CPACE Meeting MinutesDate: February 27, Time: 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Location: MichiganState University,East LansingMI Participants listed by group:
1. Review minutes from February 13, 2008 meeting OK Note: We had a discussion about meeting times for AB. Conclusion: Need to go back to Tom's schedule to make a final decision.2. Revise Advisory Board Candidates Summary (WIKI). We went through the advisory Board Candidates list on the Wiki as we revised we edited the document.Mark: Work on the summary of the AB from the ranking ( https://sites.google.com/a/msu.edu/msu-cpace/home/project-meetings/minutes-february-27-2008/advisory-board-summary-to-date-february-2-2008-1 ) that people did on the Wiki. We have people in most categories. Need a name for someone at Kellogg and MI small-tech. We never heard back from Clint about on Kitty Manley. We don't have anybody from SME. Tom had concerns about SME. We will get Tom's input to make a final list. We want a couple from each category. Lisa: Tom Hollister is definitely very interested in being part of the project. Mark: Yes, and we need to get Tom to check on this.3. Update on subgroup meeting: Progress on interview and survey design strategies. Discuss the purpose of the advisory board quarterly meetings. Mark: We are trying to work on the interview survey design so that we have something concrete to present to the AB for their first meeting. Jon: We want to have the discussion with them about who they recommend for being targeted Mark: Yes, there are two pieces, one is who to sample and then how do we do our interviews and surveys. We looked at some previous samples and then Tammy's document about eng occupations ( https://sites.google.com/a/msu.edu/msu-cpace/home/project-meetings/minutes-february-27-2008/engineering-and-related-occupations-v3-02-05-08 ). Claudia linked these occupations to the O*net database information on tasks on the different occupations. As an example this is a list that we might want to use as starting points to ask people which of these do you use and how do they use these tasks in their companies. One of the goals is to understand what the underlying computing concepts are so we can have a foundation for the widest range of things. From the CSW perspective they want the sample to be representative of the various occupations that the workforce needs. Right Cindee? Cindee: Right Mark: So you are working in a set of questions so that we can put them together in our next subgroup meeting. Cindee: With the O*net data and how we can use it in terms of the questions that we would be formulating for the interviews, we would be using the O*net info that is represented in here and also using to add additional things to confirm the different types of occupations and to what extent they are using these tools; so one is a confirmation and then try to figure out what is new and different. In terms of the front end kind of questions that would be going in the workforce questions as Mark indicated. Mark: That's the general approach that we are taking do you have ideas, suggestions? Ultimately we want to be able to get a feel for not only the software that they are using but how are they using it. Jon: That's critical because you can use matlab to add two numbers or to do differential equations. Mark: After we get the general confirmation of the big packet of things and may be some ranking of how much they are using, then the main tasks that would be specialized (for a particular occupation/discipline) the question is what are their goals and what they are trying to do with that. Jon: That's really important because this is what informs curricular change. Mark: After we have done this at the survey level we could for every discipline pick people who are using one or two packages that exemplify the discipline. For example when we finish talking to the EE and we found out that the electronic design software is a big thing then we can pick one or two people to do a more in-depth interview to the point of a usability study so we can actually ask how are you doing it and how are you going about it and what are the sticky points and how do you get someone up to speed. We talked about 20 to 25 interviews in the budget. Jon: Is that the standard that seems like a low number to me. Mark: We have surveys 250 -400 surveys. Cindee: That was what was proposed 250 -400 employees would be surveyed and/or members of associations or societies. Weather that is realistic or not I don't know. Mark: I was at a conference at OhioStateand told them about this project and Carl says that focus groups would be useful. Jon: Is it doable from the CSW point of view? Lisa: We talked about our AB playing the focus group role and if we can do that we can asses if we need to do any other focus group. We can see what our needs are. Cindee: There is a level of complication in terms of putting together focus groups given the geographic challenges that we are faced with. Testing it with the AB group would be the best route to go for now. Mark: I like the idea of the AB as a focus group. Lisa: We could have a web-based survey that had different branches to look at different disciplines. We talked about focusing on the five core disciplines; this is a good way to approach the work. The study that came out of the automotive research they talked to the Detroit three and asked what do you see changing for eng and eng techs we want people to come out of undergrad with more cad experience I would be curious to see what comes out of this process and if conclusions are reiterated. Louise: I took a group to an eng firm on Monday and they told the students that no matter what eng discipline they choose they need to know CAD. Neeraj: But the issue is that more and more colleges of eng like MSU are getting away from that type of courses simply because of the number of credits and if you start getting these courses in something else has to be dropped and with the ABET pressure courses like CAD don't make it into the curriculum even though even our advisory board asks for it. Jon: But that is one of the issues that we are addressing here, if the companies are asking for this we need to figure out how to do this. Neeraj: We send them to other places elsewhere on campus but the students don't like it because is not designed for eng. They can also go to LCC. It is also a resource issue who is going to teach it? They don't want to use their elective on it because it is a tool and if they can get by. Our courses do require and they pick it up to generate a basic blue print. Mark: Looking at the e-mail that Lisa sent around with the report on the automotive eng. you picked out a couple of key points but your second point here is that future eng should be well versed in computer design and CAE techniques before arriving at the firm for employment. Daina, joined . Gave her a summary. Mark: The report is interesting. Is a good place to start with this idea that we need more of this merging the "mechatronic eng" I like that term. Lisa: There is a lot more emphasis on cross-disciplinary eng. Mark: To some degree the computer tools are going to be things that are at those nods where you are crossing over. I think is important to think about this because we need to construct our surveys and interviews to capture these kinds of ideas. We are going to be trying to find things that are common among all the disciplines. We want to find the big overlap here. Discussion with Daina about schedule for AB. Mark: Did you find a name for someone from Kellogg? Daina: I will get into that. I was at an ABET thing and J. Turner asked about the AB Lisa: One of the options if we want their involvement more often we can say every other month but one month would be virtual and the other personal. Mark: We also have the wiki and people can participate that way we can send around e-mails and ask for their feed back. Lisa: Quarterly sounds reasonable. Mark: Quarterly is the general consensus. Daina: What is the plan of action if our first choices don't work? Mark: We keep moving to our other choices on the initial list. Neeraj: The later we push the meeting on the civil side some of the consultants will be very busy because the window for construction is very short. Early march is when the contractors start getting things ready. Mark: If the week of the 21 does not work we need to meet just with
whoever is available so that we get actually started. I need to talk to
Tom about T. Hollister.
Lisa: We talked about providing information for feedback after the meeting. Daina: If the meetings are quarterly we want to get as much as possible so giving them materials before hand might be helpful. Lisa: Are they going to have the background to give them protocols up front and ask for feedback. Mark: We want to get them up to speed before hand, the general idea of what we are about. We can provide them the generalities without the specifics. Cindee: They could provide input in terms of what they see their role in helping us with the engagement strategy and how can they help us in it. Daina: We need to have names and time keeper. Based on comments on the agenda CSW will elaborate on it. Cindee: We need to be clear of the outcomes we are seeking in terms of providing input and help inform our strategy. This will inform how to set up the meeting. Summary* Need to go back to Tom's schedule to make a final decision about meeting times for AB
Action Items* CSW, MSU, LCC : Work on the summary of the AB to fill in the missing information ( https://sites.google.com/a/msu.edu/msu-cpace/home/project-meetings/minutes-february-27-2008/advisory-board-summary-to-date-february-2-2008 )
Logistics:Next meeting: March 12, 2008 Time: 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Location: MichiganState University,East LansingMI |
 | |
|
|