integration of research and education in "hard (primarily inorganic)" and "soft (primarily organic)" materials. This is both a challenge and an opportunity. We believe that success in achieving this will provide significant new opportunities for education and research for our faculty and students. A case can be made that significant scientific and technological advances will be made at the interface between inorganic and organic materials and this will require expertise and knowledge in both. We are well positioned to succeed in this but it will require learning from each other and mutual appreciation of the expertise and scientific issues in the two sub disciplines. It will also require very well thought out and strategic recruitment of faculty members.

    Another significant challenge related to faculty size is the sometimes conflicting requirements of expertise for education (at the UG level) and research. We are starting to see this in a few notable areas. These include metallic materials and semi-conducting materials. In both of these, we have significant educational needs but we have not recruited faculty members due to our strategic research priorities and limited number of faculty positions. Finally, as was shown and discussed in the section on benchmarking, it is clear that we are significantly smaller than our peers and also in order to be nationally recognized, the size of the department is important. The standing of the department is important in being able to recruit graduate students and faculty members. It is also important in being able to attract research funding (especially large multi-investigator funding for research centers).

    At the operational level, the small department poses a specific set of problems. An example of this is that we have the same number of committees and representatives in College level councils as larger departments. Therefore, our faculty have more service demands on their time. A related issue is that we do not have backups for any of our administrative positions. The Department does not have an Associate Chair and there are no backups for any of the staff positions (e.g. one fiscal position, one academic counselor).

    We are paying significant attention to these challenges and exploring strategies to address them within the Department, with the Dean and with our peers.

    Research and Educational Infrastructure

    The laboratories in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering need continual upgrades in equipment and facilities to provide for a first class education for both our undergraduate and graduate students. These laboratories have been upgraded since 1989 as a result of private contributions of $1.5M and funding from the state and federal governments. Expenditures for equipment used exclusively for teaching totaled over $850,000 over the past 10 years. These funds have allowed upgrades in the areas of materials processing, computer analysis and control, sample preparation, spectroscopy and analysis, and x-ray diffraction.

    However, the task of equipment replacement and upgrading is never complete due to the explosive growth of analytical capabilities, research expertise and educational opportunities. With the advent of computer-controlled analysis and measurement systems, another challenging area is the need to upgrade computing systems and software. Overall, it is estimated that over $150,000 annually will be required over the next decade to ensure that the Department has fully updated laboratories in the year 2015. Funding for these laboratory facilities upgrades will come from a combination of private donations, state appropriations, indirect cost return funds and grants from the federal agencies. These activities are ongoing, with different emphases depending on the availability of funds and the likelihood of success. Upgrade and maintenance of equipment is a high priority in our development campaign for private donations.

    Space and Administrative Support for Research

    The large growth in research has led to a situation in which we are becoming space limited in terms of further expanding the research programs. Research in MS&E is inherently space intensive. We are working on a variety of strategies to address the space problem. These include shared lab spaces, common labs for research and education, sharing educational lab space between different courses that are offered in different quarters and negotiations with the College and University. Many of these approaches are already underway. One of the immediate goals is to develop a transparent research space assignment policy.

    The situation is much more critical in the area of staff support. The significant increase in research funding has not been matched by increase in staff support. As a result of this, our staff members work load has increased and some of the support that the faculty needs is not being provided. We are working with the staff members and the faculty to address this issue. We have recruited temporary and hourly helpers to alleviate some of this problem but a longer term solution needs to be developed.

    Recruitment of High Quality Graduate and Undergraduate Students

    We have seen some success in recruiting top quality graduate and UG students. One measure of the quality of our students has been the significant number of awards that they have received. However, much more needs to be done in this area. We are increasingly competing with the best graduate programs nationally and the best UG programs in the College for the outstanding students. One way to attract high quality students is through scholarships and fellowships. Developing endowments for this is the highest campaign priority for the department.

    Mentoring of Graduate Students and Research Associates

    We will continue to enhance the mentoring of graduate students. One recent example of mentoring graduate students is the development of student-led Graduate Seminar Series. In addition, we continue to increase the engagement of graduate students in departmental level decisions (e.g. prioritizing of equipment needs, selection of equipment, hiring of staff members, recruitment of graduate students). The faculty is also engaged in a identifying collaboration, visiting and fellowship opportunities for graduate students.

    With the significant increase in research support, we have seen a dramatic increase in research associates (post docs) in the department. This is a very recent phenomena and we are just starting to appreciate the need for mentoring this group. We have started to think about this and this will be a priority in the near future.

    7.6 Campaign Priorities

    Many of the challenges that we face and the plans that we have for the future will require additional resources. One source of this is Development funds. The University has a major Capital Campaign and we have clearly identified the Departmental campaign priorities. These are in the following areas:

  • Student support

  • Equipment upgrade

  • Chaired professorships

  • Engineer-in-residence program

  • Seminar series

  • Details about the specifics of these are presented in Appendix U.