CPACE Meeting Minutes

Date: March 26, 2008                          Time: 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Location: Michigan State University, East Lansing MI

Next meeting: April 09, 2008                Time: 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Participants listed by group:

• Michigan State University (MSU): Mark Urban-Lurain, Claudia Vergara.
• Lansing Community College (LCC): Louise Paquette
• Corporation for a Skilled Workforce (CSW): Cindee Dresen, Tammy Coxen.

1) First AB meting status of invitation/responses. Advisory Board Invitees
We reviewed the AB names and the status of the invitations. Claudia to send an e-mail to the CPACE members that have candidates who have not responded yet.

Mark: I had a good conversation with John Polasek (the person that L. Tibbits recommended). He was concerned that he would not know a lot about of the details of what's going on, on a day to day basis and I said that his role as AB member would be to put us in contact with people. He wanted to know more about what we are doing and he was really excited about it.
I am trying to frame this conversation in terms of what is it that we expect from the AB and be real specific.

• Confirmation to date from AB members:

ChE                 J. Millhench                  Bordener

ME                  T. Mathes                     Tardec

CE                   J. Polasek                     MDOT

Other              G. Motschenbacher      MSU   

Other               D. Hollister                   Other

ABET              J. Turner                       Consultant for CPACE

Before moving to our next tier we need to know yes or no from the current invitees.

2)      Review AB kick-off agenda (v11)

Cindee walked us through the document and we edited on the Wiki as we went along.

Logistics: Jamie, Tom's secretary will do the logistic arrangements lunch, info packet etc.

Mark: Regarding the overview of the engagement strategy on the agenda. Claudia: From our previous meeting we concluded that we want to spend more time on the engagement piece, Tom said that in terms of the intent of the research, we need to emphasize that we are talking about the fundamentals.

Mark: When I was talking with J. Polasek he got it more when I switch the focus from the particular application to the work of the eng. Because he has been there for a long time he could really understand how the different tools have changed the nature of the work; he got that that's what we need to be thinking about in terms of curriculum, not how to train the students on how to use pieces of software.

Cindee: The pretesting that we were talking about; there are several ways that we were considering, one is the AB members can be guinea pigs they can look at the questions react and provide feedback the other component of that is doing a walk through pretending they are an employer taking a survey.

Mark: To go back to my conversation with Polasek he was apprehensive about the particular applications he was saying 'I don't know about all the different applications' and he was questioning if he was a right fit for the AB and then I explained that we did not expect him to know all the applications. I was doing multiple things during that conversation; one of them was exploring how to get to our big goals through to the AB members.

• There was a discussion about activities during lunch. The consensus was to have them eat lunch in informal groups based on discussion topics for engagement strategy, protocols, and general questions about project.

Mark: One of the ideas that I remember talking about was having stationary for the project that listed the AB members.

Cindee: That comes in the engagement, in terms of when we are doing the outreach one of the things that gives cache is listing the AB members especially if we are reaching out for folks that might know them it will be nice to have their names.

Mark: I like that idea a lot.

3)      Meeting Logistics: see above.

4)      Update on subgroup meetings:
- Employer engagement strategy (v4 Kysha updates) Cindee walked us through the document. Edits were made on the Wiki.

Some conclusions:

• Small company question how can you help me with f. ex. hiring issues? We can help them network; connect them to right resources on their immediate issue through MSU, mid-MI wired project etc.
• What's the 2 to 3 year hook that we can use? We can ask the AB for their input. What interested the AB members about participating in the project?
• Important to be able to provide this information. 

- Interview/survey development (v23) Tammy walked us through the employer interview protocol document. Edits on the Wiki 

Summary:

• Confirmation to date from AB members:

ChE                 J. Millhench                  Bordener

ME                  T. Mathes                     Tardec

CE                   J. Polasek                     MDOT

Other              G. Motschenbacher      MSU   

Other               D. Hollister                   Other

ABET              J. Turner                       Consultant for CPACE -       

• Before moving to our next tier on the AB candidates summary we need to know yes or no from the current invitees.

• It is important to convey to the AB members from the beginning the big scope of the project. We want to understand how the different tools (computing) have changed the nature of the work; in terms of curriculum we want to determine the underlying concepts, we are not proposing to train the students on how to use specific pieces of software.

• During lunch we will try to set up informal discussion groups.

• - Employer engagement strategy:

• Small company question how can you help me with f. ex. hiring issues? We can help them network; connect them to right resources on their immediate issue through MSU, mid-MI wired project etc.
• What's the 2 to 3 year hook that we can use? We can ask the AB for their input. What interested the AB members about participating in the project? 
  

Action Items:

- Tammy to edit the employer interview piece

- Kysha to edit the engagement strategy

- Claudia to e-mail people about AB contacts